THE 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 
 OF ENGLAND 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
PRINTED BT 
 SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE 
 LONDON 
 
THE 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 
 OF ENGLAND 
 
 BINGE THE ACCESSION OF GEOBGE THE THIRD 
 I 760 -1 860 
 BY 
 
 THE RIGHT IlOJff. 
 
 Sm THOMAS EESKINE '^AY, K.C.B., D.C.L. 
 
 (LORD FAllNBOllOUGII) 
 WITH A NEW SUrPLEMENTART CnAPTER, 1861-71 
 
 (gifl^t^ (Bbitton 
 
 IN THREE VOLUMES 
 VOL. I. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 1887 
 
 All riijhli reaerred 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/constitutionalhi01mayt 
 
THE 
 
 PKEFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 The Constitutional History of England, from 1760 
 to 1860, having been concluded as a complete work, 
 some years since, I have not ventured to disturb the 
 original narrative, by any attempt to continue it to 
 the present time. But more than ten years have since 
 passed, which will ever be memorable in the consti- 
 tutional history of our country ; and in preparing a 
 new edition of this work, I have added a supplemen- 
 tary chapter, in which I have briefly reviewed the 
 moi-e remarkable events of this latter period, in their 
 relations to the history of the previous hundred years, 
 and have endeavoured to measure their influence 
 upon the government and political destinies of 
 England. 
 
 September 9th, 1871. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 TO 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 The text of the present edition has been revised, 
 and numerous authorities have been added, chiefly 
 from works published since the completion of the 
 first volume. 
 
 April 29, 1863. 
 
THE 
 
 PEEFACE 
 
 TO 
 
 FIRST EDITION. 
 
 It is the design of this history to trace the progress 
 and development of the British Constitution, during 
 a period of one hundred years ; and to illustrate 
 every material change, — whether of legislation, cus- 
 tom, or policy, — by which institutions have been 
 improved, and abuses in the government corrected. 
 
 The accession of George III. presents no natural 
 boundary in constitutional history : but former 
 reigns have already been embraced in the able sur- 
 vey of Mr. Hallam ; and frequent allusions are here 
 made to events of an earlier period, connected with 
 inquiries of the present work. 
 
 In considering tlie history of our mixed govern- 
 ment, we are led to study each institution separately, 
 to mark its changes, and observe its relations to 
 other powers and influences in the State. With 
 this view, I have found it necessary to deviate from 
 a strictly chronological narrative, and to adopt a 
 natural division of leading subjects. If this arrange- 
 
X Preface to the Fu st Edition. 
 
 ment sliould appear occasionally to involve an in- 
 complete view of particular events, and repeated 
 references to the same period, under different as- 
 pects, I trust it will be found, on the whole, the 
 most convenient and instructive. The form of the 
 work is not the less historical. Each inquiry is 
 pursued throughout the entire century ; but is sepa- 
 rated from contemporaiy incidents, which more 
 properly fall under other divisions. 
 
 The present volume embraces a history of the 
 prerogatives, influence, and revenues of the Crown ; 
 and of the constitution, powers, functions, and poli- 
 tical relations of both Houses of Parliament. The 
 second volume will comprise, — among other consti- 
 tutional subjects, — a history of party : of the press, 
 and political agitation : of the Church, and of civil 
 and religious liberty. It will conclude with a 
 general review of our legislation, — its policy and 
 results, — during the same period. 
 
 Continually touching upon controverted topics, I 
 have endeavoured to avoid, as far as possible, the 
 spirit and tone of controversy. Rut, impressed with 
 an earnest conviction that the development of popu- 
 lar liberties has been safe and beneficial, I do not 
 affect to disguise the interest with which I have 
 traced it, through all the events of history. Had I 
 viewed it with distrust, and despondency, this work 
 would not have been written. 
 
 The policy of our laws, as determined by succes- 
 
Preface to the First Edition. xi 
 
 sive Parliaments, is so far accepted by statesmen of 
 all parties, and by most unprejudiced thinkers, of 
 the present generation, that I am at liberty to dis- 
 cuss it historically, without entering upon the field 
 of party politics. Not dealing with the conduct and 
 motives of public men, I have been under no re- 
 straint in adverting to recent measures, in order to 
 complete the annals of a centiu-y of legislation. 
 
 Loxdon: January 12, 1861. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE FIEST VOLUME. 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 INFI.rENCE OF THE CROWN DURING THE REIGN OF GEOEGB III. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Influence of the Crown since the Eevolution .... 1 
 
 The sources of this influence 2 
 
 Restrictions on the personal influence of the sovereign . . 6 
 
 Ministerial power and responsibility ..... ti. 
 
 The accession of George III. His jealousy of ministers . 9 
 His determination to exalt the kingly oflSce . . . .11 
 
 His secret counsellors 12 
 
 His policy and its dangers 14 
 
 Measures taken to break up the ministry .... 18 
 
 Lord Bute as Premier carries out the king's policy . . 22 
 Their eflforts to coerce the Opposition . . . . .23 
 
 Lord Bute resigns . . .25 
 
 Mr. Grenville co-operates in the king's unconstitutional policy 27 
 
 The king's differences with the Grenville ministry ... 31 
 
 His reluctant admission of the Rockingham ministry, 1765 . 33 
 
 Exerts his influence in Parliament against them ... 36 
 
 The king advances his policy with the aid of Lord Chatham . 40 
 
 They unite in breaking up parties ...... il>. 
 
 Development of the king's policy under Lord North, 1770 . 44 
 
 Tile king his own minister . , 49 
 
 Protests against the influence of the Crown, 1779-80 . . 61 
 
 Intimidation of peers in opposition to the Court ... 64 
 
 Lord North driven from office by the Commons, 1782 . . 67 
 
xiv Contents of the First Volume. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Eeswlt of twenty years of kingcraft ..... 59 
 
 Lord Koekingham's second ministry 60 
 
 Measures to restrain the king's influence .... 61 
 
 The 'coalition ministry,' 1783 63 
 
 The kings influence employed against them .... 66 
 
 Use of the king's name in Parliament denounced ... 69 
 The 'coalition ministry ' dismissed . . . . .71 
 
 Mr. Pitt becomes the king's minister ih. 
 
 Is met by violent opposition in the Commons .... 72 
 
 Attempts to prevent a dissolution 73 
 
 Opposition continued 16 
 
 Postponement of the supplies 80 
 
 Triumph of Mr. Pitt, 1784 83 
 
 Keflectious on this struggle ih. 
 
 General influence of the Crown augroented .... 89 
 
 The king prepared to exert his influence against Mr. Pitt . 90 
 
 The king's opposition to Catholic emancipation ... 93 
 
 Mr. Pitt resigns on that question ...... 96 
 
 Influence of the Crown during the Addington ministry . . 98 
 
 Mr. Pitt reinstated in office, 1804 100 
 
 The Grenville administration, 1806 103 
 
 The king's friends active against ministers . . . .106 
 Pledge required by the king of ministers on the Catholic 
 
 question . 107 
 
 Their removal from ofiSce 108 
 
 The Portland administration ....... ib. 
 
 The dismissal of ministers discussed in Parliament . .109 
 The king's appeal to the people on the Catholic question at the 
 
 dissolution, 1807 116 
 
 The tliree years prior to the regency 117 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 INFLUENCE OF THE CROWN DURING THE REGENCT, THE REIGNS OP 
 GEORGE IV., ■WILLIAM IV., AND HEIl ItAJKSTY QUEEN VICTORIA. 
 
 Influence of the Court over the prince regent .... 120 
 
 His estrangement from the Whigs ib. 
 
 Position of parties a proof of the paramount influence of the 
 
 Crown 124 
 
 Negotiations on the death of Mr. PiTccval, 1812 . . . I'.',') 
 
 Ascendency of Tory politics under Lord Liverpool . , , 129 
 
Contents of the First Volume. 
 
 XV 
 
 Proceedings against Queen Caroline .... 
 
 The bill of pains and penalties withdrawn 
 Mr. Brougham's motion on the influence of the crown 
 George IV.'s opposition to Catholic emancipation . 
 Parliamentary reform favoured by William IV. 
 His support of Earl Grey's ministry .... 
 
 He prevails upon the Lords to pass the Reform Bill 
 Sudden dismissal of the Melbourne ministry . 
 Sir R. Peel called to office while abroad .... 
 
 Is driven from office ....... 
 
 Diminution of the influence of the Crown shown by these 
 events ......... 
 
 Lord Melbourne in office on Her Majesty's accession 
 
 The ' bed-chamber question ' . 
 
 Sir R. Peel's second administration, 1841 
 
 Relations of a secretarj' of state to the Crown 
 
 Lord Palmerston's removal from offiee in 18.51 
 
 Wise use of the influence of the CrowTi in the present reign 
 
 Increased influence of the Crown now under due control ; 
 
 Continued influence of great families .... 
 
 PAGE 
 129 
 
 132 
 134 
 136 
 138 
 140 
 143 
 146 
 149 
 152 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 PHKBOaATTVEa OF THE CROWN DTIRINO THE MINORITT OE 
 INCAPACITY 01- THE SOVEEEIGN. 
 
 Incapacity of a sovereign not recognised by law . . .167 
 
 George III.'s first regency scheme, 1765 .... 169 
 Doubts concerning the term ' royal family ' . . . .172 
 
 Attempted exclusion of the Princess of Wales from the regency ih. 
 
 Provisions of the Regency Act, 1705 174 
 
 Meeting of Parliament during the king's second illness, 
 
 1783-9 17," 
 
 The rights of a regent debated ...... 177 
 
 Regent to be appointed by bill founded on resolutions . . 180 
 
 The great seal t-o bo used under authority of Parliament . 181 
 
 A new speaker during the king's incapacity .... 183 
 
 The commission to oppn Parliiimeiit ..... 186 
 
 The Regency Bill stayed by the king's recovery . . . 189 
 
 Comments upon these proeecdinL's ..... 190 
 
 Ministerial embarrassments caused by the kings third illness, 
 
 . 1801 106 
 
xvi Contents of the First Volume. 
 
 PAQE 
 
 The kings fourth illness, 1804 199 
 
 Questions raised as to his capacity for business . . . 201 
 Meeting of Parliament during his last illness, 1810 . . 207 
 
 The precedents of 1788 followed 208 
 
 The issue of public money authorised by Parliament . . 214 
 Act authorising George IV. to sign by a stamp . . . 216 
 Eights of an infant king considered on tlie accession of 
 
 William IV 219 
 
 The Eegency Act, 1830-31 -221 
 
 The rights of a king's posthumous child 222 
 
 The Eegency Acts of Queen Victoria 223 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 EEVENTES OF THE CROWN : THE CIVIL LIST : PENSIONS : PREEO- 
 GATIVES OF THE CROWN IN RELATION TO THE ROYAL FAMILY. 
 
 Vast possessions of the Crown in early times .... 225 
 
 Alienation of Crown lands restrained ..... 229 
 Eevenuos of the Crown prior to the Revolution . . .231 
 
 The Civil List from William and Mary to George III. . . 232 
 
 Settlement of the Civil List on the accession of George III. . 234 
 
 Charges and debts upon the Civil List ..... 236 
 
 Schemes for economic reform 239 
 
 The Ci\-il List Act, 1782 242 
 
 Civil Lists since the regency ....... 244 
 
 Revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall . . 248 
 
 Private property of sovereigns 249 
 
 Provision for the royal family ih. 
 
 Debts of tlie Prince of Wales 250 
 
 Mismanagement of the land revenues on behalf of the public . 253 
 Improved administration of the land revenues and appropria- 
 tion of the proceeds 255 
 
 Pensions on the Civil List and other Crown Eevcnues . . 25G 
 
 Restrictions on the grant of pensions ..... tA. 
 
 Final regulation of tlie Pension List in 1837 . . . . 261 
 
 Powers of the sovereign over the royal family , . . 262 
 
 The Royal Marriage Act, 1772 264 
 
 The guardianship of Princess Charlotte . . . . , . 271 
 
Contents of the First Volume. xvii 
 
 CHAPTER V. . 
 
 THE HOTJSE OF LOEDS, AND THE PEERAGE. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Permanence of British institutions 273 
 
 Progressive increase of the peerage prior to reign of George III. 274 
 
 The Peerage Bill of 1719 275 
 
 Profuse creations in the reign of George III. .... 277 
 
 Representative peers of Ireland 280 
 
 Present state of the peerage 281 
 
 Representative character of the House of Lords . . . 286 
 
 Rights of Scottish peers 280 
 
 Gradual fusion of the j)eerages of the three kingdoms . . 29(» 
 
 Hereditary descent the characteristic of the peerage . . ih. 
 
 Life peerages 291 
 
 The Lords spiritual 299 
 
 Attempts to exclude them from the House of Lords . . 300 
 
 Increased number of the House of Lords, a source of strength 303 
 
 The peerage viewed in reference to party .... 305 
 Collision between the two Houses averted by the influence of 
 
 the Crown 307 
 
 Position of the Lords in reference to the Reform Bills . . 308 
 Proposed creation of peers . . . . . . .312 
 
 A creation of peers equivalent to a dissolution . . . 314 
 The independence of the Lords unimpaired by the reform 
 
 crisis . . . . . . , . . . .310 
 
 Their vantage ground . . . . . . . .319 
 
 Circumstances affecting their political weight . . . 320 
 
 The peerage in its social relations ...... 322 
 
 The baronetage and orders of knighthood .... 323 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 Anomalies of representation prior'to reform .... 327 
 
 Deflects in the electoral system ...... 328 
 
 Nomination borouglis ........ 330 
 
 Various and limited rights of election ...... 331 
 
 vol.. I. a 
 
xviii Contents of the First Volume. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bribery at elections , . '6'i'i 
 
 Sale of borouglis ......... 336 
 
 Encouragement of bribery by the KiDg . . . . .341 
 
 Attempts to restrain corruption, 1768-1786 .... 3-12 
 
 Sale of seats restrained by act, 1809 3-16 
 
 Government influence in larger boroughs .... 347 
 
 Revenue officers disfranchised, 1782 348 
 
 Vexatious contests in populous cities ..... 360 
 
 The Westminster election, 1784 351 
 
 Territorial influence in counties ...... 353 
 
 Defective representation of Scotland ..... 355 
 
 And of Ireland 359 
 
 Nominee members, the majority of the House prior to reform . 361 
 
 Injustice in the trial of election petitions .... 362 
 
 The Grenville Act, 1770 365 
 
 Improved constitution of election committees .... 368 
 
 Bribery of members by places and pensions .... 369 
 
 Early measures to restrain it . . . . . . . ih. 
 
 Places in the reign of George UI 372 
 
 Judicial officers disqualified 375 
 
 Pecuniai-y bribes to members 376 
 
 During the reign of George III. ...... 378 
 
 Members bribed by shares in loans and lotteries . . . 382 
 
 By lucrative contracts ... .... 387 
 
 Various sources of corniption condemned by Parliament . 389 
 
 State of society favourable to tliose practices .... 390 
 
 How popular priucipK s were kept alivo ..... ih. 
 
 The first schemes of parliamentary reform .... 393 
 
 Lord Chatham's scheme of reform, 1770 .... ib. 
 
 Mr. Pitt's motions for reform, 1782-1785 .... 396 
 
 Reform advocated by Mr. Grey, 1792 402 
 
 Discouraged by the French Revolution . ... 403 
 
 Reform motions at the beginning of this century . . . 406 
 
 Lord .T. Russell's efforts for reform, 1820-1830 . . . 408 
 
 Catholic emancipation a plea for reform . .... 412 
 
 Gross cases of bribery at elections, 1826-27 .... 413 
 Proposal to enfranchise Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester, 
 
 1830 415 
 
 The Duke of Wellington's anti-reform declaration, 1830 418 
 The reform ministry . . . . . . . .420 
 
 The first Reform Bill rejected by the Commons . . . 423 
 
Contents of the First Volume. xix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The second rejected by the Lords ...... 424 
 
 The passing of the third Eeform Bill, 1832 . . . .427 
 
 The Reform Act considered ....... ii*'- 
 
 Reform Acts of Scotland and Ireland 4.29 
 
 Political results of the Reform Act ..... 431 
 
 Bribery since the Reform Act ...... Vi. 
 
 Disfranchisement and other Acts to restrain bribery . . 434 
 
 Policy of legislation concerning bribery ..... 439 
 
 Efforts to shorten the duration of Parliaments . . . 442 
 
 Motions in favour of vote by ballot 445 
 
 The Property Qualification Acts repealed, 1858 . . . 448 
 
 Proceedings at elections improved ...... 449 
 
 Later measures of reform, 1852-1860 450 
 
 Obstacles to parliamentary reform 458 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 1*^ 
 
 GBOWTH OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE CROWN: — ITS SOURCES: EB- 
 
 STHICTIONS ON THE PEHSONAL INFLUENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN: — • 
 
 MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY: ACCESSION OF GF.ORGE III.: HIS 
 
 RESOLUTION TO EXERCISE A LARGER SHARE OF PERSONAL INFLU- 
 ENCE IN THE government: HIS POLICY, AyTD ITS EFFECTS: HIS 
 
 RELATIONS WITH SUCCESSIVE MINISTERS DURING HIS REIGN. 
 
 The growth of the influence of the crown, at a period 
 in the history of this country when govern- Gm^h of 
 ment by prerogative had recently been sub- ence'of °ho 
 verted, and popular rights and liberties en- 
 larged, attests the vital power of the monarchy. At 
 the Revolution, the arbitrary rule of the Stuart kings 
 finally gave way to parliamentary government, with 
 ministerial responsibility. Such a change portended 
 the subjection of future kings to the will of Parlia- 
 ment ; but it proved no more than a security for the 
 observance of the law. While the exercise of the 
 royal authority was restrained within the proper 
 limits of the constitution, the crown was shorn of 
 none of its ancient prerogatives ; but remained, as 
 it had ever been, the source of all power, civil and 
 ecclesiastical, — 'the fountain of lionour/ — tlie first 
 and paramount institution of the state. Its powers, 
 indeed, were now exercised by ministers responsible 
 to Parliament ; and the PJouse of Commons was no 
 longer held in awe by royal prerogative. Yet so 
 great were the attributes of royalty, and so numerous 
 VOL. I. B 
 
2 
 
 Injltience of the Crown. 
 
 its sources of influence, that, for more tlian a 
 century after the Kevolution, it prevailed over the 
 more popular elements of the constitution. A Par- 
 liament representing the people little more than in 
 name, and free, in great measure, from the restraint 
 of public opinion, — which had not yet the means of 
 being intelligently formed, or adequately expressed, 
 — promoted the views of rival parties, rather than 
 the interests of the people. This popular institu- 
 tion, designed to control the crown, was won over to 
 its side, and shared, while it supported, its ascen- 
 dency. The crown now governed with more difficulty, 
 and was forced to use all its resources for the main 
 tenance of its authority : but it governed as com 
 pletely as ever. 
 
 !Mean while every accession to the greatness of the 
 country favoiu'ed the influence of the crown. By 
 the increase of establishments and public expendi- 
 ture, the means of patronage were multiplied. As 
 the people grew more wealthy, considerable classes 
 appeared in society, whose sympathies were with 
 ' the powers that be,' and who coveted favours which 
 the crown alone could bestow. And thus the very 
 causes which ultimately extended the power of the 
 people, for a long time served to enlarge the influ- 
 ence of the crown. 
 
 Vast and various were the sources of tliis influence. 
 Its sources. The crown bestowed everything which its 
 subjects most desired to obtain ; honours, dignities, 
 places and ])referments. Such a power reached all 
 classes, and swayed constituents, as well as Parlia- 
 ments. The House of Lords has ever been more 
 
Its Sources. 
 
 closely associated with the crown and its interests 
 than the House of Commons. The nobles ^he 
 of every land are the support and ornament 
 of the court ; and in England they are recognised as 
 an outwork of the monarchy, — a defence against the 
 democratic elements of our institutions. The entire 
 body is the creation of the crown. The temporal 
 peers, or their ancestors, have all been ennobled by 
 royal favour : many have been raised to a higher 
 dignity in the peerage ; and others aspire to such an 
 elevation. A peerage of the United Kingdom is an 
 object of ambition to Scotch and Irish peers. The 
 spiritual lords owe their dignity to the cro'wn, and 
 look up to the same source of power for translation 
 to more important sees. Nearly all the highest 
 honours and offices are engrossed by the nobility. 
 The most powerful duke, who has already enjoyed 
 every other honour, still aspires to the Order of the 
 Garter. Tlie lord-lieutenancy of a county, — an 
 office of feudal grandeur, — confers distinction and 
 influence, of which the noblest are justly proud.' 
 Other great appointments in the state and royal 
 household are enjoyed exclusively by peers and their 
 families ; while a large proportion of the state 
 patronage is dispensed by their hands. Their rank 
 also brings them within the immediate reach of 
 court favour and social courtesies, by which tlie most 
 eminent peers naturally become the personal friends 
 of the reigning sovereign. Accordingly, witli some 
 
 ' Though tho offipe of Lonl-Lieutonant. does not (Into oarlior than 
 thn re'uii of I'Mward V'l., it resembles the uncicut dijjuity of 
 Comes.' 
 
 II 2 
 
4 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 rare exceptions, the House of Lords has always 
 ranged itself on the side of the crown. It has sup- 
 ported the king himself against his own ministers ; 
 it has yielded up its convictions at his word ; and 
 where party connections have brought it into con- 
 flict with a ministry enjoying the confidence of the 
 crown, its opposition has been feeble or compliant.' 
 Nor has its general support of the throne been in- 
 consistent with the theory of the constitution. 
 
 The Commons, on the other hand, representing 
 The the people, are assumed to be independent 
 'ommons. crown, and jealous of its influence. 
 
 How far these have been their actual characteristics, 
 will be examined hereafter •? but here it may be 
 briefly said, that until the reform in the representa- 
 tion of the people in 1832, the counties were mainly 
 under the influence of great and noble families — as 
 they still are, to a considerable extent : a large pro- 
 portion of the boroughs were either the absolute 
 property of peers and their connections, or entirely 
 under their control ; while in many other boroughs 
 the interest of the government was paramount at 
 elections. The cities and large towns alone had any 
 pretensions to independence. Except on rare occa- 
 sions, when all classes were aniina*-ed by a strong 
 public opinion, the representation of the people and 
 popular interests was a constitutional theory, rather 
 tlian an active political force. Had there been no 
 party distinctions, there could scarcely have been 
 >in ostensible opposition to any ministers whom the 
 King might have chosen to appoint. Members of 
 
 ' bee Chap, v., Peers and Peerage. ' See Chap. VI. 
 
Its Sources. 
 
 Parliament sought eagerly the patronage of the 
 crown. Services at elections, and support in Parlia- 
 ment, were rewarded with peerages, baronetcies, 
 oflBees and pensions. Such rewards were openly 
 given : the consideration was avowed. There wexe 
 other secret rewards of a grosser character, which 
 need not here be noticed.' Nor were constituents 
 beyond the reach of the same influence. The col- 
 lection and expenditure of an enoi-mous and con- 
 tinually increasing public revenue provided inferior 
 places, — almost without number, — which were dis- 
 pensed on the recommendation of members sup- 
 porting the government. Hence to vote with the 
 ministers of the day was the sure road to advance- 
 ment : to vote against them was certain neglect and 
 proscription. 
 
 To these soiurces of influence must be added the 
 loyalty of the British people. He must Loyalty of 
 indeed be a bad king, whom the people do p'^"!'''-"- 
 not love. Equally remarkable are their steady obe- 
 dience to the law, and respect for authority. Their 
 sympathies are generally on the side of the govern- 
 ment. In a good cause their active support may be 
 relied upon ; and even in a bad cause, thoir preju- 
 dices have more often been enlisted in favour of the 
 government than against it. How great then, for 
 good or for evil, were the powers of a British sove- 
 reign and liis ministers. The destinies of a great 
 people depended upon their wisdom, nearly as much 
 as if they had wielded arbitrary power. 
 
 But while these various sources of influence con- 
 
 ' See Chap. VI. 
 
6 
 
 infliLence of the Crown. 
 
 tinued to maintain the political ascendency of the 
 Bcstric- crown, the personal share of the sovereign 
 thTpcr- government of the country was 
 
 euceofth; considerably restricted. William III., the 
 Bovereign. y^^^i^ ^^^^ Statesman of his day, while re- 
 presenting the principles of the Revolution, was yet 
 his own minister for foreign affairs, conducted nego- 
 tiations abroad, and commanded armies in the field. 
 But henceforward a succession of sovereigns less 
 capable than William, and of ministers gifted with 
 extraordinary ability and force of character, rapidly 
 reduced to practice the theory of ministerial respon- 
 sibility. 
 
 The government of the state was conducted, 
 jrinisterial throughout all its departments, by ministers 
 I'iiity?"' responsible to Parliament for every act of 
 their administration, — without whose advice no act 
 could be done — who could be dismissed for in- 
 capacity or failure, and impeached for political 
 crimes ; and who resigned when their advice was dis- 
 regarded by the crown, or their policy disapproved 
 by Parliament. With ministers thus responsible, 
 ' the king could do no wrong.' The Stuarts had 
 strained prerogative so far, that it had twice snapped 
 asunder in their hands. They had exercised it per- 
 sonally, and were held personally responsible for its 
 exercise. One had paid the penalty with his head : 
 another with his crown ; and their family had been 
 proscribed for ever. But now, if the prerogative 
 was strained, ministers were condemned, and not the 
 king. If tlie people cried out against the govern- 
 ment, — instead of a revolution, there was merely 
 
The House of Hanover and the Whigs. 7 
 
 a change of ministry. Instead of dangerous conflicts 
 between the crown and Parliament, there succeeded 
 struggles between rival parties for parliamentary 
 majorities ; and the successful party wielded all the 
 power of the state. Upon ministers, therefore, de- 
 volved the entire bmlhen of public affairs : they 
 relieved the crown of its cares and perils, but, at the 
 same time, they appropriated nearly all its authority. 
 The king reigned, but his ministers governed. 
 
 To an ambitious prince, this natural result of con- 
 stitutional government could not fail to Kings of 
 be distasteful ; but the rule of the House ut' Hanover, 
 of Hanover had hitherto been peculiarly favour- 
 able to its development. With George I. and 
 George II., Hanoverian politics had occupied the 
 first place in their thoughts and affections. Of Eng- 
 lish politics, English society, and eveu the English 
 language, they knew little. The troublesome ener- 
 gies of Parliament were an enigma to them ; and 
 they cheerfully acquiesced in the ascendency of able 
 ministers who had suppressed rebellions, and crushed 
 pretenders to their cro\vn, — who had triumplied over 
 parliamentary ojipositionand had borne all the burthen 
 of the government. Left to the indulgence of their 
 own personal tastes, — occupied by frequent visits to 
 the land of their birth, — by a German court, 
 favourites and mistresses, — they were not anxious to 
 engage, more than was necessary, in the turbulent 
 contests of a constitutional government. Having 
 lent their name and authority to competent minis- 
 ters, they acted upon their advice, and aided them 
 by all the means }»t. the disnosal of the court. 
 
8 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 This authority had fallen to the lot of ministers 
 Asccn- connected with the Whig party, to whom the 
 the wMg House of Hanover mainly owed its throne, 
 party. rpj^g most eminent of the Tories had been 
 tainted with Jacobite principles and connections ; 
 and some of them had even plotted for the restora- 
 tion of the Stuarts. From their ranks the Pre- 
 tender had twice drawn the main body of his 
 adherents. The Whigs, indeed, could not lay claim 
 to exclusive loyalty : nor were the Tories generally 
 obnoxious to the charge of disaffection : but the 
 Whigs having acquired a superior title to the favours 
 of the court, and being once admitted to office, con- 
 trived, — by union amongst themselves, by boruugh 
 interests, and by their monopoly of the influence of 
 the crown, — to secure an ascendency in Parliament 
 which, for nearly fifty years, was almost unassailable. 
 Until the fall of Sir Kobert Walpole the Whigs had 
 been compact and united ; and their policy had gene- 
 rally been to carry out, in practice, the principles of 
 the Eevolution. When no longer under the guid- 
 ance of that minister, their coherence, as a party, 
 was distm-bed ; and they became divided into fami- 
 lies and cliques. To use the words of Lord John 
 Eussell, this ' was the age of small factions.' ' The 
 distinctive policy of the party was lost in the per- 
 sonal objects of its leaders; but political power still 
 remained in the same hands ; and, by alliances 
 rather than by union, tlie 'great Whig families,' 
 and others admitted to a share of their power, con- 
 tinued to engross all the high offices of state, and to 
 
 • Introduction to vol. iii. of Bedford Correspondence. 
 
Accession of George the Third. 9 
 
 distribute among their personal adherents the entire 
 patronage of the crowTi. 
 
 The young king, George III., on succeeding to the 
 throne, regarded with settled jealousy the j^cce^jon 
 power of his ministers, as an encroachment ni^'^f' 
 on his own ; and resolved to break it down. jj'i^^S^' 
 His personal popularity was such as to facili- 
 tate the execution of this desigTi. Well knowing: 
 that the foreign extraction of his predecessors had 
 repressed the affections of their people, he added, 
 with his own hand, to the draft of his first speech 
 to Parliament, the winning phrase, ' Born and edu- 
 cated in this country, I glory in the name of 
 Briton.'' The Stuarts were now the aliens, and not 
 the Hanoverian king. A new reign, also, was 
 favourable to the healing of political differences, 
 and to the fusion of parties. In Scotland, a few 
 fanatical non-jurors may still have grudged their 
 allegiance to an uncovenanted king.^ But none of 
 tlie young king's subjects had plotted against his 
 Ihrone; and few could be suspected of adherence to 
 the fallen cause of the Stuarts, which had been 
 hopelessly abandoned since the rebellion of 1745. 
 The close phalanx of the Whig party had already 
 been broken ; and IMr. Pitt had striven to conciliate 
 the Tories, and put an end to the bitter feuds by 
 which the kingdom liad been distracted. No party 
 was now in disgrace at court : but Whigs, Tories, 
 and Jacobites thronged to St. James's, and vied with 
 
 ' The king himself bore testimony to this fact upwards of forty 
 years afterwards. — liosf'a Corr., ii. 189. 
 
 ' For an account of the I'rtbbytorian non-jurors, soe Macaulau'i 
 Hist., iii. 703-707. 
 
lO 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 each other in demonstrations of loyalty and devo- 
 tion.' 
 
 The king was naturally ambitious, and delighted 
 The king's i'^ ^he active exercise of power ; and liis 
 euucation. education, — otherwise neglected,^ — had 
 raised his estimate of the personal rights of a king 
 in the government of his country. So far back as 
 1752, complaints had been made that the prince was 
 surrounded by Jacobite preceptors, who were train- 
 ing him in arbitrary principles of government.^ At 
 that time, these complaints were discredited as 
 factious calumnies : but the political views of the 
 king, on his accession to the throne, appear to con- 
 firm the suspicions entertained concerning his early 
 education. 
 
 His mother, the Princess Dowager of Wales, — 
 herself ambitious and fond of power,^ — had derived 
 her views of the rights and authority of a sovereign 
 from German courts ; and encouraged the prince's 
 natural propensities by the significant advice of 
 ' Greorge, be king.' ^ Lord Waldegrave, who had 
 been for some time governor to the prince, describes 
 
 ' 'The Earl of Lichfield, Sir Walter Kagot, and tho principal 
 Jacobites went to court, which George Solwyn, a celebrated wit, 
 accounted tor from the number of Stuarts tliat were now at St. 
 James's.' — Waipo/c's Mem., i. 14. 
 
 - Dodingtoii's Diary, 171. The Princess of Wales said: 'His 
 book-learning slie was no judge of, tliough she supposed it small or 
 useless.' — //;/(/., 3^)^ ; Wraxall's Mem., ii. 39. Walpole's Mem., 
 i. 55. Lord lirougliam's Statesmen : Wurks, iii. 11. 
 
 ' See debate in the House of Lords, 22iid Mareli, 1753; Walpole's 
 Mem., iv. 139; Dodington's Diary, 190, 194, 197, 228. 
 
 * Walpole says, ' The princess, whose ambilion yielded to none.' 
 — Mem., i. 12. ' The princess was ardently fond of power, and all its 
 appanages of observance.' — Ado!j>h. Hist., i. 12. 
 
 • Rockingham Mem., i. 3. 
 
The Kings A mbition. 
 
 II 
 
 nim as 'full of princely prejudices contracted in 
 the nursery, and improved by the society of bed- 
 chamber-women and pages of the back-stairs.'' 
 
 His groom of the stole, Lord Bute, — afterwards 
 80 notorious as his minister, — had also given the 
 young prince instruction in the theory of tne 
 British constitution ; and knowing little more than 
 the princess herself, of the English people and 
 government, had taught him that his o^vn honour, 
 and the interests of the country, required the ex- 
 tension of his personal influence, and a more active 
 exercise of his prerogatives. The chief obstacle to 
 this new policy of the court was found in the esta- 
 blished authority of responsible ministers, upheld 
 by party connections and parliamentary interest- 
 Accordingly, the first object of the king and his 
 advisers was to loosen the ties of party, and break 
 down the confederacy of the great Whig families.* 
 The king desired to undertake personally His deter- 
 the chief administration of public affairs, govern!""" 
 to direct the policy of his ministers, and himself to 
 distribute the patronage of the crown. He was 
 ambitious not only to rei<rn, but to govern. His 
 will was strong and resolute, bis courage high, and 
 his talent for intrigue considerable. He came to 
 the throne determined to exalt the kingly office ; 
 and throughout his long reign he never lost sight 
 of that paramount object. 
 
 ' Lord Walflcpravp's Mem., 9. 
 
 ' See lettpf ol Sir J. I'liillips to Mr. Grenville, Sept. 8, 1763; 
 
 Grenvillo Papers, ii. 117; Burke's Present Discont«nts, Works, 
 ii 231. 
 
12 
 
 Infiuenu of tJu Croum. 
 
 Lord Bolingbroke had conceived the idea of a 
 loidBo- goYemment under 'a patriot king,'' — 
 ^mj^™ * who should ' govern as soon as he begins 
 to reign,' — who should ' call into the administra- 
 tion such men as he can assure himself will serve 
 on the same principles on which he intends to 
 govern,' — and who should ' put himself at the head 
 of his people in order to govern, or, more prop>erly, 
 to subdue all parties.'* But it had been no part of 
 Lord Bolingbroke's conception, that the patriot king 
 should suffer his favourites to stand between him 
 and his ' most able and faithful councillors.'* 
 Such, however, was the scheme of Greorge the 
 Third. 
 
 The ministry whom the king foimd in possession 
 of power at his accession, had been formed by a 
 coalition between the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. 
 
 Pitt. The former had long; been the ac- 
 
 IGinEtzy at 
 
 knowledged leader of the great Whig 
 
 connection, and enjoyed extended par- 
 liamentary interest : the latter, by his eloquence and 
 statesmanship, had become the most popular and 
 powerful of the king's subjects The ministry also 
 comprised the Grenville and Bedford sections of 
 the VNTiig party. It was so strong in Parliament, 
 that for some yeare the voice of opposition had been 
 scarcely heard ; and so long as it continued united, 
 its position was impregnable. 
 
 But, strong as were the ministers, the king was 
 The kinr» resolved to wrest all power from their hands, 
 aoaueoon. and to exercise it himself. For this piir- 
 
 ' The Idea of • Patriot King, Workt, it. 274. 
 
 • Ibid^ 281, 282. • BmL, mo. 
 
The Kings Secret Counsellors. 1 3 
 
 pose he called to his aid the Earl of Bute, and other 
 secret counsellors, drawn from all parties. The 
 greater number were of the Tory party, whose views 
 of prerogative were Jacobite. According to Horace 
 Walpole, 'they abjured their ancient master, but 
 retained their principles.'' It was the king's object 
 not merely to supplant one party, and establish 
 another in its place, but to create a new party, 
 faithful to himself, regarding his personal wishes, 
 carrying out his policy, and dependent on his will. 
 This party was soon distingmshed as 'the king's 
 men,' or 'the king's friends.'* Instead of relying 
 upon the advice of his responsible ministers, the 
 king took counsel with this ' double ' or ' interior 
 cabinet.' Even his first speech to Parliament was 
 not submitted to the cabinet council. It had been 
 drawn up by himself and Lord Bute ; and when Mr. 
 Pitt took exception to some of its expressions, the 
 king long resisted the advice of his minister. It 
 had been usual for ministers to rely upon the sup- 
 port of the crown in all their measures. They now 
 found themselves thwarted and opposed ; and the 
 patronage, which they had regarded as their o\vn, 
 they saw divided by the king among his new ad- 
 herents and their connections. This 'influence be- 
 hind the throne ' was denounced by all the leading 
 statesmen of that time, — by Mr. Grenville, Lord 
 Chatham, the IMarquess of Itockingham, the Duke 
 of Bedford, and Mr. Burke. Occasionally denied, 
 its existence was yet so notorious, and its agency so 
 
 ' Wiilp. Mom., i. 15. 
 
 » Burke's Present Discontents, Works, ii. 210-242. 
 
14 
 
 hifluence of tJie Croivn. 
 
 palpable, that historical writers of all parties, — 
 while taking different views of its character — have 
 not failed to acknowledge it. The bitterness with 
 which it was assailed at the time was due, in great 
 measitre, to political jealousies, and to the king's 
 selection of his friends from an unpopular party : 
 but, on constitutional grounds, it was unquestion- 
 ably open to the gravest objections. 
 
 A constitutional government ensures to the king 
 constitn- a widc authority, in all the councils of the 
 
 tional rela- t r i i t • 
 
 tionsofthe state. He chooses and dismisses his mims- 
 
 king to his 
 
 ministers, ters ; and this, — if it be his pleasure, — 
 without the advice of any councillor.' Their reso- 
 lutions upon every important measiu-e of foreign 
 and domestic policy are submitted to his approval ; 
 and when that approval is withheld, his ministers 
 must either abandon their policy, or resign their 
 offices. They arc responsible to the king on the 
 one hand, and to Parliament on the other; and while 
 they retain the confidence of the king, by adminis- 
 tering affairs to his satisfaction, they must act upon 
 principles, and propose measures, which they can 
 justify to Parliament. And here is the proper limit 
 to the king's influence. As he governs by respon- 
 sible ministers, he must recognise their responsi- 
 bilities. They are not his ministers only, but also 
 the public servants of a free country. But an in- 
 fluence in the direction of public affairs thus limited, 
 by no mean satisfied the ambition of the king. His 
 courtiers represented that he was enthralled by the 
 
 ' Sep thf Duke of VTellington's views upon this point ; Ijord Col- 
 chesUr's Diary, iii. oOI. 
 
Breaking up of Parties. 1 5 
 
 dominant party, which had become superior to the 
 throne itself ; and that in order to recover his just 
 prerogative, it was necessary to break up the com- 
 bination. But what was this, in effect, but to assert 
 that the king should now be his own minis- 
 ter ? that ministers should be chosen, not [,r^k'up° 
 because they had the confidence of Parlia- i""""^- 
 ment and the country, but because they were agree- 
 able to himself, and willing to carry out his policy? — 
 And this was the true object of the king. It will 
 be seen that when ministers, not of his own choice, 
 were in office, he plotted and manoeuvred until he 
 overthrew them ; and when he had succeeded in 
 establishing his friends in office, he forced upon 
 them the adoption of his own policy. 
 
 The king's tactics were fraught with danger, as well 
 to the crown itself as to the constitutional Danjjpr of 
 liberties of the people: but his personal tactics!*"' 
 conduct and character have sometimes been judged 
 with too much severity. That lie was too fond of 
 power for a constitutional monarch, none will now be 
 found to deny : that he sometimes resorted to crafty 
 expedients, unworthy of a king, even his admirers 
 must admit. But he had kingly virtues, — piety, 
 courage, constancy, and patriotism. With a narrow 
 imderstanding and obstinate prejudices, he yet 
 laboured, honestly, for the good government of his 
 country. If he loved power, he did not shrink from 
 its cares and toil. If he delighted in being the 
 active ruler of his people, he devoted himself to 
 affairs of state, even more laboriously than bis minis- 
 ters. If he was jealous of the authority of the cro\\-n, 
 
i6 
 
 Influence of Ihc Crown. 
 
 he was not less jealous of the honour and greatness 
 of his people. A just recognition of the personal 
 merits of the king himself, enables us to judge more 
 freely of the constitutional tendency and results of 
 his policy. 
 
 To revert to a polity under which kings had 
 governed, and ministers had executed their orders, 
 was in itself a dangerous retrogression in the prin- 
 ciples of constitutional government. If the crown, 
 and not its ministers, had governed, how could the 
 former do no wrong, and the latter be responsible ? 
 If ministers were content to accept responsibility 
 without power, the crown could not escape its share 
 of blame. Hence the chief safeguard of the mon- 
 archy was endangered. But the liberties of the 
 people were exposed to greater peril than the crown. 
 Power proceeding from the king, and exercised by 
 himself in person, is irreconcilable with popular 
 government. It constitutes the main distinction 
 between an absolute and a constitutional monarchy. 
 The best and most enlightened of kings, governing 
 from above, will press his own policy upon his sub- 
 jects. Choosing his ministers from considerations 
 personal to himself, — directing their acts, — uphold- 
 ing them as his own servants,— -resenting attacks 
 upon them as disrespectful to himself, — committed 
 to their measures, and resolved to enforce them, — 
 viewing men and things from the elevation of a 
 court, instead of sharing the interests and sympa- 
 thies of the people, — how can he act in harmony 
 with popular influences ? 
 
 The system of government which George III. 
 found in operation was indeed imperfect. The in- 
 
The Kinz's Tactics. 
 
 fluence of the crown, as exercised by ministers, pre- 
 vailed over the more popular elements of the con- 
 stitution. The great nobles were too powerful. 
 A Parliament, without adequate representation of 
 the people, and uncontrolled by public opinion, was 
 generally subservient to ministers : but with all its 
 defects, it was still a popular institution. If not 
 freely elected by the people, it was yet composed of 
 men belonging to various classes of society, and 
 sharing their interests and feelings. The statesmen, 
 who were able by their talents and influence to com- 
 mand its confidence, became the ministers of the 
 crown ; and power thus proceeded from below, instead 
 of from above. The country was governed by its 
 ablest men, and not by favourites of the court. 
 The proper authority of Parliament was recognised ; 
 and nothing was wanting in the theory of constitu- 
 tional government, but an improved constitution of 
 Parliament itself. This system, however, the king 
 was determined to subvert. He was jealous of 
 ministers who derived their authority from Parlia- 
 ment rather than from himself, and of tlie parlia- 
 mentary organisation which controlled his power. 
 The policy which he adopted, and its results, are 
 among the most critical events in the history of the 
 crown. 
 
 The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his 
 accession, afforded an opportunity of King-s in- 
 strengthening the parliamentary connec- ^".ii,''^,th. 
 tion of the king's friends. Parliairieut was 
 kept sitting while the king and Lord Bute 
 were making out lists of the court candidates, and 
 
 VOL. I. C 
 
i8 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 using every exertion to secure their return. The 
 king not only wrested government boroughs from 
 the ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, 
 but even encouraged opposition to such ministers as 
 he conceived not to be in his interest.' 
 
 At the meeting at the Cockpit,^ the night before 
 the assembling of the new Parliament, to hear the 
 king's speech read, and to agree upon the choice of 
 a speaker, not only the Wbigs and parliamentary 
 supporters of the government attended ; but also 
 the old Tories, in a strong body, though without any 
 im-itation from ministers.* The speaker selected by 
 Lord Bute was Sir John Cust, a country gentleman 
 and a Tory. 
 
 Lord Bute, the originator of the new policy, was 
 Measures uot personally well qualified for its success- 
 break np ful promotion. He was not connected with 
 
 the minis- 
 
 tiy. the great families who had acquired a pre- 
 ponderance of political influence : he was no parlia- 
 mentary debater : his manners were unpopular : he 
 was a courtier rather than a pohtician : his intimate 
 relations with the Princess of Wales were an object 
 
 ' The Duke of Newcastle thus wrote at this time to Lord Kcck- 
 ingham : — ' Aly Lord Anson has received orders friiin the king him- 
 self to declare to the docks (at Portsmouth) that ther may vote for 
 whom ther please at the Hampshire election, ectn thtruf/h the Chan- 
 celk'T of the Exchequer is a candidate.' Lord Bute complainetl to the 
 First Lord of the Admiralty, that he had disposed of the Admiralty 
 boroughs without acquaiutiog the king. — DodittgUm'g Diary, 433; 
 Rockingham Mem., i. 61-64. 
 
 ' Formerly tne cockpit of the ancient palace of Whitehall. At this 
 period, it was a public building, on the site of the present PriTy 
 Council office, in which were the Council Chamber, and the offict s of 
 the First Lord of the Treasury. It was here that the Parli:imentary 
 supporters of the Government were invited to meet.— See Cunninn- 
 ham's London. 133 ; Knight's L ndon, 290. 
 
 • Rockingham Mem., i. 68; Dodinstons Piary, 433. 
 
The Kings Tactics. 19 
 
 of scandal ; and, above all, he was a Scotchman. 
 The jealousy of foreigners, which had shown itself 
 in hatred of the Hanoverians, was now transferred 
 to the Scottish nation, whose connection with the 
 late civil war had exposed them to popular obloquy. 
 The scheme was such as naturally occurred to a 
 favourite : but it required more than the talents of 
 a favourite to accomplish. While only in the 
 king's household, his influence was regarded with 
 jealousy: remarks were already made upon the 
 unlucky circumstance of his being a ' Scot ; ' and 
 popular prejudices were aroused against him, before 
 he was ostensibly concerned in public affairs. Im- 
 mediately after the king's accession, he had been 
 made a privy councillor, and admitted into the 
 cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards con- 
 certed, by which Lord Holdernesse retired 
 
 ■' March 25, 
 
 from office with a pension, and Lord Bute 
 succeeded him as secretary of state. 
 
 It was now the object of the coiurt to break up 
 the existing ministry, and to replace it with another, 
 formed from among the king's friends. Had the 
 ministry been united, and had the chiefs reposed 
 confidence in one another, it would have been diffi- 
 cult to overthrow them. But there were already 
 jealousies amongst tliem, which the court lost no 
 opportunity of fomenting.' A breach soon arose 
 
 ' Lord Hardwicke said, ' He (Lord Bute) principally availed 
 himself with great art and finesse of tho disspDKions between the 
 Duke of Nowcastlo and Mr. Pitt : lie played off ouo against the other 
 till he got rid of the popular minister, and when that was compassed, 
 he strengthened himself in the cabinet, by bringing in Lord Kgre- 
 montaml Mr. Urenville, and never left intriguing till ho iiad ren- 
 dered it impracticable for tho old duko to cuutiuuc in ottice with 
 
 c 2 
 
20 Influence of the Ci^own. 
 
 between Mr. Pitt, the most powerful and popular of 
 the ministers, and his colleagues. He desired to 
 strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had con- 
 cluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then 
 at war with this country.* Though war minister, 
 he was opposed by all his colleagues except Lord 
 Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council, 
 — declaring that he had been called to the ministry 
 by the voice of the people, and that he could not be 
 responsible for measui-es which he was no longer 
 allowed to guide. Being met with equal loftiness 
 in the cabinet, he was forced to tender his resigna- 
 tion.'^ 
 
 The king overpowered the retiring minister with 
 Pension to kiuduess and condescension. He offered the 
 Mr. Pitt. ]jai-ony of Chatham to his wife, and to him- 
 self an annuity of 3,000L a year for three lives.-* 
 The minister had deserved these royal favours, and 
 he accepted them, but at the cost of his popularity. 
 It was an artful stroke of policy, thus at once to 
 conciliate and weaken the popular statesman, whose 
 opposition was to be dreaded, — and it succeeded. 
 
 credit and honour.' — Bockingham Mem., \, 6. See tlio Duke's own 
 letters, ih., 102-109. 
 
 ' Grenville Papers, i. 386. 
 
 2 Ann. Keg., 1761 [-IS]. Gronvillo Papers, i. 391, 405. Mr 
 Pitt, in a letter to Mr. Bi-ckford, October 1,5, 1761, says, ' A diflfer- 
 ence of opinion witli regard to measures to be taken against Spain, 
 of the liighest importiincc to the honour of the Crown, and to the 
 most essential national interests, and this foundo<i ou what Spain liad 
 already done, nut on what that court may furtlier intend to do, was 
 the.cause of my resigning the seals.' — Chatham Corr., ii. 159. 
 
 ' Mr. Pitt said, ' I confess. Sir, I had but too much reason to ex- 
 pect your Ma,jes(y's displeasure. I did not come prepared for this 
 e.Kceeding goodness. Pardon me. Sir, it overpowers, it oppresses nie,' 
 and burst into Wa,va.— Ann. Ii'eff. ; Grenvillc Payers, i. 413. 
 
Lord Bute Premier. 
 
 21 
 
 The same Gazette which announced his resignation, 
 also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension, 
 and was the signal for clamours against the public 
 favourite. 
 
 On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became 
 the most influential of the ministers. He Inflnence 
 undertook the chief management of public Bute, 
 aflfairs in the cabinet, and the sole direction of the 
 House of Lords.' He consulted none of his col- 
 leagues, except Lord Egremont and ]\Ir. George 
 Grenville.^ His ascendency provoked tlie jealousy 
 and resentment of the king's veteran minister, the 
 Duke of Newcastle. For years he had distributed 
 all the patronage of the crown, but it was now 
 wrested from his hands, nor was he consulted as to 
 its disposal. The king himself created seven peers, 
 without even acquainting him with tlieir creation.^ 
 Lord Bute gave away, places and pensions to his own 
 friends, and paid no attention to the recommenda- 
 tions of the duke. At length, in JNIay 17G2, his 
 grace, after frequent disagreements in the cabinet, 
 and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign.* 
 
 ' Rockingham Mom., i. 54, 86, 101 (Letters of the Duke of New- 
 castle). 
 
 » Ihid., 104. 
 
 • Walpolo Mem., i. 156. 
 
 ' The personal denioanour of the king towards liim evinced the 
 feeling with whieli he h.-id long been regarded. The duke complained 
 of it in this manner: 'The king did nut drop one wurd of ccmcern 
 at my leaviug him, nor even made me a pulite eompliment, after near 
 fifty years' 8orvico and devotion to the inten st.s of hiii royal family. 
 1 will Bay nothing more of myself, but. that I believe never any man 
 wa.s so dismissed.' — Letter to ImhI UovkiiKjIuiiu, May Vdth, litickihi;- 
 ham Mrm., i. 111. Yet Lord 15ute, in a litter to Mr. Grenvilie, 
 May '25th, 176^, »!iys, 'The king's conduct to the i)uke of New- 
 Cttutlo to-day was great and generous.' — UrenvUU Papers, i. 448. 
 
22 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 And now, the object of the coiirt being at 
 Lord Bnte length attained, Lord Bute was immediately 
 as premier, pj^^^^ head of aflfairs, as First Lord 
 
 of the Treasury. Eapid had been the rise of the 
 king's favourite. In thirteen months he had been 
 groom of the stole, a privy councillor, ranger of 
 Kichmond Park, secretary of state, and premier 
 and these favours were soon followed by his installa- 
 tion as a Knight of the Garter, at the same time as 
 the king's own brother. Prince William. His sud- 
 den elevation resembled that of an eastern vizier, 
 rather than the toilsome ascent of a British states- 
 man. But the confidence of his royal master served 
 to aggravate the jealousies by which the new 
 minister was surroimded, to widen the breach be- 
 tween himself and the leaders of the Whig party, 
 and to afford occasion for popular reproaches. It 
 has been insinuated that he was urged forward by 
 secret enemies, in order to insure his speedier fall;^ 
 and it is certain that, had he been contented with a 
 less promiuent place, the consummation of his pecu- 
 liar policy could have been more securely, and per- 
 haps more successfully, accomplished. 
 
 The king and his minister were resolved to carry 
 matters with a hifih hand;^ and their arbi- 
 
 Arbitrary o 
 
 the'kinV* ^^^'"7 attempts to coerce and intimidate op- 
 new minis- ponents disclosed their imperious views of 
 prerogative. Preliminaries of a treaty of 
 peace with France having been agreed upon, against 
 
 ' His countess also received an English barony. 
 " Walpolo Mem., i. 44. 
 
 ' ' The king, it was given out, would be king, — would not be dic- 
 tated to by his ministers, as his gnindfather hud been. The prero- 
 gative was to shine out: great lords must be humbled.' — Walp, 
 Mem., \. 200. 
 
Repression of the Whigs. 
 
 23 
 
 which a strong popular feeling was aroused, the 
 king's vengeance was directed against all who ven- 
 tured to disapprove them. 
 
 The Duke of Devonshire having declined to at- 
 tend the council summoned to decide upon the 
 peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign 
 his office of Lord Chamberlain.* A few days after- 
 wards the king, with his own hand, struck his grace's 
 name from the list of privy councillors. For so 
 great a severity the only precedents in the late 
 reign were those of Lord Bath and Lord George 
 Sackville ; ' the first,' says Walpole, ' in open and 
 virulent opposition ; the second on his ignominious 
 sentence after the battle of IMinden.'^ No sooner 
 had Lord Eockingham heard of the treatment of 
 the Duke of Devonshire, than he sought an audience 
 of the king ; and having stated that those ' who had 
 hitherto deservedly had the greatest weight in the 
 country were now driven out of any share in the 
 government, and marked out ratlier as objects of his 
 Majesty's displeasure than of liis favour,' resigned 
 his place in the household.' 
 
 A more general proscription of the Whig nobles 
 soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Graf- 
 ton, and the Marquess of Rockingham, having pre- 
 sumed, as peers of Parliament, to express their dis- 
 approbation of the peace, were dismissed from the 
 lord-lieutenancies of their counties.^ The Duke of 
 
 ' Wnlp. Mem., i. 201 ; Rockingliam Mem., i. 135 (Letter of Duke 
 of Ncwciistlf to Lord Rockingham). 
 ' Walp. Mem., i. 203. 
 
 • Letter to Duko of Cumberland ; Rockingham Mem., i. 1 12. 
 ' Rockingham Mem., i. 155. 
 
24 hifiuence of tlie Crown, 
 
 Devonshire, in order to share the fate of his friends 
 and avoid the affront of dismissal, resigned the 
 lieutenancy of his county.' 
 
 Xor was the vengeance of the court confined to 
 the heads of the Whig party. Not only were all 
 parliamentary placemen, who had voted against the 
 preliminaries of peace, dismissed : but their humble 
 friends and clients were also proscribed. Clerks- 
 were removed from public offices, and inferior 
 officers from the customs and excise, and other small 
 appointments, for no other offence than that of 
 having been appointed by their obnoxious patrons.^ 
 While bribes were lavished to purchase adhesion to 
 the court policy, the king and his advisers deter- 
 mined to discourage opposition with unsparing 
 severity. Great lords must be humbled, parties 
 overborne, and Pai'liament reduced to subjection. 
 
 The preliminaries of peace were approved by 
 Its effect Parliament ; and the Princess of Wales, 
 nonpar gxulting in the success of the court, ex- 
 claimed, 'Now my son is king of England.'' But 
 her exultation was premature. As yet there had 
 been little more than a contention for power, 
 between rival parties in the aristocracy : but these 
 stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs 
 into an organised opposition. Since the accession 
 of the House of Hanover, this party bad supported 
 the crown, as ministers. It now became their office 
 to assert the liberties of the people, and to resist the 
 
 ' Walp. Mem., i. 235 ; Rockingham Mem., i. 156. 
 - Walp. Mem., i. 283 ; GreuvLUe Papers, i. 4.53 ; Kockingham 
 Mem., i. 162, 158. 
 
 » Walp. Mem., i. 233. 
 
Sudden Fall of Lord Bute. 25 
 
 encroacliments of prerogative. Thus the king's 
 attempt to restore the personal influence of the 
 Sovereign, which the Eevolution had impaired, so 
 far from strengthening the throne, advanced the 
 popular cause, and gave it powerful leaders, whose 
 interests had hitherto been enlisted on the side of 
 the crown. Claims of prerogative became the signal 
 for the assertion of new rights and liberties, on the 
 part of the people. 
 
 The fall of the king's favoured minister was even 
 more sudden than his rise. He shrank sntiden fan 
 from the difficulties of his position, — a Bute, 
 disunited cabinet, — a formidable opposition, — 
 doubtful support from his friends, — the bitter 
 hatred of his enemies, — a libellous press, — and no- 
 torious unpopidarity.' Afraid, as he confessed, ' not 
 only of falling himself, but of involving his royal 
 master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly, — to the 
 surprise of all parties, and even of the king himself, 
 — before he had held office for eleven mouths. But 
 his sliort administration had indulged the king's 
 love of rule, and encouraged him to proceed with 
 his cherished scheme for taking a dominant part in 
 the direction of public affairs. 
 
 Nor did Lord Bute propose to relinquish his own 
 power together with his office. Having hw con- 
 negotiated the appointment of Mr. George fliu-ncc""' 
 Grenville as his successor,and arranged with kVug.""" 
 him the nomination of the cabinet,^ he retreated to 
 
 ' lie was his'x-cl and pelted nt the opfnini; of P.'irli.imont, 2.01 h 
 Nov., IT'i'i, anil Ins t'umily were ularmed for his persouul Bufely. 
 ' (Jrunvillo I'lipors, ii. 32, 33. 
 
26 
 
 Infiuence of the Crown. 
 
 the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more 
 securely the measures of the court.' The ministry 
 TheGrcn- Grreuville was constituted in a 
 
 ^jr^'' manner favourable to the king's personal 
 
 views ; and was expected to be under the 
 control of himself and his favourite. And at first 
 there can be little doubt that JNir. Grenville found 
 himself the mere agent of the court. ' The public 
 looked still at Lord Bute through the curtain,' said 
 Lord Chesterfield, ' which indeed was a very trans- 
 parent one.' But Mr. Grenville was by no means 
 contented with the appearance of power. He was 
 jealous of Lord Bute's superior influence, and com- 
 plained to the king that his Majesty's confidence 
 was withheld from his minister.* As fond of power 
 as the king himself, — and with a will as strong and 
 imperious, — tenacious of his rights as a minister, 
 and confident in his own abilities and influence, — 
 he looked to Parliament rather than to the crown, 
 as the source of his authority. 
 
 The king finding his own scheme of government 
 
 opposed, and dislikino; the uncongenial 
 
 The king ' . , . . . 
 
 fends Lord vicws and hard temper of his minister, 
 
 Bute to ilr. ^ 
 
 Pi". resolved to dismiss him on the first con- 
 venient opportunity.* Accordingly, on the death of 
 Lord Egremont, he commissioned Lord Bute to 
 open negotiations with Mr. Pitt, for the formation of 
 a new administration. And now the king tasted 
 the bitter fruits of his recent policy. He had pro- 
 
 ' Mr. Gron\nne to Lord Egremont ; Grenville Papers, ii. 86. 
 
 Grcnvillo Papers, ii. 84, 83, 89. 
 « Ibul., ii. 83, 83. 
 
The Grenvilk Ministry, 1^/62). 27 
 
 scribed the Whig leaders. He had determined 
 ' never upon any account to suffer those ministers of 
 the late reign, who had attempted to fetter and en- 
 slave him, to come into his service, while he lived 
 to hold the sceptre.'' Yet these were the very 
 ministers whom JNIr. Pitt proposed to restore to 
 power ; and stranger still, — the premier in whom 
 the king was asked to repose his confidence was 
 Earl Temple, whose patronage of Wilkes had re- 
 cently aroused his bitter resentment. His Majesty 
 was not likely so soon to retract his resolution, and re- 
 fused these hateful terms: 'My honour is concerned,' 
 he said, ' and I must support it.'^ The Grenville 
 ministry, however distasteful, was not so hard to 
 bear as the restoration of the dreaded Whigs ; and 
 he was therefore obliged to retain it. Mr. Gren- 
 ville now remonstrated, more strongly than ever, 
 against the influence of the favourite who had been 
 employed to supplant him : the king promised his 
 confidence to the ministers, and Lord Bute retired 
 from the court.' 
 
 Though George III. and Mr. Grenville differed as 
 to their relative powers, they were but too ^ptj^g 
 well agreed in their policy. Both were 't"|,!'ki'Sfg''^ 
 arbitrary, impatient of opposition, and sure'"or 
 resolute in the exercise of authority. The Kovornment. 
 chief claims of the Grenville ministry to distinction 
 
 ' Letter of Lord Bute to the Duke of Bedford, 2nd April, 
 1763 ; Bedford Corr., iii. 224 ; see also Grenville Papers, ii. 93, 105, 
 
 lae. 
 
 * Grenville Papers, ii. 06, 107; see also Ellis's Letters, 2nd Ser^ 
 iv. 470. 
 
 » Grenville Papers, ii. 106, 483, 600; Chatham Corr., ii. 236 
 Pari. Eist., xv. 1327. 
 
28 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 were its arbitrary proceedings against Wilkes, which 
 the king encouraged and approved,' and the first 
 taxation of America, which he himself is said to 
 have suggested.'^ In overawing opponents the king 
 was more forward than his ministers.* Earl Temple's 
 friendship for Wilkes was punished by the erasure 
 of his name from the list of privy councillors, 
 and by dismissal from the lord-lieutenancy of his 
 county.'' General Conway, Colonel Barre, and 
 Colonel A'Court, were, for their votes in Parliament, 
 deprived of their military commands,* and Lord 
 Shelburne of his office of aide-de-camp to his 
 Majesty. 
 
 The privileges of Parliament afforded no protec- 
 His viola- tion from the king's displeasure. To guard 
 
 tion of the . . « 
 
 privileges agaiust the arbitrary interference oi the 
 
 of Pai-lia- ° •' 
 
 mcnt. crown, freedom of speech had been asserted 
 for centuries. It was an acknowledged constitu- 
 tional doctrine that the king should be deaf to re- 
 ports of debates in Parliament, and that no member 
 should suffer molestation for his speeches.® Nor 
 had any king of the house of Hanover been present 
 
 ' Corr. of Geo. III. with Lord North, i. 2, 9. 
 ' Wriixairs Mem., ii. Ill ; Bancroft's Amor. Rev., iii. 307. 
 ' Gn nville Papers, ii. 297 ; Walp. Mom., i. 403 ; lloekingliam 
 Mem., i. 178. 
 
 ♦ May 7th, 1763; Grenville Papers, ii. 55. 
 
 » Chatham Corr., ii. 276 ; Walp. Mem., ii. 65 ; "Wraxall's Mem., 
 iii. 164. In the late reign, the duko of Bolton and Lord C'obham 
 having been removed from the command of their regiments, for 
 opposing minister.s, the opposition endeavoured to interdict such dis- 
 mis.sals, except after a court martial, or an address from either 
 House of I'arliament, — a restraint \ipon prerogative more unconsti- 
 tutional than the act against whicii this measure waB aimed. — Turl. 
 Hint., ix. 283; Smollett's Hist., ii. 313; Coxe's Walpole; Cooke's 
 Hist, of Party, ii. 186. 
 
 • Jiot. Pari., iii. 456, 611 ; 1 Hen. VIII. c. 8. 
 
Dismissal of Officers. 
 
 29 
 
 at the deliberations of the legislature.' Yet during 
 the proceedings of the Commons against Wilkes, 
 his Majesty found a faithful reporter in Mr. Gren- 
 ville. Watching the debates and divisions, he kept 
 a jealous eye upon the opinions and votes of every 
 member ; and expressed his personal resentment 
 against all who did not support the government. 
 It was he who first proposed the dismissal of Gren- 
 eral Conway, ' both from his civil and military com- 
 missions : ' it was he who insisted on the removal of 
 Mr. Fitzherbert from the Board of Trade, and of all 
 placemen who took a different view of parliamentary 
 privilege from that adopted by the court.^ Mr. 
 Grenville endeavoui'ed to moderate the kind's 
 severity : he desired to postpone such violent mea- 
 sures till the proceedings against Wilkes should be 
 concluded;' and in the meantime, opened commu- 
 nications with General Conway, in the hope ol 
 averting his dismissal.'* But at length the blow was 
 struck, and General Conway was dismissed not only 
 from his office of groom of the bedchamber, but 
 from the command of his regiment of dragoons.* 
 
 ' Ilatsoll, ii. 371, n. Cliitty on Prorogativps, 75. 
 
 ' Gronvillo Papers, ii. 1G2, IfKO, 160 (Ictfere from the king to Mr. 
 Grenville, IGtli, 2.3rd, and 24th Nov., ; Ihid., 223, 228-9. 
 
 ' Ibid., 224, 229, 230, 266, 267, 484 (Diary, 16th, 25th, and 30th 
 Nov.; 2nd Dec, 1763 ; 19lh Jan., 1764). 
 
 * Ibid., 231-233. 
 
 * Grenville Papers, ii. 296, ' Mr. Grenville never would admit the 
 distinction between civil and Diilitary appointments.' — Grcnvil/e 
 Papers, ii. 23 I, 507. It has hei n slated that General Conway voted 
 once only against the ministry on General Warrant.", having .sup- 
 ported them in the contest with \Vilkes {Iliatorij of a late Minoriti/, 
 291; Rockiiniham Mcm.,i. 178); but this was not tho case. Mr. 
 Grenville in his Diary, Nov. 15th, 1763, speaks of Mr. ( onway's vote 
 both times with the minority. — Gniiville I'ajicrs, ii. 223. 
 
3© Influence of the Crown. 
 
 Mr. Calcraft was also deprived of the office of deputy- 
 muster-master. ' 
 
 To commit General Conway or Colonel Barre to 
 prison, as James I. had committed Sir Edwin Sandys, 
 and as Charles I. had committed Selden and other 
 leading members of the House of Commons, could 
 not now have been attempted. Nor was the ill- 
 omened venture of Charles I. against the five mem- 
 bers likely to be repeated : but the king was 
 violating the same principles of constitutional go- 
 vernment as his arbitrary predecessors. He punished, 
 as far as he was able, those who had incurred his 
 displeasure, for their conduct in Parliament ; and 
 denied them the protection which they claimed from 
 privilege, and the laws of their country. Yet the 
 Commons submitted to this violation of their free- 
 dom, with scarcely a murmur.* 
 
 The riots and popular discontents of this period 
 Public dis- ought to have convinced the king that his 
 contents, statesmanship was not successful. He had 
 already sacrificed his popularity to an ill-regulated 
 love of power. But he continued to direct every 
 measure of the government, whether of legislation, 
 of administration, or of patronage ; and by means of 
 the faithful reports of his minister, he constantly 
 assisted, as it were, iu the deliberations of Parlia- 
 ment.* 
 
 ' GrenviUo Papers, 231. The muster-masters were appointed to 
 check frauds and false musters in the several regiments, and to secure 
 the proper coinploriient of eifioient soldiers. The office was abolished 
 in 1818.— C/ot/f'*- Military Forces of the Crown, ii. 9, 10. 
 
 2 Pari. Hist., xvi. 1766. 
 
 ' Gronville Papers, iii. 4-15, 21-37. The king's communications 
 wore sometimes sufficiently peremptory. Writing May 2l8t, 1766, 
 
jfealoiisies of Lord Bute. 3 1 
 
 In 1765, diflferences again arose between the king 
 and the Grenville ministry. They had justly 
 offended him by their mismanagrement of ferences 
 
 with the 
 
 the Kegency Bill, ' — they had disputed with orenviue 
 him on questions of patronage and expendi- 
 ture, — they had wearied him with long arguments 
 in the closet;'^ and, in the month of May, he inti- 
 mated his intention of dispensing with their ser- 
 vices. But the king, after vain negotiations with 
 Mr. Pitt through the Duke of Cumberland, finding 
 himself unable to form another administration, was 
 again compelled to retain them in oflBce. They had 
 suspected the secret influence of Lord Bute in 
 thwarting their counsels ; and to him they attributed 
 their dismissal.^ The first condition, therefore, on 
 which they consented to remain in office, was that 
 Lord Bute should not be suffered to interfere in his 
 Majesty's councils, 'in any manner or shape what- 
 ever.''' To this the king pledged himself,* and 
 though suspicions of a secret correspondence with 
 
 he says : ' Mr. Grcnrille, I am surprised that you are not yet come, 
 when you know it was my orders to be attended this evening. I 
 expect you, tiierefore, to come the moment you receive this.' — Grin- 
 ville PupiTs, iii. 40. 
 
 ' See Chap. III. 2 Walp. Mem., ii. 161. 
 
 • So f^reat was the jealousy of Mr. Grenville and the Duke of Bed- 
 ford of tlio infliience of Lord IJiite in 1764, that they were anxious 
 to insist upon iiis roinaining in the country, though he said he was 
 tired of it, and had dMiighters to marry, and other business. — A/r. 
 Grenuitlc's Diary, 16th and 28th Jan., 1704; Grenville Papers, 
 ii. 48.1, 488. 
 
 « Minute of Cabinet, 22nd May, 1765 ; Grenville Papers, iii. 41 ; 
 ib., 184 ; Adolphus, i. 170. 
 
 » ' At eleven o'clock at night thc.king sent for Mr. Grenville, nnd 
 told him he had considered upon tile proposals made to him: he did 
 promise and declare to them that Lord Bute should never, directly 
 nor indirectly, have anything to do with iiis business, nor give ad- 
 vice upon anything whatever.' — Diary ; Grenville I'ujiers, iii. 185. 
 
32 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 Lord Bute were still entertained, there is every rea- 
 son for believing that he adhered to his promise.' 
 Indeed, he had already acquired so much confidence 
 in his own aptitude for business, that he no longer 
 relied upon the coimsels of his favourite.'^ He was 
 able to rule alone ; and wanted instruments, rather 
 than advisers. The second condition was the dis- 
 missal of Mr. Stuart Mackenzie, Lord Bute's bro- 
 ther, from the office of privy seal in Scotland, and 
 from the management of the affairs of that country. 
 In this, too, the king yielded, though sorely against 
 his will, as he had promised the office for life.^ 
 Meanwhile the breach between the king and his 
 ministers became still wider. They had been forced 
 upon him by necessity : they knew that he was 
 plotting their speedy overthrow, and protested 
 against the intrigues by which their influence was 
 counteracted. The Duke of Bedford besought the 
 king ' to permit his authority and his favour to go 
 
 ' Mem. of C. J. Fox. i. 65-68, 111 ; Mr. Mackintosh to Earl 
 Temple, Aug. 30th, 1765, GrenvilU Papers, iii. 81. Wrajrair.t 
 Mem., ii. 73, &c. Mr. Orenville vas still so suspicious of Lord 
 Butp's influence, that being told in November, 17Cr), by Mr. Jeukin- 
 son, that Lord Bute had only seen tho king twice during his illness 
 in the spring, he says in his diary ; ' which fact Mr. Grenville could 
 not be brought to believe. He owned, howovor, to Mr. Grenville 
 that the intercourse in writing between his Majesty and Lord Bute 
 always continued, telling him that he knew the king wrote to him 
 a journal every day of what passed, and as minute a one as if, said 
 he, " your boy at school was directed by you to write his journal to 
 you." ' — GrenvilU Papers, iii. 220. 
 
 It was not until Dec., 1768, that Mr. Grenville seems to have been 
 persuaded that Lord Bute's intluence was Inst. H(^ then concurred 
 in the prevailing opinion of ' the king being grown indifferent to 
 him, but the princess being in the same sentiments towards him U8 
 before.' — Diary ; Grenville Papers, iv. 408. 
 
 » Bedford C'orr., iii. 261. 
 
 • Walp. Geo. III., ii. 17o ; Grenville Papers, iii. IS'). He waa 
 afterwards restored iu 1766 by the Earl of Chatham. — lb., 362. 
 
Rockinghai7t Ministry, 1765. 
 
 33 
 
 together ;' ' and these remonstrances were represented 
 by the king's friends as insolent and overbearing.'^ 
 An outcry was raised against the nainisters that they 
 ' desired to enslave the king,' who was now deter- 
 mined to make any sacrifices to get rid of them. 
 
 The negotiations for a new ministry were again 
 conducted on behalf of the king:, by liis Negotia- 
 
 °' tions with 
 
 uncle the Duke of Cumberland. Such was t^e wwgs. 
 the popular hatred of Lord Bute and his country- 
 men, that the Duke's former severities against the 
 Scotch, which had gaiued for him the name of 
 the ' butcher,' were now a claim to popular favom'. 
 The rebellious Scots had been treated as they de- 
 served ; and he who had already chastised them, was 
 not the man to favoiu" their pretensions at court. 
 These negotiations were protracted for seven 
 weeks, while the country was virtually 
 without a government.^ Mr. Pitt was again im- 
 practicable : the further continuance of the Grenville 
 ministry could not be endured ; and, at length, the 
 king was reduced to the necessity of surrendering 
 himself once more to the very men whom he most 
 dreaded. 
 
 The Marquess of Kockingham, the leader of the 
 obnoxious Whig aristocracy, — the states- Ro^kinR- 
 man whom he had recently removed from fg'J^y'""'' 
 his lieutenancy, — the king was now obliged 
 to accept as premier ; and General Conway, whom 
 
 ' 12th June, 1765 ; Bedford Corr., iii. Introd., pp. xliii. xlv. 286 ; 
 QronvilU) Papers, iii. 194. 
 
 ' Junius, Letter iiiii. ; Burke's Works, ii. 156; Walp. Geo. HI , 
 ii. 182; Bedford Corr., iii. 286. 
 
 • Walp. Mem., ii. 192. 
 
 VOL I. D 
 
34 
 
 Ijifluence of the Crown. 
 
 he had deprived of his regiment, became a secretary 
 of state, and leader of the House of Commons. 
 The policy of proscription was, for a time at least, 
 reversed and condemned. Mr. Pitt, when solicited 
 by the Duke of Cumberland to take office, 
 condemned, had named as one of his conditions, the 
 restoration of officers dismissed on political grounds. 
 This the king had anticipated, and was prepared to 
 grant.' The Eockingbam administration insisted 
 on the same terms ; and according to Mr. Burke 
 * discountenanced, and it is hoped for ever abolished, 
 the dangerous and unconstitutional practice of re- 
 moving military officers, for their votes in Parlia- 
 ment.'* 
 
 The Whig leaders were not less jealous of the in- 
 conditions flucuce of Lord Butc, than the ministry 
 Kocking- whom they displaced ; and before they 
 ist^.°^' would accept office, they insisted ' that the 
 thought of replacing Mr. ^Mackenzie should be laid 
 aside ; and also that some of the particular friends 
 of the Earl of Bute should be removed, as a proof 
 to the world that the Earl of Bute should not either 
 publicly or privately, directly or indirectly, have 
 any concern or influence in public aflfairs, or in the 
 management or disposition of public employ- 
 ments.'^ These conditions being agreed to, a 
 ministry so constituted was likely to be independent 
 of court influence : yet it was soon reproached with 
 
 ' Walp. Mem., ii. 165 ; Duke of Cumberland's Narrative ; Rocking- 
 ham Mem., i. 193-196. 
 
 - Short Aocouut of a Late Short Administration. 
 
 • Piper drawn up b)' Duke of Newcastle, licxkiriffham Mem., 
 L218. 
 
Tlie Kiyig's Friends. 
 
 35 
 
 submission to the ' interior cabinet.' Mr. Pitt said, 
 ' Methinks I plainly discover the traces of ^he king's 
 an overruling influence ; ' and vrhile he 
 disavowed aay prejudice against the country of Lord 
 Bute, he declared that ' the men of that country 
 wanted -wisdom, and held principles incompatible 
 with freedom.' This supposed influence was dis- 
 claimed on the part of the government by General 
 Conway : ' I see nothing of it,' said he, ' I feel 
 nothing of it : I disclaim it for myself, and as far 
 as my discernment can reach, for the rest of his 
 Majesty's ministers.' ' 
 
 Whether Lord Bute had, at this time, any influ- 
 ence at court, was long a subject of doubt and con- 
 troversy. It was confidently believed by the public, 
 and by many of the best informed of bis contempo- 
 raries ; but Lord Bute, several years afterwards, 
 so explicitly denied it, that his denial may be ac- 
 cepted as conclusive." The king's friends, however, 
 had become more numerous, and acted vmder better 
 discipline. Some held oflBces in the government or 
 household, yet looked for instructions, not to minis- 
 ters, but to the king. Men enjoying obscui-e, but 
 
 ' Debate on the address, 1766, PaW. Hi»t., xvi. 97, 101. 
 
 * His son. Lord Mountntuart, wTiting Oct. 23, 1773, said: 'Lord 
 Bute aiithorisrs me to cav that he dcclun-s upon his solemn word of 
 honour, he has n(jt had tlie honour of waitin;; on his Majesty, but at 
 his levee or drawing-room ; nor has he presumed to otfor any advice 
 or opinion concerning the disposition of offices, or the conduct of 
 measures, eillier din ctly or indirectly, by hinisrlf or anv other, from 
 the time when the late I)uke of Cumbi rland was consulted in the 
 arrangement of a ministry' in 1765, lo the present hour.' — lom/inr's 
 lAfr of Put, i. 4o2, n. .See also Rockingham Mem., i. 358-360; 
 Lord Broughan.'s Sketches of .Statesmen. Works, iii. 49 ; Kdiub. 
 Kev. exli. 94 ; Quiirt. Kev. oxxxi. 236. Lord John RusbtU's Inir. to 
 »ol. iii. of Bedford Corr., iiiiii. 
 
Injluencc of the Crown. 
 
 lucrative appointments, in the gift of the king him- 
 self, and other members of the royal family, voted 
 at the bidding of the court. But the greater num- 
 ber of the king's friends were independent members 
 of Parliament, whom various motives had attracted 
 to his cause. ]Many were influenced by high notions 
 of prerogative, — by loyalty, by confidence in the 
 judgment and honesty of their sovereign, and per- 
 Lional attachment to his Majesty ; and many by hopes 
 of favour and advancement. They formed a distinct 
 party ; and their coherence was secured by the same 
 causes which generally contribute to the formation 
 of party ties.' But their principles and position 
 were inconsistent with constitutional government. 
 Their services to the king were no longer confined 
 to counsel, or political intrigue : but were organised 
 so as to influence the deliberations of Parliament. 
 And their organisation for such a purpose, marked a 
 further advance in the unconstitutional policy of the 
 court. 
 
 The king continued personally to direct the mea- 
 
 The king's surcs of his ministers, more particularly in 
 
 infliieni c in 
 
 I'nriiament. the disputcs with the American colonies, 
 which, in his opinion, involved the rights and 
 honour of his crown.'' He was resolutely opposed 
 to the repeal of the Stamp Act, which minis- 
 ters thought necessary for the conciliation of the 
 colonies. He resisted this measure in council ; but 
 
 ' Burke's Present Discontents, Worlisf, ii. 254 ; Burke's Corr., i. 352 ; 
 Grenville Papers, ii. 33, lii. 57; Korkiiiglmni iMem., i. 6, 307; Fox 
 Mem., i. 120, &c. ; Walp. Mom., iv. 315. 
 
 - The king said his niini.sters ' would undo his people, in giving up 
 the rights of his crown ; that to this he would never consent.' — 
 Gnnville Papers, iii. 370, 371. 
 
The King's Friends. 
 
 finding ministers resolved to carry it, he opposed 
 them in Parliament by the authority of his name, 
 and by his personal influence over a considerable 
 body of parliamentary adherents.' The king 
 affected, indeed, to support his ministers, and to 
 decline the use of his name in opposing them. 
 ' Lord Harcourt suggested, at a distance, that his 
 Majesty might make his sentiments known, which 
 might prevent the repeal of the act, if his ministers 
 should push that measure. The king seemed averse 
 to that, said he would never influence people in 
 their parliamentary opinions, and that he had pro- 
 mised to sirpport his ministers.'^ But, however 
 the king may have atfected to deprecate the use of 
 his name, it was imquestionably used by his friends ;^ 
 and while he himself admitted the vmconstitutional 
 character of such a proceeding, it found a defender 
 in Lord jNIansfield. In discussing this matter with 
 the king, his lordship argued ' that, though it would 
 be unconstitutional to endeavour by his Majesty's 
 name to carry questions in Parliament, yet where 
 the lawful rights of the king and Parliament were 
 to be asserted and maintained, he thought the 
 making his Majesty's opinion in support of those 
 rights to be known, was fit and becoming.'' In 
 order to counteract this secret influence. Lord 
 Rockingham obtained the king's written consent to 
 the passing of the bill.* 
 
 ' Will pole Mem., ii. 259, 331, n. Rockingham Mem., ii. 250, 294. 
 
 * Ml'. GrtDvilic's Diary, Jan. 31, 17G6 ; (Jrenvillc I'upers, iii. 353. 
 
 • Greiivillo J'apers, iii. 374; Walp. Mem., ii. 288; llockiugham 
 Mem., i. 277, 2<J2. 
 
 ♦ Grenville Papers, iii. 374. ' Rockingham Mem., i. 300. 
 
38 
 
 Injliience of the Crown. 
 
 Ministers had to contend against another difE- 
 The king's ^ulty, whlch the tactics of the com-t had 
 friends. created. Not only were they opposed by 
 independent members of the court party ; but mem- 
 bers holding oflBce, — upon whose support ministers 
 were justified in relying, — were encouraged to op- 
 pose them; and retained their offices, while voting 
 in the ranks of the opposition. The king, who had 
 punished with so much severity any opposition to 
 measures which he approved, now upheld and pro- 
 tected those placemen, who opposed the ministerial 
 measures to whicli he himself objected. In vain 
 ministers remonstrated against their conduct : the 
 king was ready with excuses and promises ; but his 
 chosen band were safe from the indignation of the 
 government. Nor was their opposition confined to 
 the repeal of the Stamp Act, — a subject on which 
 they might have affected to entertain conscientious 
 scruples : but it was vexatiously continued against 
 the general measures of the administration.' Well 
 might Mr. Burke term this ' an opposition of a new 
 and singular character, — an opposition of placemen 
 and pensioners.' ^ Lord Rockingham protested 
 against such a system while in oflBce and after his 
 dismissal, took occasion to observe to his Majesty, 
 that ' when he had the honour of being in his 
 Majesty's service, the measures of administration 
 were thwarted and obstructed by men in office, 
 acting like a corps ; that he flattered himself it was 
 
 ' Walp. Mem., ii. 259, 331, ». ; Rockingham Mem., i. 250, 294, 
 321. 
 
 - A Short Account of a Late Short Administration. 
 » Wulp. Mfin., ii. 322. 
 
Duke of Gm/tous Ministry. 
 
 39 
 
 not entirely with his majesty's inclination, and 
 would assure him it was very detrimental to his 
 service.'' This system, to use the words of Mr. 
 Burke, tended ' to produce neither the security of 
 a free government, nor the energy of a monarchy 
 that is absolute.'^ 
 
 The king, meanwhile, had resolved to overthrow 
 the Eockingham ministry, which was on every ac- 
 count distasteful to him. He disapproved their 
 liberal policy: he was jealous of their powerful 
 party, which he was bent on breaking up ; and, 
 above all, he resented their independence. He 
 desired ministers to execute his will ; and these 
 men and their party were the obstacles to the che- 
 rished object of his ambition. 
 
 At length, in July, 1766, they were ungraciously 
 dismissed;* and his Majesty now expected, uu^gof 
 from the hands of Mr. Pitt, an adminis- ^inis^^f 
 tration better suited to his own views and 
 policy. Mr. Pitt's greatness had naturally pointed 
 him out as the fittest man fur such a task ; and 
 there wore other circumstances which made him 
 personally acceptable to the king Haughty as was 
 the demeanour of that distinguished man in the 
 senate, and among his equals, his bearing in the 
 royal presence was humble and obsequious. The 
 truth of Mr. Burke s well-known sarcasm, that ' the 
 least peep into tliat closet intoxicates him, and will 
 to the end of his life,''' was recognised by all his 
 
 ' I{<K'kini;l]iini Mom., ii. 63. 
 
 ' Present Discdiitoiits, Works, ii. 721. 
 
 • Wiilp. .Mem., ii. ;i37. 
 
 ♦ Lcti( r U, LdhI Rockingham, Rockinghum Mem., ii. 230. 
 
40 Infljcence of the Crown. 
 
 contemporaries.' A statesman with at least the 
 outward qualities of a courtier, was likely to give 
 the king some repose, after his collisions with the 
 two last ministries. He now undertook to form an 
 administration, under the Duke of Grafton, with the 
 office of privy seal, and a seat in the Upper House, 
 as Earl of Chatham. 
 
 For another reason also. Lord Chatham was ac- 
 The kiii^'s ceptable to the king. They agreed, though 
 dSoitr fo'" different reasons, in the policy of 
 parties. breaking up party connections. This was 
 now the settled object of the king, which he pur- 
 sued with unceasing earnestness. In writing to 
 Lord Chatham, July 29th, 1766,'* he said, 'I know 
 the Earl of Chatham will zealously give his aid to- 
 wards destroying all party distinctions, and restoring 
 that subordination to government which can alone 
 preserve that inestimable blessing, liberty, from de- 
 generating into licentiousness.'^ Again, December 
 2nd, 1766, he wrote to the Earl of Chatham: 'To 
 rout out the present method of parties banding to- 
 gether, can only be obtained by withstanding their 
 unjust demands, as well as the engaging able 
 
 ' Chase Price said, ' that at the lev6e, he {i.e. Lord Chatham) used 
 to bow so low, you could see the tip of his hooked nose belween his 
 legs.' — Kockingham Mem., ii. 83. He luid bepn in the habit of 
 kneelinf; at the bedside of George II., while transacting business. — 
 Wraiall's Mem., ii. 53. That ho was ever true to his character, is 
 illustrated by the abject terms of his letter to the king on resigning 
 the office of privy seal, two years afterwards. ' Uuder this load of 
 unhappiness, I will not despair of ynur Majesty's pardon, while 1 
 isuii]ilicato again on niv knees your I\Iaji'sty's mercy, and most hum- 
 i.lv implore your JIajesty's royal jiermission to resign that high 
 „ffi,.p.'_14th October, 17G8 ; Chatham Ciwr., iii. 314. 
 
 -' Intr. to vol. iii. of IJi dford Corr., xxrii. 
 
 " Chatliam Corr., iii. 21. 
 
The King's Personal Injliience. 41 
 
 men, be their private connections where they will.'' 
 And again, on the 25th June, 1767: 'lam tho- 
 roughly resolved to encounter any difficulties rather 
 than yield to faction.' ^ 
 
 By this policy the king hoped to further his 
 cherished scheme of increasing his own p^.r^o^ai 
 personal influence. To overcome the AVhig pf'the""^* 
 connection, was to bring into office the 
 friends of Lord Bute, and the court party who were 
 subservient to his views. Lord Chatham adopted 
 the king's policy for a very different purpose. 
 Though in outward observances a courtier, he was a 
 constitutional statesman, opposed to government by 
 prerogative, and court influence. His career had 
 been due to his own genius : independent of party, 
 and superior to it, he had trusted to his eloquence, 
 his statesmanship, and popularity. And now, by 
 breaking up parties, he hoped to rule over them all. 
 His project, however, completely failed. Having 
 offended and exasperated the Whigs, he found him- 
 self at the head of an administration composed of 
 the king's friends, who thwarted him, and of other 
 discordant elements, over which he had no control. 
 
 He discovered, when it was too late, that the king 
 had been more sagacious than himself,— and that 
 while his own power and connections had crumbled 
 away, the court party had obtained a dangerous as- 
 cendency. Parties had been broken up, and prero- 
 gative triumphed. The leaders of parties had been 
 reduced to insignificance, while the king directed 
 public affairs according to his own will, and upon 
 ' Chatham Corr., iii. 137. J md., 276. 
 
42 
 
 Influence of the Crozun. 
 
 principles dangerous to public liberty. According 
 to Burke, when Lord Chatham ' 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 etfocis.^^ 
 
 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, 
 further detracted from his weight as a minister. 
 His melancholy prostration soon afterwards, in- 
 creased the feebleness and disunion of the adminis- 
 tration. 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,' and to General Conway, 
 though commissioned by the king to confer with 
 him.'' It is not surprising thai the Duke of 
 Grafton should complain of the languor under which 
 ' every branch of the administration laboured from 
 his absence.'* Yet the king, writing to Lord 
 Chatham, January 23rd, 1768, to dissuade him from 
 
 ' Speech on American Taxation. 
 » Kockingliam Mom., ii. 143. 
 » Chatham C»rr., iii. 218. 
 • Walp. Mem., ii. 483. 
 
 » to LorJ Chatham, 8th February. 1767 ; Chatham Corr., 
 
 lii. 194. 
 
The King^s Personal Infltience. 
 
 43 
 
 resigning the Privy Seal, said : ' Though confined 
 to your house, your name has been sufficient to en- 
 able my administration to proceed.'' At length, 
 however, in October, 1768, completely broken down, 
 he resigned his office, and withdrew from the 
 administration.' 
 
 The absence of Lord Chatham, and the utter dis- 
 organisation 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.^ 
 
 On his side, the king took advantage of the dis- 
 ruption of party ties, which he had taken pains to 
 promote. In the absence of distinctive principles, 
 and party leaders, membcs of Parliament were ex- 
 posed to the direct influence of the crown. Accord- 
 ing to Horace Walpole, ' everybody ran to court, 
 and voted for whatever the court desired.'"* The 
 main object of the king in breaking up parties, had 
 thus been secured. 
 
 On the resignation of the Duke of Grafton, the 
 
 ' Chatham Corr., iii. 318. 
 
 ' In his U'ttir to the king, Ootoljer Mth, ho said, 'All chance of 
 recovery will bo prfcludtd by niy continuing lunger to hold tho Privy 
 Seal.'— /W., iii. 314. 
 
 So little hiith Iy)r(l Chatham's illness bce.i aspumed for political 
 purpo.seH, as it was fn^qiiently r(>presented, that in August, 1777, ho 
 gave Ludy Chathiiin a general letter of attorney, empowering her to 
 transaet all business for him. — Ibid., iii. 28*2. 
 
 • Walp. Mem., iii. 62, 67, n. 
 
 • Ilnd., ii. 381, n. Sec also ihid., iii. 92. 
 
44 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 king's ascendency in the councils of his ministers 
 Lord further increased by the accession 
 
 mi^st^, of Lord North to the chief direction 
 of public affairs. That minister, by prin- 
 ciple a Tory, and favourable to prerogative, — in 
 character indolent and good-tempered, — and per- 
 sonally attached to the king, — yielded up his owti 
 opinions and judgment ; and for years consented to 
 be the passive instrument of the royal -will.' The 
 persecution of Wilkes, the straining of parliamen- 
 tary privilege, and the coercion of America, were 
 the disastrous fruits of the court policy. Through- 
 out this administration, the king staked his per- 
 sonal credit upon the success of his measures ; and 
 regarded opposition to his minister as an act of dis- 
 loyalty, and their defeat as an affront to himself.^ 
 
 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 politi- 
 cal event of this period. 
 
 While the opposition were struggling to reverse 
 PuHic proceedings of the House of Commons 
 
 recteciby against Wilkes, and LoiJ Chatham was 
 the king. about to movB an address for dissolving 
 
 ' Walp. Mem., ii. 95, n. ; ib., iii. 106 n.; Wraxall's Mom., i. 123. 
 
 Mr. Massi-y says, Lord North was ' the only nian of Parliament- 
 ary reputation who would not have insisted ' on the expulsion of tlio 
 king's friends. -//i*/., i. 424. Always in favour of power and 
 autliorlty, ' ho supported the king against the aristocracy, the par- 
 liament against the people, and the nation against the culunies.' — 
 Ifjid., 425. 
 
 Walp. Mem., iii. 200 and n. ; iv. 75 ; Corr. of Goo. III. with 
 Lord North ; i. 63 ct acq., 202. 
 
 ' lUd., iv. <J4; Hansard's Pari. Ilisf., xvi. 842 (March 2ud, 
 1770). 
 
The King's Activity. 
 
 45 
 
 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 Parlia- 
 ment.' ' And opinions have not been wanting, that 
 the king was actually prepared to resist what he 
 deemed an invasion of his prerogative, by military 
 force. 2 
 
 On the 2Gth February, 1772, while the Eoyal 
 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 ia 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.' ^ Again, on the 14tli 
 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 woidd be a rule for my con- 
 duct in the drawing-room to-morrow.' Again, 
 in another letter, he said : ' I am greatly incensed 
 at the presumption of Charles Fox, in forcing you 
 
 to vote with liim last night.' ' * I 
 
 hope you will let him know that you are not in- 
 
 ■ 14tli Miiy, 177'). Rockingham Mem., ii. 179. 
 « Masscy, ][ist., i. p. 489. 
 
 ' Fox M<^m., i. 7(1 ; Lord I5rou<rham'8 AVorks, iii. 79. 
 ' Loril l!roufrlinm"s Works, iii. 8(1. 
 
 • l.'jih Fcbniarv, 177 t. In proceedings against printera of a Lbc! 
 on till' Hpciikcr, Sir 1". Norton. 
 
46 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 sensible of his conduct towards you.' ' And the 
 king's confidence in his own influence over the deli- 
 berations 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 Par- 
 liament, to throw out a bill ; but I shall never con- 
 sent to use any expression which tends to establish, 
 that at no time the right of the crown to dissent is 
 to be used.' * 
 
 The king watched not only how members spoke 
 and voted,^ or whether they abstained from voting ;'' 
 but even if they were silent, when he had ex- 
 pected them to speak.* Xo ' whipper-in ' from 
 the Treasury could have been more keen or full 
 of expedients, in influencing the votes of mem- 
 bers in critical divisions.^ He was ready, also, 
 to take advantage of the absence of opponents. 
 Hearing that Mr. Fox was going to Paris, he -wrote 
 to Lord Xorth, on the 15th November, 1776: 
 " Brinof as much forward as vou can before the re- 
 cess, as real business is never so well considered 
 
 ' Fox Mem., i. 99. ; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 84 ; Corr. of 
 Geo. III. with Lord North, i. 170. 
 
 * L<jrd Brougham's Works, iii. 85. 
 
 ' King to Lord North, 6ih April, 1770 ; Lord Brougham's Works, 
 iii. 71, 88, 106, 108. 
 
 « Kins to Ixrd North, 12th March, 1772; 6th April, 25th Oct., 
 1778 ; 28th Feb., 4th and 9th March, 1779; Corr. of Geo. III. with 
 Lord North, i. 96, &c. 
 
 » King to Lord North, 7th Jan., 1770. 'Surpri-sed that T. 
 Townsond w;is silent.' — King to Lord North, lyih Dio., 1772. 
 Ihid., 81. 'I should think Ixird G. Gormaine niigh' with great pro- 
 priety h.ive said a few words to put the di fi nee in motion.'— King to 
 Lord North, 2nd Feb., 1778. Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 105. 
 lie was incensed against Dundas for the same reason, 24th Feb., 
 1778 — /Wrf., 106. 
 
 • King to Lord North, 9th Feb., 1775; 5th and 9ih March. 1779. 
 
The Kill}; and Lord North. 
 
 47 
 
 as when the attention of the House is not taken 
 up with noisy declamation.'' 
 
 Military officers were still exposed to marks of the 
 king's displeasure. In 1773, Colonel Barre Dismissal 
 and Sir Hugh Williams, both refractory 
 members of Parliament, were passed over in a brevet, 
 or promotion ; and Colonel Barre, in order to mark 
 his sense of the injustice of this act of power, re- 
 signed his commission in the army.' The king, 
 however, appears to have modified his opinions as 
 to his right of depriving members of military com- 
 mands, on account of their conduct in Parliament. 
 Writing to Lord North, on the 5th March, 1779, 
 he says : ' I am strongly of opinion that the general 
 officers, who through Parliament have got govern- 
 ments, should, on opposing, lose them. This is 
 very different from removing them from their 
 military commands.' ' On the 9th March he write? • 
 ' I wish to see the list of the defaulters, who have 
 either employments, or military governments.'* 
 
 Not without many affronts, and much im popu- 
 larity, the king and his minister loncf The king 
 
 . , , „ . . . , iil.ntiHt-s 
 
 triumphed over all opposition in Parlia- luii.Hcif with 
 
 * ' ' L..r.l North's 
 
 ment;' but in 1778, the signal failure of ministry, 
 their policy, the crisis in American affairs, and the 
 impending war with France, obliged them to enter 
 into negotiations with Lord Chatham, for the ad- 
 
 ' Lord Broueham's Works, iii. 97. 
 ' Chatliiim Corr.. iv. 243, 251. 
 
 • Lonl HroMgliaiuB Works, iii. 130 ; Corr. of Geo. III. with Lonl 
 North, ii. 239. 
 
 • Corr. of Geo. III. with Lord Nurlh, ii. 239. 
 
 • Fox Mem., i. 116 119. 
 
48 
 
 Injlucnce of the Crown. 
 
 mission 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 mil, but not as responsible ministers. If 
 their coimsels should prevail, he would himself be 
 humiliated and disgraced. 
 
 In a letter to Lord North, on the 15th March, 
 1778, the king says : ' Honestly, I would rather lose 
 the crown I now wear, than bear the ignominy ot 
 possessing it under their shackles.' ' And, again, od 
 the 17th of March, he writes: 'I am still ready to 
 accept any part of them that will come to the assist- 
 ance 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 
 \vill rather risk my crown than do what I think per- 
 sonally 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.'^ Again, on the 18th, he writes : ' Ratlier 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.'^ The 
 failure of these negotiations, followed by the death 
 
 ' Lord Broiifrliain's Works, iii. 108 : Fdx Mem., i. 189. There is 
 another letter, in a similar strain, on tiie 16th Mareii ; Corr. of Geo. 
 111. with Lord North, ii. l.Ol. 
 
 ' Lord lironphani's Works, iii. 110; Fox Mem., i. 191 ; Corr. of 
 Geo. III. with l,(n'd North, ii. l.'j.'}. 
 
 » Lord ]3roui;hatn's W(, -ks, iii. Ill ; Fox Mem., i. 193; Corr. of 
 Geo. in. with Lord Nortli, ii. lo7. 
 
The King and Lord North. 49 
 
 of Lord Chatham, left unchanged the unfortunate 
 administration of Lord North. 
 
 Overtures, indeed, were made to the Whig leaders, 
 to join a new ministry under Lord Wey- rj^e king 
 mouth, which were, perhaps unwisely, de- h"/ow? 
 clined ; ' and henceforth the king was re- p""''^- 
 solved 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.' * Again, on the 22nd Jime, 
 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 con- 
 sequently be withdrawn from thence {i. e. America), 
 nor independence ever allowed.' ^ It was not with- 
 out reason that this deplorable contest was called 
 the king's war."* 
 
 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.' 
 Nor was it unnatural that the king should expect 
 
 • Fox Mem., i. 207 ; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, i. 193. 
 
 * Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 127'; Fox. Mem., i. 211, 212. 
 
 » IhUl., 236. 
 
 • Tiirl. Hist., xix. 867; Walp. Mem., iv. 114; Nicholl'a Recoil., 
 i. 35. 
 
 * Dec. 4th, 1778, on Mr. Coke's motion upon Clinton's prociamiv 
 tion ; Fox Mom., i. 203. 
 
 VOL. I. E 
 
50 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 such submission from other statesmen, when his first 
 minister was carrying out a policy of which he dis- 
 approved, but wanted resolution to resist'' — and 
 when Parliament had hitherto supported his ill- 
 omened measures. Lord North did not conceal his 
 own views concerning the continuance of the Ameri- 
 can war. In announcing to the king the resignation 
 of Lord Gower, who was of opinion that the contest 
 ' must end in ruin to his Majesty and the country,' 
 he said : ' 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 Grower.' ^ Yet the minister submitted to 
 the stronger will of his royal master. 
 
 Again, however, the king was reduced to treat with 
 Is forced to Opposition ; but was not less resolute 
 thToppo'-'^ in his determination that no change of 
 sition. ministers should affect the policy of his 
 measures. On the 3rd December, 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 con- 
 fidence 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 emphiyed to keep the empire entire, to prosecute 
 the present just and unprovoked war in all its 
 branches, with the utmost vigour, and tliat his 
 Majesty's past measures be treated with proper 
 
 ' Fox Mom., i. 211, 212. 
 
 ■ King's Li tti'i-s to Lord North ; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 
 161. 
 
The King and Lord North. 
 
 51 
 
 respect.'' Finding the compliance of independent 
 statesmen less ready than he desired, he writes to 
 Lord Thurlow, on the 18th December, 'From the 
 cold disdain with which I am treated, it is evident 
 to me what treatment I am to expect from the oppo- 
 sition, 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 inde- 
 pendent 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 Protests 
 
 '■ agamst the 
 
 its prerogatives, were attracting: the atten- 'nauenc«oi 
 
 ^ ' " the cro\\Ti, 
 
 tion of the people and of Parliament. In i''^"- 
 the debate on the address at the opening of Par- 
 liament, on the 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 eveiy 
 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 ministers but evidence, not accessible to con- 
 
 ' Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 139 ; Fox Mem., i. 237. 
 ' Ijord Uroiighara's Works, iii. 140; Fox Mem., i. 238. 
 
 • Purl, lliat., XX. 1120. 
 
 * Sec the spftchfs of the Lord Advocate, the Secretarj-at-AV^r 
 and AttorDey-Oeoeral, ihid., 113U, 1138, lUO. 
 
 B 2 
 
52 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 temporaries, has since made his statement indisput- 
 able. 
 
 Early in the following year, numerous public 
 meetings were held, associations formed, and peti- 
 tions 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.' It was for the redress of these griev- 
 ances that Mr. Burke offered his celebrated scheme 
 of economical reform. He confessed that the main 
 object of this scheme was ' the reduction of that cor- 
 rupt 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.' * 
 
 On the 6th April, Mr. Dunning moved resolutions, 
 Mr Dun- ^ Committee of the whole House, founded 
 "oTuuout upon these petitions. The first, which is 
 memorable in political history, affirmed 
 ' that the influence of the crowu has increased, is in- 
 creasing, and ought to be diminished.' ' The Lord 
 Advocate, Mr. Dundas, endeavoured to diminish the 
 force of tliis resolution by the prefatory words, 'that 
 it is necessary to declare ;' but Mr. Fox, on behalf 
 of the opposition, at once assented to this amend- 
 ment, 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 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xx., 1370 ; Ann. Reg., xxiii. 85. 
 
 » Feb. nth, 1780; Pari. Hist., x.\i. 2 (published sptech). 
 
 » Pari, ilist., xxi. 339. 
 
Mr. Dunning' s Resohttio7is^ 1780. 53 
 
 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 in- 
 creased 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.' 2 
 
 The same matters were also debated, in this ses- 
 sion, in the House of Lords. The debate imCL shei- 
 on the Earl of Shelbume's motion, of the motion on 
 8th February, for an inquiry into the pcnditure. 
 public expenditure, brought out further testimo- 
 nies to the influence of the crown. Of these the 
 most remarkable was given by the IMarquess of 
 Rockingham ; who asserted that since the acces- 
 sion of tlie king, there had been ' a fixed determi- 
 nation to govern this country under the forms of 
 law, through the influence of the crown.' ' Every- 
 thing within and without, whether in cabinet, Par- 
 liament, or elsewhere, carried about it the most 
 
 ' See also Chap. IV. 
 
 ' King's Letters to Lord North; Loril Brougham's Works, iii. 
 144. 
 
54 
 
 Injluence of the Crown. 
 
 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 with- 
 out reserve. It was early in the present reign pro- 
 mulged 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 coimcils.' The fact bore evidence of its 
 truth : for through the influence of the crown, ma- 
 jorities had been procured to support any men or 
 any measures, which an administration, thus con- 
 stituted, thought proper to dictate.' ' 
 
 This very motion provoked the exercise of pre- 
 intimida- rogativc, in an arbitrary and offensive form, 
 peers. in Order to influence the votes of peers, and 
 to intimidate opponents. The Marquess of Carmar- 
 then and the Earl of Pembroke had resigned their 
 offices in the household, in order to give an inde- 
 pendent vote. Before the former had voted, he 
 received notice that he was dismissed from the lord- 
 lieutenancy of the East Eiding of the county of 
 York and soon after the latter had recorded his 
 vote, he was dismissed from the Icrd-lieutenancy of 
 Wiltshire, — an office which had been held by his 
 family, at different times, for centuries.^ This fla- 
 grant exercise of prerogative could not escape the 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., X5. 1346. 
 ' Vnd., 134(1. 
 
 ' His dismiiisal 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.' 
 
The King and Lord North. 
 
 55 
 
 notice of Parliament ; and on the 6th March, Lord 
 Shelbume 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.' 
 
 On the meeting of Parliament, on the 27th 
 November, 1781, amendments were moved 
 in both Houses, in answer to the king's of^^e^in. 
 speech, when strong opinions were expressed ?hecro»4, 
 regarding the influence of the croAvn, and 
 the iiTegular and irresponsible system under which 
 the government of the coimtry was conducted. The 
 Duke of Kichmond said, ' that the country was 
 governed by clerks, — each minister confining him- 
 self to his own office, — and, consequently, instead of 
 responsibility, union of opinion, and concerted mea- 
 sures, nothing was displayed but dissension, weak- 
 ness, 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 prospective system, — a system of favour- 
 itism and secret influence.'^ Mr. Fox imputed all 
 the defeats and disasters of' the American war to the 
 influence of the crown.* 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xii. 218. » Vnd., xxii. COl. 
 
 • Ibid., 646. « IhU.. 7(16. 
 
56 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 Tlve king was never diverted, by defeat and 
 disaster, from bis resolution to maintain tbe 
 
 rinal over- ' 
 
 LcrT °^ America : but the House of Com- 
 
 ministrv, mous was uow determined upon peace ; and 
 a struggle ensued which was to decide the 
 fate of the minister, and to overcome, by the power 
 of Parliament, the stubborn will of the king. On 
 the 22nd February, 1782, Greneral Conway moved 
 an address deprecating the continuance of the war, 
 but was defeated by a majority of one.' On the 
 27th, he proposed another address with the same 
 object. Lord Xorth begged for a short respite : but 
 an adjournment being refused by a majority of nine- 
 teen, the motion was agreed to without a division.'^ 
 
 On the receipt of the king's answer. General Con- 
 way 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 prose- 
 cution of offensive war, for the purpose of reducing 
 the revolted colonies to obedience by force.' * In 
 .•eply to this proposal. Lord North astonished the 
 House by announcing, — not that he proposed to re- 
 sign on the reversal of the policy, to which he was 
 pledged, — but that he was prepared to give eflfect to 
 the instructions of tlie 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 deter- 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxii. 1028. 
 2 Ibid., 1064. 
 
 » 4th March. Ihid,., 1067. 
 
The Fall of Lord North. 57 
 
 mination to retain office until the king should com- 
 mand him to resign, or the House should point out 
 to him, in the clearest manner, the propriety of with- 
 drawing.' No time was lost in pressing him with 
 the latter alternative. On the 8th March, a motion 
 of Lord John Cavendish, charging all the misfor- 
 tunes of the war upon the incompetency of the 
 ministers, was lost by a majority of ten.^ 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 resig- 
 nation.'' 
 
 The king had watched this struggle with great 
 anxiety, as one personal to himself. Writing The king-s 
 to Lord North on the 17 th March, after ti.efatcof 
 the motion of Sir J. Eous, he said : ' I am ters. 
 resolved not to throw myself into the hands of the 
 opposition at all events; and shall certainly, if 
 things go as they seem to tend, know what my 
 conscience as well as honour dictates, as the only 
 way left for me.'* He even desired the royal yacht 
 to be prepared, and talked as if nothing were now 
 left for him but to retire to Hanover.'^ But it had 
 become impossible to retain any longer in liis service 
 that ' confidential minister,' whom he had ' always 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., 1107. » Ihul. xxii. 1114. 
 
 • Ihnl. 1170. « Ihid. 1214. 
 
 » Mem., i. 288: King's Lei'ters to Lord North; Corr. of 
 Geor^^p III. with I.ord Nortli, ii. 414. 
 
 • I'ox Mem., i. 287 (Lord llollund's text). 
 
58 
 
 Injliiejice of tJie Crown. 
 
 treated more as his friend than minister.'' By the 
 earnest solicitations of the king,'' Lord North had 
 been induced to retain office against his own wishes : 
 he had persisted in a policy of which he disapproved ; 
 and when forced to abandon it, he still held his 
 ground, in order to protect the king from the 
 intrusion of those whom his Majesty regarded as 
 his personal enemies.' He was now fairly driven 
 from his post, and the king, appreciating the personal 
 devotion of his minister, rewarded his zeal and 
 fidelity with a mimificent present from the privy 
 purse.* 
 
 The king's correspondence with Lord North* 
 The king's gives US a remarkable insight into the 
 daring Lord relations or his Majesty With that mimster, 
 
 Konh'B , . 1 , 
 
 ministry. and With the government of the country. 
 Not only did he direct the minister in all important 
 matters of foreign and domestic policy, but he 
 instructed him as to the management of debates in 
 Parliament, suggested what motions should be made 
 
 ' King to Lord North, 2nd June, 1778. 
 
 ' King's Letters to Lord North, 31st Jan., 17th, 22nd, 23rd, 29tb, 
 and 30th March, 8th April, Mav 6th, 26th. &c., 1778; 30th Nor., 
 1779 ; 19th May, 1780; 19th March, 1782. 
 
 * On the 19th March, 1782, the very day before he announced 
 his intention to resign, the king wrote : ' If you resign before I 
 hare decided what to do, you will certainly for ever forfeit my 
 regard.' 
 
 * The king, in his letter to Lord North, says: 'Allow me to 
 assist you with lO.OOOi., 1.5,000/., or even 20,000/., if that will be 
 sufficient.' — Lord Brougham t Life of George 111.; Works, iii. 18. 
 Mr. Adolphus states, from private information, that the present 
 amounted to 30,000/. In 1777 he had also offered Lord North 
 1.5.000/., or 20,000/. if necessary, to set his affairs in order. — Corr. 
 of George III. vith Lord North, ii. 82. 
 
 * Appendix to Lord Brougham's Life of Lord North ; Works, iii. 
 67. Corr. of George UI. with Lord North ; by W. B. Donne, 2 vols. 
 8to. 1867. 
 
Results of the King's Policy. 59 
 
 or opposed, and how measures should be carried. He 
 reserved to himself all the patronage, — he arranged 
 the entire cast of the administration, — settled the 
 relative places and pretensions of ministers of state, 
 of law officers, and members of his household, — 
 nominated and promoted the English and Scotch 
 judges, — appointed and translated bishops, nom- 
 inated deans, and dispensed other preferments in 
 the church.' He disposed of military governments, 
 regiments, and commissions ; and himself ordered 
 the marching of troops.'* He gave or refused titles, 
 honours, and pensions.* All his directions were 
 peremptoiy: Louis the Great himself could not 
 have been more royal: — he enjoyed the conscious- 
 ness of power, and felt himself ' every inch a 
 king.' 
 
 But what had been the result of twenty years of 
 kingcraft? Whenever the king's personal Rpsiilts of 
 
 • n 111 1 111 king's 
 
 influence had been the greatest, there had iH>iicy. 
 been the fiercest turbulence and discontent among 
 the people, the most signal failures in the measures 
 of the government, and the heaviest disasters to the 
 state. Of all the evil days of England during this 
 king's long reign, the worst are recollected in the 
 ministries of Lord Bute, Mr. Grenville, the Duke of 
 
 ' Corr. of George III. witli Lord North, ii. 3", 212, 23.'), 368. t1 
 passim. 'Wnixairs Mom., ii. U8. Much to liis credit, lio secured 
 tlie appointment of the poet (irny to the pnifensorship of Motlern 
 Historj- lit Cnmliridce. 8tli M,ir< h, 1771. 
 
 ■■' 2oth Oclolier, 177o : 'On the receipt of your loiter, / have 
 ordered Klliolt's dniffoons to march from Ili nlcy to IIouiislow.' 
 
 * 'Wo must liusliand honours,' wrote the kinp to Lord North on 
 the 18th July, 1777, on refusing to make Sir W. IlHmilton u priry- 
 oouncillor. 
 
oo 
 
 lujlumcc of t/ie Crown. 
 
 Grafton, and Lord North. Nor had the royal will, — 
 however potential with ministers, — prevailed in the 
 government of the comitry. He had been thwarted 
 and humbled by his parliaments, and insulted by 
 demagogues: parliamentary privilege, wliich he had 
 sought to uphold as boldly as his own prerogative, 
 had been defied and overcome by ^^'ilkes and the 
 printers: the liberty of the press, which he would 
 have restrained, had been provoked into licentious- 
 ness ; and his kingdom had been shorn of some of 
 its fairest provinces.' 
 
 On the retirement of Lord North, the king sub- 
 Kockingham mitted, with a bad grace, to the Eock- 
 ns-i?*"^^' ingham administration. He found places, 
 indeed, for liis own friends, but the policy of the 
 cabinet was as distasteful to him as were the persons 
 of some of tbe statesmen of whom it was composed. 
 Its first principle was the concession of independence 
 to America, which he had so long resisted: its 
 second was the reduction of the influence of the 
 crown, by the abolition of offices, the exclusion of 
 contractors from Parliament, and the disfranchise- 
 ment of revenue officers.* Shortly after its forma- 
 tion, Mr. Fox, writing to Mr. Fitzpatrick,' said : 
 ' provided we can stay in long enough to give 
 a good stout blow to the influence of the crown, 
 I do not think it much signifies how soon we go out 
 after.''' This ministry was constituted of materials 
 
 ' See Mr. Powys's apt quotation from Giblifui, I'itli Doer., 1781 ; 
 Pari. Hist., xxii."8()3; WraxiiU's Mem., ii. 4()0. 
 
 ■•' RookinRliiim iAIi m., i. ^Wl. * 28th April, 1782. 
 
 * I'ox Mem., i. 317. 
 
The Rockmghatn Ministry, 17S2. 61 
 
 not likely to imite, — of men who had supported the 
 late ministry, and of the leaders of the parliament- 
 ary opposition, — or, as Mr. Fox expressed it, 'it 
 consisted of two parts, one belonging to the king, 
 the other to the public' ' Such men could not be 
 expected to act cordially together : but they aimed 
 their blow at the influence of the crown, by passing 
 the contractors' bill, the revenue officers' bill, and a 
 bill for the reduction of offices.'' They also suffered 
 the former policy of the com-t to be stigmatised, by 
 expunging from the journals of the House of 
 Commons, the obnoxious resolutions which had 
 affirmed the disability of Wilkes. A ministry pro- 
 moting such measiu-es as these, was naturally viewed 
 with distrust and ill-will by the court. So hard 
 was the struggle between them, that the surly 
 chancellor. Lord Thurlow,— who had retained his 
 office by the express desire of the king, and voted 
 against all the measures of the government, — 
 affirmed that Lord Rockingham was ' bringing 
 things to a pass where either his head or the king's 
 must go, in order to settle which of them is to 
 govern the country.'' The king was described by 
 his Tory friends as a prisoner in the hands of his 
 ministers, and represented in the caricatures of the 
 day, as being put in fetters by his gaolers.'' In the 
 same spirit, ministers were termed the ' Eegency,' 
 
 ' Fox Mem., i. 292 ; Lord John Russeirs Life of Fox, i. 284, et 
 seq. Lord John Russell says: 'It niiist be owned that the com- 
 position of thi- Kockinglmra ministry was a masterpicco of royal 
 iMV—lhiJ. 28.3; Wraxall's Mem., iii. 10-18. 
 
 See Chapter VI. » Fox Mom., i. 294. 
 
 * Rockingham Mem., ii. 466. 
 
62 
 
 I7iflue7ue of tJie Crown. 
 
 as if they liad assumed to exercise the royal authority. 
 In a few months, however, this ministry, was on the 
 point of breaking up, in consequence of differences 
 of opinion and personal jealousies, when the death 
 of Lord Eockingham dissolved it. 
 
 Mr. Fox. and his friends retired, and Lord Shel- 
 Lordshei- bume, who had represented the king in 
 ministrv. the late Cabinet, was placed at the head of 
 
 Isc July, 
 
 17S2. ' the new administration ; while ^Ir. "Wil- 
 liam Pitt now first entered office, though little 
 more than twenty-three years of age, as Qian- 
 cellor of the Exchequer.' The secession of the 
 popular party restored the king's confidence in his 
 ministers, who now attempted to govern by his 
 influence, and to maintain their position against a 
 formidable combination of parties Horace Wal- 
 pole represents Lord Shelbume as ' trusting to 
 maintain himself entirely by the king ; '* and such 
 was the state of parties that, in truth, he had little 
 else to rely upon. In avowing this influence, he 
 artfully defended it, in the spirit of the king's 
 friends, by retorting upon the great ^Vhig families. 
 He would never consent, he said, ' that the king of 
 England should be a king of the Mahrattas; for 
 among the Mahrattas the custom is, it seems, for a 
 certain number of great lords to elect a Peishwah, 
 who is thus the creature of the aristocracy, and is 
 vested with the plenitude of power, while their king 
 is, in fact, nothing more than a royal pageant.' ^ 
 
 ' Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 86. * Fox Mem., ii. 11. 
 
 * Pari. Hist., xxii. 1003. 3Iiiny original memorials of Loni Shel. 
 borne are to be fouod iu his Life, by Lord Edmund Fitzniaurice. 
 
The King and the Coalition. 
 
 63 
 
 By breaking up parties, the king had hoped to 
 secure his independence and to enlarge co^bina. 
 his own influence ; but now he was startled tlra a"^^t 
 by a result which he had not anticipated. 
 ' Divide, et impera ' had been his maxim, and to a 
 certain extent it had succeeded. Separation of 
 parties had enfeebled their opposition to his govern- 
 ment ; but now their sudden combination overthrew 
 it. "VVTien the preliminary articles of peace with 
 America were laid before Parliament, the .^eco- 
 parties of Lord Xorth and Mr. Fox, — so 
 long opposed to each other, and whose political 
 hostility had been embittered by the most acri- 
 monious disputes, — formed a ' Coalition,' nth ana 
 and outvoted the government, in the i^sa. 
 House of Commons.' Overborne by numbers, the 
 minister resigned ; and the king alone confronted 
 this powerful coalition. The struggle which ensued 
 was one of the most critical in our modem consti- 
 tutional history. The royal prerogatives on the 
 one side, and the powers of Parliament on the 
 other, were more strained than at any time since 
 the Revolution. But the issue illustrated the 
 paramount influence of the crown. 
 
 The leaders of the coalition naturally expected to 
 succeed to power ; but the king was resolved to 
 resist their pretensions. He sought ^Mr. Pitt's 
 assistance to form a government ; and with such a 
 minister, would have braved the united forces of 
 the opposition. But that sagacious statesman, 
 
 ' Lord Auckland's Corr., i. 9, 41. 
 
64 
 
 Injlucncc of the Crown. 
 
 though not yet twenty-four years of age,' had taken 
 an accurate survey of the state of parties, and of 
 public opinion ; and seeing that it was not yet the 
 time for jjutting himself in the front of the battle, 
 he resisted the solicitations of his Majesty, and the 
 advice of his friends, in order to await a more 
 fitting opportunity of serving his sovereign.^ In 
 vain did the king endeavour once more to disunite 
 the coalition, by making separate proposals to Lord 
 North and the Duke of Portland. The new con- 
 federacy was not to be shaken, — and the king founa 
 himself at its mercy. It was long, however, before 
 he would submit. He wrote to Lord Weymouth 
 'to desire his support against his new tyrants;'' 
 and ' told the Lord Advocate that sooner than yield 
 he would go to Hanover, and had even prevailed 
 upon the queen to consent.' From this resolution 
 he was probably dissuaded by the rough counsels of 
 Lord Thurlow. ' Your Majesty may go,' said he, 
 ' nothing is more easy : but you may not find it so 
 easy to return, when your Majesty becomes tired of 
 staying there.' It was not imtil the country had 
 been for seventeen days without a government, that 
 the king agreed to Lord North's scheme of a coali- 
 tion ministry. But furtlier difficulties were raised ; 
 and at length the House of Commons interposed. 
 23rd After several debates, — in one of which 
 
 March, 
 
 1783. Mr. Fox accused the king's secret friends 
 of breaking off the negotiation, — the House ad- 
 
 ' Mr. riLt was born 28tli May, 1759. 
 
 2 Tomlino's I^ife of Pilt, i. 140 ; Lord Staiiliopo's Life of Pitt, i. 
 103-111 ; Letters of tho King to Mr. Pitt, Ihid., App. ii. iii. 
 " Fox Morn., ii. 42 (llonico Wiilpolo). 
 
The King and the Coalition. 65 
 
 dressed his Majesty to form ' an administration 
 entitled to the confidence of his people.' The ad- 
 dress was graciously answered ; but still no ministry 
 was formed. Again the king pressed Mr. ^^^^^ 
 Pitt to become his premier, who again 
 firmly and finally refused.' At length, after an ex- 
 traordinary interval of thirty-seven days, coalition 
 
 ^ ministry, 
 
 from the 24th February to the 2nd April, nsa. 
 the coalition ministry was completed under the Duke 
 of Portland." 
 
 Such are the vicissitudes of political life, that 
 Lord North, who for years had been the Efforts ot 
 compliant and obsequious minister of the t^on'^to re- 
 king, was now forcing his way into office, kinpVin! 
 in alliance with Mr. Fox, the king's most 
 dreaded opponent, and lately his own. While the 
 king was yet holding them at bay, the new friends 
 were concerting measures for restraining his future 
 influence. As no one had submitted to that in- 
 fluence so readily as Lord North, we cannot intrude 
 into their secret conferences without a smile. Mr. 
 Fox insisted that the king shoT\ld not be suffered to 
 be his own minister, to which Lord North replied : 
 ' If you mean there should not be a government 
 by departments, I agree with you. I think it a 
 very bad system. There should be one man, or 
 
 ' Tomlinc's Life of Pitt, i. 150; Letter to the King, 25th March, 
 1783 ; I/onl Slaiihope'a Life of Pitt, i. App. ii. ; Wraxall's Mom., iii. 
 337, 353, .iT J, &c. 
 
 " The Itiiig availed himself of his- freedom from ministerial re- 
 straint, to fill lip the vacant see of Cantcrljurj-. The translation of 
 Dr. Moore, JSishop of 15angor, was completed on the very day on 
 which the coalition ministry was finally inslaLlcd. — WraxMt Mtm^ 
 iii. 319. 
 
 VOL. I. F 
 
66 
 
 Influence of t lie Crown. 
 
 a cabinet, to govern the -whole, and direct every 
 measure. Grovernment by departments was not 
 brought in by me. I found it so, and had not 
 the vigour and resolution to put an end to it. The 
 king ought to be treated with all sort of respect 
 and attention : but the appearance of power is all 
 that a king of this country can Jiave. Though the 
 government in my time was a government by depart- 
 ments, the whole was done by the ministers, except 
 in a few instances.' ' 
 
 But whatever were the views of ministers re- 
 The king's garding the king's future authority, he 
 Th'ffi^ himself had no intention of submitting to 
 them. He did not attempt to disguise his 
 repugnance to the ministry which had been forced 
 upon him: bit. avowinj;- that he yielded to com- 
 pulsion, gave them to imderstand that they need 
 expect no support from him, and that he wovdd not 
 create any British peers upon their recommendation. 
 He told Lord Temple ' that to such a ministry he 
 never would give his confidence, and that he would 
 take the first moment for dismissing them.'* The 
 coalition had not found favour in the country ; and 
 no pains were spared, by the king's frieuds, to 
 increase its unpopularity. INIeanwhile the king 
 watched all the proceedings of his ministers with 
 jealousy, thwarted them whenever he could, criti- 
 cised their policy, and openly assumed an attitude of 
 opposition.3 Thus, writing to Mr. Fox, who, as 
 
 ' Fox ^^em., ii. 38 
 
 » Court and CabineU of Georce IIT., i. 302 ; WraAall's Mem., in. 
 378, iv. 490. * lii-'i' Wraxall's Mi in., iv. OL'7. 
 
Mf. Foxi Lidia Bill. 
 
 67 
 
 secretary of state, was negotiating the peace, in 
 August, 1783, he said : ' I cannot say that I am so 
 surprised at France not putting the last strokes to 
 the definitive treaty, as soon as we may wish, as our 
 having totally disarmed, in addition to the extreme 
 anxiety shown for peace, during the whole period 
 that has ensued, since the end of February, 1782, 
 certainly makes her feel that she can have no 
 reason to apprehend any evil from so slighting a 
 proceeding.'' 
 
 An opportunity soon arose for more active hostility. 
 ]Mr. Fox's India Bill had been brought into Mr. fox-s 
 the House of Commons ; and, m spite of I'ss- 
 the most strenuous opposition, was being rapidly 
 passed by large majorities. It was denounced as 
 unconstitutional, and as an invasion of tlie prero- 
 gatives of the crown : but no means had been found 
 to stay its progress. The king now concerted witli 
 his friends a bold and unscrupulous plan for de- 
 feating the bill, and overthrowing his ministers. 
 Instead of requiring the withdrawal or amendment 
 of the bill,— as he was entitled to do, — his name 
 was to be used, and an active canvass imder- Use or the 
 
 kind's name 
 
 taken by his authority, against the measure uBaiust it. 
 of his own ministers. Though this plan was agreed 
 upon eight days before the bill reached the House 
 of Lords, it was cautiously concealed. To arrest the 
 progress of the bill in the Commons was hopeless ; 
 und the interference of the crown, in that House, 
 would have excited dangerous resentment. The 
 
 » Fox Mem., ii. 141. 
 r 2 
 
68 
 
 Infltience of the Cr(?wn. 
 
 blow was therefore to be struck in the other House, 
 where it would have greater weight, and be attended 
 wth less danger.^ Lord Temple, — who had sug- 
 gested this plan, in concert with Lord Thurlow, and 
 to whom its execution was entrusted, — having had 
 an audience with his Majesty, declared himself 
 authorised to protest against the bill in the king's 
 name. And in order to leave no doubt as to his 
 commission, the following words were written upon 
 a card : — 
 
 ' His jNIajesty allows Earl Temple to say that 
 whoever voted for the India Bill, was not only not 
 his friend, but would be considered by him as an 
 enemy ; and if these words were not strong enough. 
 Earl Temple might use whatever words he might 
 deem stronger, and more to the purpose.'^ 
 
 With these credentials, Lord Temple proceeded to 
 canvass tlie peers, — with what success was soon 
 apparent. On the first reading, supported by Lord 
 Thurlow and the Duke of Richmond, he gave the 
 signal of attack. The peers assumed a threatening 
 attitude,^ and on the 15th December, placed the 
 ministers in a minority, on a question of adjourn- 
 ment. Little secrecy or reserve was maintained by 
 the king's friends, who took care to proclaim liis 
 Majesty's wishes. The use made of the king's name 
 was noticed by the Duke of Portland, the Duke of 
 
 ' Court and Cabinets of Gporge III., i. 288, 289 ; Wraxall's Mom., 
 iv. i)07, et acq. /iS!) ; Lord SlinilioiK^'s Lit'o of Pitt, i. 146. 
 
 2 Court and Caliincts of (ieorgc III., i. 288, 289; Eox Mom., ii. 
 2.')3 ; Lord John Kusm-U'.s Life of I'ox, ii. 40. 
 
 ' Many of them witlidrpw tlipir proxies from tlio ministrr.s a fow 
 lior.rs bi iori; tiie niP'/iing of the House. — Tad. Hist., xxiv. 211. 
 
Use of tJie King's Name. 
 
 69 
 
 Richmond, and Earl Fitzwilliam : and was not denied 
 by Lord Temple.' 
 
 Mr. Fitzpatrick, writing to Lord Ossory, on the 
 loth December, said: 'the proxies of the king's 
 friends are arrived against the bill. The public is 
 full of alarm and astonishment at the treachery, as 
 well as the imprudence, of this unconstitutional 
 interference. Nobody guesses what will be the con- 
 sequences of a conduct that is generally compared to 
 that of Charles I., in 1641.'* 
 
 Before the success of the court measures was com- 
 plete, the Commons endeavoured to arrest ofth^cdml 
 them. On the 17th December, Mr. Baker, X^usfof"" 
 after denouncing secret advice to the crown, nsm'^e"^^ 
 against its responsible ministers, and the ngs.^^" 
 use of the king's name, moved a resolution, ' that it is 
 now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion, 
 or pretended opinion, of his ]Majesty, upon any bill, 
 or other proceeding, depending in either House of 
 Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of 
 the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, 
 derogatory to tlie honour of the crown, — a breach of 
 the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and sub- 
 versive of the constitution.' ' 
 
 In vain did Mr. Pitt contend that the House could 
 not deal with rumours, and tliat the hereditary 
 councillors of the crown had always a riglit to give; 
 advice to their sovereign. Mr. Fox replied in a 
 
 • 16th Doc , 1783 ; Pari. Hist., xxiv. 1 ')l-lt)0 ; Tomlinc's Life of 
 Pitt, i. 222; Ros(' Corr., i. 47 ; I/ml John Russell's Life of \'m, i. 
 44; Auckliind C<.Tr., i. 67; I^ord Stimliopc's Life of Pitt, i. 146- 
 lol. -• Kcix Mem., ii. 220. 
 
 " Com. Journ., xxxix. 8t2; I'.iil. Hist., xxiv. 199. 
 
70 /nfiuerice of the Crown. 
 
 masterly speech, full of constitutional arguments, 
 and eloquent with indignant remonstrances.' The 
 resolution was voted by a majority of seventy-three ; 
 and the House resolved to go into committee on the 
 state of the nation, on the following INIonday. But 
 this was not enough. It was evident that the king 
 had determined upon a change of ministers ; and 
 lest he should also attempt to overthrow the obnoxi- 
 ous majority by a sudden dissolution, the House, on 
 the motion of Mr. Erskine, agreed to a resolution 
 affirming the necessity of considering a suitable 
 remedy for abuses in the government of the British 
 dominions in the East Indies ; and declaring ' that 
 this House will consider as an enemy to his country, 
 any person who shall presume to advise his Majesty 
 to prevent, or in any manner interrupt, the discharge 
 of this important duty.' ^ The Commons had a right 
 to protest against the irregular acts of the king's 
 secret advisers : but the position assumed by minis- 
 ters was indeed anomalous. It was not for them to 
 level censures against the king himself. They 
 should either have impeached or censured Lord 
 Temple, or, protesting against the abuse of his 
 ^Majesty's name, should have tendered their own 
 resignation.^ 
 
 ' Mr. Fox cited the words reported to have been used by Lord 
 Temple, aud challenged a contnitiiotion ; upon which Mr. W. Greu- 
 ville said, he was authorised by his noble relative to say that ho 
 had never made use of those words. This denial, as Mr. Fox 
 observed, amounted to nothing more tiian that these had not been 
 the precise words used. — Varl. Hist., \x.\v. 207, 225. Aud see Lord 
 Stanhope's Lite of Pitt, i. 154. 
 
 - Pari. Hist., xxiv. 226. 
 
 ' Fox M.m., ii. 299 ; Lord .John Russell's Life of Fox ii. 45-18. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1783. 71 
 
 But the strange spectacle was here exhibited, of a 
 kinp; plotting against his own ministers, — illnref/ai d 
 of the ministers inveighing against the con- "t^^^i^^. 
 duct of their royal master, — of the House of Com- 
 mons supporting them, and condemning the king, — 
 and of the king defying at once his ministers and 
 the House of Commons, and trusting to his influence 
 with the Peers. The king's tactics prevailed. On 
 the very day on which the Commons agreed to these 
 strong remonstrances against his interference, it was 
 crowned with complete success. The bill was re- 
 jected by the House of Lords,' and the next day the 
 king followed up his advantage, by st once dismiss- 
 ing his ministers.' To make this dismissal as con- 
 temptuous as possible, he sent a message to Lord 
 North, and Mr. Fox, commanding them to return 
 their seals by their under-secretaries, as an audience 
 would be disagreeable to his Majesty.^ Earl Temple, 
 who liad done the king this service, was entrusted 
 with the seals for the purpose of formally dismissing 
 the other ministers : the man who had been the 
 king's chief agent in defeating them, was chosen to 
 offer them this last affront. 
 
 But the battle was not yet won. The king had 
 struck down his ministers, though supported Mr. Pitt aa 
 by a vast majority of the House of Com- nss!'"' 
 mons : he had now to support a minister of his own 
 
 ' 17tli Dec, 1783. By a majority of 19.— /'aW. Hist., xxiv. 196. 
 Mr. l'«x, writing imnicdiiitfly afterwards, said: 'We are beat 
 in the IIouKe of Lords by such trpachory on the part of the king, 
 and .such iiieaniicds on the purl of his Iriends in the House of Lords, 
 as oiii' I'ould not expect either from him or them.' — Fox Mem., ii, 
 221, 
 
 » Annua) Keg., xxvii. [71] ; Tomline'e Life of Titt, i, 2;!0. 
 
72 
 
 Injluence of tlie Crown. 
 
 choice against that majority, and to overcome it. 
 Mr. Pitt no longer hesitated to take the post of 
 trust and dangler, -which the king at once conferred 
 upon him. His time had now come ; and he resolved 
 to give battle to an angry majority, — imder leaders 
 of great talents and experience, — smarting under 
 defeat, and full of resentment at the unconstitutional 
 means by -which they had been overthrown. He 
 accepted the oflSces of first lord of the Treasury and 
 chancellor of the Exchequer ; and the king's sttirdy 
 friend, Lord Thurlow, was reinstated as lord chan- 
 cellor. !Mr. Pitt had also relied upon the assistance 
 of Earl Temple,' -whose zeal in the king's service was 
 much needed in such a crisis ; but that nobleman 
 resigTied the seals a few davs after he had received 
 them, assigning as his reason a desire to be free to 
 answer any charges against him, arising out of his 
 recent conduct.' 
 
 The contest which the youthful premier had now 
 Opposition to conduct, was the most arduous that had 
 
 in the Com- 111 • • 
 
 mens. ever devolved upon any nunister, smce the 
 accession of the House of Hanover. So overpower- 
 ing was the majority against him, that there seemed 
 scarcely a hope of offering it an effectual resistance. 
 His opponents were so confident of success, that when 
 a new writ was moved for Appleby, on his acceptance 
 of oflace, the motion was received with shouts of 
 derisive laughter.' And while the presximption of 
 
 ' He was intended to lead the House of Lords. — Tomlht^t Life 
 
 0/ Pitt. i. 232. 
 
 ' Pari. Hibt., xxly. 237. As to other cansos of this resignatioD, 
 lee Lonl .StAtthop»-'s Life of Pitt, i. 160-16*. 
 • Toioluie's Life of Pitt, L 237. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1 784. 
 
 73 
 
 the boy minister was ridiculed,' the strongest 
 measures were immediately taken to deprive him of 
 his authority, and to intimidate the court, whose 
 policy he supported. Many of ]\Ir. Pitt's advisers, 
 despairing of his prospects with the present Parlia- 
 ment, counselled an immediate dissolution •} but the 
 same consiunmate judgment and foresight wliich, a 
 few months earlier, had induced him to decline 
 office, because the time was not yet ripe for action, 
 now led him to the conviction that he must convert 
 public opinion to his side, before he appealed to 
 the people. Though standing alone, — without the 
 aid of a single cabinet minister, in the House of 
 Commons,^ — he resolved, under every disadvantage, 
 to meet the assaults of his opponents on their own 
 ground ; and his talents, his courage, and resources 
 ultimately won a signal victory. 
 
 Secure of their present majority, the first object 
 of the opposition was to prevent a dissolu- Attempts to 
 tion which they believed to be impending. Ju^so^ution. 
 They could withhold the supplies, and press nss- 
 the king with representations against liis ministers. 
 His Majesty had the un([uestioned prerogatives of 
 appointing his own constitutional advisers and dis- 
 solving Parliament. The last appeal of both was to 
 the people : and this appeal the Commons sought to 
 
 ' Pitt, to use tlio liapiiy plinisc of Erskiiio, was ' hutched at onco 
 into a minister by the heat of his own amljit ion.'— PaW. llitt., xxiv. 
 277. In the Itolliud, his youth was -thus ridiculed: — 
 
 * A Kiglit to makp 8niT0iin<IliiK nations stare,— 
 A kiiit;(lum trusted to a Bclioolboy's core.' 
 
 ' Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 211, 212. 
 
 ' Ibid., i. 236, 
 
74 
 
 Infl'uence of the Cronm. 
 
 deny the king. The day after the dismissal of the 
 late ministers, the opposition insisted on the post- 
 ponement of the third reading of the Land-tax bill 
 for two days, in order, as Mr. Fox avowed, that it 
 might not ' go out of their hands until they should 
 have taken such measures as would guard ao-ainst 
 the evils wliich might be expected from a dissolu- 
 tion.'' On the 22nd December, the House went 
 into committee on the state of the nation, when Mr. 
 Erskine moved an address to the crown representing 
 ' that alarming rumours of an intended dissolution 
 of Parliament have gone forth : ' that ' inconveniences 
 and dangers ' were ' likely to follow from a proroga- 
 tion or dissolution of the Parliament, in the present 
 arduous and critical conjunction of atfairs;' and 
 beseeching his Majesty ' to suflfer his faithful Com- 
 mons to proceed on the business of the session, the 
 furtherance of which is so essentially necessary to 
 the prosperity of the public ; and that his Majesty 
 ^^^ll be graciously pleased to hearken to the advice 
 of his faithful Commons, and not to the secret advices 
 of particular persons, who may have private interests 
 of their own, separate from the true interests of his 
 Majesty and his people.' * Notwithstanding assu- 
 rances that Mr. Pitt had no intention of advising a 
 dissolution, and would not consent to it if advised by 
 others, the address was agreed to, and presented to 
 the king by the whole House. In his answer the 
 king assured them that he would ' not interrupt 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxiv. 230. 
 
 - Ibid., 246. The hist paragraph of the address was taken from 
 an address to Wilhum III. in 1CU3. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1784. 75 
 
 their meeting by any exercise of his prerogative, 
 either of prorogation or dissolution.' ' This assur- 
 ance, it was observed, merely referred to the meeting 
 of Parliament after the Christmas recess, and did 
 not remove the apprehensions of the opposition. On 
 the 24th of December, a resolution was agreed to, 
 that the Treasury ought not to consent to the accept- 
 ance of any more bills from India, until it should 
 appear to the House that there were sufficient means 
 to meet them.^ 
 
 These strong measures had been taken in ^Ir. 
 Pitt's absence ; and on his return to the jjth jan 
 House, after Christmas, the opposition re- 
 sumed their offensive attitude. jMr. Fox went so 
 far as to refuse to allow Mr. Pitt to deliver a message 
 from the king ; and being in possession of the House, 
 at once moved the order of the day for the com- 
 mittee on the state of the nation. In the debate 
 which ensued, the opposition attempted to extort a 
 promise that Parliament sliuuld not be dissolved : 
 but Mr. Pitt said he would not ' presume to compro- 
 mise the royal prerogative, or bargain it away in the 
 House of Commons.' ^ This debate was signalised 
 by the declaration of General Ross that he had been 
 sent for by a lord of the Bedchamber, and told that 
 if he voted against the new administration on the 
 12th January, he would be considered as an enemy 
 to the king.* Unable to obtain any pledge from the 
 minister, the opposition at once addressed themselves 
 
 ' Purl. Hist., xxiv. 204. » Md., 267. 
 
 » IhiiL, 291 ; Lord Stiinhopo's Life of Pitt, i. 180. 
 • Purl. Ilir-i., xxiv. 20.), 299. 
 
76 
 
 Injliicnce of the Crown. 
 
 to devise effectual obstacles to an early dissolution. 
 The House having resolved itself into the committee 
 on the state of the nation, at lialf past two in the 
 Resolution moming, Mr. Fox immediately moved a re- 
 ofmon*ey^"^ solution, which "was agreed to without a 
 a'eTby°POT- divisiou, declaring it to be a high crime 
 lament. misdemeauour to issue, after a disso- 
 
 lution or prorogation, any money not appropriated 
 by Parliament.' He then moved for ' accounts of 
 the several sums of money issued, or ordered to be 
 issued, from the 19th December, 1783, to the 14th 
 January, 1784,' for ' services voted in the present 
 session, but not appropriated by any act of Parlia- 
 ment to such services.' He also proposed to add, 
 ' that no moneys should be issued for any public 
 service, till that return was made, nor for three days 
 afterwards ; ' but withdrew this motion, on being- 
 assured that it would beattended with inconvenience. 
 He further obtained the postponement of the Mutiny 
 Bill until the 23rd February, which still left time 
 for its passing before the expiration of the annual 
 Mutiny Act. 
 
 These resolutions were followed by another, pro- 
 Eari of posed by the Earl of Surrey, ' that in the 
 
 Surn y 's re- . . /» i • ■» t • • i 
 
 solutions. present situation of his Majesty s dominions, 
 it is peculiarly necessary that there should be an 
 administration that has the confidence of tliis House 
 
 ' Com. Journ., xxxix. 858. These criints were re-voted in the 
 next Parlianii-nt, — a fact, overlooked hy Dr. Tomline, who stiUes 
 that the Appropriation Aet of 1784 included the supplii'S of the 
 previous session, without any opposition beiiifT oftered. — Life of Pitt, 
 \. 5(»7 ; I^)rd Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 223 ; 24 Geo. III., S'ess. ii. 
 c. 24; Com. Journ., xxxix. 733 ; Ihid., xl. 56. 
 
TJte King and Mr. Pitt, i 7S4- 
 
 and tlie public' This being carried, he proceeded 
 to another, ' that the late changes in his Majesty's 
 councils were immediately preceded by dangerous and 
 universal reports : that his Majesty s sacred name 
 had been unconstitutionally abused to aftect the 
 deliberations of Parliament ; and that the appoint- 
 ments made were accompanied by circumstances new 
 and extraordinary, and such as do not conciliate or 
 engage the confidence of this House.' All these 
 resolutions were reported immediately and agreed to; 
 and the House did not adjourn until half-past seven 
 in the morning.' 
 
 Two days afterwards the attack was renewed. A 
 resolution was carried in the committee, B«sointion» 
 ' that the continuance of the present minis- ^^^^ 
 ters in trusts of the highest importance "^^^ 
 and responsibility, is contrary to constitu- 
 tional principles, and injurious to the interests of 
 his Majesty and his people.' * The opposition 
 accused the minister of reviving the distracted times 
 before the Revolution, when the House of Commons 
 was generally at variance with the crown : but he 
 listened to their remonstrances with indifference. 
 He brought in his India Bill : it was thrown 
 
 - , , .. Jin.23nl. 
 
 out after the second readmg. Again, he 
 was goaded to declare his intentions concerning a 
 dissolution ; but to the indignation of his opponents, 
 he maintained silence.' At length, on the 26th 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxir. 317. * I^d., xxiv. 361. 
 
 * The king and others v - ^Ir. Pitt to appt-al to the 
 
 p«<M)le at this tim^. but h' .n»ela. — Lord Sttokkopc* 
 
 Life of PUl, \. ISl ; and K:;.^ .. .- . Af p. iv. 
 
78 Infauncc of tJu Crrum, 
 
 January, he declared that, in the jnesmt situation 
 of afiaiis, he should not adrise a diawlation. At 
 the same time, he said that the appointment and 
 remoTal of ministers did not rest with the House of 
 Commons ; and that as his resignation would be 
 injurious to the public service, he still intended to 
 retain office. The House pased a resolution affirm- 
 ing; that thej relied upon the king's assurances, that 
 the consideration of the afibirs of the East India 
 Company should not be interrupted by a pitm^aidon 
 or dissolution. 
 
 Meanwhile, sereral influential members were en- 
 ^jjjgj^^ deaTouring to put an end to this hazardous 
 niEFuas. conffict, bj cflFecting an union of parties. 
 "With this Tiew, a meeting was held at the St. Alban's 
 Tarem; and even the king consented to a 
 negotiation for the reconstruction of the 
 ministiT upon a wide basis.* To further this scheme 
 of union. General Grosrenor moved a resolution: 
 that the present arduous and critical situation of 
 public affairs requires the exertion of a firm, effi- 
 cient, extended, united admisistration, entitled to 
 the confidence of the people, and such as may hare 
 a tendency to put an end to *^he unfortunate 
 divisions and distractions of this country.'* This 
 being carried, was followed by another, proposed by 
 Mr. Coke of Norfolk : * that the continuance of the 
 present ministers in their offices, is an obstacle to 
 the formation of such an administration as mav 
 
 ■ Lotd Joha Bnsidrs Life of Fox, iL 70 ; Laid Staahope's Life 
 of Pin, L IM : Kii^< Letter, BM^ hy^ riiL; Malmestw^ Corr^ 
 fc. 5w * P!»ri- Hint.. XXX. 4*1. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1784. 
 
 79 
 
 enjoy the confidence of this House.' Tliis, too, was 
 agreed to, on a division.' It pointed too distinctly 
 at the retirement of ^Ir. Pitt himself, to favour any 
 compromise. As these resolutions had no more 
 effect than previous votes, in shaking the firmness 
 of the minister, they were ordered, on the following 
 day, to be laid before his Majesty. 
 
 The House of Lords now came to the aid of the 
 king and his minister. On the 4th ^l"?"'" 
 February, they agreed to two resolutions king."""'* 
 proposed by the Earl of Effingham. The first, 
 referring to the vote of the Commons concerning 
 the acceptance of bills from India, affirmed, ' that 
 an attempt in any one branch of the legislature to 
 suspend the execution of law by separately assuming 
 to itself the direction of a discretionary poAver, 
 which, by an act of Parliament, is vested in any 
 body of men, to be exercised as they shall judge ex- 
 pedient, is unconstitiitional.' The second was that 
 'the undoubted authority of appointing to the great 
 offices of executive government is solely vested in 
 his Majesty ; and that this House has every reason 
 to place the firmest reliance on his Majesty's wisdom, 
 in the exercise of this prerogative.' They were 
 followed by an address to the king, assuring him 
 of their Lordships' support in the exercise of his 
 undoubted prerogative, and of tlieir reliance upon 
 liis wisdom in the choice of his ministers. To this 
 address he returned an answer, ' that he had no 
 object in the choice of ministers, but to call into his 
 
 • By 223 against 204. 
 
So 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 service men the most deserving of the confidence of 
 his Parliament, and of the public in general,' ' 
 
 To these proceedings the Commons replied by in- 
 Retortofthe specting the Lords' Journal for their ob- 
 commoDs. noxious rcsolutious, — by searching for pre- 
 cedents of the usage of Parliament, — and, finally, 
 by declaring that the House had not assumed to 
 suspend the execution of law ; —and that they had a 
 right to declare their opinion respecting the exercise 
 of every discretionary power, and particularly with 
 reference to public money. They justified their 
 previous votes, and asserted their determination to 
 maintain their own privileges, while they avoided 
 any encroachment on the rights of either of the 
 other branches of the legislature. 
 
 In the meantime, no answer had been returned to 
 Postpone- the resolutions which the Commons had 
 sui.pues. laid beiore the king. \\ hen this was 
 noticed, Mr. Pitt was silent ; and at length, on the 
 10th February, on the report of the ordnance 
 estimates, j\Ir. Fox said that the House could not 
 vote supplies, until they knew what answer they 
 were to receive. Mr. Pitt engaged that the House 
 should be informed what line of conduct his Majesty 
 intended to pursue ; and the report, instead of being 
 agreed to, was recommitted. On the 18th, Mr. 
 Pitt acquainted the House ' that his Majesty had 
 not yet, in compliance with the resolutions of the 
 House, thought proper to dismiss his present minis- 
 ters; and tliat liis JMajesty's ministers had not 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxiv. 525. Sco also Lord Auckland's Corr., i. 74. 
 » Feb. 9th; Pari. Hist., xxiv. 671. 
 
Tlie King and Mr. Pitt, r 7S4. 8 r 
 
 resigned.' This announcement was regarded as a 
 defiance of the House of Commons, and again the 
 supplies were postponed for two days: though the 
 leaders of the opposition disclaimed all intention of 
 refusing them.' On the 20th, another Further 
 
 addresses to 
 
 resolution and an address were votea,^ ex- the kins, 
 pressing reliance upon the royal wisdom to remove 
 ' any obstacle to the formation of such an adminis- 
 tration as the House has declared to be requisite.' 
 The address was presented by the whole House. 
 The king replied, that he was anxious for a firm and 
 united administration : but that no charge had been 
 suggested against his present ministers : that num 
 bers of his subjects had expressed satisfaction at the 
 late changes in his councils ; and that the Commons 
 could not expect the executive offices to be vacated, 
 until such a plan of union as they had pointed out, 
 could be carried into effect.' This answer was 
 appointed to be considered on the 1st INIarch, to 
 which day the House adjourned, without entering 
 upon any other business ; and thus again the sup- 
 plies were postponed. On the motion of ]\Ir. Fox, 
 the House then presented a further address to the 
 king, submitting ' that the continuance of an ad- 
 ministration wliich does not possess the confidence 
 of the representatives of the people, must be in- 
 jurious to the public service,' and praying for its 
 removal. Mr. Fox maintained it to be without 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxiv. 695 ; Com. Journ., xxxix. 934. 
 
 ' Wliilo in tlio lobby, on the division on the resolution, Mr. I'ox 
 proposed to hib supporters to move an adilress immediately al'l.rr- 
 wards, whieii was agreed to at tiro o'clock in the moruini!;. 
 
 • Purl. Hist., xxiv. 677. 
 
 VOL. I. a 
 
82 
 
 Influence oj the Crown. 
 
 precedent for a ministry to hold office, in defiance 
 of the House of Commons. Mr. Pitt retorted that 
 the history of this country afforded no example of a 
 ministry being called upon to retire untried, and 
 without a cause. The king, in his reply, took up 
 the same ground, and affirming that no charge, 
 complaint, or specific objection had yet been made 
 against any of his ministers, again declined to 
 dismiss them. And thus stood the king and his 
 ministers on one side, and the House of Commons on 
 the other, arrayed in hostile attitude, — each party 
 standing firmly on its constitutional rights : the one 
 active and offensive, — the other patiently waiting to 
 strike a decisive blow. 
 
 The Mutiny Bill was now postponed for some 
 days, as its passing was expected to be the signal 
 for an immediate dissolution ; and one more effort 
 was made to drive the ministers from office. On 
 the 8th March, 'a representation' to the king was 
 moved by Mr. Fox,' to testify the surprise and 
 affliction of the House on receiving his Majesty's 
 answer to their last address, — reiterating all their 
 previous statements, — comparing tlie conduct and 
 principles of his advisers with those which cha- 
 racterised the unfortunate reigns of the Stuarts, — 
 justifying the withholding of their confidence from 
 ministers without preferring any charge, as it was 
 their removal and not their punishment which was 
 sought, — and taking credit to themselves for their 
 
 ' On this occasion stranpors wore excludnd, nt the instance of Sir 
 .Tamos Lowther, who had failod in paining admission to the gallery 
 for a iricuJ. The dcbnto is nul Uu'rcl'orc fully reporlod. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1 784. 83 
 
 forbearance, in not withholding the supplies.' This 
 was the last struggle of the opposition, pj^^ 
 When their encounters with the ministry rteminis-' 
 began, their majority was nearly two to one. 
 This great disproportion soon diminished, thougn 
 it was still, for a time, considerable. On the 12th 
 January, their majority was fifty-four ; on the 20th 
 February, it was reduced to twenty. On the 1st 
 March it fell to twelve : on the oth it was only nine ; 
 and now, on this last occasion, it dwindled to one. 
 The parliamentary contest was at an end. The 
 king and his ministers had triimiphed, and were 
 about to appeal from Parliament to the people. 
 The Mutiny Bill was passed : large supplies were 
 voted rapidly, but not appropriated : on the 24th 
 March Parliament was prorogued, and on the fol- 
 lowing day dissolved. 
 
 While this contest was being carried on in Parlia- 
 ment, the contending parties were not idle Reflections 
 out of doors. The king, who rushed into strugKie. 
 it with so much boldness, had not been prepared for 
 the alarming demonstrations of Parliament. If the 
 minister of his choice had now been driven from 
 power, he would have been prostrate before the 
 coalition. This danger was at first imminent ; and 
 the king awaited it with dismay. Defeat in such a 
 contest would have been humiliatinj; and disfjraceful. 
 Believing that he could be ' no longer of utility to 
 this country, nor could with honour continue in this 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxir. 736. 
 
 " Stu Lord SUnlicjit's Life of Pitt, i. 198 ; King's Letter, Foid., 
 Ai'p. xi. 
 
 o 2 
 
84 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 island,' he repeated Ms threats of retiring to Hanover, 
 rather than submit to what he deemed the destruc- 
 tion of his kingly power.' From such extremities, 
 however, he was relieved by the declining numbers 
 of his opponents, and the increasing influence and 
 popularity of his own cause. The coalition, though 
 powerful in Parliament, by means of a combination 
 of parties, had never been popular in the country. 
 While in power they had been exposed to continual 
 obloquy, which was redoubled after their dismissal. 
 The new ministers and the court party, taking ad- 
 vantage of this feeling, represented Mr. Fox's India 
 Bill as an audacious attempt to interfere with the 
 prerogatives of the crown, and its authors as enemies 
 tjf the king and constitution. The loyalty of the 
 people was aroused, and they soon ranged themselves 
 on the side of the king and his ministers. Ad- 
 dresses and other demonstrations of popular sym- 
 pathy were received from all parts of the country ; 
 and the king was thus encom-aged to maintain a 
 firm attitude in front of his opponents.* The tactics 
 of the two parties in Parliament, and the conduct 
 of their leaders, were also calculated to convert 
 public opinion to the king's side. Too much 
 exasperated to act with caution, the opposition 
 ruined their cause by factious extravagance and 
 
 ' Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 271, 341, 396; Lord Stanhope's Life 
 of Pitt, i. A pp. iv. vi. 
 
 * Writing to Mr. Pitt, 22ncl Fcli., in rofproneo to his answer to 
 rhe address of the 20tli, the kinjj; said: 'I trust that while, the 
 answer is drawn up with civility, it will be 11 ch'ar support of my 
 own rights, which tlie addresses from all parts of the kingdom show 
 mo the people feel essential to their liberties.' — Ihrnliucs Lift of 
 Pi/ 1, i. 457. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1 784. 
 
 85 
 
 precipitancy. They were resolved to take tlie king's 
 cabinet by storm, and without pause or parley 
 struck incessantly at the door. Their very dread of 
 a dissolution, which they so loudly condemned, 
 showed little confidence in popular support. In- 
 stead of making common cause with the jjeople, 
 they lowered their contention to a party struggle. 
 Constitutionally the king had a right to dismiss his 
 ministers, and to appeal to the people to support his 
 new administration. The opposition endeavoured 
 to restrain him in the exercise of this right, and to 
 coerce him by a majority of the existing House of 
 Commons. They had overstepped the constitutional 
 limits of their power ; and the assaults directed 
 against prerogative, recoiled upon tliemselves. 
 
 On the other side, Mr. Pitt, as minister, relied 
 upon the prerogative of the king to appoint him, — 
 the duty of Parliament to consider his measures,— 
 and his own right to advise the king to dissolve 
 Parliament, if those measures ,vere obstructed. The 
 tact, j udgment, courage, and comtnanding talents of 
 Mr. Pitt inspired his party with confidence, and 
 secured popularity for his cause ; while, by main- 
 taining a defensive attitude, he ofifered no diversion 
 to the factious tactics of his opponents. His ac- 
 cession to ofiice hiid been immediately marked by 
 the defection of several members from the oppo- 
 sition, — a circumstance always calculated upon by 
 a minister in those times, — and was soon followed 
 by the forbearance of others, who were not jircpai'ed 
 to participate in the violcTit measures of their 
 leaders. The infiuiuice of tlie court and •rovern- 
 
86 Influence of the Croion. 
 
 ment was strenuously exerted in making converts ; 
 and the growing popularity of their cause dis- 
 couraged the less zealous of their opponents. 
 
 Mr. Pitt had waited patiently while the majori 
 ties against hina in Parliament were falling away, 
 and public opinion was declaring itself, more and 
 more, in liis favour. The results of the dissolution 
 now revealed the judgment with which he had con- 
 ducted his cause, and chosen his time for appealing 
 to the people.' Every preparation had been made 
 for using the influence of the crown at the elections : 
 the king himself took the deepest personal interest 
 in the success of the ministerial candidates ; ' and 
 Mr. Pitt's popularity was at its height, when 
 Parliament was dissolved. His enemies were every- 
 where put to the rout, at the hustings. To support 
 Mr. Pitt was the sole pledge of the popular candi- 
 dates. Upwards of one himdred and sixty of his 
 late opponents lost their seats;' and on the 
 assembling of the new Parliament, he could scarcely 
 reckon his majorities.* The minister was popular 
 in the country, all-powerful in Parliament, and had 
 
 ' ' The prpcodent of 1784 establishes this rule of conduct : that 
 if the ministors chosen by the Crown do not possess the confidence 
 of the House of Commons, tliey may advise an appeal to the people, 
 with whom rests the ultiniiite decision. This course has been fol- 
 lowod in 1807, in 1831, in 1831, and in 1841. In 1807 and 1831, 
 the Crown was enabled, as in 1784, to obtain the confidence of the 
 new House of Commons. In 1834 and 1841, the decision was 
 adverse to the existing ministry.' — Fox Mem., ii. 246. 
 Koso Corr., i. 61, 62. 
 
 ' Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 469 ; Lord Stanhojie's Life of Tilt, 
 i. 204-207. 
 
 ' His India Bill was carried by a maiority of 271 to 60. He was 
 defeated, however on the Westminster Scrutiny, Parliamentary 
 Eeform, and tlie Scheme of rortifications on the Coast. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1 784. 87 
 
 the entire confidence of the court. If such was the 
 success of the minister, what was the triumph of the 
 king ! He had expelled one ministry, and retained 
 another, in defiance of the House of Commons. 
 The people had pressed forth loyally to his support ; 
 and by their aid, he had overborne all opposition 
 to his will. He now possessed a strong government, 
 and a minister in whom he confided ; and he en- 
 joyed once more power, freedom, and popidarity. 
 Not only had he overcome and ruined a party which 
 he hated : but he had established the ascendency of 
 the crown, which henceforth, for nearly fifty years, 
 continued to prevail over every other power in the 
 state. 
 
 Such results, however, were not without danger. 
 Already the king was too prone to exercise ^^^..,,43 
 his power ; and the encouragement he had Juu"re policy 
 received, was likely to exalt his views of 
 prerogative. But he had now a minister M?!pHtto* 
 who — with higher abilities and larger views "'^ 
 of state policy — had a will even stronger than his 
 own. Throughout his reign, it had been the tendency 
 of the king's personal administration to favour men 
 whose chief merit was their subservience to his own 
 views, instead of leaving the country to be governed, 
 — as a free state should be govenied, — by its ablest 
 and most popular statesmen.' He liad only had one 
 other minister of the same lofty pretensions, — Lord 
 Chatham ; and now, while trusting that statesman's 
 son, — sharing his councils, and approving his 
 
 ' Seo Lord J. Kussell's Iiitrod. to vol. iii. of 13tilford Corr., 
 pp. l.-lxii. 
 
88 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 policy, — he yielded to his superior intellect. Yet 
 were the royal predilections not without influence on 
 the minister. Eeared in the Whig school, Mr. Pitt 
 soon deserted the principles, as he had been severed 
 from the connections, of that party. He had been 
 raised to power by royal favour, — maintained in it 
 by prerogative, — and was now in the ascendant, by 
 having made common cause with the crown. Hence 
 he naturally leant towards prerogative, and Tory 
 principles of government. His contests with his 
 great antagonist, Mr. Fox, and the Whig party, still 
 further alienated him from the principles of his 
 youth: Until the French Kevolution, however, his 
 policy was wise and liberal : but from that time his 
 rule became arbitrary, and opposed to public liberty. 
 And such were his talents, and such the temper of 
 the times, that he was able to make even arbitrary 
 principles popular. During his long administration 
 the people were converted to Tory principles, and 
 encouraged the king and the minister to repress 
 liberty of thought, and to wage war against opinion. 
 If the king was no longer his own minister, — as in 
 the time of Lord North, — he had the satisfaction of 
 seeing his own principles carried out by hands far 
 abler than his own. In prosecutions of the press, 
 and the repression of democratic movements at 
 liome,' the minister was, perhaps, as zealous as the 
 king : in carrying on war to crush democracy abroad, 
 the king was more zealous than his minister.' Tliey 
 
 ' Seo Cliaptcr IX., Pross and Liberty of Opinion. 
 ' Sto Lord Stanhope's Lil'o of Pitt, ii. 73 ; Ibid., App. xvii. xxvii. 
 XXX. ; iii., App. ii. iii. x.\i. 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1 784. 89 
 
 laboured strenuously together in support of monar- 
 chy all over the world ; and respected too little the 
 constitutional liberties of their own people. 
 
 Nor did the king relax his accustomed activity 
 in public affairs. From the close of the Theking-s 
 
 continued 
 
 American war until the breaking out of activity, 
 hostilities with France, his pleasure was taken by 
 the Secretary-at-War upon every commission granted 
 in the army ; and throughout Mr. Pitt's administra- 
 tion, every act of the executive was submitted to 
 him, for his judgment and approval.' We find him 
 combating the opinions of his cabinet concerning 
 foreign affairs, in elaborate papers : criticising the 
 policy of government measures, — commenting upon 
 debates and divisions in Parliament : praising 
 ministers, and censuring the opposition : approving 
 taxes : discussing amendments to bills : settling the 
 appointment and dismissal of officers, the grant of 
 peerages, and the preferment of bishops.^ With liis 
 own hand be struck the name of Mr. Fox from the 
 list of privy-councillors.^ 
 
 And if, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, the 
 king's independent exercise of influence Thcinflu- 
 was somewliat less active, the power of the ^wnaug. 
 crown itself, — as wielded jointly by himself 
 
 ' Mr. Wynn, Mth April, 1812; llans. Del)., xxii. 334. On re- 
 covoriiij; from IiIb illness, Feb. 23, 1789, the kinf; writes, '1 must 
 decline enterin;^ info n. pressure (if business, anil, inileed, for the 
 rest of my life, shall expeet others to fulfil the dulies of their 
 employments, and only keep that superintending eye which cm bo 
 effected without labour and fatigue.' — Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, 
 ii., A]ip. vii. 
 
 ' Kint;'B Letters, I/ird Stanhope's Life of I'itt, iii., Ajyp. passim. 
 • May, 1798. Adolj.hu.s' Ili.st., vi. 602; llolcroft's Mem., iii. 
 60; Pellow's Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 2H 
 
90 
 
 Injlncnce of the Crown. 
 
 and his miuister, — was greater than at any former 
 period. The king and his minister were now abso- 
 lute. A war is generally favourable to authority, 
 by bringing together the people and the government, 
 in a common cause and combined exertions. The 
 French war, notwithstanding its heavy burthens and 
 numerous failures, was popular on account of the 
 principles it was supposed to represent ; and the vast 
 expenditure, if it distressed the people, multiplied 
 the patronage of the crown, — afforded a rich harvest 
 for contractors, — and made the fortunes of farmers 
 and manufacturers, by raising the price of every 
 description of produce. The ' moneyed classes' 
 rallied round the war minister, — bought seats in 
 Parliament with their sudden gains, — ranged them- 
 selves in a strong phalanx behind their leader, — 
 cheered his speeches, and voted for him in every 
 division. Their zeal was rewarded with peerages, 
 baronetcies, patronage, and all the good things 
 which an inordinate expenditure enabled liim to dis- 
 pense. For years, opposition in Parliament to a 
 minister thus supported, was an idle form ; and if 
 beyond its walls, the voice of complaint was raised, 
 the arm of the law was strong and swift to silence it.' 
 To oppose the minister, had become high treason to 
 the state. 
 
 However great the king's confidence in a minister 
 The king powcrful as Mr. Pitt, whenever their 
 
 to llse'^huin^ views of polioy differed, his JNIajesty's reso- 
 n"iiiiwt; his lution was as inflexible as ever. Nor were 
 ministers. j^^^ ministcsrs secure from the exercise of 
 
 ' See Clmptcr IX., Press and Lilerty of Opiiiiou. 
 
TJu King and Reform, 1 785. 91 
 
 his personal influence against them, -when he was 
 pleased to use it. The first measure on which Mr. 
 Pitt was likely to encounter objections from the 
 king, was that for parliamentary reform. Having 
 pledged himself to the principles of such a measure, 
 while in opposition, he was determined not to be 
 unfaithful to them in office. But before he ventured 
 to bring forward his plan, he prudently submitted it 
 to the king, and deprecated the opposition of the 
 court. Writing, on the 20th March, 1785, the king 
 said, Mr. Pitt's ' letter expressed that there is but 
 one issue of the business he could look upon as 
 fatal, that is, the possibility of the measure being 
 rejected by the weight of those who are supposed to 
 be connected with the government. ]\Ir. Pitt must 
 recollect that, though I have ever thought it un- 
 fortunate that he had early engaged himself in this 
 measure, he ought to lay his thoughts before the 
 House ; that out of personal regard to him I would 
 avoid giving any opinion to any one on the opening 
 of the door to parliamentary reform, except to him ; 
 therefore I am certain Mr. Pitt cannot suspect my 
 having influenced any one on the occasion. If others 
 choose, for base ends, to impute such a conduct to 
 me, I must bear it as former false suggestions.' 1 
 He proceeded to say that every man ought to voce 
 according to his own opinion ; and warned Mr. Pitt 
 that ' tliere are questions men will not, by friend- 
 ship, be biassed to adopt.' This incident is signifi- 
 cant. Mr. Pitt apprehended the exertion of tlie 
 
 • Tomliiie'8 life of Pitt, ii. 40. 
 
92 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 influence of the crown to defeat his EiSasure. The 
 king was aware of the suspicions attaching to him- 
 self : but while promising not to interfere, he could 
 not refrain from intimating that the measure would 
 be defeated, — as indeed it was, — without his inter- 
 ference. On both sides the personal influence of the 
 king over the deliberations of Parliament, was fully 
 acknowledged. 
 
 The extent to which the preponderating influence 
 Preponderat- of the crown was rccoguised during this 
 
 ing influence 
 
 of the crown, period, is exemplified by the political re- 
 lations of parties to his INIajesty and to the Prince of 
 Wales, on the occasion of the king's illness in 1788.' 
 At that time, ministers enjoyed the entire confidence 
 of the king, and commanded an irresistible majority 
 in Parliament ; yet was it well understood by botli 
 parties, that the first act of the Regent woiild be to 
 dismiss his father's ministers, and take into his 
 councils the leaders of the opposition.^ Thus even 
 the party which protested against the influence of 
 the crown was quite prepared to use it, and by 
 its aid to brave a hostile majority in Parliament, 
 as Mr. Pitt had successfully done a few years before. 
 
 At length Mr. Pitt's fall, like his rise, was due to 
 Mr. Pitt's king's personal will ; and was brought 
 
 about in the same way as many previous 
 political events, by irresponsible councils. There 
 is reason to believe that Mr. Pitt's unbending 
 temper, — increased in stubbornness by his long- 
 continued sujiremacy in Parliament, and in ihe 
 
 • Seo Chiip. III. » Tomlino's Life of Pitt, ii. 480 
 
The King and the Cat Jiolic Claiiiis, 1801. 93 
 
 cabinet, — had become distasteful to the king.' His 
 Majesty loved power at least as much as his minister, 
 and was tenacious of his authority, even over those 
 in whom he had confidence. Mr. Pitt's power had 
 nearly overshadowed his own ; and there were not 
 wanting opinions among friends of the king, and 
 rivals of the statesman, that the latter had ' an 
 overweening ambition, great and opiniative pre- 
 sumption, and perhaps not quite constitutional ideas 
 with regard to the respect and attention due to the 
 crown.' ^ 
 
 While this feeling existed in regard to Mr. Pitt, 
 his jNIajesty was greatly agitated by events Catholic 
 
 1 . 1 T , . ... 1 Question. 
 
 which at once aroused his sensitive jealousy isoi. 
 of coimcils to which he had not been admitted, and 
 his conscientious scruples. Mr. Pitt and his col- 
 leagues thought it necessary to inaugurate the Union 
 of Ireland, by concessions to the Roman Catholics ; * 
 and had been, for some time, deliberating upon a 
 measure to effect that object. Upon this question, 
 the king had long entertained a very T,,eking-a 
 decided opinion. So far back as 1795, he '^^po^'i^n 
 had consulted Lord Kenyon as to the ob- 
 ligations of his coronation oath ; and though his 
 lordship's opinions were not quite decisive upon this 
 point,* his Majesty was persuaded that he was 
 
 ' 27th Feb., 1801. ' I was told this evening, by Pclhnm. that 
 his Miijc.sty had for a long time since been dissitisfiefl with Pitt's, 
 and particularly with Lord Grcnville's "authoritative niiinners" 
 towards him, and that an alteration in his ministry hiid lonp been 
 in his mind.' — Malmcsbury Corr., iv. 24. See also Wraxall's Mem., 
 iv. 48.3. 
 
 ' Malmesburj- Corr., iv. 35. • See Chap. XII., XVI. 
 
 • Thiy were published by Dr. Phillpotts (afterwards Bisliop of 
 Exeter) in 1827. 
 
94 
 
 Influence of the Ci'own. 
 
 morally restrained, by that oatli, from assenting to 
 any further measures for the relief of the Eoman 
 Catholics. Long before the ministers had so far 
 matured their proposal as to be prepared to submit 
 it for his Majesty's approval, he had been made 
 acquainted with their intentions. In September, 
 1800, Lord Loughborough had shown him a letter 
 from Mr. Pitt upon the subject ; and the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, at the suggestion of Lord 
 Auckland, had also informed the king that a scheme 
 was in contemplation, which was represented as 
 dangerous to the church.' In December, the lord 
 chancellor communicated to his Majesty an elaborate 
 jjaper against the Roman Catholic claims ; and Dr. 
 Stuart, Archbishop of Armagh, — a son of the king's 
 old favourite. Lord Bute, — increased his Majesty's 
 repugnance to the measure which the ministers 
 were preparing.^ The king immediately took 
 counsel with some of the opponents of the Catholic 
 claims ; and without waiting iox any communication 
 from Mr. Pitt, lost no time in declaring his own 
 opinion upon the measure. At the levee on the 
 28th January, 1801, he told JNIr. Windham, the 
 Secretary-at-War, 'that he should consider any 
 person who voted for it, as personally indisposed 
 towards him.' * On the same occasion he said to 
 
 ' Pullew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 315; Malmeslniry Corr., iv. 
 IG, 17, 22; Lord Holland's Mem., i. 171 ; Lord Colchester's Diary, 
 iii. 32G. 13ut see an elaborate vindioalion of Lord Auckland, Corr., 
 iii. 113-126. 
 
 * Lord Campbell's Lives of the Cliaiiocllors, vi. 306, 322, et seq. 
 Eoso's Corr., i. 229 ; Pcllcw's Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 500. 
 
 ' Castlerciigh Ciirr., iv. 83. 
 
 * Malmesbury Corr., iv. 2. His Lordship, in relating this eir- 
 cumstjince, slates that Pitt had commuuiciited the measure on liic 
 
The King and the Catholic Claims, 1801. 95 
 
 Mr. Dundas, ' I shall reckon any man my personal 
 enemy, who proposes any such measure. The 
 most Jacobinical thing' I ever heard of ! ' ' On the 
 29th, he wrote to Mr. Addington, the Speaker, 
 desiring him to ' open Mr. Pitt's eyes on the danger 
 arising from the agitating this improper question.' ^ 
 Mr. Addington undertook this commission, and 
 thought he had dissuaded Mr. Pitt from proceed- 
 ing with a measure, to which the king entertained 
 insuperable objections.^ But if at first inclined to 
 yield, jNIr. Pitt, after consulting the cabinet and 
 other political friends, determined to take his stand, 
 as a responsible minister, upon the advice he was 
 about to tender to the king. Mr. Cannin": is said 
 to have advised Mr. Pitt not to give way on this 
 occasion. It was his opinion, ' that for several 
 years so many concessions had been made, and so 
 many important measures overruled, from the king's 
 opposition to them, that government had been 
 weakened exceedingly ; and if on this particular 
 occasion a stand was not made, Pitt would retain 
 only a nominal power, while the real one would pass 
 into the hands of those who influenced the kind's 
 mind and opinion, out of sight.' ■* 
 
 previous day ; but it appears from Lorfl Sidmouth's Life, that this 
 communication was not rt'ceircd by the kiiip; until Sunday the 
 1st Feb., though Lord Groiivillo and Mr. Dundas hail already 
 spoken to his Majesty upon lliu hubject. — I't-Uow's Lil'o of Lord 
 Sidmouth. i. 285, 287. 
 
 ' Willierforce's Diary; Life, iii. 7.; Court and Cabinets of Geo. 
 IIL, iii. 126 ; Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 280 ; Rose's Corr , 
 i. 30.3. 
 
 ' The king to Mr. Addington ; Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, 
 i. 28C, 287. 
 
 » Vnd., i. 287 ; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 274. 
 < Malmesbury Corr., iv, 6. 
 
90 Infiicence of the Crown. 
 
 Whether sharing this opinion or not, Mr. Pitt 
 Mr. Pitt himself was too deeply impressed with 
 abandou the necessitj of the measure, and perhaps 
 
 it, and i /-^ i t 
 
 resigns. too much Committed to the Catholics, to 
 withdraw it.' It appears, however, that he might 
 have been induced to give way, if he could have ob- 
 tained an assm'ance from his Majesty, that ministers 
 should not be opposed by the king's friends in Parlia- 
 ment.^ On the 1st February, he made the formal 
 communication to the king, whiclihis Majesty had, for 
 several days, been expecting. The king, aware of Mr. 
 Pitt's determination before he received this letter, 
 had wished Mr. Addington, even then, to form a 
 new administration. By Mr. Addington's advice, 
 however, a kind but most unbending answer was 
 returned to Mr. Pitt, in which his Majesty declared 
 that a 'principle of duty must prevent him from 
 discussing any proposition tending to destroy the 
 groundwork of our happy constitution.' ^ The in- 
 tensity of the king's feeling on the subject was dis- 
 played by what he said, about this time, to the Duke 
 of Portland : ' Were he to agree to it, he should 
 betray liis trust, and forfeit his crown ; that it might 
 
 ' Insinuations that Mr. Pitt had othpr motivoa for retiring, apart 
 from this measure, have been sufficiently answered ; seo Fox Mem., 
 iii. 252; Edinb. Eev., ccx. 354; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 
 309. 
 
 - Eose's Corr., i. 394, 399. 
 
 " The king to Mr. Pitt, 1st Feb., 1801 ; Pellew's Life of Lord 
 Sidmouth, i. 291. All the con'ospondonce between the king and 
 Mr. Pitt is published in Dr. Phillpott's Pamphlet, 1827, and in 
 the Quarterly Poview, xxxvi. 290, and part of it in Lord Sidmoutli's 
 Life ; Rose's Corr., ii. '280, d scq., 303, 309. Lord Stanhope's Life 
 of Pitt, iii. App. 
 
The King and Catholic Claims, 1 80 1 . 
 
 97 
 
 bring the framers of it to the gibbet.' His trusty 
 counsellor replied : ' he was sure the king had 
 rather suffer martyrdom, than submit to this mea- 
 sure.' ' In vain did Mr. Addington endeavour to 
 accommodate these diflferences. Mr. Pitt, as in- 
 flexible as the king, resigned ; and Mr. Addington 
 was entrusted with the task of forming an anti- 
 Catholic administration ; while an active canvass 
 was undei'taken by the courtiers against the Catholic 
 cause, as a matter personal to the king himself.' 
 
 Mr. Pitt has been justly blamed for having so 
 long concealed his intentions from the .^^ p^^^.^ 
 king. His Majesty himself complained to a„ement'of 
 Lord Grenville, that the question had been ]'^"^qu^!'°' 
 under consideration since the month of 
 August, though never communicated to him till 
 Sunday, the 1 st of February ; and stated his own 
 belief, that if the unfortunate cause of disunion had 
 been openly mentioned to him ' in the beginning, he 
 should have been able to avert it entirely."^ Whether 
 this delay arose, as Lord Malmesbury has suggested, 
 ' either from indolence,' or from want of a ' suffi- 
 cient and due attention to the king's pleasure,''* it 
 was assuredly a serious error of judgment. It can- 
 not, indeed, be maintained that it was Mr. Pitt's 
 duty to take his Majesty's pleasure, before any bill 
 had been agreed upon by the cabinet ; but his 
 
 ' Malmesbury Corr., iv. 46. 
 
 ' Ihtd., iv. 6 ; Castlcrejigh Corr., iv. 34 ; Court and Cabinets 
 of Gecj. 111., iii. 128; Fox M tin., iii. 252; Pilluw's Lite of Lord 
 Sidmoutli, i. 85, &c. ; Lord Colchester's Uiiirj-, i. 223-233. 
 
 ' King to Lord Sidmouth, Feb. 7th ; Lord Sidmouth's Life, i. 
 298. 
 
 ' Malmesbury Corr., iv. 2. 
 VOL. I. U 
 
98 
 
 Influence of tlie Crown. 
 
 reticence, upon the general question, aroused tfie 
 suspicions of the king, and gave those who differed 
 from the minister an opportunity of concerting an 
 opposition at court.' 
 
 JNIr. Pitt had forfeited power ratber than abandon 
 flis sub- ^ measm-e which be deemed essential to the 
 ^'Jd^not welfare of the state. Yet a few weeks 
 coreriveit. ^fterwards, he was so deeply affected on 
 hearing that the king had imputed his illness to the 
 recent conduct of his minister, that he conveyed an 
 assuiance to his ilajesty, that he would not revive 
 the Catholic question.' Opposition was now dis- 
 armed; and the kiug alone was able to shape the 
 policy of ministers and of Parliament. 
 
 ]Mr. Addington enjoyed the confidence, and even 
 Theking-s tbic affectiou of the king, whose corre- 
 
 confideuce . 
 
 in Mr. sDondeuce at this period resembles — both 
 
 Adding- ^ ^ 
 
 ton. in its minute attention to every depart- 
 
 ment of business, foreign or domestic,' and in its 
 terms of attachment — his letters to his former 
 favourite. Lord North.'' His Majesty was rejoiced 
 
 ' Malmesbury Coir., iv. 2 ; Roee's Coir., i. 308. 
 
 2 Malniesbiirv Corr.. iv. 9, 20, 34 ; Gilford's Life of Pitt, ri. 599. 
 Rose's Corr., i. 394 ; I^nl Colchester's Diary, i. 243, ii. 378; Lord 
 Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 303. 
 
 » Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmomh, i. 365, 387, 395, 410, 411. 
 
 * Vnd., i. 301, 303. On the 13th Feb., 1801, the king writes: 
 ' I mean to have liis affection as well as hi.s zeal.' — Ihid., 305. On 
 the 5th March, he writes: 'The kina; c:innot find words sufficiently 
 i xpressive of his Majesty's cordial approbation of the whole arrange- 
 ments which his own Chancellor of the Kicheciuer has wisely, and 
 liis Jlajesty ehooscB to a'!d, most correctly recommended.' — Ihid., 
 353. Again on the I'Jth Maj', and on other occasions, he terms Mr. 
 Adtlington ' his Clianceilnr of the Exchequer.' — Ihid., 394. Some- 
 times ho addresses him as ' My dear Chancellor of the Exchequer.' 
 — Ibid., ZO!). On the 14th June, ho writes: 'The king is highly 
 gratified at the repealled marks of the sensdiility of Mr. Addiuplon'* 
 
The King and Mr. Pitt, 1 804, 
 
 99 
 
 to find himself free from the restraints which the 
 character and position of Mr. Pitt had imposed upon 
 him ; and delighted to honour the minister of his 
 own choice, — who shared his feelings and opinions, 
 — who consulted him on every occasion, — whose 
 amiable character and respectful devotion touched 
 his heart, — and whose intellect was not so command- 
 ing as to overpower and subdue his own. 
 
 This administration, — formed under circmnstances 
 unfavourable to its stability, and beset, pj^^ 
 from its very commencement, with jea- po';''^'^'" 
 lousies and intrigues,' was upheld for three 
 years, mainly by the influence of the crown. Feeble 
 in parliamentary talent and influence, and wanting 
 in popular support, it was yet able to withstand the 
 united opposition of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox. At 
 length, however, Mr. Addington, overcome by em- 
 barrassments, resigned.' It was not without re- 
 luctance that the king found himself obliged to part 
 with his favomite minister, and to submit himself 
 
 heart ; which must greatly add to the comfort of having placed him 
 with so much propriety at the head of the Trewsury. lie trusts 
 their mutual affi'ction can only cease with their lives.' — Ihid., 408. 
 On the 8th July, he writes : ' The mes.senger who returned from 
 (!uffnais, agreeable to order, called at Winchester that Mr. Adding- 
 ton might lieiir of his son.' — Ibid., 428. — See also Lord Colchester's 
 Diary, i. hVA. 
 
 ' Pell. w's Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 335-340 ; ii. 107, 117, 140, 
 238, &c., &c, ; .Malnifslmry Corr,, iv. 36, 40, 42, 49, 91,97, 102, 
 167, 297, &c., &c, ; Hose's Corr., i. 292, 317, 329, 449 ; ii. 62. Lord 
 Colchctiters Diary, i. 254, 41.3-418, 422, 430. 
 
 Pelli^w's Lift! of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 273, et s'lq. ' Mr. Addington 
 resigned, a nieasure which ho has sim-o assured me that ho resorted 
 to from a fear of the King's health, much more than from a dread 
 of his oppoueMt.s.' — Lord llollaiuCs Mem., i. 191 ; and see Earl Grc^ 
 on Pavliamontury Government, 95 ; and Lord Colchester's Diarc, k. 
 601. 
 
 K 2 
 
lOO Injliience of tJie Crown. 
 
 again to the loftier temper of Mr. Pitt : but he was 
 persuaded to give up an impotent administration, in 
 a time of public danger.' 
 
 jMi\ Pitt ui'ged the necessity of forming a strong 
 The king's government, by an union with Lord Gren- 
 Smlt'jS-. "^^lle and Mr. Fox ; but such was his 
 Majesty's repug-nance to the latter, that he 
 absolutely refused to admit him into the cabinet.* 
 So inveterate was his aversion to this statesman, — 
 aggi-avated, at this period, by mental disorder, — 
 that he afterwards declared 'that he had taken a 
 positive determination not to admit Mr. Fox into 
 his councils, even at the hazard of a civil war.'' ' 
 Mr. Fox being proscribed, the opposition would 
 listen to no propositions for an arrangement ; * and 
 Mr. Pitt was obliged to place himself at the head 
 of an administration as weak as that which he had 
 succeeded. 
 
 Meanwhile, Mr. Addington took up a position in 
 r ^c ., the House of Commons, as leader of the 
 
 Lord Sid- 
 
 re^auons to ' kiug's fricuds,' — a party numbering sixty 
 and'th? 01" seventy members.* He was still sup- 
 minisu^re. pgged to be in communication with the 
 king,® and his supporters were sometimes ranged 
 against the government.'' He professed personal 
 adherence to his sovereign to be the rule of his 
 
 ' Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 437, 450. Sepalso infra, p. 203 ; Lord 
 Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iv. 161, 165, 177, lltid., App. ix.— Lord 
 Colchnster's Diary, i. 506. 
 
 2 TwHss's Life of Eldon, i. 446-450 ; Rose's Corr., ii. 118, 122. 
 
 • Kost-'s Corr., 156, 182. See also Lord "St;inhopo's Life of Pitt, 
 iv. App. ix. ; Ix)r(l Colchosler's Diary, i. 529. 
 
 * Ibid., 124-126; Court and Cabinets of Geo. IIL, iii. 352; 
 M''m. of Fox, iv. 53. — Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 507. 
 
 » IWs Corr., 119. • Md., 111. ' Ibid., 153. 
 
Lord Sidmoiith and the Kings Friends, ici 
 
 political conduct. Writing soon after his retirement 
 from oflBce, he says : ' I shall keep aloof from all 
 parties, adhere to the king, and take a course that I 
 can conscientiously justify to myself.' ' His attitude 
 was so formidable, that jNIr. Pitt was soon obliged to 
 admit him and his followers to a share of the govern- 
 ment.* The king earnestly desired his union with 
 Mr. Pitt, which the renewal of friendly intercoiirsc 
 between them easily brouglit about. ^ He accord- 
 ingly joined the administration, as Viscount Sid- 
 mouth, and president of the Coimcil ; and induced 
 his friends, who had been lately voting against the 
 government, to lend it their parliamentary support 
 But being dissatisfied with the share of influence 
 conceded to himself and his allies in the cabinet, h(^ 
 shortly afterwards threatened to resign.'' And when, 
 on the impeachment of Lord Melville, ^Mr. Hiley 
 Addington and ^Ir. Bond, who had been promised 
 places, spoke and voted against the government, 
 differences arose between himself and Mr. Pitt, 
 which led to his resignation.* In this anarchy of 
 parties, the chief support of ministers was the in- 
 fluence of the crown. 
 
 Mepnwhile, the only matter on which 3Ir. Piit 
 and the king were at variance, was not sufl'ered 
 
 ' Pollew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 315; Lord Colchester's 
 Diarv, i. 517. 
 
 ' Court and Cabinete of Geo. III., iii. 388 ; Pellew's Life of Lord 
 Sidmouth, ii. 325, 348. 
 
 • Ibid., ii. 325-341 ; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iv. 236, App., 
 xix. XX. ; Lord Colchester's Diiirv, i. 530, 532, 540. 
 
 « Rose's Corr., ii. 358, 360, 361. 
 
 • Rose's Corr., ii. 368-375; Lord Colchester's Diarv, i. .546-556, 
 ii. 11, 13, 15, 19 ; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iv. 288, 313. 
 
I02 Injliience of the Crown. 
 
 again to disturb their friendly relations. Mr. Pitt 
 Erasion of had renewed the assurance which he had 
 lioQnes- cfiven the kino: in 1801, that he would not 
 
 tionby ^ l> 1 . 
 
 Mr. Pitt. revive the question of Catholic emancipa- 
 tion, during his Majesty's life. Not satisfied with 
 this assurance, the king required an explicit declara- 
 tion of his minister's determination to resist even 
 the smallest alteration of the Test Act.^ This latter 
 pledge, indeed, Mr. Pitt declined to give : ' but he 
 was careful to avoid the forbidden ground, and 
 was even obliged to oppose others who ventmed to 
 trespass upon it. The minister had surrendered his 
 own judgment ; and the king alone dictated the 
 policy of Parliament.^ Though Mr. Pitt recovered 
 the king's confidence, his Majesty continued to form 
 his own independent opinions, and to exercise a 
 large influence in the government and patronage of 
 the state.' He watched the debates with undimin- 
 ished interest : noted the length of speeches, and 
 the numbers in divisions ; and even observed upon 
 the shortcomings of the government whips.® 
 
 ' Rose's Corr., 114, 157-174; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, ir. 
 App. vi. ; Lfird Colciiester's L)iarT, ii. 211. 
 
 - Ros«'s Corr., 117 ; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iv, App. riii. 
 
 ' Pellew'g Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 464 ; Mr. Pitt's Letter to 
 thp King, Maj- 6th, lSi)4; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, ir. App. xL 
 
 • Hans. Dfb., V. 1013 ; see also Chap. XIL 
 
 " Rose's Corr., ii. 122, 124, 141, 158, 160. Mr. Pitt was aniions 
 that his friend and biographer. Dr. Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln, 
 should be promoted to the See of Canterbury ; but the king insi.sted 
 upon appointing I)r. Manners Sutton, Bishop of Norwich, notwith- 
 standing all the solicitations of his minister. — Host's Corr., ii, 82, 
 ■Jl, &c. ; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iv. 233, 252, and App. 
 paiisiin. 
 
 " Correspondence with Mr. Pitt. Lord Stanhope's Life, iv. App. 
 pa-<sim. In November 180.i, his Majesty's loss of sight compelled 
 aim 10 resort to the aid of Col. Herbert Taylor, an his secretary and 
 
The King and the Grenville Ministry. 103 
 
 The death of Mr. Pitt, in the midst of defeats, 
 and disasters to the European cause in crenviue 
 
 ministry, 
 
 which he was engaged, once more forced 1806. 
 upon the king an administration, formed from a 
 party in whom he had no confidence. It was 
 necessary to accept the ministry of ' all the talents,' 
 imder Lord Grrenville and Mr. Fox ; ' and personal 
 intercourse went far to overcome the king's anti- 
 pathy to the latter.^ Lord Sidmouth had a strong 
 body of parliamentary friends, who, — to use the 
 words of his biographer, — ' constituted a species of 
 armed neutrality, far too powerful to be safely over- 
 looked ; ' and was ' understood to enjoy the favour and 
 confidence of the king, and to be faithfully devoted to 
 his Majesty's interests.' * His alliance was necessary : 
 and he was induced to join a party with whom he had 
 neither connection, nor political sympathies. The 
 king's friends were not to be neglected, and were amply 
 provided for.'* Lord Sidmouth himself, ' not wishing 
 to excite jealousy by very frequent intercourse with 
 the king,' declined the presidency of the Council, 
 and accepted the less prominent office of privy seal.* 
 As there was a difficulty in admitting Lord Sid- 
 raouth's political friends to the cabinet, Admission 
 Lord Ellenborough, the Lord Chief Justice Kii. n- 
 
 /• T-> 1 1 • 1 • 1 1 • • ''"rouRh to 
 
 01 lingland, was associated with him, in the cabinet 
 
 amanuensis; but prior to that time,, ho liad kept up a constant cor- 
 respondence with successivo mini.stors, in liis own hand. 
 ' Itosc's Corr., ii. 2;J6, 
 
 - Twiss's Jjt'r of KIddM, i. olO; Lord Hfilhind, however, states 
 'The kin<^ walilxxl iJic pro^resK ot .Mr. Fox's disorder. Ho could 
 liiinlly suppress his indecent exultation ut his death.' — Mem. of 
 Whiij rarti/, ii, 49. 
 
 • JVllew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 412. * Ihid., 424. 
 
 » Jhid., 41(i ; Mr. Al.bot's Diary, 424. On the death of ]\lr. Fox, 
 he became IVebideut uf thu Council. 
 
I04 Inflticiice of tJie Crown. 
 
 order to give weight to liis councils.' It had been 
 the policy of our laws to render the judges indepen- 
 dent of the crown ; ^ and now the first criminal judge 
 became one of its confidential advisers. Ministers 
 were strong enough to defend this appointment in 
 Parliament, where the precedent of Lord Mansfield 
 was much relied on : but it was severely censured 
 in debate, and condenmed by public opinion.^ 
 
 Before the new ministry was completed, the king 
 Difference alarmed at a supposed invasion of his 
 
 Mngon^he prerogative. On the 1st Februaiy, Lord 
 tilnrfthe Grenville proposed to his Majesty some 
 changes in the administration of the army, 
 by which the question was raised whether the army 
 should be under the immediate control of the 
 crown, through the commander-in-chief, or be 
 subject to the super\-ision of ministers. The king 
 at once said that the management of the army 
 rested with the crown alone ; and that he could not 
 permit his ministers to interfere with it, beyond 
 the le\'ying of the troops, their pay and clothing. 
 Lord Grenville was startled at such a doctrine, 
 which he conceived to be entirely uucoustitutional, 
 and to which he would have refused to submit. 
 For some time it was believed that the pending 
 
 ' Wilberforce's Life, iii. 256. Lord Eous said: 'Lord Sidmouth, 
 with Lord EUenborough by his side, put him io niiud of a faithful 
 old steward with his mastiflf, watching new servants, lest they should 
 have some evil designs against the old family mansion.' — I'dlew's 
 Life of Lord Sid/uouih, ii. 417. 
 
 2 13 Will. III. c. 32 ; 1 Gea lU. e. 2.3. 
 
 ' Bans. Deb., vi. 308 ; Lord Campbell'.'; Lives of Chief Justices, 
 ii. 451; Lives of the Chancellors, vi. 5K4 ; Pellew's Life of Lurd 
 Sidmouth, ii. 417 > Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 42; and see Chap. 
 XVIU. 
 
The King and the Grenville Ministry. 105 
 
 ministerial arrangements would be broken off : but 
 on the following day Lord Grenville presented a 
 minute to his Majesty, stating that no changes in 
 the management of the army should be effected 
 without bis Majesty's approbation.' To the doc- 
 trine thus amended, there could be no reasonable 
 objection, and the king assented to it. 
 
 The Grenville ministry maintained its ground, 
 so long as it was tolerated at court : but Differences 
 
 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 • ? with the 
 
 when it ventured to ofiend the kmg s re- king on the 
 liirious scruples, it fell suddenly, like that Nav^ 
 
 ° r ' J-> Service Bill, 
 
 of Mr. Pitt in 1801.^ To conciliate the 1807. 
 Catholics they proposed to remove some of the dis- 
 qualifications of officers in the army and navy, being 
 Koman Catholics and Dissenters : but in framing: 
 the measure, ministers either neglected to explain 
 its provisions with sufficient distinctness to the 
 king, or failed to make themselves imderstood. 
 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, however just and poli- 
 tic, was a strange indiscretion. Knowing the king's 
 repugnance to every concession to the Catholics, 
 tliey might have profited by the experience of Mr. 
 Pitt. The chancellor foresaw tlie danger they 
 were incurring ; and with Lord Ellenborough and 
 Lord Sidmouth, protested against the measure. 
 The friends of tlie government called it an act of 
 suicide.' 
 
 ' Ann. Rpg., 1806, 26 ; Pcllcw's Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. llC. 
 » Sep Chap. XIL 
 
 • MttlmcBbury's Corr., iv. 307, 379, 381-384; but seo Lord llnl- 
 
io6 Influence of the Crow7t. 
 
 The king's friends, and the opponents of the 
 Activity of ministry, did not neglect this favourable 
 
 the king's , _ 
 
 friends. Opportunity of turning his Majesty s well- 
 known religious scruples to account ; but soon di- 
 rected 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 after- 
 wards tendered his resignation to Lord Grrenville.' 
 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 dis- 
 tinctly known, and that your present ministers 
 should not have any pretext for equivocating upon 
 the subject, or any groimd whatever to pretend 
 ignorance of your Majesty's sentiments and deter- 
 mination, 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 
 
 land's Mem., ii. 173, 181, 185. 'It seems to me as if therH> was 
 some fatality or judieial blindnpss affoclinf; all we do.' Mr. U. Yorke 
 to the Speaker. — Lord Colchester's Diai-;/, ii. 101. Wilberforee said 
 they had no excuse, for they had run upon a rook which was above 
 water. — Ihid.. 109. Shoritlan said ' lie had often lieard of people 
 knocking out tlieir brains atjainst a wall, but never knew of anyone 
 building; a wall expressly for the purpose.' - 3/»orc'.s' Life, ii. .'549. 
 Lord Holland explains t'ully the difficulties of ministers in relation 
 to the Catholics, and elaborately vindicates their conduct; but fails, 
 I think, 10 show its prudence. - Mem. of Whi<i Parly, \\. IGO-'il/i; 
 see also Life and Opiiuous of Earl Grey, 138-lGl. Lord J'alnicr- 
 eton's .lournal. I?nlwer's Life, i. G'2-76. 
 
 ' Ixii-d Sidmouth's Life, ii. 4S9-4G2. — Lord Colchester's Diarjr, 
 ii. 97. 
 
 ' Malmosbury Corr., iv. 369. 
 
The King and the Grenville Ministry. 107 
 
 grace said : ' His Majesty lias signified his orders to 
 my nephews, Lords George and James Thynne, to 
 vote against it.' 1 On the following day a person 
 came to Lord Malmesbury from the Queen's house, 
 authorised to say, ' that his Majesty's wishes, sen- 
 timents, 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.' ^ 
 
 Hence it appears that courtiers and intriguing 
 statesmen were still as ready as they had -nrithdrawai 
 been twenty-five years before, to influence oLoSoub 
 the king against his ministers, and to use 
 his name for the purpose of defeating measiures in 
 Parliament; while the kiug himself was not more 
 scrupulous in committing himself to irregular in- 
 terference with the freedom of parliamentary deli- 
 berations. On tliis occasion, however, opposition to 
 tlie ministry in Parliament by the king's friends, 
 was averted by the withdrawal of the measure. On 
 announcing its abandonment to the king, ministers 
 committed a second indiscr<;tion, — far greater than 
 tlie first. They reserved to themselves, by p,p,,pg 
 a minute of the cabinet, the right of {'.jThrkins 
 openly avowing their sentiments, should '["Jho"'""^ 
 the Catholic petition be presented, and of 
 
 ' Malmesbury f'orr., iv. 371. ' Vnd., 373. 
 
 • Lcttcrto Mr. T. Grenville, 14th March, 1807 ; Court anil Cabiuots 
 of Goo. 111., iv. 136. See also Ltltor, 16th Mureh. 
 
io8 
 
 Ijifluence of the Crown. 
 
 submitting to Ms Majesty, from time to time, such 
 measures as they might deem it advisable to pro- 
 pose.' ^ The king not only desired them to with- 
 draw 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.'^ 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 coimtry ; 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. Ministers refused the 
 pledge, in becoming terms ; and the king proceeded 
 to form a new administration under the Duke of 
 Portland and jNIr. 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 coimtry, or no king.' ^ Such fears, 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 1st Sor., ix., 231-247, 261-279; Pellew's Life of 
 Lord Sidinouth, ii. 463 ; Mulmesbury CoiT., iv. 380 ; Rose's Corr., 
 ii. 321-327 ; Lord HuUand's Mem., App. ii. 312, -n-here the mimite 
 is printed at length ; Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 111-114; Life and 
 Opinions of Earl Grey, 163. In reference to this minute Lord 
 Palmerston wrote in his Journal, ' mini.sters insisted upon retaining 
 both their places and their opinions.' — Bu/ucr's Life, i. 75. 
 
 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 243 ; Pellew's Life of Lord .Sidmouth, 
 ii. 464; Rose's Corr., ii. 328-331; Lord Holl.ind's Mem. of the 
 ■\Vliif; Parly, ii. 200-205. App. 316. Court and Cabinets of Geo. 
 nr., iv. 143 ; Wilberforce's Life, iii. 306; Lord Colchester's Diary, 
 ii 101-104, 108, 109. 
 
 • Twies's Life of Eldon, ii. 34. 
 
The King and the Grenville Ministry. 109 
 
 however, were idle in a monarch who could cast 
 down ministers and sway Parliaments, at his plea- 
 sure. He had overcome the giant power of Mr. 
 Pitt, and Lord Grenville was now at his feet. 
 
 The dismissal of ministers, and the constitutional 
 dangers involved in such an exercise of Proceedings 
 prerogative, did not pass without animad- commons 
 version in Parliament. They were dis- change of 
 
 ministry, 
 
 cussed in both houses on the 26th [March 1807. 
 and on the 9th April, Mr. Brand moved a resolu- 
 tion in the Commons, ' that it is contrary to the first 
 duties of the confidential servants of the crown to 
 restrain themselves by any pledge, expressed or im- 
 plied, from offering to the king any advice which 
 the course of circumstances may render necessary 
 for the welfare and security of the empire.' In 
 support of this motion it was argued, that the king 
 being irresponsible, if ministers should also claim 
 to be absolved from responsibility, by reason of 
 pledges exacted from them, there would be no 
 security fur the people against the evils of bad 
 government. Had ministers agreed to such a pledge, 
 they would have violated their oaths as privy- 
 councillors, and the king would have become abso- 
 lute. Nor did the conduct of secret advisers escape 
 notice, who had counteracted the measures of the 
 public and responsible advisers of the crown." On 
 the other side it was contended that the stipulation 
 proposed by ministers, of being at liberty to support 
 in debate a measure which thi^y had withdrawn, — 
 
 ' ITaiis. Doll., 1st S. r., ix. 231-279. 
 
 ' Mr. riuiiket, Huns. Dob., IslScr., ix. 312. 
 
I lO 
 
 Influence of the Crowr. 
 
 and of wliich the king disapproved, — was uncon- 
 stitutional, — as tending to place the king in direct 
 opposition to Parliament, — an evil which was ordi- 
 narily avoided by ministers refraining from support- 
 ing any measure to which the king might hereafter 
 have to give his veto. The late ministers were even 
 charged with not having, in the explanation of the 
 causes of their retirement, arraigned their sovereign 
 at the bar of Parliament.' Mr. Perceval denied 
 that the king had conferred with any secret ad\dsers 
 until after the ministers were dismissed ; and said 
 that, in requiring the pledge, he had acted without 
 any advice whatever. Ministers, he declared, had 
 brought the pledge upon themselves, 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 been guilty of a high crime and mis- 
 demeanour.2 With regard to Mr. Perceval's state- 
 ment, that the king had acted without advice, Sir 
 Samuel affirmed, 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 re- 
 sponsible for the advice given, and for the acts of the 
 cro .vn. There was no constitutional doctrine more 
 important than this, for the protection of the crown. 
 ' History had unfolded the evils of a contrary principle 
 
 ' General Criiufurd, Hans. Dob., 1st Ser., ix. 299 ; Mr. Perceval, 
 iWc?., 316 ; Mr. Bathurst, ibid., 331 ; Mr. Canuiug, ihU., 342. 
 « UAd., iv. 327. 
 
TJie King and the Grenville Ministry. 1 1 1 
 
 ha'.ing 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 pro- 
 vided : but that from this responsibility they could 
 not escape ; for by accepting office, they had as- 
 sumed 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 Satxirday before the pledge 
 bad 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 min- 
 istry ; 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. Perceval, 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., Ist Ser., ix. 339. 
 
 ' Lord KIdon himself expressly drnif-d having lirnl any fommiini- 
 eation with the king on the Catholic Qucstiou or the Miuiiiters.— 
 TwUii Life, ii. 36-38. 
 
1 1 2 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 and himself, bad endeavoured to prevent the separ- 
 ation between the late ministers and the king, by 
 amicable explanations. Mr. Canning concluded by 
 saying, that the ministers were ' determined to 
 stand by their sovereign, even though circumstances 
 should occur in which they may find it their duty 
 to appeal to the country.' ^ In answer to this 
 threat, Lord Henry Petty said that a great constitu- 
 tional wrong had been done, and that no such in- 
 timidation would induce the House to refrain from 
 expressing their sense of it. During the division, 
 Lord Howick addressed the members in the lobby, 
 and said that, being nearly certain of a majority,* 
 they must follow up their success with ' an addi'ess 
 to the throne, to meet the threat which had been 
 thrown out that evening, — a threat unexampled in 
 the annals of Parliament.' ^ But the king and his 
 adherents were too strong for the opposition, whose 
 friends, already looking to the com't, left them in 
 a minority of thirty-two.^ 
 
 On the 13th April, a discussion was raised in 
 Proceedings the Housc of Lords upon a motion to 
 in the Lords, .^.j^^ same effect, proposcd by the Marquess 
 
 • Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 346. According to SirS. Eomilly, Mr. 
 Canning said 'he had made up his mind, when the Catholic Bill was 
 tu'st mentioned, to vote for it if the king was for it, and against it if 
 the king was against it. Every art was used to interest persons for 
 the king ; his age was repeatedly mentioned, his pious scruples, his 
 regard for his coronation oath, which some members did not scruple 
 to sav would have been violated if the bill had passed.' — Roniilli/s 
 Lifc,'n. 19-i. 
 
 " A majority of twenty was expected. — RomUli/s Life, ii. 195. 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 348. It was intended to follow up this 
 motion, if carried, by resolutions expressing want of confidence in 
 the ministers. — Eomilly's Lije, ii. 194; Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 
 110. 
 
 * .Vyee, 258 ; Noes, 226. 
 
The King and tJie Grenville Ministry. 1 1 3 
 
 of Stafford. The most remarkable speech was that 
 of Lord Erskine, who had already expressed his 
 opinions on the subject, to the king himself.^ Not 
 being himself, on accoimt of religious scruples, 
 favourable to the Catholic claims, he yet ridiculed 
 the argument that the king had been restrained by 
 his coronation oath, from assenting to the late 
 measure. He had assented to the Act of 1793, 
 which admitted Catholic majors and colonels to the 
 army, without perjury: — how then could his oath 
 be violated by the admission of staflF-officers ? On 
 the question of the pledge he asked, ' Is it consis- 
 tent with the laws and customs of the realm that 
 the king shall make a rule for his own conduct, 
 which his councillors shall not break in upon, to 
 disturb with their advice ? ' If it were, ' the king, 
 instead of submitting to be advised by his coun- 
 cillors, might give the rule himself as to what he 
 will be advised in, until those who are solemnly 
 sworn to give full and impartial counsel, and who 
 are responsible to the public for their conduct as 
 his advisers, might be penned up in a corner of 
 their duties and jurisdiction, and the state might 
 go to ruin.' Again, as to the personal responsibility 
 of the king, he laid it down that ' the king can 
 perform no act of government himself, and no man 
 ought to be received within the walls of this House, 
 to declare that any act of government has proceeded 
 from the private will and determination, or con- 
 science of the king. The king, as chief magistrate, 
 
 ' Romilly's Life, ii. 188, 
 VOL. I. I 
 
114 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 can have no conscience which is not in the trust of 
 responsible subjects. When he delivers the seals of 
 ofiBce to his officers of state, his conscience, as it 
 regards the state, accompanies them.' ' No act of 
 state or government can, therefore, be the king's : 
 he cannot act but by advice ; and he who holds 
 office sanctions what is done, from whatever source 
 it may proceed.' 
 
 By Lord Harrowby the motion was represented as 
 ^>lacing the House in the situation ' of sitting in 
 judgment upon the personal conduct of their sove- 
 reign.' But perhaps the best position for the cro^vn 
 was that assumed by Lord Selkirk. The king, he 
 said, could not be accountable to Parliament for his 
 conduct in changing his advisers ; and the proposed 
 pledge was merely a motive for such a change, be- 
 yond the reach of parliamentary investigation. 
 Another view was that of Lord Sidmouth. Admit- 
 ting that for every act of the executive government 
 there must be a responsible adviser, he ' contended 
 that there wei'e many functions of the sovereign 
 which, though strictly legitimate, not only might, 
 but must be performed without any such responsi- 
 bility being attached to them, and which must, 
 therefore, be considered as the personal acts of the 
 king. Of these the constitution does not take cog- 
 nisance.''^ It was the object of tins ingenious argu- 
 ment to absolve from responsibility both the king, 
 who could do no wrong, and his present advisers, 
 who, by accepting office, had become responsible for 
 
 » Hans. D( b., 1st Ser., ix. 3j5-366. 
 
 ' Ihid., 399. 
 
riie King and the Grenville Ministry. 1 1 5 
 
 the measures by which their predecessors had been 
 removed. This unconstitutional position was well 
 exposed by the Earl of Lauderdale, who felicitously 
 cited the example of Lord Danby, in support of the 
 principle that the king can have no separate respon- 
 sibility. Lord Danby, having been impeached for 
 offences committed as a minister, had produced in 
 his defence, a written authority from the king him- 
 self, but was yet held responsible for the execution 
 of the king's commands: nay, the House of Com- 
 mons voted his plea an aggravation of his offences, 
 as exposing the king to public odium.' The same 
 argmnent was ably enforced by Lord Holland. That 
 for every act of the crowTi some adviser must be 
 responsible, — could not, indeed, be denied : but the 
 artifice of putting forth the king personally, and 
 representing him as on his trial at the bar, — this 
 repeated use of the king's name, was a tower of 
 strength to the ministerial party.^ Lord Stafford's 
 motion was superseded by the adjournment of the 
 House, which was carried by a majority of eighty- 
 one.' 
 
 The question, however, was not yet suffered tu 
 rest. On the 15th April, Mr. W. H. Lyt- „ , 
 
 ' •'Mr. Lyttle- 
 
 tleton renewed the discussion, in proposing 5s°j,^^p^°''' 
 a resolution expressing regret at the late 
 changes in his Majesty's councils. The debate added 
 little to the arguments on either side, and was 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 40 'j, \ \ \. 
 ' Komilly's Lift-, ii. 197. 
 
 • Confeuts, 171 ; Non-contcnts, 90. Ilaos. Deb. 1st Ser., ix. Vl'l. 
 I 2 
 
1 1 6 Influence of Ihe Crown. 
 
 brought to a close by the House resolving to pass to 
 the orders of the day.* 
 
 As a question of policy, it had obviously been a 
 Impolicy of fulsc Step, ou thc part of the ministers, to 
 
 the cabinet . . . j_ • • j_i 
 
 minute. givc cxpressiou to their reservations, m tne 
 minute of the cabinet. They had agreed to abandon 
 the bill which liad caused the difference between 
 themselves and his Majesty ; and, by virtue of their 
 office, as the king's ministers, were free, on any 
 future occasion, to offer such advice as they might 
 think proper. By their ill-advised minute, they 
 invited the retaliation of this obnoxious pledge. 
 But no constitutional writer would now be found to 
 defend the pledge itself, or to maintain that the 
 ministers who accepted office in consequence of the 
 refusal of that pledge, had not taken upon them- 
 selves the same responsibility as if they had ad- 
 vised it. 
 
 Meanwhile, though this was the first session of a 
 TiiedissoUi- new Parliament, a speedy dissolution was 
 1807. determined upon. Advantage was taken 
 of the prevalent anti-Catholic feeling which it was 
 feared might subside : but the main issue raised by 
 this appeal to the country was the propriety of the 
 recent exercii^e of prerogative. In uhe Lords Com- 
 missioners' speech, on the 27th April, the king said 
 he was ' anxious to recur to the sense of his people, 
 while the events which have recently taken place are 
 yet fresh in their recollection.' And he distinctly 
 invited their opinion upon them, by declaring that 
 *}je at once demonstrates, in the most unequivocal 
 
 • /.yes, -IW ; Noes, 108. llaiifi. D.b., 1st Scr., i.x. 432-47(5. 
 
The Dissolution, 1 807. 
 
 117 
 
 manner, his own conscientious persuasion of the 
 rectitude of those motives upon which he has acted, 
 and aflfords to his people the best opportunity of 
 testifying their determination to support him in 
 every exercise of the prerogatives of his crown, 
 which is conformable to the sacred obligations under 
 which they are held, and conducive to the welfare 
 of his kingdom, and to the security of the constitu- 
 tion.' The recent exercise of prerogative was thus 
 associated with the obligations of his coronation 
 oath, so as to unite, in favour of the new ministers, 
 the loyalty of the people, their personal attachment 
 to the sovereign, and their zeal for the Protestant 
 establishment. Without such appeals to the loyalty 
 and religious feelings of the people, the influence of 
 the crown was alone sufficient to command a majority 
 for ministers ; and their success was complete. 
 
 On the meeting of the new Parliament, amend- 
 ments to the address were proposed in both 
 Houses, condemning the dissolution, as Amemr'"'" 
 founded upon 'groundless and injurious "rc"s2eth^" 
 pretences;' but were rejected by large 
 majorities.' 
 
 The king's will had prevailed, and was not again 
 to be called in question. His own power, ^he three 
 confided to the Tory ministers henceforth [oTh7rt'"' 
 admitted to his councils, was supreme. 
 Though there was still a party of the king's friends,* 
 his Majesty agreed too well with liis ministers, in 
 
 ' In tlio Lords by a majority of 03, and in tlio Commons by a 
 majority of 19;').— //nwa. /M., 1st Sor., ix. My-GSS. 
 
 " Pellew'B Life of Loai SidmoiiUi, ii. lO'J; Komilly's Life, ii. 220. 
 
1 1 8 Infliience of the Crown. 
 
 principles and policy, to require the aid of irre- 
 sponsible advisers. But this rule, once more absolute, 
 —after the struggles of fifty years, — was drawing 
 to a close. The will, that had been so strong and 
 unbending, succumbed to disease ; and a reign in 
 which the king had been so resolute to govern, 
 ended in a royal ' phantom,' and a regency.' 
 
 See infra, p. 207. 
 
1 19 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 TNFI.CENCE OF THE CROWN DTJRING THE KEGENCY, THE REIGJfS OP 
 GEORGE IT., WILLIAM IV., AND HEE MAJESTY, QUEEN VICTORIA. 
 
 The Prince Regent differed too much, in character 
 and habits, from his royal father, to be in- character of 
 clined to exercise the influence of the Regent, 
 crown, with the same activity. George III., eager 
 for power, had also delighted in business, to which 
 he had trained himself from early youth.' With 
 greater abilities, and superior education, the prince 
 was fond of ease and pleasure, and averse to business. 
 His was not the temperament to seek the labour and 
 anxieties of public affairs : nor had power devolved 
 upon him, until the ambitious spirit of youth had 
 ceased to prompt liim to exertion. He loved the 
 'pomp and circumstance' of royalty, without its cares, 
 But though disinclined to the daily toils which his 
 father had undergone for fifty years, — and disposed, 
 l)y indolence and indifference, to leave more dis- 
 cretion to his ministers, in the ordinary affairs of 
 state : yet whenever his own feelings or interests were 
 concerned, his father himself had scarcely been more 
 imperative. 
 
 ' See debate, 14th April, 1812, on Col. jVI'iMahon'B appointment 
 as Private .Secroiury to the Prince liegcnl. — Uans. Deb., 1st Sor. 
 xxii. 'i'i2. 
 
T20 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 The very qualities, however, which disinclined the 
 Influence of P^'ii^ce to laborious activity, exposed him 
 lus court. ^j^g more readily to the influence of his 
 court. His father's will was strong, and full of 
 energy : his own, inconstant and capricious. The 
 father had judged for himself, with rude vigour 
 and decision : the son, — impulsive, indolent, and 
 mthout strength of principle or conviction, — was 
 swayed by the advice of those nearest to his person. 
 
 The early events of the regency displayed at once 
 the preponderating influence of the crown, over all 
 other powers of the state, and the subjection of the 
 regent to the counsels of the court. 
 
 To politics, apart from their relations to himself, 
 „. the prince was indifferent : and his indif- 
 
 hi^'poiiucai ference led to the same results, as the 
 friends. kiug's strong predilections. He readily 
 gave up the opinions, as well as the political friends 
 of his youth. As to his friends, indeed, he had 
 been separated from them for many years, by the 
 French Kevolution : ' the death of Mr. Fox had 
 more recently loosened the tie which had bound 
 them together : the part taken by them against the 
 Duke of York, had further relaxed it ; and the proud 
 bearing of the great Whig leaders, — little congenial 
 to the lighter manners of the court, — had nearly 
 broken it asunder. But lately they had exerted 
 
 ' Mr. Erskiiip, writing to Mr. Lee, 8th Feb. 1793, said : ' "We aro 
 now plunging for nothing, or rather for mischief, into a calamitous 
 war, in combination [not avowed) with the despots of the North, to 
 restore monarchy in France. And as it is the cause of kings, our 
 prince is drawn into it, and has taken his leave of all of us.'- - 
 Rockingham Memoirs, ii. 127- 
 
The Regency. 1 2 1 
 
 themselves strenuously against the restrictions upon 
 the powers of the regent, which the Government, 
 following the precedent of 1788, had proposed; and 
 their general views of policy were supposed to coin- 
 cide with his own. 
 
 Other circumstances pointed strongly to their 
 being now called to office. The Perceval iir. PiTce- 
 administration, which had owed its origin stration. 
 to the king's dread of the Roman Catholic claims, 
 was weak and disunited ; and while the leading 
 statesmen of all other parties were favourable to 
 the Roman Catholic cause, the sole merit of this 
 ministry lay in their opposition to it. Mr. Perceval 
 himself had been personally obnoxious to the prince, 
 as the friend and adviser of his detested princess, 
 Caroline of Brunswick : nor had the chancellor, 
 Lord Eldon, been free from the same offence. The 
 regent had also suspected the latter of keeping him 
 at a distance from his father, and told his lordship 
 afterwards ' that there was no person in the whole 
 world that he hated so much, as for years he had 
 hated him.'' 
 
 The prince had further raised the expectations of 
 the opposition, by confiding to Lord Gren- ^he prince 
 ville and Lord Grey tlic drawing up of his ".^vlce'of"'* 
 answer to the joint resolutions of tlie two vmeand^""' 
 Houses on the conditions of the regency; 
 and he, as suddenly, repressed these expectations })y 
 rejecting their draft for another, — the composition 
 of himself and Mr. Sheridan. This proceeding, so 
 contrary to the views of these noblemen, as respon- 
 
 ' Twiss's Lift' of Eklon, ii. 107, 198. 
 
122 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 sible advisers, di'ew from them a remonstrance, 
 which, however constitutional in doctrine, was too 
 lofty in its tone, and partook too much of the cha- 
 racter of a lectm-e, to be altogether acceptable to 
 the prince.' 
 
 While the Eegency Bill was passing through Par- 
 Hope of the lijiment, the prince had frequent communi- 
 opposition. cations with the opposition. The plan of 
 a new administration was concerted, and several of 
 the principal places were allotted to the Whig 
 leaders. So assured were they of their speedy ac- 
 cession to power, that, jealous of the influence of 
 Lord Moira and ]Mr. Sheridan, they were already in- 
 sisting that the prince should engage to consult none 
 but his future ministers.^ Nor were ministers less 
 persuaded of the impending change.' The king 
 himself, in his lucid intervals, was informed of it 
 by his chancellor ; and was prepared to restore his 
 Their (Us- old servants when he recovered.* But be- 
 ufent."'" fore the Eegency Bill had received the 
 royal assent, the queen addressed a letter to the 
 prince, suggesting the serious consequences which a 
 change of ministry might have upon the king's 
 recovery. The prince accordingly acquainted Lord 
 Grenville that the state of his Majesty's health 
 prevented the removal of ministers : but that his 
 
 ' Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii. 383, et seq. ; Court and Cabinets of 
 the KcL'cncy, i. 21, ct seq. — Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 307; Life 
 Bud Opinions of Earl Grey 266, 431. 
 
 - Rose Corr., ii 471-475 ; Life and Opinions of Earl Grey, 270. 
 
 ' Twiss's Life of Lord Kldon, ii. 197. 
 
 « Ibid., 477 ; Loi-d Colchester's Diary, i. 315. 
 
The Regent arid the Whigs. 123 
 
 confidence was entirely with his lordship, Lord Grrey, 
 and his other friends.' 
 
 When the restrictions upon the prince's power, as 
 regent, were about to expire, and the king's His proposal 
 recovery had become more improbable, it should join 
 
 Mr, Perte- 
 
 was still believed that he would, at length, vai! 
 form a new administration consisting of the opposition 
 leaders. He contented himself, however, with pro- 
 posing, through the Duke of York, that ' some of 
 those persons with whom the early habits of his 
 public life were formed,' should agree to strengthen 
 Mr. Perceval's administration, — a proposal which 
 they could scarcely have been expected to accept.^ 
 In suggesting this arrangement, he truly avowed 
 that he had ' no predilections to indulge ; ' having 
 now become as indifferent to the principles, as to 
 the persons, of the Whig leaders. 
 
 Restrained for a time, by the possibility of the 
 king's recovery,' from making any changes. His es- 
 he had easily become satisfied with exist- fronftSf"' 
 
 Whig 
 
 ing arrangements, — his contentment being leaders, 
 increased by a liberal civil list. This result was 
 imputed to secret counsels, — to the persuasion of the 
 queen, the Hertford family, and the court. Parlia- 
 
 ' Rose Corr., ii. 478, 479.— Life and Opinions of Earl Grey, 274. 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., xiii. 39, n. Court and Cabinets of the Regency, i. 
 222. Lord Grenville, writine; to the Marquess of Buckingham, Feb. 
 13lh, 1812, said: ' The whole will end, 1 doubt not, in the continu- 
 ance of Perceval, with Ca.stlerea<.'h and Sidmouth to help him. And 
 this, I believe, is what Lord Yarmouth means, whose intentions are 
 those which are alone of any consequence.' — Viid., 225. Mr. T. 
 Grenville, to same, 14th Feb.— Ibid., 228. Romilly's Life, iii. 11; 
 Lord Colchester 8 Diary, ii. 369; Plunjer Ward's Mem., i. 412; Life 
 and Opinions of Earl Grey, 283. 
 
 • Rose Corr., ii. 478, 47'J. 
 
124 Infiiicnce of the Crown. 
 
 ment and the press resounded with denunciations 
 of these covert influences.' But the events of this 
 Paramount period had a deeper import than the 
 
 influence of. - tit • l 
 
 the crown, mtngues 01 a court, and the disappoint- 
 ments of a party. They marked the paramount in- 
 fluence of the crown, in the government of the 
 country. Here were the two great parties in the 
 state looking to royal favoui- alone, as the source of 
 their power. It was never doubted by ministers, 
 that, if they retained the confidence of the prince 
 regent, they would be able to command the support 
 of Parliament. It was never doubted by the oppo- 
 sition, that, if invited to accept office, they would 
 be able to maintain their position as firmly as those 
 ministers whom they were seeking to displace. 
 Both parties were assured, that the support of Par- 
 liament would follow the confidence of the crown. 
 The Whigs had relied upon the personal friendship 
 of the prince regent : but ministers, having sup- 
 planted their rivals in court favoui', continued to 
 govern the country with the acquiescence of an ob- 
 sequious Parliament. There was no appeal, on either 
 side, to political principles or policy, or to public 
 service : but all alike looked upwards to the court. 
 The Tory party happened to prevail ; and the 
 
 ' Debate on Lord Boring<lon's motion, 19th Miirrh. 1812. Lord 
 Darriley, Earl Grev. &e. — Hiins. Deb., xxii. 62, 80. Lord Donouph- 
 more, April 21st, \8l2.—lb.(L, .'j25. Mr. Lyttleton, M:\y 4th, 1812, 
 said: 'It was notorious that the regent was surrounded with 
 favourites, and, as it were, honimed in with minions.' — Ibid., 1163. 
 Mooru's Life of Sheridan, ii. 391, 407; Rorailly's Life, ii. 366: 
 Wilberforee's Life, iii. 494 ; Court and Cabinets of the Regeuoy, i. 
 25, (t srq., 71. 10:5, 177, 211, 216; Twiss's Life of Kidon, ii. 193.— 
 Plumer Ward's JMeni., i. 479; Loixl Colchester's Diary, ii. 277. 
 
T/ie Regent and the Whigs. 125 
 
 government of the state was, therefore, conducted 
 on Tory principles. If the Whig party had been 
 placed in power, without any change in public 
 opinion, Whig principles would have been in the 
 ascendant. 
 
 The assassination of Mr. Perceval made an unex- 
 pected opening for a new ministry : but jcegotiations 
 the court appears to have been resolved o£Mr!p?r*.'^ 
 that no considerable change should follow. 
 Overtures were made to Lord Wellesley and 3Ir. 
 (L'anning, to strengthen a government to whose policy 
 they were opposed : but — as had doubtless been ex- 
 nected — they refused such conditions.' The old 
 , jvernment would have been at once revived, had 
 not the Commons addressed the regent, on the mo- 
 tion of Mr. Stuart Wortley, to take measures 'to 
 t')rm a strong and efficient administration.' ^ Lord 
 ^^'ellesley was now commissioned to form a ministry : 
 but none of the existing ministers would listen to 
 his overtxu-es ; and the opposition declined to accept 
 such a share of the cabinet as was offered to them ; 
 and thus liis lordship's mission failed, as the court 
 had, probably, intended.' 
 
 At length Lord Moira — the intimate friend of the 
 prince, and the unconscious tool of the LordMoira's 
 court — was charged to consult with Lord 
 Grey and Lord Grenville, on the formation of an 
 
 ' Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 209-213 ; Court and Cabinets of the 
 Regency, i. 303. 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 1st .Ser., xxiii. 231, 286. 
 
 ' Court and Cabinets of tlie Regency, i. 3.53 ; Sfapleton's Life of 
 Canning, 200; Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii. 2 tl; Lord Colchi-eter'8 
 Diary, ii. 382-384. 
 
126 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 administration. He stated that he had received 
 this commission without any restrictions upon the 
 consideration of such points as they judged useful 
 for his service. Nothing could exceed the apparent 
 fairness of this proposal ; but, as Lords Grey and 
 Grrenville had received information that no changes 
 Therovai would be permitted in the royal house- 
 househoid. \ they inquired whether they should 
 
 be at liberty to consider appointments to those great 
 offices in the household, which were usually included 
 in political arrangements, on a change of ministry. 
 Lord Moira, having obtained the prince's consent to 
 part with the officers of the household, if he should 
 advise it, had assured his royal highness, before he 
 undertook this mission, ' that he should not part 
 with one of them.' In execution of his promise, 
 he now said that it would be impossible for him to 
 concur in the necessity of changing the household 
 on the formation of a new ministry ; and upon this 
 issue the negotiations were broken off. As tlie views 
 of Lord Moira on the one side, and of the Whigs on 
 the other, had been well known before Lord Moira 
 received his commission,^ this proposal would seem 
 to have been as illusory as those which had preceded 
 it. But there was yet another artifice practised 
 upon the opposition leaders. Though Lord INIoira 
 had determined not to agree to any alteration in 
 the household. Lord Hertford, Lord Yarmouth, and 
 other officers had resolved to resign their offices at 
 
 ' Mp. T. Grenville to Murqupss of Buckingham. 30th April, 1812. 
 — Cuiirt and Cabinets of the llcgcnci/, i. 335. I'rom same to i-anio, 
 Juno 1st. — I/i/d., 336. 
 
 ' Mr. T. Circuville to the JIarquess of Buekingham. Ibid.,L 'iiil 
 
The Household Question, i S 1 2. 127 
 
 court, should the opposition undertake to form a 
 government. But this important information was 
 prevented, by court intrigues, from reaching the 
 noble lords who were conducting the negotiations.' 
 They insisted upon the change in order to give ' to 
 a new government that character of efficiency and 
 stability, and those marks of the constitutional sup- 
 port of the crown, which were required to enable it 
 to act usefully for the public service.' Lord Moira 
 rested his resistance to a claim, — which, according to 
 custom, could hardly have been opposed in any hona 
 fide consultations, — on the ground that changes in 
 the household would give countenance to the impu- 
 tations which had been thrown upon the court. It 
 need hardly be said that his conduct produced the 
 very result which he had professed his anxiety to 
 avert. 
 
 The leaders of the opposition were persuaded of 
 the hollo\vness of all the proposals which xhpre^'enfs 
 had been made to them : and, knowin"- the ^""""^',1. 
 
 ■ ' o n^amst the 
 
 hostility of the court, were as unwilling as ^^'"e^- 
 their Opponents that these overtures should lead to 
 any result. Had they been loss lofty and unbend- 
 ing, they might perhaps have overcome tlie obstacles 
 which they dreaded. The regent had not the stub- 
 born will of his royal father, and might have been 
 won over to their side again, if they had once estab- 
 lished themselves at court. So thought many of 
 their disappointed followers : but the great lords 
 
 ' Dcbntfs in Lords and Commons, 8th and 11th Juno, 1812 ; 
 Ilnns. Dob., Ist Sit., xxiii. S.'iG, 397, M\, GOfi, nnd Ajipcndix of 
 PiipeM ; Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii, 42/); Twi.ss's Life of lililon, 
 ii. 214-220; Life niid Opinions of Earl Grey, 2yfi, 
 
128 
 
 Injluence of the Crown. 
 
 judged otherwise, and proudly shrank from the un- 
 gracious task of combating the disfavour of the 
 prince, and the intrigues of his courtiers.' The 
 l^rince, indeed, had now become so violent against 
 the opposition, that we are reminded of Greorge III. 
 in the days of the coalition. ' He told Lord Welles- 
 ley that he had no objection to one or two of them 
 individually, but as a body he would rather abdicate 
 the regency than ever come into contact with them.' ^ 
 And again, after the failure of Lord Moira's mission 
 — 'three times that day, before dinner and after 
 dinner, he declared that if Lord Grey had been 
 forced upon him, he should have abdicated.' ^ 
 
 These negotiations, meanwhile, had served their 
 Reconstitu- purposc. The old administration was im- 
 ministry mediately reconstituted, under the Earl of 
 
 under Lord . 
 
 Liveipoui. Liverpool ; and when complaints were 
 made in the House of Commons, that a strong ad- 
 ministration had not been formed, in compliance 
 with their address, the blame was thrown upon the 
 impracticable leaders of the opposition. JMinisters 
 were now safe, and gained an easy triumjjh over Mr. 
 Stuart Wortley and Lord Milton, who endeavoured 
 to unsettle the government, by further representa- 
 tions to the regent.'* 
 
 ' Doliatcs in House of Lords, 3rd, 5th, and 8th June, 1812; 
 Hans, Deb., 1st Ser. xxiii. 332-;<66, and App. xli.; Twiss's Life of 
 J'^lddn, ii. '21G, 217; lioniillv's Life, iii. 42; Horner's Mem., ii. Ill, 
 311 ; Lord Grenville to the Jlarquoss of Bnckini^ham, June 6th and 
 9lli, 1812 ; Court and Cabinets of the Rejj;cnev, i. 353, 377 ; Jlr. T. 
 GrenviUe.— //«(/., 354 ; Life and Opinions of Karl Grey, 300-308. 
 
 ^ Court and Cabinets of the Regency, i. 323. 
 
 ' Moore's Mem. by Lord John liussell, i. 360. 
 
 * Juno lltb, Uaus. Deb., 1st Ser., x.\iii. 397. 
 
Proceedings against the Qtieen, 1820. 129 
 
 Henceforth the ascendency of Tory politics, which 
 George III. had established, and which the Ascemiency 
 regent had been expected to overthrow, utics^^'' 
 was maintained more firmly than ever. By the 
 influence of the crowm it had been created ; and 
 by the same influence it was upheld during the 
 regency, and throughout the reign of George IV. 
 All opposition being thus defeated, and the ministers 
 and the court party being agreed, the prince regent 
 liad no further need of personal interposition in the 
 government of the country. 
 
 On his accession to the throne, he was dissatisfied 
 with ministers, for resisting his demands Proceedings 
 for a larger civil list : but submitted to Queen, isiso. 
 their judgment, and even, in his speech to Parlia- 
 ment, disclaimed any wish fur an increased revenue.' 
 Soon afterwards his joainful relations with the queen 
 led to proceedings of which his ministers could 
 not approve : but in which, — with the honourable 
 exception of Mr. Canning,'^ — they were induced 
 to support him. The king's personal feelings and 
 honour were concerned ; and the embarrassing con- 
 duct of the queen herself, led them to accept the 
 responsibility of measures to which the king already 
 stood committed. No sooner had he succeeded to 
 the tlu'one than he desired to obtain a divorce ; but 
 his ministers, at that time, resisted his wishes, and 
 explained their objections, in some able minutes of 
 
 ' Twiss'g Life of Eldon, ii. 3G3 ; Com. Journ., Ixxv. 110. 
 » Staploton's Life of Canning, 290-295, 316-323. 
 TOL. I. JC 
 
I30 
 
 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 the cabinet.' He obtained from them, however, an 
 assurance that, if her Majesty should retvtrn to 
 England, they would no longer oppose him in his 
 cherished object.^ They were little prepared for so 
 embarrassing an event : but it was soon to be 
 brought about by the offensive measures which the 
 king had taken, and his ministers had sanctioned, 
 against her. 
 
 The queen had already bsen irritated by two 
 great insults. Our ambassadors, acting upon their 
 instructions from home, had prevented her recogni- 
 tion as queen of England at foreign courts ; and her 
 name had been omitted, by command of the king, 
 from the liturgy of the church. Even the legality 
 of this latter act was much doubted.' It was at 
 least so disputable as to be an imwise exercise of the 
 prerogative.'' Such insults as these, naturally pro- 
 voked the queen to insist upon her proper recogni- 
 tion. At the same time they aroused popular 
 sympathy in her cause, which encouraged her to 
 proceed to extremities. The ministers vainly at- 
 tempted a compromise : but it was too late. The 
 queen was already on her way to England, loudly 
 asserting her rights. They endeavoured to prevent 
 her approach, by submitting a proposal that she 
 
 ' lOth and 14th February, 1820; StapleLons Life of Canning, 
 2G6, 279, 299; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 115. 
 ' Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 368. 
 
 ' Debutes in Lords and Coinmons, 1820, on the papers relating to 
 the conduct of the queen. Dr. Philliniore, wriuiig to tlio Marquess 
 of Buckingham, 16th Jan. 1821, said: 'The general opinion of 
 lawyers is, I think, unfavourable to the claim.' — Court and CahmeU 
 of George IV.. i. 109. 
 
 * Mr. C. Wynn to the Marquess of Buckingham. — Ibid., 116. 
 
Proceedings against the Queen, 1820. 131 
 
 should receive an annuity of 50,000L a year, on re- 
 nouncing her title, and continuing to reside abroad ; 
 and threatening proceedings against her in Parlia- 
 ment, if she refused these conditions. She refused 
 them, and hastened to England, — when preliminary 
 proceedings were at once commenced. Even now 
 there was still hope of a compromise, sought by the 
 queen herself. The king was willing to drop all 
 further proceedings against her, and to recognise her 
 title, on condition of her residing abroad ; but the 
 queen demanded the restoration of her name in the 
 liturgy, and her recognition in at least one foreign 
 court, — which the king refused to concede.' 
 
 And now the threat was carried out to the fullest 
 extent, by the introduction of a bill into cona„ctof 
 the House of Lords, to deprive her ^Majesty "'"inters, 
 of her title, prerogatives, and rights, and to dissolve 
 her marriage with the king. Ministers were fully 
 sensible of the difficulties, and even of the danger, 
 of yielding to the king's desire to prosecute this 
 formidable measure. Lord Eldon, writing in June, 
 1820, said, ' I think no administration, who have any 
 regard for him, will go the length he wishes, as an 
 administration, — and if they will, they cannot take 
 Parliament along with them : that body is afraid of 
 disclosures, — not on one side only, — which may affect 
 the monarchy itself.' ^ But on the failure of all 
 their attempts to eflfect an accommodation of the 
 
 ' Debates, 19th June, 1820, when the failure of these negotiations 
 was announced ; Staijli-tnn's Life of Canning, 285-287. 
 ' TwissH Life of Eldon, ii. 372. 
 
132 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 royal diflferences, they yielded, — against their better 
 judgment, — to the revengeful spirit of the king. 
 
 The disgraceful incidents of the 'queen's trial' 
 are too well known to need repetition, even if they 
 ought otherwise to find a place in this history. But 
 what were the constitutional aspects of the case ? 
 The king had resolved to execute an act of vengeance 
 rather than of justice against the queen, — whose 
 wrongs had aroused for her protection, the strongest 
 popular feelings, — sympathy with a woman, and re- 
 sentment of oppression. All the power of the crown 
 was arrayed on one side, and the excited passions of 
 the people on the other. The impending conflict 
 was viewed with alarm by statesmen of all parties. 
 !Many sagacious observers dreaded a c\x\\. war. 
 Ministers foresaw the dangers to which the country 
 was exposed : they disapproved of proceedings which, 
 without their acquiescence, could not have been 
 attempted ; — yet they lent themselves to gratify the 
 anger and hatred of the king. They were saved 
 from the consummation of their worst fears by the 
 withdrawal of the Bill of pains and penalties, at its 
 last stage in the House of Lords : but in proceeding 
 so far, in opposition to their own judgment, they 
 had sinned against their constitutional obligations, 
 as responsible ministers. By consenting to act as 
 instruments of the king's pleasure, they brought him 
 into dangerous collision with his people. Had 
 they refused to permit, what they could not justify 
 to Parliament or the country, they would have 
 spared the king his humiliation, and the state its 
 perils. 
 
The King a?id the Opposition^ 1820. 133 
 
 Not to have supported the king in a cause affect- 
 ing his deepest feelings and his honour, might have 
 exposed them to the reproach of deserting their 
 royal master in his utmost need, and even of siding 
 with his hated consort : ' but a higher sense of their 
 responsibilities, and greater firmness in asserting 
 them, would have made them mediators between the 
 king, on the one side, and the queen, the Parliament, 
 and the people, on the other.'^ 
 
 The opposition had espoused the queen's cause, — 
 some to protect her from oppression, — xhe king's 
 some to lead a popular cause against the ^^st't'L 
 ministers, — and others, like Cobbett, to °pp°*'"°''- 
 gratify their bitter hatred of the government. The 
 king's resentment against those who had opposed 
 him in Parliament, equalled that of his father 
 against Mr. Fox. Mr. Fremantle, writing on the 
 29th December, 1820, to the Marquess of Bucking- 
 ham, said : ' His invective against Lord Grey was 
 stronger and more violent than I can possibly repeat ;" 
 and again : ' what I am most anxious to observe tu 
 you, was his increased hostility and indignation 
 
 ' Lord Brougham has attributed their conduct solely to an un- 
 worthy desire to retain their places ( ff'or/,-*, iv. 33) ; but perhaps 
 the suggestion in the text is nearer the truth. 
 
 * Mr. Canning wrote to Air. Huslcisson, Oct. 2, 1820, that the 
 ministers ought to have held this language to the king: '".Sir. — 
 divorce is impossible ! " " What I if she comes, if she l>raves, if she 
 insults?" "Yes, sir, in any case, divorce is impossible. Other 
 things may be trie<l, other expedients may bo resorted to; but 
 divorce, we tell you again, is impossible. It can never be ;" . . . . 
 and see the fruits ' (of their conduct), — ' a govtrnment brought into 
 contempt and detestation ; a kingdom tliruwn into such ferment atid 
 convulsion, as no other kingdom or government ever recovered from 
 without a revolution ; but I hopu we shall.' — Stapldonn Liju of 
 Canning, 299. 
 
134 
 
 InfiiLence of the Crown. 
 
 against the opposition, and more personally against 
 Lord Grrey.'' Yet the same acute observer, who 
 knew the king well, writing again on the 24th 
 January 1821, said: 'Lord Grenville fancies a "Whig 
 government could not last six months, reasoning 
 from the conduct of George III. : but in this I am 
 persuaded he would find himself deceived, for the 
 same decision and steadiness of mind does not belong 
 to his successor. And shoidd the change once take 
 place, new attachments and habits would prevail, 
 and obliterate all former anger.' ^ 
 
 Meanwhile, the popularity of the king, which had 
 Popularity Suffered for a time from these proceedings, 
 of Geo. IV. speedily recovered. The monarchy had 
 sustained no permanent injury: its influence was 
 not in the least impaired. The personal character 
 of the king was not such as to command the respect 
 or attachment of the people: yet at no previous 
 period had their loyalty been more devoted — never, 
 perhaps, had the adulation of royalty been so ex- 
 travagant and servile. There were discontent and 
 turbulence among some classes of the people: but 
 the crown and its ministers continued to rule supreme 
 over Parliament, the press, the society and the 
 public opinion of the country. 
 
 Thouah the influence of the crown was acknow- 
 Motion of ledged as fully as in the late reign, it had 
 ham on the not been brought under Parliamentary 
 
 influence of • s- -l • i o.io 
 
 the crown, discussiou for many years; when, m 1822, 
 
 June '24, 1 • 1 1 • 1 
 
 1822. Mr. Brougham introduced a motion on the 
 
 " Court and Cabinets of George IV., i. 99. ' Ihid., 112. 
 
Mr. Brougiiam s Motion, 1820. 135 
 
 subject. He proposed to declare that the influence 
 of the crown was 'unnecessary for maintaining its 
 constitutional prerogatives, destructive of the inde- 
 pendence of Parliament, and inconsistent with the 
 well-governing of the realm.' By comparing the 
 present expenditure with that of 1780, — the number 
 of places and commissions, the cost of collecting the 
 revenue, and the host of persons looking up to 
 government for patronage, — he pronounced the in- 
 fluence of the crown to have been greatly increased 
 since Mr. Dunning's celebrated resolution. He 
 admitted, however, that the number of placemen 
 in the House had been diminished. In the time of 
 Lord Carteret there had been two hundred, and at an 
 antecedent period even three hundred : in 1780 
 there had been between eighty and ninety ; and in 
 1822, eighty-seven, — many of whom, however, could 
 not be said to be dependent on the crowm. He 
 drew an entertaining historical sketch of the manner 
 in which every party, in turn, so long as it held 
 office, had enjoyed the confidence of the House of 
 Commons, but had lost that confidence immediately 
 it was in opposition, — a coincidence to be attributed 
 to the ascendency of the crown, which alone enabled 
 any ministry to command a majority. Lord London- 
 derry, in a judicious speech, pointed out that the 
 authority of the crown had been controlled by the 
 increasing freedom of the press, and by other causes; 
 and after a debate of some interest, Mr. Brou<rham's 
 motion was negatived by a large majority. It was 
 
 ' Ayes 21G, Noes \^\.—Uam. Dth., 2ml Scr., vii. 12GC. 
 
136 
 
 hifluence of the Crown. 
 
 not by paring down prerogative and patronage, 
 but by enlarging the liberties of the people, that 
 the influence of the crown was destined to be con- 
 trolled. 
 
 Early in his reig-n, the king was supposed to be 
 The king's favour of a measuro for the relief of the 
 cathouc Roman Catholics ; and its friends were 
 question. evcu Speculating upon his encouragement 
 to carry it through Parliament.' But in 1824, he 
 had become ' violently anti-Catholic ;' and so para- 
 mount was his influence supposed to be over the 
 deliberations of Parliament, that the friends of 
 the cause believed it to be hopeless.^ Until the 
 death of Lord Liverpool, the Catholic claims having 
 small hope of success, the king was content to 
 make known his opinions in conversation, and 
 through common reports.^ But when Mr. Canning, 
 the brilliant champion of the Roman Catholics, 
 had become first minister, his Majesty thought 
 it necessary to declare his sentiments, in a more 
 authentic shape. And accordingly he sent for 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of 
 London, and ' directed them to make known to their 
 clergy that his sentiments on the coronation oath, 
 and on the Catholic question, were those his revered 
 father, George III., and lamented brother, the Duke 
 of York, had maintained during their lives, and 
 
 ' ' I liear he is for it,' said the Duke of Wellington to Mr. Fre- 
 mantle. ' By the bj-,' he added, ' I hear Lady Conyugliani supports 
 it, wliich is a great thing.' — Court and Cabinets vf George IV., i. 
 148 ; ib. 218. 
 
 - n>id. ii. 103. 1G9, 211. 
 Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 304 ; Torrens, Life of Melbourue, 
 L 324. 
 
The King and the Catholic Question, i^^j 
 
 which he himself had professed when Prince of 
 Wales, and which nothing could shake ; finally, 
 assuring them that the recent ministerial arrange- 
 ments were the result of circumstances, to his 
 Majesty equally unforeseen and unpleasant.' ' And 
 when political necessity had wrung from Sir Eobert 
 Peel and the Duke of Wellington, a conviction that 
 a measure of relief could no longer be withheld, it 
 was with extreme diflBculty that they obtained his 
 assent to its introduction.^ After he had given his 
 consent, he retracted, and again yielded it : — at- 
 tempted to deny, or explain it away to his anti- 
 Catholic advisers : — complained of his ministers, and 
 claimed the pity of his friends. ' If I do give my 
 assent,' said he, ' I'll go to the baths abroad, and 
 from thence to Hanover : I'll return no more to 
 England. . . I'll return no more : let them get a 
 Catholic king in Clarence.' Such had once been 
 the threat of the stout old king, who, whatever his 
 faults, at least had firmness and strength of will. 
 But the king who now uttered these feeble la- 
 mentations, found solace in his trouble, by throwing 
 his arms round the neck of the aged Eldon.' And 
 again, in imitation of his father, — having assented 
 
 ' Speech of the Bishop of London at a dinner of the clergy of his 
 diocese, 8th May, 1827 ; Court and Ciibinets of Georfie IV., ii. 324 ; 
 Gentlcmun's Magazine, xcvii. 457 ; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 48(5; 
 Ihid. iii. 496. On the 21st May, in r(|)ly to a question of Lord 
 Ilarewood, the liishop of London stated in his place, that the news- 
 paper account of his speech to the clergy was correct ; and thus the 
 King's name was introduced into debate, and his opinions stated in 
 Parliament. Iliid., iii. 508. 
 
 - Peel's Jlein., i. 274, &c.; and see-Chap. XIII. 
 
 » Twiss's I>ifo of Eldon, iii. 82-87 ; Peel's Mem., i. 343-350; 
 Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. C07-G14. 
 
138 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 to the passing of the Act, which he had deliberately 
 authorised his ministers to carry, — he gratified his 
 animosity against those who had supported it, — 
 particularly the peers and bishops, — by marked 
 incivility at his levee ; while he loaded with at- 
 tentions those \yho had distinguished themselves by 
 opposition to the government.' 
 
 This concession to the Roman Catholics, — which 
 the ablest statesmen of all parties concurred in sup- 
 porting, — had already been delayed for thirty years, 
 by the influence of the crown. Happily this 
 influence had now fallen into weaker hands ; or it 
 might still have prevailed over wiser counsels, and 
 the grave interests of the state. 
 
 Hitherto we have seen the influence of the crown 
 Rei-ni of invariably exercised against a liberal policy 
 
 ■William r ■ • 1 i i-i • 
 
 IV. and often against the rights and liberties 
 
 of the people. But the earlier years of the reign of 
 William IV. presented the novel spectacle of the 
 prerogatives and personal influence of the king being 
 exerted, in a great popular cause, on behalf of the 
 His sup- people. At various times, small expedients 
 liametto"' J^^d been tried with a view to restrain the 
 reform. influence of the cro^vn : but the reform bill, 
 by increasing the real power of the people in the 
 House of Commons, was the first great measure 
 calculated to effect that object ; and this measure, 
 it was everywhere proclaimed that the king himself 
 approved. The ministers themselves announced his 
 Majesty's entire confidence in their policy, and his 
 
 ' Twiss's Life of Eldon, iii. 88. See also Lecky, Hiit. of Eii^- 
 larul, ch. ii. 
 
William IV. and Reform. 139 
 
 determination to support them ; ^ and the advocates 
 of the cause, in every part of the country, declared 
 that the king was on their side. 
 
 Yet, in truth, the attitude of the king in regard 
 to this measure, at first resembled that which his 
 royal predecessors had maintained against a pro- 
 gressive policy. When ministers first proposed to 
 introduce it, he regarded it with dislike and appre-r 
 hension : he dreaded the increasing influence and 
 activity of the Commons, and, — alarmed by the 
 spirit in which they had investigated the expendi- 
 ture of his civil list, — he feared lest, strengthened 
 by a more pojjular representatio-n, they should en- 
 croach upon his own prerogatives and independence.'^ 
 The royal family and the court were also averse to 
 the measure, and to the ministers. But when his 
 jNIajesty had given his consent to the scheme sub- 
 mitted by the cabinet, he was gratified by its popu- 
 larity, — in which he largely shared, — and which its 
 supporters adroitly contrived to associate with his 
 Majesty's personal character, and supposed political 
 sympathies. 
 
 He was still distrustful of his ministers and their 
 policy ; yet while the tide of popular favour was 
 running high, and no political danger was imme- 
 diately impending, he gave them his support and 
 countenance. On their side, they were not slow to 
 take advantage of the influence of his name : they 
 
 ' At tho Lord Jfayor'a Diiiiier, Easter Monday, 1831. Twiss's 
 I-ifc of Kldon, iii. 126. 
 
 - Kocbuck'H Hist, of tho Whig Ministry, ii. 27, 28 ; Corr. of Hurl 
 Grey with Will. IV., i. 9, 17, 95, et seq., 113, 149; Ihid., ii. IGl. 
 
140 
 
 Inflitencc of the Crown. 
 
 knew that it would be a great aid to their cause ; 
 and, sensible of the insecuiity of his favour, they 
 took care that it should be widely proclaimed, as 
 long as it lasted. Politicians like Lord Eldon, who, 
 for forty years, had relied upon the influence of the 
 crown to resist every popular measure, — even when 
 proposed by its o^vn responsible ministers, — were 
 now scandalised by this 'unconstitutional' cry.' 
 Yet what did this cry, in truth, import ? The state 
 of parties in Parliament, and of popular feeling in 
 the coimtry, had brought into the king's service a 
 ministry pledged to the cause of Parliamentary 
 reform. To this ministry he had given his con- 
 fidence. George III., by some bold stroke or cun- 
 ning manoeuvre, would soon have set himself free 
 from such a ministry. George PV., after giving a 
 doubtful assent to their policy, would have reserved 
 his confidence and his sympathies for their opponents: 
 but William IV. at this time, took a part at once 
 manly and constitutional. His responsible ministers 
 had advised the passing of a great measure, and he 
 had accepted their advice. They were now engaged 
 in a fierce parliamentary struggle ; and the king 
 gave them, — what they were entitled to expect, — 
 his open confidence. So long as they enjoyed this 
 confidence, he exercised his prerogatives and influence 
 according to their counsels. His powers were used 
 in the spirit of the constitution, — not independently, 
 or secretly, — but on the avowed advice and responsi- 
 bility of his ministers. 
 
 > Twiss's Life of Eldon, iii. 126. 
 
Dissohition t?/" 1831. 141 
 
 The king was called upon, at a critical period, to 
 exercise his prerogative of dissolving Parlia- Dissolution 
 ment. In 1831, a new Parliament was 
 yet in its first session : but having been assembled 
 under the auspices of the late administration, before 
 the popular feelings in favour of parliamentary 
 reform had been aroused, it had become evident that 
 a reform ministry, and this Parliament, could not 
 exist together. The ministers, having been twice 
 defeated in three days,' had no alternative but to 
 resign their offices, or to appeal from the House of 
 Commons to the people ; and they urged the 
 necessity of an immediate dissolution. The time 
 was full of peril, and the king hesitated to adopt the 
 bold advice of his ministers ; ^ but when at length 
 he yielded his assent,' the prerogative was exercised 
 at once, and by the king in person.^ If there was 
 something unseemly in the haste with which this 
 was done, and imusual in the manner of doing it, — 
 the occasion was one demanding the promptest 
 action. Lord WhamcliflFe had given notice of a 
 motion for an address to the king, remonstrating 
 against a dissolution ; and his motion was actually 
 under discussion in the House of Lords, when the 
 
 ' First on General Grascoigne's amendment, 1 9th April, and after- 
 wurds on » question of adjournment, 21st April. 
 
 » Earl Gwy's Corr. with WilL IV., i. 158, 159, 166, 176, 178; 
 see an able and ptattismanlike letter from Lord Durham upon the 
 arguments ajiainst a dissolution, 22nd March, 1831, Earl Grey's 
 Corr. with Will. IV. i. 193, n*,U. 
 
 » Ear! Grey's Corr., i. 229. 
 
 * For an account ol the interview between thr king and Lords Grey 
 and Brougham, see Koehuck's llist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 149, 
 
 ft<i., and Earl Grey's Corr. with Will. IV., note by the Editor, i. 
 231. 
 
142 
 
 Injliience of the Crown. 
 
 king arrived to prorogue Parliament.' Both houses 
 would probably have joined in such an address, had 
 time been allowed them, and would have interposed 
 embarrassing obstacles to the exercise of the kinii's 
 prerogative. By this sudden appeal to the people, 
 ministers at once deprived their opponents of the 
 vantage-ground of parliamentary opposition. 
 
 The dissolution resulted in an overpowering 
 Second re- majority of the new House of Commons, in 
 1831. ' favour of the government reform bill. And 
 now the House of Lords, exercising its constitutional 
 right, rejected it. So important a measure was trying 
 all the powers of the state, to their utmost tension. 
 The popular excitement was so great that it was im- 
 possible for ministers to yield. The king, though 
 disturbed by increasing apprehensions,^ — still up- 
 held them, and the Commons supported them by 
 a vote of confidence. All the political forces of 
 the country were thus combined against the House 
 of Lords. 
 
 After a short prorogation, a third reform bill was 
 Thirire- passed by the Commons. The position 
 
 formbiU, \, , -r , -i 
 
 18S1-32. of the Lords was now too perilous not 
 to cause some wavering ; and the second reading 
 of the bill was accordingly agreed to, by the 
 small majority of nine. Tliis concession, how- 
 ever, was followed by an adverse vote in Com- 
 mittee. A graver question of prerogative had now 
 to be considered. An appeal from the House of 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Spf., iii. 1806; Roebuck's Hist, of the WLig 
 Ministry, ii. 1.02 ; Ann. Reg., 1831, p. 110. 
 
 ' Earl Grey's Corr. with Will. IV., ii. 1G9, 175, 3-51. 
 
Proposed Creation of Peers, 1832. 143 
 
 Commons to the people had been decisive : but what 
 appeal was there from the House of Lords ? proposed 
 None, save to the crown, to which that p«rs!°°°' 
 body owed its existence. A creation of 
 peers was the ultima ratio, which, after serious 
 doubts and misgivings, ministers submitted to the 
 king.' His Majesty's resolution had already been 
 shaken by the threatening aspect of affairs, and by 
 the apprehensions of his family and court f and he, 
 not unnaturally, shrank from so startling an exercise 
 of his prerogative.^ The ministers resigned, and the 
 Commons addressed the king, praying him to call 
 such persons only to his comicils as would promote 
 the passing of the reform bill.'' The Duke of Wel- 
 lington having failed to form a government of 
 declared anti-reformers, ready to devise a measure 
 of reform at once satisfactory to the people and to 
 the House of Lords,* the ministers were recalled. 
 
 Another pressure was now brought to bear upon 
 the House of Lords, — irregular and uncon- , „ , 
 
 ' o Influence of 
 
 fititutional indeed, but necessary to avert ^^^^^^^f^ 
 revolution on the one hand, and to save 
 the peers from harsh coercion, on the other. The 
 king having at length agreed to create a sufficient 
 number of peers to carry thc^ bill,'' — yet anxious to 
 
 ' Earl Grey's Corr. -with Will. IV., ii. 291, 301. Minuto of 
 Cabinet, 8th May, 1832 ; Hail., 3'.)4. 
 
 Ya\v\ Grey's Corr. with Will. IV., ii. 175, 179. 
 
 • Kooliu. k's Ili.st. of tho Wilier Ministry, ii. 222-227, 281. Karl 
 Grey's Corr. with Will. IV., ii. 395. 
 
 • Sco nlso infra. Chap. V. 
 
 • See Karl Grey's Corr. with Will. IV., ii. '106, vole. 
 
 » Rodnick'H Hist, of the Whig Mini.-trv, ii. 331; Earl Grey 'a 
 Corr. with Will. IV., ii. 432, 131 ; mfra, Cli':ip. V. 
 
144 Injltiencc of the Crown. 
 
 avoid so extreme a measure, — averted the daagers 
 of a great political crisis, by a timely interference. 
 Some of the most violent peers were first dissuaded 
 from proceeding- to extremities; and on the 17th 
 May, the following circular letter was addressed, 
 without the knowledge of ministers, to the opposi- 
 tion peers : — 
 
 "My dear Lord, — I am hononred with his Majesty's 
 comraands to acquaint your lordship, that all difficulties 
 to the arrangements in progress will be obviated by ."^ 
 declaration in the House to-night from a sufficient 
 number of peers, that in consequence of the present 
 state of affiiirs, they have come to the resolution of 
 dropping their further opposition to the Reform Bill 
 so that it may pass without delay, and as nearly as 
 possible in its present shaj^e. 
 
 ' I have the honour to be, Ac, 
 
 'Herbert Taylor.'' 
 
 The peers took this suggestion, and yielded. Had 
 they continued their resistance, a creation of peers 
 could not luive been avoided. This interference of 
 the king with the independent deliberations of the 
 House of Lords was, in truth, an act no less uncon- 
 stitutional than a creation of peers, — the one being 
 an irregular interference of the crown with the free- 
 dom of Parliament, — the other an extreme exercise 
 of an undoubted prerogative. But it was resorted 
 to, — not to extend the authority of the crown, or to 
 overawe Parliament, — but to restore harmonious 
 action to tliosc powers of the state, which had bccu 
 
 ' Roebuck's Hist, of the Whig Ministry, ii. 334 ; Earl Grey's 
 Corr., ii. 420, 414. 
 
The King and the Whigs, 1834. 145 
 
 brought into dangerous opposition and conflict.' In 
 singular contrast to the history of past times, this 
 greatest extension of the liberties of the people was 
 now obtained, in the last resort, by the personal in- 
 fluence of the crown. 
 
 Two years after these great events, the preroga- 
 tives of the crown were again called into ^^-j^j^^ 
 activity, in a manner which seemed to re- coniid'^fnce 
 Vive the political history of 1784. Earl '^"s- 
 Grey's government had lost the confidence of the 
 king. His Majesty had already become apprehen- 
 sive of danger to the church, when his alarm was 
 increased by the retirement of Lord Stanley, Sir J. 
 Graham, and two other members of the cabinet, on 
 the question of the appropriation of the surplus 
 revenues of the church in Ireland. And without 
 consulting his ministers, he gave public expression 
 to this alarm, in replying to an address of the 
 prelates and clergy of Ireland.* The ministry of 
 Earl Grey, enfeebled by the retirement of their 
 colleagues, by disunion, and other embarrassments, 
 soon afterwards resigned. Though tlioy had already 
 lost their popularity, they continued to command a 
 large majority in the House of Commons. Lord 
 Melbourne's administration, which succeeded, was 
 composed of the same materials, and represented the 
 great liberal party, and its parliamentary majority. 
 Lord Melbourne had concluded the business of the 
 
 ' Tho Duko of Wellington writing to the Jiarl of Derby in 1846, 
 said, 'this course (;iivo, at the time, f^imt dissatisfaction to the purtv : 
 notwithstanding that, I believe, it saved the existence of the Houita 
 of Lords, at tho time, and tho constitution of the country.' 
 
 » Annual llegister, 1831, p. 13. 
 
 VOL. I. L 
 
1 16 Influence of the Crown. 
 
 Bession of 1834, with the full support of this ma- 
 jority. But the king, who had withdrawn his con- 
 fidence from Earl Grrey, reposed it still less in Lord 
 Melbourne, — having, in the meantime, become 
 entirely converted to the political opinions of the 
 opposition. 
 
 In October, the death of Earl Spencer having 
 Their Slid- removed his son. Lord Althorp, from the 
 
 den dismis- . 
 
 Baliu 1834. leadership of the House of Commons, and 
 from his office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, the 
 king seized this opportunity for suddenly dismissing 
 his ministers ; and proceeded to consult the Duke 
 of Wellington upon the formation of a government, 
 from the opposite party. ^ Lord Althorp's elevation 
 to the House of Lords rendered necessary a partial 
 reconstruction of the ministry : but assuredly that 
 circumstance alone would not have suggested the 
 propriety of taking counsel with those who consti- 
 tuted but a small minority of the House of Com- 
 mons. Lord Melbourne proposed to supply the 
 place of Lord Althorp by Lord John Eussell, — a far 
 abler man : but the king was determined that tlie 
 ministry sliould be dissolved. All the accustomed 
 grounds for dismissing a ministry were wanting. 
 There was no immediate difference of opinion be- 
 tween them and the king, upon any measure, or 
 question of public policy : there was no disunion 
 among themselves : nor were there any indications 
 tliat they had lost the confidence of Parliament. 
 
 ' Soo tlio Diiko of Wellinctnn's pxplimation of theso prooocdiiifis 
 in a' letter to tlio Dnko of liuckin^lmni, Nov. 21st, 1831. — Courts 
 and Cabinets nj ii'iliuim 1]'., ii. 1 13. cl aeq. 
 
Dismissal of Lord Melbourne, 1834. 147 
 
 But the accidental removal of a siugie minister, — 
 not necessarily from the government, but only from 
 one House of Parliament to the other, — was made the 
 occasion for dismissing the entire administration. It 
 is true that the king viewed with apprehension tlie 
 policy of his ministers in regard to the Irish church: 
 but his assent was not then required to any specific 
 measiu:e of which he disapproved, nor was this tlie 
 ground assigned for their dismissal. The right of 
 the king to dismiss his ministers was unquestionable : 
 but constitutional usage has prescribed certain con- 
 ditions under which this right should be exercised. 
 It should be exercised solely in the interests of the 
 state, and on grounds which can be justified to 
 Parliament, — to whom, as well as to the king, the 
 ministers are responsible. Even in 1784, when 
 George III. had determined to crush the coalition 
 ministry, he did not venture to dismiss tliem, until 
 they had been defeated in the House of Lords, 
 upon Mr. Fox's India Bill. And again, in 1807, 
 the ministers were at issue with tlie king upon a 
 grave constitutional question, before he proceeded 
 to form another ministry. But here it was not 
 directly alleged that the ministers had lost the con- 
 fidence of the king ; and so little could it be af- 
 firmed that they had lost the confidence of Parlia- 
 ment, that an immediate dissolution was cotuisclled 
 by the new administration. Tiic act of tlie king 
 bore too much the impress of his personal will, and 
 too little of those reasons of stale j)olicyby which it 
 should have been prompted : but its impolicy was 
 L 2 
 
148 
 
 Injliiejice of the Crown. 
 
 so signal as to throw into the shade its unconstitu- 
 tional character. 
 
 The Duke of Wellington advised his Majesty that 
 lemporary the difficult task of forming a new admiu- 
 nients'uiKjer istiatiou, should be entrusted to Sir Eobert 
 
 the Dnke of t-, , t-, 
 
 Wellington. Peel. But such had been the suddenness 
 of the King's resolution, that Sir Eobert, wholly 
 unprepared for any political changes, was then at 
 Eome. The duke, however, promptly met this 
 difficulty by accepting the office of first lord of the 
 Treasiu-y himself, until Sir Eobert Peel's arrival. 
 He also held the seals of one of his Majesty's prin- 
 cipal secretaries of state, which, — as there was no 
 other secretary, — constituted his grace secretaiy for 
 the home, the foreign and the colonial departments. 
 His sole colleague was Lord Lyndhurst, who was 
 entrusted with the great seal : but still retained 
 the office of Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Ex- 
 chequer. 
 
 This assumption of the government by a single 
 man, while Parliament was not sitting, — avowedly 
 for the purpose of forming an administration from 
 a party whose folio ^ving comprised less than a fourth 
 of the House of Commons,' — presented an unpro- 
 mising view of constitutional government, aftor the 
 Eeform Act. 
 
 In defence of this concentration of offices, the 
 precedent of the Duke of Shrewsbuiy was cited, who, 
 in the last days of Queen Anne, had held the several 
 
 ' Sir Robert Peel himself adnytled that he could not h:ive de- 
 pended upon more than 130 votes. — Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., ixvi. 'I'Zi, 
 293*, 425. 8ce also Chap. VIII. 
 
JV ellmgtoiis Provisional Ministry. 1 49 
 
 offices of Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chamberlain, 
 and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.' But the critical 
 emergency of that occasion scarcely afforded an ex- 
 ample to be followed, except where some public 
 danger is to be averted. The queen was upon her 
 death-bed : the succession was disimted, — a civil 
 war was impending, — and the queen's ministers had 
 been in secret correspondence with the Pretender. 
 At such a time of peril, any means of strengthening 
 the executive authority was justifiable : but to 
 resort to a similar expedient, when no danger 
 threatened the state, merely for the purpose of con- 
 certing ministerial arrangements and party combi- 
 nations, — if justifiable on other grovmds, — could 
 scarcely be defended on the plea of precedent. Its 
 justification, if possible, was rather to be sought iu 
 the temporary and provisional nature of the ar- 
 rangement. The king, having dismissed his minis- 
 ters, had resolved to entrust to Sir Robert Peel the 
 formation of another ministry. The accident of 
 that statesman's absence deferred, for a time, the 
 carrying out of his ^Majesty's resolution ; and the 
 Duke of Wellington, in the interval, administered 
 the executive business of several departments of the 
 government, in the same manner as outgoing 
 ministers generally undertake its administration, 
 until their successors are appointed. The provisional 
 character of this inter-ministerial government was 
 shown by the circumstances stated by the duke 
 himself, ' that during the whole time he held the 
 
 ' Iliinsard'e Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvi. '224. 
 
Iiiflitencc uf the Crown. 
 
 seals, there was not a single office disposed of, nor 
 au act done, which was not essentially necessary for 
 { he service of the king, and of the country.' ' That 
 it was an expedient of doubtful and anomalous 
 character, — which, if drawn into precedent, might 
 be the means of abuses dangerous to the state, — 
 could scarcely be denied : but as the duke had ex- 
 ercised the extraordinary powers entrusted to him, 
 with honour and good faith, his conduct, though 
 exposed to invective, ridicule, and caricatm-e,^ did 
 not become an object of parliamentary censm'e. 
 Such was the temper of the House of Commons, 
 that had the duke's ' dictatorship,' — as it was called, 
 — been more open to animadversion, it had little to 
 expect from their forbearance. 
 
 If any man could have accomplished the task 
 Sir Robert which the king had so inconsiderately im- 
 
 Peel as pre- o. t-> i -r* i 
 
 mier, 1834. poscd upon liis minister, Sir Kobert Peel 
 was unquestionably the man most likely to succeed. 
 He perceived at once the impossibility of meeting 
 the existing House of Commons, at the head of a 
 Tory administration ; and the king was therefore 
 advised to dissolve Parliament. 
 
 So completely had the theory of ministerial re- 
 Assumestho sponsibllity been now esbablished, that, 
 f^itrotthe though Sir Robert Peel was out of the 
 king's acts, pg^lm when the late ministers were dis- 
 missed, — though he could have liad no cognizance 
 
 ' Duke of Wellington's Explanations, Feb. 24, 1835 ; Hans. Deb., 
 3rd Scr., xxvii. 85. 
 
 ^ U. B. reprtspntod the duke, in niultiform characters, occupying 
 evei-y seat at tlio C'juncil Board. 
 
Sir Robert Pcet s Minish'y, 1S35. 151 
 
 of the causes which induced the king to dismiss them, 
 — thousrh the Duke of Wellington had been invested 
 with the sole government of the country, without 
 his knowledge, — he yet boldly avowed that, by 
 accepting office after these events, he became con- 
 stitutionally responsible for them all, — as if he had 
 himself advised them.' He did not attempt, like 
 the ministers of 1807, to absolve himself from cen- 
 sure for the acts of the crown, and at the same time 
 to denounce the criticism of Parliament, as au 
 arraignment of the personal conduct of the king : 
 but manfully accepted the full responsibility which 
 had devolved upon him. 
 
 The minister could scarcely have expected to ob- 
 tain a majoritv in the new Parliament: The new 
 
 111 1 • 1 " • • r- Parliament. 
 
 but he relied upon the reaction m favour i835. 
 of Tory principles, which he knew to have com- 
 menced in the country, and which had encouraged 
 the king to dismiss Lord Melbourne. His party was 
 greatly strengthened by the elections : but was still 
 unequal to the force of the opposition. Yet he 
 hoped for forbearance, and a 'fair trial ; ' and trusted 
 to the eventual success of a policy as liberal, in its 
 general outline, a.s that of the Whigs. But he had 
 only disappointments and provocations to endure. 
 A hostile and enraged majority confronted him in 
 the House of Commons, — comprising every section 
 of the ' liberal party,' — and determined to give him 
 no quarter. He was defeated on the election of the 
 Speaker, where at least he had deemed himself 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xivi. 216, 223. 
 
Influence of the Crown. 
 
 secure ; and again upon the address, ■when an amend- 
 ment was voted condemning the recent dissolution 
 as unnecessary ; ' and, — not to mention minor dis- 
 comfitures, — he was at length defeated on a resolu- 
 tion, affirming that no measure on the subject of 
 tithes in Ireland would be satisfactory, that did not 
 provide for the appropriation of the surplus revenues 
 of the Irish Church.* 
 
 These few weeks formed the most brilliant episode 
 Efforts of in Sir Robert Peel's distinguished parlia- 
 
 Sir Robert i . i i 
 
 Peel. mentary career. He combined the temper, 
 tact, and courage of a gTeat political leader, with 
 oratory of a higher order than he had ever pre- 
 viously attained. He displayed all the great 
 qualities by which Mr. Pitt had been distinguished, 
 in face of an adverse majority, with a more con- 
 ciliating temper, and a bearing less haughty. Under 
 similar circumstances, perhaps, his success might 
 have been equal. But Mr. Pitt had still a dissolu- 
 tion before him, supported by the vast influence of 
 the crown : Sir Robert Peel had already iried that 
 ventiu-e, under every disadvantage : he found the 
 king's confidence a broken staff, — and no resource 
 was left him, but an honourable retirement from a 
 hopeless struggle.' 
 
 ' It lamented that tlie progress of ' reforms should have been 
 interrupted and endangered by the unnecessary dissolution of a Par- 
 liament earnestly intent upon the vigorous prosecution of measures, 
 to which the wishes of the people were most anxiously and justly 
 directed.' — Cora. Journ., xc. 8. Hans. Deb., xxvi., 3rd Ser., 26, 151, 
 410, 425. 
 
 - Com. Journ., xc. 208. 
 
 ' See Tool's Alem., ii. 44-48 : Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 211 ; 
 rorrons. Life of Melbourne, ii. 68 et seg. 
 
Sir Robert PccVs Ministry, 1835. 153 
 
 He resigned, and Lord Melbourne s government, 
 with some alterations, was reinstated. The stroke 
 of prerogative had failed ; and its failure 
 offers an instructive illustration of the cauSJ'ofWs 
 effects of the Eeform Act, in diminishing 
 the ascendent influence of the crown. In George 
 the Third's time, the dismissal of a ministry by 
 the king, and the transfer of his confidence to their 
 opponents, — followed by an appeal to the country, — 
 would certainly have secured a majority for the new 
 ministers. Such had been the effect of a dissolution 
 in 1784, after the dismissal of the coalition ministry: 
 such had been the effect of a dissolution in 1807, on 
 the dismissal of Lord Grenville. But the failure of 
 this attempt to convert Parliament from one policy 
 to another, by the prerogative and influence of the 
 crown, proved that the opinion of the people must 
 now be changed, before ministers can reckon upon 
 a conversion of Parliament. It is true that the 
 whole of these proceedings had been ill advised on 
 tlie part of the king, even in the interests of the 
 party whom he was anxious to serve : but there had 
 been times within the memory of many statesmen 
 tlien living, when equal indiscretion would not have 
 incurred the least risk of defeat. 
 
 Tlie second ministry of Lord Melbourne, though 
 rapidly sinking in the estimation of tlieir L„rdMei. 
 own supporters, — and especially of the ^"^nj " 
 extreme, or radical party,— while their 
 opponents were gaining strength and popularity in 
 the country, — continued in office during the two 
 
1 54 Infliience of the Crown. 
 
 remaining years of the king's reig-n, without recover- 
 ing his favour.' 
 
 Her Majesty, on her most auspicious accession to 
 Accession the thronc, findine: them the ministers of 
 
 her Ma- " 
 
 jesty, 1837. the crowu, at once honoured them with 
 her entire confidence. The occasion was especially 
 favourable for ministers to secure and perpetuate 
 such confidence. The young queen, having no 
 political experience, was without predilections ; and 
 the impressions first made upon her mind were 
 Her house- likely to be lasting. A royal household was 
 immediately to be organised for her 
 Majesty, comprising not merely the oflBcers of state 
 and ceremony ; but, — what was more important to 
 a queen, — all the ladies of her court. Ministers 
 appointed the former, as usual, from among their 
 own parliamentary supporters ; and extended the 
 same principle of selection to the latter. Nearly 
 all the ladies of the new court were related to 
 the ministers themselves, or to their political 
 adherents. The entire court thus became identified 
 with the ministers of the day. If such an arrange- 
 ment was calculated to ensure the confidence of the 
 crown, — and who could doubt that it was ? — it 
 necessarily involved the principle of replacing this 
 household with another, on a cliauge of ministry. 
 This was foreseen at the time, and soon afterwards 
 became a question of no little constitutional diffi- 
 culty. 
 
 The favour of ministers at court became a subject 
 
 ' Courfs and Cabinets of Will. IV., &c., ii. 186 ; Lord S3'denhara's 
 MS. Diary, kindly lent nio by Mr. I'oulett iScrope. M.P. 
 
Th& Bedchamber (Question, 1839. ij5 
 
 of jealousy, and even of reproach, amongst their op- 
 ponents : but the age had passed away, in The • Bed- 
 
 ^ or J' chamber 
 
 which court favour alone could uphold a Question." 
 falling ministry against public opinion. They were 
 weaker now, with the court on their side, than they 
 had been during the late reigTi, with the influence 
 of the king and his court opposed to them ; and in 
 May, 1839, were obliged to offer their resignation. 
 Sir Robert Peel, being charged with the formation 
 of a new administration, had to consider tlie peculiar 
 position of the household. Since Lord Moira's 
 memorable negotiations in 1812, there had been no 
 difficulties regarding those offices in the household, 
 which were included in ministerial changes : but the 
 court of a queen, constituted like the present, raised 
 a new and embarrassing question.' To remove 
 from the society of her Majesty, those ladies who 
 were immediately about her person, appeared like 
 an interference with her family circle, rather than 
 with her household. Yet could ministers undertake 
 the government, if the queen continued to be sur- 
 roimded by the wives, sisters, and other near rela- 
 tives of their political opponents ? They decided that 
 they could uot ; and Sir Eobert Peel went to the 
 palace to ac(iuaint her Majesty that the ministerial 
 changes would comprise the higher offices of her 
 court occupied by ladies, including the ladies of her 
 bedchamber. The queen met him by at once 
 declaring that she could not admit any change of 
 the ladies of her household. On appealing to Lord 
 
 " Hans. Dib., .'^. r., xlvii. 980, sai,, and see sujpra, p. r26. 
 
Infltience of tJie Ctowu. 
 
 John Russell on this subject, her jMajesty was assured 
 that she was justified, by usage, in declining the 
 change proposed ; and afterwards, by the advice of 
 Jjord Melbourne and his colleagues, she addressed a 
 letter to Sir Robert Peel, stating that she could not 
 ' consent to adopt a course which she conceived to 
 be contrary to usage, and which was repugnant to 
 her feelings.' ' Sir Robert Peel, on the receipt of 
 this letter, wrote to her Majesty to resign the trust 
 he had undertaken : stating that it was essential to 
 the success of the commission with which he had 
 been honoured ' that he should have that public 
 proof of her Majesty's entire support and confidence, 
 which would be afforded by the permission to make 
 some changes in that part of her Majesty's house- 
 hold, which her Majesty resolved on maintaining 
 entirely without change ' ^ By a minute of the 
 cabinet, immediately after these events, the ministry 
 of Lord Melbourne recorded their opinion ' that for 
 the purpose of giving to the administration that 
 character of efficiency and stability, and tliose marks 
 of constitutional support of the crown, which are 
 required to enable it to act usefully to the public 
 service, it is reasonable that the great offices of the 
 court, and situations in the household held by 
 members of Parliament, should be included in the 
 political arrangements made on a change of the 
 administration ; but they are not of opinion that a 
 similar principle sliould be applied, or extended, to 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Series, xlvii. 985. 
 » Ibid., 986. 
 
The Bedchamber Question, 1835. 157 
 
 ihe offices held by ladies in Her Majesty's house- 
 hold.' ' 
 
 lu the ministerial explanations which ensued, Sir 
 .Robert Peel pointed out forcibly the difficulties which 
 any minister must be prepared to encounter, who 
 should leave about her iNIajesty's person the nearest 
 relatives of his political opponents. It had not 
 been his intention to suggest the removal of ladies, 
 — even from the higher offices of the household, — 
 who were free from strong party or political con- 
 nection : but those who were nearly related to the 
 outgoing ministers, he bad deemed it impossible to 
 retain. Ministers, on the other hand, maintained 
 that they were supported by precedents, in the 
 advice which they had tendered to her Majesty. 
 They referred to the examples of Lady Sunderland 
 and Lady Rialton, who had remained in the bed- 
 chamber of Queen Anne, for a year and a half after 
 the dismissal of their husbands from office ; and to 
 the uniform practice by which the ladies of the 
 household of every queen consort had been retained, 
 on changes of administration, notwithstanding their 
 close relationship to men engaged in political life. 
 Ministers also insisted much upon the respect due 
 to the personal feelings of her Majesty, and to her 
 natural repugnance to sacrifice licr domestic society 
 to political arrangements.'^ 
 
 The 'Bedchamber Question' saved Jjord Mil- 
 
 irans. Deb.. Srd Scr., xlvii. 1001 ; Courts and CiiUinots of Will. 
 IV. iuid Ciucon \'ii-toriii, ii. 383: Lord Sydcriliam's MS. JJinry. 'Jtb 
 Piiid mil May, isnt); Torrcns, Lilo of .Mulliounio, ii. 300 c< 
 
 llaii.s. Dub., 3rd Series, xlvii. i)7'J. 1008. 
 
158 Iiiflueiice of the Crown. 
 
 bourne's government for a further term. Sir Robert 
 Increasied Peel had eyperienced the evil consequences 
 
 WGslCTJC^S of 
 
 Lorii Mel- of the late king's premature recall of his 
 
 bourne's 1 i ■ . i 
 
 govemment. party to office ; and his prospects in the 
 country were not even yet assured. The imme- 
 diate result of the bedchamber question was, there- 
 fore, not less satisfactory to himself than to min- 
 isters. The latter gained no moral strength, by 
 owing their continuance in office to such a cause ; 
 while the former was prepared to profit by their 
 increasing weakness. The queen's confidence in 
 her ministers was undiminished ; yet they continued 
 to lose ground in Parliament, and in the country. 
 In 1841, the opposition, being fully assured of their 
 growing strength, obtained, by a majority of one, 
 a resolution of the Coirmons, affirming that mini- 
 sters had not the confidence of the House ; and 
 ' that their continuance in office, imuer such cir- 
 cumstances, was at variance with the spirit of the 
 constitution.' The country was immediately ap- 
 pealed to upon this issue ; and it soon became clear 
 that the countiy was also adverse to the ministers. 
 Delay had been fatal to them, while it had assured 
 the triumph of their opponents. At the meeting of 
 the new Parliament, amendments to the address were 
 agreed to in both Houses, by large majorities, repeat- 
 iii<r the verdict of the late House of Commons.' 
 5ir Robert Robeit Peel was now called upon, 
 
 Peel's sMODd ^ ^jjjig of j^jg ^-^^^ choosing, to form 
 tion, 1841. ^ government. Supported by Parliament 
 
 ' In the Lords by a majority of 72, and in the Commons by a 
 majority of 91. 
 
Relations of Secretary of State to the Crown. 159 
 
 and the country, he had nothing to fear from coui t 
 influence, even if there had been any disposition to 
 use it against him. No difficulties were again 
 raised on the bedchamber question. Her Thehou;^- 
 Maje&ty was now sensible that the position 
 she had once been advised to assert, was constitu- 
 tionally untenable. The principle wliich Sir Robert 
 Peel applied to the household, has since been ad- 
 mitted, on all sides, to be constitutional. The 
 offices of mistress of the robes and ladies of the 
 bedchamber, when held by ladies connected with 
 the out-going ministers, have been considered as 
 included in the ministerial arrangements. But 
 ladies of the bedchamber belonging to families 
 whose political connection has been less pronounced, 
 have been suffered to remain in the household, with- 
 out objection, on a change of ministry. 
 
 In 1851, an incident occurred which illustrates 
 the relation of ministers to the crown, — Relations of 
 the discretion vested in them, — and the of^',^nS'w' 
 circumstances under which the pleasure of '^'^^ '='"''^'"'- 
 the sovereign is to be signified, concerning acts of the 
 executive gbvernment. To all important acts, by 
 which the crown becomes committed, it had been 
 generally acknowledged that the sanction of the 
 sovereign must be previously signified. And in 
 1850, her Majesty communicated to Lord Paliner- 
 ston, the secretary of state fur foreign affairs, — 
 through Lord John Kussell, licr first minister, — a 
 memorandum, giving specific' directions as to tlie 
 transaction of business between the crown and the 
 secretary of state. It was in tliese words: — 'The 
 
i6o 
 
 Injlucncc of the Cj'OWII. 
 
 queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerstou will dis- 
 The queen's tiuctlv state wfaat he proposes in a given 
 
 memoran- . 
 
 dum, 1850. case, in order tliat the queen may know as 
 distinctly to what she is giving her royal sanction. 
 Secondly, having once given her sanction to a 
 measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modi- 
 tied by the minister. Such au act she must consider 
 as failing in sincerity towards the cro^vn, and justly 
 to be visited by the exercise of her constitutional 
 right of dismissing that minister. She espects to 
 be kept informed of what passes between him and 
 the foreign ministers, before important decisions 
 are taken, based upon that intercourse : to receive 
 the foreign despatches in good time ; and to have 
 the drafts for her approval, sent to her in sufficient 
 time to make herself acquainted with their contents, 
 before they must be sent off.' 
 
 Such being the relations of the foreign secretary 
 to tlie crown, the sovereign is advised upon ques- 
 tions of foreign policy by her first minister, to whom 
 copies of despatches and other information are also 
 communicated, in order to enable him to give such 
 advice effectually.^ In controlling one minister, 
 the sovereign yet acts upon the counsels and re- 
 sijonsibility of another. 
 
 Immediately after the coxi'p cVetat of the 2nd 
 Lord Pal- December, 1851, in Paris, the cabinet de- 
 romovoi^ tcrmiued tliat the government of this 
 ill isoi. country slioulcl abstain from any inter- 
 
 ' Huns. Deb., 3rd Sor., cxix. 90. 
 
 ' Sir Robert Peel's evidenco before Select Committee on Official 
 Sill iries. Statement by Lord J. Kussell ; Hans. Dob., 3rd Sor. cxix. 91. 
 
Lord Pabnerston and the Queen. 1 6 1 
 
 ference in the internal aflfairs of France ; and a 
 despatch to that eflFect, approved by the queen, 
 was addressed to Lord Xormanby, the British am- 
 bassador in Paris. But before this official com- 
 munication was written, it appeared that ]M. 
 Walewski, the French ambassador at the Court of 
 St. James's, had assured his own government, that 
 Lord Palmerston had ' expressed to him his entire 
 approbation of the act of the president, and his con- 
 viction that he could not have acted otherwise than 
 he had done.' This statement having been com- 
 municated to Lord Xormanby by M. Turgot, was 
 reported by him to Lord Palmerston. On receiving 
 a copy of Lord Xormanby's letter, Lord John Rus- 
 sell immediately wrote to Lord Palmerston requir- 
 ing explanations of the variance between his verbal 
 communications with the French ambassador, and 
 the despatch agreed upon by the cabinet ; and a few 
 days afterwards her Majesty also demanded similar 
 explanations. These were delayed for several days ; 
 and in the meantime, in reply to another letter from 
 Lord Xormanby, Lord Palmerston, on the 16th of 
 December, wrote to his lordship, explaining his own 
 views in favour of the policy of the recent coup 
 d^etat. On receiving a copy of this correspondence, 
 Lord John Russell conceived that the secretaiy of 
 state was not justified in expressing such opinions 
 without the sanction of the cro^vn and the concur 
 rence of the cabinet, — more particularly as these 
 opinions were opposed to the policy of non-interven- 
 tion upon which the cabinet had determined, and 
 inconsistent with that moral support and sympathy, 
 
 VOL. I. M 
 
I62 
 
 Injluence of the Crown, 
 
 ■which England had generally onered to constitu- 
 tional government in foreign countries. The ex- 
 planations which ensued were not deemed satisfac- 
 toiy ; and Lord Palmerston was accordingly removed 
 from office, on the ground that he had exceeded hia 
 authority as secretary of state, and had taken upon 
 himself alone, to be the organ of the queen's govern- 
 ment.' 
 
 In defence of his own conduct, Lord Palmerston, 
 while fully recognising the principles upon which a 
 secretary of state is required to act in relation to the 
 crown and his own colleagues, explained that his 
 conversation with Count "VValewski on the 3rd of 
 December, and his explanatory letter to Lord 
 Normanby on the 16th, were not inconsistent with 
 the policy of non-intervention upon which the 
 cabinet had resolved : that whatever opinions he 
 might have expressed, were merely his own ; and that 
 he had given no official instructions or assurances on 
 the part of the government, except in the despatch 
 of the 5th of December, which her Majesty and the 
 cabinet had approved. 
 
 Though the premier and the secretary of state had 
 fliffercd as to the propriety of the particular acts of 
 the latter, they were agreed upon the general 
 principles which regulate the relations of ministers 
 to the crown. These events exemplify the effective 
 control which the crown constitutionally exercises 
 in the government of the country. The policy and 
 conduct of its ministers are subject to its active 
 
 ' Explanations of Lord J. Kusscll, Feb. 3, 1852. 
 
Her Majesty s Reign. 
 
 163 
 
 supervision. In minor aflfairs the ministers have a 
 separate discretion, in their several departments : but 
 in the general acts of the government, the crown is 
 to be consulted, and has a control over them all. 
 
 From this time no question has arisen concerning 
 the exercise of the prerogatives or influence wise use of 
 
 . ,, . t'"' influence 
 
 of the crown, which calls for notice. Both 01 the crown, 
 
 in the pre- 
 
 have been exercised wisely, justly, and in Btnt rcigu. 
 the true spirit of the constitution. Ministers, en- 
 joying the confidence of Parliament, have never 
 claimed in vain the confidence of the crown. Their 
 measures have not been thwarted by secret influence, 
 and irresponsible advice. Their policy has been 
 directed by Parliament and public opinion, and not 
 by the will of the sovereign, or the intrigues of the 
 court. Vast as is the power of the crown, it has 
 been exercised, throughout the present reig-n, by the 
 advice of responsible ministers, in a constitutional 
 manner, and for legitimate objects. It has been 
 held in trust, as it were, for the benefit of the people. 
 Hence it has ceased to excite either the jealousy of 
 rival parties, or popidar discontents. This judicious 
 exercise of the royal authority, while it has conduced 
 to the good government of the state, has sustained 
 the moral influence of the crown ; and the devoted 
 loyalty of a free people, which her Majesty's personal 
 virtues have merited, has never been disturbed by 
 the voice of faction.' 
 
 ' A mont toiipliing memoir has rovenlpd how wise and faithful n 
 pouncillor her MiijoKty found in her holovnl ConBort, — ' tlio life ot 
 her life,'- whoso rare worth wiis not fully known until it wns lost, 
 to his country. .Specciies, &e. of the I'rirjce Consort, 05, G2, G8-71. 
 
 M 2 
 
Influence of the Crown. 
 
 But while the influence of the crown in the govern- 
 Generai mcnt of the countrj has been gradually 
 th7Muence brought iuto Subordination to Parliament 
 ofthecro\ra. and public opinion, the same causes, which, 
 for more than a century and a half, contributed to its 
 enlargement, have never ceased to add to its great- 
 ness. The national expenditure and public estab- 
 lishments have been increased to an extent that 
 alarms financiers : armies and navies have been 
 maintained, such as at no former period had been 
 endured in time of peace. Oiu: colonies have ex- 
 panded into a vast and populous empire ; and her 
 Majesty, invested with the sovereignty of the East 
 Indies, now rules over two hundred millions of 
 Asiatic subjects. Grovernors, commanders-in-chief, 
 and bishops attest her supremacy in all parts of the 
 world ; and the greatness of the British empire, 
 wliile it has redounded to the glory of England, has 
 widely extended the influence of the cro^vn. As 
 that influence, constitutionally exercised, has ceased 
 to be regarded with jealousy, its continued enlarge- 
 ment has been watched by Parliament without any 
 of those efforts to restrain it, which marked the 
 parliamentary history of tlie eighteenth centiny. 
 On the contrary, Parliament has met the increasing 
 demands of a community rapidly advancing in 
 population and wealth, by constant additions to the 
 power and patronage of the crown. The judicial 
 establishments of the country have been extended, 
 by the appointment of more judges in the superior 
 courts, — by a large staff of county court judges, 
 with local jurisdiction, — and by numerous stipeudi- 
 
A nd of Great Families. 
 
 ary magistrates. Offices and commissions have been 
 multiplied, for various public purposes ; and all these 
 appointments proceed from the same high source of 
 patronage and preferment. Parliament has wisely 
 excluded all these officers, with a few necessary ex- 
 ceptions, from the privilege of sitting in the House 
 of Commons : but otherwise these extensive means 
 of influence have been entrusted to the executive 
 government, without any apprehension that they 
 will be perverted to uses injurious to the freedom, or 
 public interests of the country. 
 
 The history of the influence of the crown has now 
 been sketched, for a period of one hundred contimied 
 years. We have seen George III. jealous '^"at famt^ 
 of the great Whig families, and wi'esting 
 power from the hands of his ministers; we have 
 seen ministers becoming more accountable to Parlia- 
 ment, and less dependent upon the crown : but 
 as in the commencement of this period, a few great 
 families commanded the support of Parliament, 
 and engrossed all the power of the state, — 
 80 under a more free representation, and more 
 extended responsibilities, do we see nearly the same 
 families still in the ascendant. Deprived, in great 
 measure, of their direct influence over Parliament, 
 — their general weight in tlie country, and in the 
 councils of the state, had suff"ered little diminution. 
 Notwithstanding the more democratic tendencies of 
 later times, rank and station had still retained the 
 respect and confidence of tlie people. When tlie 
 aristocracy enjoyed too exclusive an iufhience in 
 government, they aroused jealousies and hostility: 
 
i66 
 
 Influence of the Cj'own. 
 
 but when duly sharing power with other classes, and 
 admitting the just claims of talent, they prevailed 
 over every rival and adverse interest ; and, — what- 
 ever party was in power, — were still the rulers of the 
 state. 
 
 In a society comprising so many classes as that of 
 England, the highest are willingly accepted as 
 governors, when their personal qualities are not 
 unequal to their position. They excite less jealousy 
 than abler men of inferior social pretensions, who 
 climb to power. Born and nurtured to influence, 
 they have studied how to maintain it. That they 
 have maintained it so well, against the encroach- 
 ments of wealth, — an expanding society, and popular 
 influences, is mainly due to their progressive policy. 
 As they have been ready to advance with their age, 
 the people have been content to acknowledge them 
 as leaders : but had they endeavoured to stem the 
 tide of public opinion, tliey would have been swept 
 aside, while men from other classes advanced to 
 power. 
 
TO/ 
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 THE PHEKOGATIVES OF THE CROWX, DURING THE MINORITY OR IN- 
 CAPACITY OF THE SOVEREIGN. — ILLNESS AND BEGENCY OF GEOH(iK 
 THE THIRD. — LATER REGENCY ACTS. 
 
 We have seen the prerogatives of the crown wielded 
 in the plenitude of kingly power. Let us pi.eroga- 
 now turn aside for awhile, and view them ^^rowu\a^^ 
 as they lay inert in the powerless hands of "^'^y""™- 
 a stricken king. 
 
 The melancholy illnesses of George III., at dif- 
 ferent periods of his reign, involved political con- 
 siderations of the highest importance, — affecting 
 the prerogatives of the crown, the rights of the 
 royal family, the duties of ministers, and the au- 
 thority of Parliament. 
 
 The king was seized by the first of these attacks 
 in 1765. Though a young man, in the full First illneas 
 vigour of life, he exhibited those symptoms in. in kci. 
 of meatal disorder, which were afterwards more seri- 
 ously developed. But the knowledge of this melan- 
 choly circumstance was confined to his own family, 
 and personal attendants.' Tliis illnes.s, however, liad 
 been in other respects so alarming, that it led the 
 king to consider the necessity of providing for a 
 
 ' Gronvillo Papers, iii. 122; Adolphus, Hist., i. 175, »». ; Quar- 
 terly Koview, Ixvi. 210, by Mr. Croker. 
 
1 68 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 regency, in case of his death. The laws of England 
 recognise no incapacity in the sovereign, by reason 
 of nonage ; and have made no provision for the 
 guardianship of a king, or for the government of 
 his kingdom, during his minority.^ Yet the common 
 sense of every age has revolted against the anomaly 
 of suffering the country to be practically governed 
 by an infant king. Hence special provision has 
 been made for each occasion, according to the age 
 and consanguinity of the surviving relatives of the 
 minor ; and as such provision involves not only the 
 care of an infant, but the government of the realm, 
 the sanction of Parliament has necessarily been re- 
 quired, as well as that of the king. 
 
 By the Eegency Act of 1751, passed after the 
 Regency death of P'rederick Prince of Wales, the 
 1751. Princess Dowager of Wales had been ap- 
 pointed regent, in the event of the demise of 
 George II. before the Prince of Wales, or any other 
 of her children succeeding to the throne, had at- 
 tained the age of eighteen years. This act also 
 nominated the council of regency : but empowered 
 the king to add four other members to the council, 
 by instruments under his sign manual, to be opened 
 after his death.'^ But this precedent deferred too 
 much to the judgment of Parliament, and left too 
 little to the discretion of the king himself, to be 
 
 ' ' In jiidgmont of law, tlio king, as king, cannot bo snid to be a 
 minor ; fur when the royall botlie politiquo of tlio king doth nioote 
 witli tho naturall capacity in one person, the whole bcidie shall have 
 the qualifio of the royall politique, which is tho greater and more 
 worthy, and wherein is no niinoritie.' — Co. Litt., 43. 
 
 - 21 Uco. II. c. 2i ; Walpolo's Mem. Ueo. ILI., ii. c. 102. 
 
Regency Act, i 765, 
 
 169 
 
 acceptable to George III. He desired to reserve to 
 himself the testamentary disposition of his preroga- 
 tives, and to leave nothing to Parliament but the 
 formal recognition of his power. 
 
 The original scheme of the regency, as proposed 
 by the king, in 1765, was as strange as xheidn<''s 
 some of the incidents connected with its arc^^e^y, 
 further progress. He had formed it with- 
 out any communication with his ministers, who 
 consequently received it with distrust, as the work 
 of Lord Bute and the king's friends, of whom they 
 were sensitively jealous.' The scheme itself was 
 one to invite suspicion. It was obviously proper, 
 that the appointment of a regent should be expressly 
 made by Parliament. If the king had the nomina- 
 tion, there could be no certainty that any regent 
 would be appointed : he might become incapable, 
 and die intestate, as it were ; and this contingency 
 was the more probable, as the king's mind had 
 recently been affected. But his ^Majesty proposed 
 that Parliament should confer upon him the un- 
 conditional right of aj)pointiiig any person as regent, 
 whom he should select.^ ]\Ir. Grenville pressed him 
 to name the regent in his speech, but was unable to 
 persuade him to adopt that suggestion. There can 
 be little doubt that the king intended that the 
 queen should be regent ; but he was believed to be 
 dying of consumption,' and was still supposed to be 
 under the influence of his mother. Heuce ministers 
 
 ' Walpolo's Mem., ii. 99, lOt ; Rockinshiini Mom., i. 183. 
 » Groiivilln Piipi rs (Diary), iii. 12G, 129. 
 • Walpolo's Mem., ii. U8. 
 
I 70 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 feared lest the princess might eventually be ap- 
 pointed regent, and Lord Bute admitted to the 
 coimcil of regency. Some even went so far as to 
 conceive the possibility of Lord Bute's nomination 
 ^[odificdby to the regcucy itself.' It was ultimately 
 
 the icini- , , . i t i 
 
 sters. arranged, however, that the king should 
 nominate the regent, but that his choice should be 
 restricted ' to the queen and any other person of 
 the royal family usually resident in England ; ' ^ and 
 the scheme of the regency was proposed to Parlia- 
 ment upon that basis.* 
 
 On the 24th of April, 1765, the king came down 
 The king's Parliament and made a speech to both 
 epeech. Houses, recommending to their considera- 
 tion the expediency of enabling him to appoint, 
 'from time to time, by instrument in writing, 
 under his sig-n-manual, either the queen, or any 
 other person of his royal family, usually residing in 
 Grreat Britain, to be the guardian of his successor, 
 and the regent of these kingdoms, until such suc- 
 cessor shall attain the age of eighteen years,' — sub- 
 ject to restrictions similar to those contained in the 
 Regency Act, 24 Geo. II., — and of providing for a 
 council of regency. A joint address was imme- 
 diately agreed upon by both Houses, — ultra-loyal, 
 according to the fashion of the time, — approaching 
 
 ' Walpole Mem., ii. 101, 104. 
 
 " Cabinet Minute, 6th April ; Gronville Papers, iii. 15, 16. 
 
 ' Lord John Russell .says that tlip ministers 'unwisely introduced 
 the bill without naming the regent, or plaeing any limit on the king's 
 nomination.' Introd. to 3nl vol. of D d/urd Corr., xxxix. This was 
 not precisely the fact, as will be seen from the text ; but ministers 
 were equally blumeable for not insisting that the queen alone should 
 be the regent. 
 
Regency Act, 1765. 171 
 
 his ' sacred person ' with ' reverence,' ' affection,' 
 ' admiration,' and ' gratitude ; ' scarcely venturing 
 to contemplate the possibility of ' an event which, 
 if it shall please God to permit it, must overwhelm 
 his Majesty's loyal subjects with the bitterest dis- 
 traction of grief ; ' and promising to give immediate 
 attention to recommendations which were the re- 
 sult of tlie king's ' consummate prudence,' ' benefi- 
 cent intention,' ' salutary designs,' ' princely wis- 
 dom,' and ' paternal concern for his people.' ' 
 
 A bill, founded upon the royal speech, was imme- 
 diately brouglit into the House of Lords. TheRe- 
 
 pency Bill, 
 
 In the first draft of the bill, the king, fol- I't--^. 
 lowing the precedent of 1751, had reserved to him- 
 self the ri<>ht of nominating four members of the 
 council of regency : but on the 29th April, he sent 
 a message to the Lords, desiring that his four 
 brothers and his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, 
 should be specified in the bill ; and reserving to 
 himself the nomination of other persons, in the 
 event of any vacancy.* The bill was read a second 
 time on the following day. But first it was asked 
 if the queen was naturalised, — and if not, whether 
 she could lawfully be regent. This question was 
 referred to tlie judges, who were unanimously of 
 opinion, ' tliat an alien married to a king of Great 
 
 ' riirl. Hist,., xvi. 53. 
 
 ' Walpiiki's Mi'tii., ii. 109 ; Lords' Joiirn., xxxi. 162. A nicmorial 
 by Lord Lytti lluii says, ' Whilo the bill was in the Houso of Lonls, 
 the (-•latisi' tKiMiiiif; tho kiiifr's l)rotho!-s was coiiocrtcd, willi the J)uko 
 of (-'umbcrlaiid, luilviiDWii tu tlio ministry till llio kiiif^ sunt to tlu ni. 
 They, to return llio coniiilinicnt, framed the flauso for omittinp; tlio 
 
 rinct'Hs dowa^riT, and [nocuryd llio king's constnt to it.' — liockiny- 
 
 um Mem., i. 1S3. 
 
172 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 Britain is, by operation of the law of the crown 
 (which is a part of the common law), to be deemed a 
 natural-born subject from the time of such mar- 
 riage ; so as not to be disabled by the Act of the 
 12th William III., or by any other Act, from hold- 
 ing or enjoying any office or place of trust, or from 
 having any grant of lands, &c., from the crown.' ' 
 Then, suddenly a doubt arose whether the king's 
 mother, the Princess of Wales, was comprehended 
 in the ' royal family ' or not. It was suggested that 
 this term applied only to members of the royal 
 family in the line of succession to the crown, and 
 would not extend beyond the descendants of the 
 late king,2 There can be no question that the king, 
 in his speech, had intended to include the princess ; 
 and even the doubt which was afterwards raised, 
 was not shared by all the members of the cabinet, 
 — and by the Lord Chancellor was thought un- 
 founded.^ Whether it had occurred to those by 
 whom the words had been suggested to the king, is 
 doubtful. 
 
 On the 1st May, Lord Lyttleton moved an address, 
 prayino- the kin"' to name the recent, which 
 
 Exclnsion y -i ^ o o ' 
 
 of the -vvas rejected. On the 2ud, the Duke of 
 ot Wales. Richmond moved an amendment in com- 
 mittee, defining the persons capable of the regency to 
 be the queen, the princess dowager, and the descend- 
 ants of the late king. Strange as it may seem, the 
 ministers resisted this amendment, and it was 
 
 ' Lords' Journ., xxxi. 171- 
 
 = Grciivillo I'apcrs (.Diiirj), iii. 125-148; Wiili^olo's Mora., iL 
 118. 
 > Ibid., 118. 
 
Regemy Act, 1765. 
 
 173 
 
 negatived.' The doubt which had thus been raised 
 oncerning; the Princess of Wales had not been re- 
 moved, -when, on the following day, Lord Halifax 
 and Lord Sandwich had an audience of the king, 
 and represented, that if the Lords should insert tlie 
 princess's name in the bill, the Commons would 
 strike it out ajjain : and that such an insult miffht 
 best be avoided by not proposing her name at all.' 
 The king was taken by surprise, and either misun- 
 derstood the proposal, or failed to show his usual 
 firmness and courage in resisting it.' Lord Halifax 
 at once proceeded to the House of Lords, and moved 
 the re-commitment of the bill, according to the 
 alleged wishes of his Majesty, in order to make an 
 amendment, which limited the regency to the queen, 
 and the descendants of the late king, usually resi- 
 dent in England. Thus, not satisfied with gaining 
 their point, ministers had the cruelty and assurance 
 to make tlie king himself bear the blame of pro- 
 posing an aflfront to his own mother, Well might 
 Horace Walpole exclaim : ' And thus she alone is 
 rendered incapable of the regency, and stigmatised 
 by Act of Parliament I' * 
 
 The king had no sooner given his consent than he 
 recoiled from its consequences, — complained tliat he 
 had been betrayed, — and endeavoured to obtain the 
 insertion of his mother's name. He could gain no 
 satisfaction from his ministers but in the Com- 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xvi. .55 ; Rockingham Mem., i. 183. 
 ' W'alpoli-'s Mem., ii. 125. 
 ' Grenviiie Papers (Diary), iii. 149, and 151, n. 
 * Letter to Lord Hertford, Mav 5th. 
 
 ' • The king seemed much itgituted, and leit the force of what Mr. 
 
1 74 Illnesses of George tJie Third. 
 
 mons, the friends of the Princess, encouraged by the 
 king himself, took up her cause; and, on the motion 
 of Mr. Morton, Chief Justice of Chester, which was 
 not opposed by the ministers, — her name was in- 
 ner name serted in the bill. The king had been as- 
 
 replaced 
 
 in the bui. sured that the Commons would strike it out : 
 and yet, after the House of Lords had omitted it, 
 on the supposed authority of the king himself, there 
 were only thirty-seven members found to vote against 
 its insertion, while one hundred and sixty-seven 
 voted in its favour ; ' and in this form the bill 
 passed. 
 
 Could any lover of mischief, — could "Wilkes him- 
 self, — have devised more embarrassments and cross 
 piu-poses, than were caused by this unlucky Regency 
 Bill? Faction and intrigue had done their worst. 
 
 The Regency Act provided for the nomination by 
 Provisions ^^"S'' "ndcr his sign-manual, of the 
 gency Act, ^uecu, the Priucess of Wales, or a member 
 of the royal family descended from the late 
 king, to be the guardian of bis successor, while 
 under eighteen years of age, and ' Regent of tlie 
 kingdom,' and to exercise the royal power and pre- 
 rogatives. His nomination was to be signified by 
 three instruments, separately signed and sealed iip, 
 and deposited with the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 
 Grenville said in rpgard to the different directions given to bis ser- 
 Viints in tiie two Ileuses, but still enforced the urgiimcnt of this 
 being moved by the gentlemen of the Opposition. The king was in 
 the ulmost degree of agitation and emotion, even to tears.' — A/r. 
 GrenvUk'^ Diari/, ilay 5th, 1705; Grenville Papers, iii. 154. 
 
 ' Mr. Grennlle's Report of the Debate to the King ; Grenville 
 Papers, iii. 25, w. ; Walpole's Mem. George 111., ii. 129-146. 
 
 » 6 George III. c. 27. 
 
Proceedings m 1 788, 
 
 175 
 
 -the Lord Chancellor, and the President of the Coun- 
 cil. It attached the penalties of praemunire to any 
 one who should open these instruments during the 
 king's life, or afterwards neglect or refuse to produce 
 them before the privy council. It appointed a 
 council of regency, consisting of the king's brothers 
 and his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, and several- 
 great oflBcers of church and state, for the time being. 
 In case any of the king's brothers or his imcle should 
 die, or be appointed regent, it gave the king the 
 power of nominating another person, being a natural- 
 bom subject, to the council of regency, by instru- 
 ments in the same form as those appointing the 
 regent. The act also defined the powers of the 
 regent and council. On the demise of his Majesty, 
 the privy council was directed to meet and proclaim 
 his successor. 
 
 The king's next illness was of longer duration, 
 and of a more distressing character. It The king's 
 was the occasion of another Regency Bill, i7!v'>-9. 
 and of proceedings wholly unprecedented. In the 
 summer of 1788, the king showed evident symptoms 
 of derangement. He was able, however, to sign a 
 warrant for the further prorogation of Parliament 
 by commission, from the 25th September to the 
 20th November. But, in the interval, the kioL^'s 
 malady increased : he was wholly deprived of reason, 
 and placed under restraint ; and for several days his 
 life was in danger.' As no authority could now be 
 
 ' Tomlinps Life of Pitt, ii. 363; Lortl Aucklnnd's Corr., ii. 
 240-298 ; MadHmo D'ArMay's DiHry. iv. 275, ct seq. ; Moore's Life 
 of SheriduD, ii. 21. At buob times as these, puliiical events pressed 
 
176 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 obtained for a fmiher prorogation, both Houses as- 
 sembled on the 20th November, though they had 
 not been summoned for despatch of business, and no 
 causes of summons could be commimicated to them, 
 in the accustomed manner, by a speech from the 
 throne. These circumstances were explained in 
 both Houses ; and, on tlie suggestion of ministers, 
 they agreed to adjourn for a fortnight, and to sum- 
 mon all their members, by circular letters, to attend 
 at their next meeting.' According to long-estab- 
 lished law. Parliament, without being opened by the 
 crown, had no authority to proceed to any business 
 whatever : but the necessity of an occasion for which 
 the law had made no provision, was now superior to 
 the law ; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to 
 deliV)erate upon the momentous questions to which 
 the king's illness had given rise. 
 
 In order to afford Parliament authentic evidence 
 Examina- ^'^^ king's Condition, his five physicians 
 king'sphy- Were examined by the privy council on the 
 Bicians. 3j.^j December. They agreed that the king 
 was then incapable of meeting Parliament, or of at- 
 tending to any business ; but believed in the proba- 
 bility of his ultimate recovery, although they could 
 not limit the time. On the following day this evi- 
 
 heavily on the king's mind. He said to Lord Thurlow and tlio Duke 
 of Leods, ' Whatever you and Mr. Pitt may think or feel, I, that am 
 liorn a genth'nian, shall never lay my head on my last pillow in peace 
 and quiet as long as I remembei- the loss of my American colonies.' 
 — Lord Malm. (Jorr., iv. 21. On a later occasion, in 180], the king's 
 mind showed equally strong feelings as to the supposed dangers of 
 the Church. 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxvii. 653, es."). The House of Commous was alflo 
 ordered to be called over on that day. 
 
Proceedings in I 'J 177 
 
 diuce was laid before both Houses : but as doubts 
 were suggested whether Parliament should rest satis- 
 fied without receiving the personal testimony of the 
 physicians, it was afterwards agreed that a committee 
 should be appointed, in each House, for that pur- 
 pose. In the Lords the committee was nominated 
 by ballot, each peer giving in a list of commit- 
 twenty-one names.' Meanwhile all other pointed, 
 business was suspended. In the Commons, tha 
 speaker even entertained doubts whether any ne\^ 
 writs could be issued for supplying the places of 
 members deceased : but Mr. Pitt expressed a decided 
 opinion, ' that though no act could take place which 
 required the joint concurrence of the different 
 branches of the Legislature, yet each of them in its 
 separate capacity was fully competent to the ex- 
 ercise of those powers which concerned its own ordeis 
 and jurisdiction.''* And in this rational view the 
 House acquiesced. 
 
 Tlie reports of these committees merely confirmed 
 the evidence previously given before the commit- 
 privy council; and the facts being thus es- 
 tablished, a committee was moved for, in p'""^'-'''™'^- 
 either House, to search for precedents ' of such pro- 
 ceedings as may have been had in case of the per- 
 sonal exercise of the royal authority being prevented 
 or interrupted by infancy, sickness, infirmity, oi 
 otherwise, with a view to provide for the 
 same.' When this motion was made in the 
 Commons, ]SIr. Fox advanced the startling 
 opinion that the Prince of Wales bad as clear a 
 
 ' Piul. Hist., xxvii. C58. ' Ibid., C88. 
 
 VOL. I. N 
 
I Illnesses of George tJie Third. 
 
 riglit to exercise the power of sovereignty during 
 the king's incapacity, as if the king were actually 
 dead ; and that it was merely for the two Houses of 
 Parliament to pronounce at what time he should 
 commence the exercise of his right.' To assert an 
 absolute right of inheritance durinof his father's life, 
 in defiance of the well-known rule of law, ' nemo 
 est hceres viventis^ was to argue that the heir-at- 
 law is entitled to enter into possession of the estate 
 of a lunatic ; and while it amounted to a deposition 
 of the king, it denied the constitutional rights of 
 Parliament. !Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, main- 
 tained that as no legal provision had been made for 
 carrying on the government, it belonged to the 
 Houses of Parliament to make such provision. He 
 even went so far as to affirm, that, ' unless by their 
 decision, the Prince of Wales had no more right — 
 speaking of strict right — to assume the government, 
 than any other individual subject of the country,'* 
 — a position as objectionable in one direction, as 
 that of Mr. Fox in the other,' — and which gave 
 great umbrage to the prince and his friends. And 
 here the two parties joined issue. 
 
 When next this matter was discussed, Mi. Fox, 
 being sensible that he bad pressed his doc- 
 the?ig^toof trine of right beyond its constitutional 
 the Prince. ]jjnits^ somcwhat receded from his first 
 ground. He now spoke of the Prince having a 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxrii. 707. * Bid., 709. 
 
 • Lord John Russell sa3'8, ' The doctrine of Mr. Fox, the popular 
 leader, went far to set aside the constitutional authoril v of Parlin- 
 mcnt, while that of Mr. Pitt, the orpran of the Crown, tended to shake 
 the stability of thw monarchy, and to peril the great rule of hereditary 
 succeasiau.' — Fox Man., ii. 2,ij'i. 
 
Proceedmzs 171 1788. 
 
 179 
 
 legal claim rather than a right to the regency ; and 
 contended that it was for Parliament to adjudicate 
 upon that claim, which, when allowed, would become 
 an absolute title to the exercise of all the rights of 
 sovereignty, without any limitation. He declared 
 that he spoke merely his o\vn opinion, without any 
 authority ; but that if he had been consulted, he 
 should have advised a message from the prince, 
 stating his claim, to be answered by a joint address 
 of both Houses, calling upon him to exercise the 
 prerogatives of the crown. It was now his main 
 position that no restrictions should be imposed upou 
 the powers of the regent. But here, again, Mr. 
 Pitt joined issue with him ; and while he agreed 
 that, as a matter of discretion, the Prince of Wales 
 ought to be the regent, with all necessary authority, 
 — unrestrained by any permanent council, and with 
 a free choice of his political servants ; he yet con- 
 tended that any power not essential, and which 
 might be employed to embarrass the exercise of the 
 king's authority, in the event of his recovery, ought 
 to be withheld.' And as the question of right had 
 been raised, he insisted that it ought first to be 
 determined, — since if the right should be held to 
 exist. Parliament having adjudicated upon such 
 right, need not deliberate upon any further mea- 
 sures. 
 
 The same questions were debated in the House of 
 Lords, where the Duke of York said that „ 
 
 The Pnnce 
 
 no claim of ri'4it had been made on the "f ^'"''^ 
 part of the prince, wlio ' understood too well 
 
 ' Dec. 12ih. r:irl. Hist., xxvii. 727. 
 M 2 
 
T 80 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 the sacred principles which seated the house of 
 Brunswick on the throne, ever to assume or exercise 
 any power, be his claim what it might, not derived 
 from the will of the people, expressed by their re- 
 presentatives and their Lordships in Parliament 
 assembled.' His Royal Highness, therefore, depre- 
 cated the resolution of ministers to press for any 
 decision on that point, — in which the Duke of 
 Gloucester concmTed.' 
 
 Meanwhile, the Prince, greatly offended by Mr. 
 The Prince I^i^t's couduct, wrote to the chancellor 
 Mn'pitfs^ complaining that the premier had publicly 
 conduct. announced so much of his scheme of re- 
 gency, and was prepared, as he conceived, to lay it 
 still more fully before Parliament, without having 
 previously submitted it to his consideration. He 
 desired that Mr. Pitt would send him, in writing, 
 an outline of what he proposed. Mr. Pitt imme- 
 diately wi'ote to the prince, explaining his own con- 
 duct, and stating that it was not his intention to 
 propose any specific plan until the right of Parlia- 
 ment to consider such a plan had been determined ; 
 and that he would then submit to his Royal High- 
 ness the best opinions which his Majesty's servants 
 liad been able to give.^ 
 
 On the 16th December, the House resolved itself 
 Mr pitt'B ^^^"^ ^ committee on the state of the na- 
 iwryrcso- ^iou, whcu Mr. Pitt again enforced the 
 lutiona. right of Parliament to appoint a regent, — 
 fortifying his position by reference to the report of 
 
 ■ Tiirl. Hist., xxvii. 678, 684. 
 
 » Tomliue'a Life of Pitt, ii. 388 ; whoro the letter is printed at 
 IcDsth. 
 
Proceedings in 1788. 
 
 iSi 
 
 precedents,' which had then been received, — and argu- 
 ing ably and elaborately that neither law, precedent, 
 nor analogy could be found to support the claim 
 which had been urged on behalf of the Prince of 
 Wales. He concluded by moving three resolutions ; 
 affirming, firstly, that the personal exercise of royal 
 authority was interrupted ; secondly, the right of 
 the two Houses to supply this defect of the royal 
 authority in such manner as the exigency of the 
 case may seem to require ; and, thirdly, the ne- 
 cessity of ' determining the means by which the 
 royal assent may be given to bills passed by the 
 two Houses respecting the exercise of the powers 
 of the crown, during the continuance of the king's 
 indisposition.' 
 
 Mr. Fox argued, ingeniously, that the principles 
 maintained by I\Ir. Pitt tended to make the mon- 
 archy elective instead of hereditary ; and that if 
 Parliament might elect any one to be regent, for 
 whatever time it thought fit, the monarchy would 
 become a republic. Nor did he omit to seek for 
 support, by intimations that he should be Mr. Pitt's 
 successor, under the regency.* 
 
 On the report of these resolutions to the House,' 
 Mr. Pitt explained, — in reference to his third reso- 
 lution, which had not been clearly understood, — 
 that he intended, when the resolutions had been 
 agreed to by both Houses, to propose that the 
 Lord Cliancellor should be empowered by a vote 
 
 ' CommoiiH' Journ., xliv. 11 ; Lords' Journ., xxxviii. 276. 
 
 » Pari. lli«t., xxvii. 731-778. 
 
 • Ibid., 782 ; Twiss's Life of ElJon, i. 191. 
 
1 82 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 of the two Houses, to affix the great seal to com- 
 missions for opening the Parliament, and for 
 gi\'ing the royal assent to a Eegency Bill. The 
 jjropriety of this singular course of proceeding was 
 much questioned : but, after long debates, the reso- 
 lutions were agreed to, and communicated to the 
 House of Lords at a conference. In that House the 
 same questions were debated, and Lord Eawdon 
 moved as an amendment, an address to the Prince 
 of Wales, praying him ' to take upon himself, as 
 sole regent, the administration of the executive 
 government, in the king's name.' Lord Chancellor 
 Thurlow, — though faithless to his colleagues, and 
 intriguing, at the very time, with the queen and 
 the Prince of Wales,' — supported the ministerial 
 position with great force. In answer to Lord Eaw- 
 don's amendment, he 'begged to know what the 
 term " regent " meant ? where was he to find it 
 defined ? in what law-book, or what statute ? He 
 had heard of custodes regni, of lieutenants for the 
 king, of guardians, and protectors, and of lords 
 justices: but he knew not where to look for an ex- 
 planation of the office and functions of regent. To 
 what end, then, would it be to address the prince to 
 take upon himself an office, the boundaries of which 
 were by no means ascertained ? . . . . What was 
 meant by the executive government ? Did it mean 
 the whole royal authority? Did it mean the power 
 of legislation ? Did it mean all the sovereign's 
 
 ' Nicholl's Rocollectious, 71 ; Tomline's Life of Pitt, iii. c. 14; 
 Wilbrrt'orcc's Lifc, i. App. ; Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii. 31 ; Lord 
 Campbell's Lives of Cliiiucellors, v. 683, et seq. ; Lord Stanhope's Lifu 
 tif I'ltt, 390-403. 
 
Proceedings ill 1788. 183 
 
 functions without restriction or limitation of any 
 kind whatsoever ? If it did, it amounted to the 
 actual dethroning of his Majesty, and wresting the 
 sceptre out of his hand.' ' All the resolutions were 
 agreed to : but were followed by a protest signed by 
 forty-eight peers.^ 
 
 The perplexities arising out of the incapacity of 
 the sovereign, — the constitutional source peatuof 
 and origin of authority, — were now in- Ip^g, 
 creased by the death of Mr. Cornwall, the comwau. 
 Speaker of the House of Commons. His Majesty's 
 leave could not be signified that the Commons 
 should proceed to the election of another speaker ; 
 nor could the new speaker, when elected, be pre- 
 sented for the king's approval. But the necessity 
 of the occasion suggested an easy expedient : and 
 both these customary formalities were simply dis- 
 pensed with, without any attempt to assume the 
 appearance of the royal sanction.' 
 
 All these preliminaries being settled, Mr. Pitt 
 now submitted to the Prince of Wales the pj^^ 
 plan of regency which he intended to pro- ^,^™ne\'o^ 
 pose. The limitations suggested were prince, 
 these : — that the care of the king's person and 
 
 ' Purl. Hist., xxvii. 885. The oiBce of regent, however, does not 
 appear to be wholly without recoi^nilion, as contended by the chan- 
 cellor and others. On the accession of Henry III., a minor, the great 
 council of the nation, assembled at Bristol, appointed the Earl of 
 Pembroke regent, as ' Rector Regis el Reyni' (Matthew Paris, Wats' 
 2nd Ed., p. 215 ; Carte's History of ling., ii. 2) ; and when the l)uke 
 of York was appointed protector by the Parliament during the ill- 
 ness of Hon. VI., it is entered in the rolls of Parliament that th" 
 title of regent was not given him, because ' it emjmrlcd auctorite of 
 gourrnauinc "f the lande.' — Rot. Pari., v. 242, a.d. 1454 ; liymer'a 
 Fredera, v. 55. 
 
 • Pari. Hist., xxvii. 901. • Ibid., 903, 1160. 
 
1 84 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 household, and the appointment of officers and ser- 
 vants should be reserved to the queen : — that the 
 regent should not be empowered to dispose of the 
 real or personal property of the king, or to grant 
 any office in reversion, or any pension or office, 
 otherwise than during pleasui-e, except those which 
 were required to be gi-anted for life, or during good 
 behaviour ; or to bestow any peerage except upon 
 his Majesty's issue, having attained the age of 
 twenty-one.' These limitations were suggested, he 
 said, on the supposition that the king's illness would 
 not be of long duration, and might afterwards be re- 
 vised by Parliament. 
 
 The prince's reply to this communication was a 
 The prince's ^lost skilful Composition, written by Bm"ke 
 and revised by Sheridan. ^ He regarded 
 the restrictions as ' a project for producing weak- 
 ness, disorder, and insecurity in every branch of the 
 administration of affairs, — a project for dividing the 
 royal family from each other, for separating the 
 court from the state, — a scheme disconnecting the 
 authority to command service, from the power of 
 animating it by reward, and for allotting to the 
 prince all the invidious duties of government, with- 
 out the means of softening them to the public, by 
 any act of grace, favour, or benignity.' And he 
 repudiated as unnecessary, the restriction upon his 
 granting away the king's property, — a power which 
 he had shown no inclination to possess.' 
 
 ' Tomline's Life of Titt, ii. 422; Piirl. Hist., xxvii. 909. 
 -' Mooro's Life of Sheridan, ii. 50. Lord Stanhope assigns the 
 authorship to Mr. Hurke alone. — Life uf Vitt, ii. 18. 
 » Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 425 ; Pari. Hist., xxvii. 910. 
 
Proceedings in 1788. 
 
 185 
 
 But before Mr. Pitt was able to bring liis pro- 
 posals before Parliament, fresh discussions Furtner 
 
 inquiries 
 
 were raised by the opposition on the state conceming 
 
 the king s 
 
 of the king's health, which resulted in i^eaitu. 
 another examination of his physicians by a select 
 committee. The inquiry lasted for several days : 
 but while it disclosed much party spirit, intrigue, 
 and jealousy, it established no new facts concerning 
 the probable recovery of the royal patient.' The 
 least hopeful physicians were popular with the 
 opposition : the more sanguine found favour witli 
 the court and ministers. At length, on the 19th 
 January, Mr. Pitt moved in committee on Further re- 
 
 . 1 . ~ , 1 . « , . solutions on 
 
 the state 01 the nation, live resolutions on theregencj-. 
 which the Eegency Bill was to be founded. After 
 animated debates they were all agreed to, and com- 
 municated at a conference to the Lords, by whom 
 they were also adopted: but not without a protest 
 signed by fifty-seven peers, headed by the Dukes of 
 York and Cumberland. 
 
 The next step was to lay these resolutions before 
 the prince ; and to ascertain whether he j^jj ^^^^^^^ 
 would accept the regency, with the con- ^^"^ 
 ditions attached to it by Parliament. The resolu- 
 tions were accordingly presented by both Houses; 
 and the prince, out of respect for his father, the in- 
 terests of the people, and the united desires of tlic 
 two Houses, consented to undertake the trust, 
 though he felt the difficulties which must attend its 
 execution. The resolutions were also presented to 
 the queen and received a gracious answer.' 
 
 ' Commons' Journ., xliv. 47. ' Turl. Hist., xxvii. 1122. 
 
J 86 Illnesses of Gcoj'ge the Third. 
 
 Another technical difficulty was still to be over- 
 commis- come before the Eegency Bill could, at last, 
 opening be introduced. Parliament had not yet 
 tiient. been opened, nor the causes of summons 
 declared, in a speech from the throne, — formalities 
 always held to be essential to enable Parliament to 
 proceed with its legislative business. It was now 
 Jan 31 proposed, by a vote of both Houses, to au- 
 thorise the passing of letters patent imder 
 the great seal, for the opening of Parliament by 
 commission. The necessity of adopting this ex- 
 pedient had been already intimated, and had been 
 described as a ' phantom ' of royalty, a ' fiction,' and 
 a ' forgery.' It was now formally proposed, by 
 ministers, on the ground that the opening of Par- 
 liament, by royal authority, was essential to the 
 validity of its proceedings : that during the king's 
 incapacity such authority could only be signified by 
 a commission under the great seal : that without the 
 direction of both Houses, the Lord Chancellor could 
 not venture to affix the seal ; but that the commis- 
 sion being once issued, with the great seal annexed 
 to it, — the instrument by which the will of the 
 king is declared — no one could question its lega- 
 lity.' It was also stated that the royal assent 
 would hereafter be signified to the Eegency Bill 
 l)y commission, executed in the same way. A 
 precedent in 1754 was further relied on, in which 
 Lord Ilardwicke had affixed the great seal to two 
 commissions, — the one for opening Parliament, and 
 
 ' Lord Camden's Speech ; Pari. Hist., xxvii. 1124. 
 
Proceeduigs ill 1788. 
 
 187 
 
 tlie other for passing a bill, during a dangerous 
 illness of George II.' 
 
 It was contended on the other side, with much 
 force, that if this legal fiction were necessary at all, 
 it ought to have been used for the opening of Par- 
 liament two months ago : that hitherto the time of 
 Parliament had been wasted, — its deliberations un- 
 authorised, irregular, and fruitless. But this fiction 
 was also an assumption of royal authority. The 
 Houses had already agreed to allot one portion of 
 the prerogatives to the queen, and another to the 
 regent, and now they were aboxit to take another 
 portion themselves : but, after all, the fictitious use 
 of the king's name would be illegal. By the 33rd 
 Henry VIII., it was declared that a commission for 
 giving the royal assent to a bill must V)e by letters 
 patent under the great seal, and signed by the king's 
 own hand. The great, seal alone would not, there- 
 fore, make the commission legal ; and the Act for 
 the Duke of Norfolk's attainder had been declared 
 void by Parliament, because the commission for 
 giving the royal assent to it had wanted the king's 
 sign-manual, liis name having been affixed by means 
 of a stamp.'^ The course proposed by ministers, 
 however, was approved by both Houses. 
 
 According to invariable custom, the names of all 
 the royal dukes, having seats in tlie House Ti.croyiu 
 of Lords, had been inserted in the pro- cUnrtobe 
 posed commission : but the Duke of York mission!""' 
 
 ' SpeochcH of Mr. I'itl and Lord Camden. In tlio latter this pre- 
 cedent is ornmuously asBigned to 173!). Soo also Lord Colchester's 
 Diary, ii. 28:i. 
 
 ' 1 Mary, Sess. 2, c. 13 (Private). 
 
1 88 Illnesses of George the Third, 
 
 desired that his own name and that of the Prince of 
 Wales might be omitted, as he ' deemed the mea- 
 sure proposed, as well as every other which had been 
 taken respecting the same subject, as unconstitu- 
 tional and illegal.' The Duke of Cumberland also 
 desired the omission of his name, and that of the 
 Duke of Gloucester. 
 
 On the 3rd February, Parliament was at length 
 Opening of Opened by commission.' Earl Bathurst, 
 ment. one of the commissioners who sat as 
 speaker, in the absence of the chancellor, stated 
 that the illness of his Majesty had made it neces- 
 sary that a commission in his name should pass the 
 great seal ; and when the commission had been read, 
 he delivered a speech to both Houses, in pursuance 
 of the authority given by that commission, declar- 
 ing the causes of summons, and calling attention to 
 the necessity of making provision for the care of 
 the king's person, and the administration of the 
 royal authority. 
 
 Meanwhile, it became necessary that the usual 
 commis- commission should issue for holding the 
 hoki/n"the assizcs. Although the sign-manual could 
 assizes. tYiBU be obtained, the urgency of the 
 
 occasion was so great that Lord Thurlow, the chan- 
 cellor, affixed the great seal to a commission for 
 that purpose, by virtue of which the judges went 
 their circuits.^ 
 
 After all these delays, Mr. Pitt now brought the 
 
 ' Seo form of Commission, Lords' Journ., xxxviii. 311. 
 2 Spoech of Lord Liverpool, Jan. .'jth, 1311 ; Hans. Dob., 1st Sor., 
 xviii. 789. 
 
Regency Bill, i']^^^. 189 
 
 Eegency Bill into the House of Commons.' The pro- 
 visions which attracted most observation 
 were the nomination of the queen's council, brought in. 
 the restriction upon the creation of peers, the power 
 of the privy council to pronounce his Majesty's 
 restoration to health and capacity, and a clause by 
 which the regent's authority would cease if he 
 married a Eoman Catholic. But, as the measure 
 was not destined to pass, the lengthened debates to 
 which it gave rise, need not be pursued any further. 
 The bill had been sent to the Lords, — its clauses 
 were being discussed in committee, — and politicians, 
 in expectation of its early passing, were busily filling 
 up the places in the prince regent's first administra- 
 tion, — when on the 19th February, the lord chan- 
 cellor announced that his Majesty was convalescent; 
 and further proceedings were arrested. TheWn^'s 
 The king's recovery was now rapid : on the corcry.™" 
 2oth, he was pronounced free from complaint, and, 
 on the 27th, further bulletins were discontinued by 
 his ^Majesty's own command. On the 10th March, 
 another commission was issued, authorising ' the 
 commissioners, who were appointed hy former letters 
 'patent to hold this Parliament, to open and declare 
 certain further causes for holding the same,''^ thus 
 recognising the validity of the previous commission, 
 to which the great seal had been affixed in his name.' 
 
 ' 6th Februarj', 1 "89 ; see a copy of the Regency Bill as passed 
 by thf Commoiiw, Pari. Hist., xxvii. 1258. 
 ' Commons' Journ., xliv. 159. 
 
 • While rh<' proceedings upon the Recenoy 11111 were pending, 
 Bereral other hills were introduced into both Houses of Parliivmcnt, 
 which received tlie royal assent after his Mnjotty's recovery. 
 
190 Illnesses of George tJie Third. 
 
 He thanked Parliament for its attachment to his 
 person, and its concern for the honour of the crown, 
 and the security of his dominions. Loyal addresses 
 were agreed to by both Houses, nerrn. eon., as well as 
 a message of congratulation to the queen. 
 
 The 23rd April was appointed as a day of public 
 The king thanksgiving, when the king and roval 
 ISi i " family, attended by both Houses of Parlia- 
 ment, the great oflBcers of state, and foreign am- 
 bassadors, went in procession to St. Paul's. It was 
 a solemn and aflPecting spectacle : a national demon- 
 stration of loyalty, and pious gratitude. 
 
 Thus ended a most painful episode in the history 
 FortoMte of this reigu. Had no delavs been inter- 
 iMssiBgthe posed in the progress of the Eegencv Bill, 
 Bin. the king, on his recovery, would have 
 found himself stripped of his royal authority. He 
 was spared this sorrow, partly by the nimierous pre- 
 liminaries which the ministers had deemed necessary ; 
 and partly by the conduct of the opposition, who 
 though most interested in the speedy passing of the 
 bill, had contributed to its protracted consideration. 
 By asserting the prince's right, they had provoked 
 ministers to maintain the authority of Parliament, 
 as a preliminary to legislation. Twice they had 
 caused the physicians to be examined ; and they 
 discussed the bill in all its stages, in full confidence 
 that his Majesty's recovery was hopeless. 
 
 Many of the preliminaries, indeed, would seem to 
 oommenw tave been superfluous : but the unprece- 
 ^^^^^ dented circimistances with which ministers 
 had to deal. — the entire want of con- 
 
Regency Bill, 1 789. 
 
 191 
 
 fidence between them and the Prince of "Wales, — 
 the uncertainty of the king's recovery, — the conduct 
 of the opposition, and their relations to the prince, 
 — together with several constitutional considerations 
 of the utmost difficulty, contributed to the embar- 
 rassment of their position. 
 
 If it was necessary to authorise the opening of 
 Parliament by a commission under the great seal, 
 this course ought to have been at first adopted ; for 
 the law of Parliament does not recognise the dis- 
 tinction then raised, between legislative and any 
 other proceedings. No business whatever can be 
 commenced until the causes of summons have been 
 declared by the crown.' The king having been un- 
 able to exercise this function. Parliament had pro- 
 ceeded with its deliberations for upwards of two 
 months, without the accustomed speech from the 
 throne. And if any doubt existed as to tlie validity 
 of these proceedings, it is difficult to understand 
 how they could be removed by the commission. As 
 the king's authority could not in fact be exercised, 
 and as the great seal, intended to represent it, was 
 affixed by direction of the two Houses, why was the 
 fiction needed ? The only real authority was that of 
 Parliament, which might have been boldly and 
 openly exercised, during the incapacity of the king. 
 
 The simplest and most direct course would, un- 
 doubtedly, have been for both Houses to agree upon 
 an address to the Prince of Wales, praying him 
 to exercise the royal authority, subject to condi- 
 
 ' Evpn tho plccfton of ii speaker and tlie swearing of members in 
 a new Parliament, are not cummencud until tho pleasure of the crovta 
 hiiB been bignified. 
 
192 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 tions stated in the address itself ; and on his accept- 
 ance of the trust, to proceed to give legal effect to 
 these conditions by a bill, — to which the royal assent 
 would be signified by the regent, on behalf of the 
 crown. Either in earlier or in later times, such a 
 course would probably have been followed. But at 
 that period, above all others, lawyers delighted in 
 fiction, and Westminster Hall was peopled with 
 legal ' phantoms ' of their creation.' 
 
 In proposing to proceed by address, the opposition 
 Precedent relied upon the precedent of the Kevolu- 
 voiutionof tion of 1688. On the other side it was 
 contended, and particularly by Sir John 
 Scott, the Solicitor-General, — by whose advice the 
 government were mainly guided, — that after the 
 throne had been declared vacant. Parliament 
 solicited the Prince of Orange to assume the royal 
 powers : but here the rights of the lawful sovereign 
 could not be passed by, and superseded.^ His name 
 must be used in all proceedings : his great seal 
 affixed by the chancellor of his appointment, to 
 every commission ; and his authority recognised and 
 represented, though his personal directions and 
 capacity were wanting. It is obvious, however, that 
 whatever empty forms were observed, the royal au- 
 thority was, of necessity, superseded. As the throne 
 was not vacant, no stranger was sought to fill it, and 
 
 ' See Chap. XVIU. Lord John Kussell says, ' All reasonable 
 restrictions might have been impose d by Act of Parliament, with the 
 royal assent given by the regent, acting on behalf of the crown." — 
 JSiem. of Fox, ii. 265. He ridicules the ' absurd phantom of a royal 
 assent given by the Houses of Parliament to their own act, by a 
 fiction of their own creation.' 
 
 ■- Pari. Hist., x.\vii. 825 ; Twisss Life of Eldon, 192. 
 
Regency Bill, 1789. 
 
 193 
 
 all parties concurred in calling upon the heir ajo- 
 parent to exercise his father's royal authority. The 
 two occasions differed in regard to the persons whom 
 Parliament, in times of nearly equal emergency, 
 proposed to invest with the supreme power : but why 
 a simple and direct course of proceeding was not as 
 appropriate iu the one case as in the other, we need 
 the subtlety and formalism of the old school of 
 lawyers to perceive. 
 
 As regards the conduct of political parties, it can 
 hardly be questioned that, on the one hand, conduct of 
 
 ■» 1- T-- T 1 • • • t 1 political 
 
 Mr. r ox and his party incautiously took up parties, 
 an indefensible position; while, on the other, ]\Ir. Pitt 
 was unduly tenacious in asserting the authority of 
 Parliament, — which the Prince had not authorised 
 any one to question, — and which his brother, the 
 Duke of York, had admitted. Yet the conduct of 
 both is easily explained by the circumstances of their 
 respective parties. The prince had identified him- 
 self with Mr. Fox and the Whigs ; and it was well 
 known to Jlr. Pitt, and offensively announced by 
 his opponents, that the passing of the Eegency Act 
 would be the signal for his own dismissal. To assert 
 the prince's rights, and resist all restrictions upon his 
 authority, was the natm-al course for his friends to 
 adopt ; while to maintain the prerogatives of the 
 crown, — to respect the feelings and dignity of the 
 queen, and at the same time to vindicate the para- 
 mount authority of Parliament, — was the becoming 
 policy of the king's minister. Mr. Pitt's view, being 
 favourable to popular rights, was supported by the 
 people : Mr. Fox, on the other hand, committed 
 
 VOL. I. O 
 
1 94 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 himself to the assertion of prerogative, and inveighed 
 against the discretionary power of Parliament. Well 
 might Mr. Pitt exultingiy exclaim, ' I'll unwhig the 
 gentleman for the rest of his life.' ' The proceedings 
 on the regency confirmed the confidence of the king 
 in Mr. Pitt, and his distrust of Mr. Fox and his ad- 
 herents ; and the popular minister had a long careei 
 of power before him. 
 
 "While these proceedings were pending, the Parlia- 
 j^^^g^^ ment of Ireland, adopting the views of ]\Ir. 
 iiigs in the jtq^ agreed to an address to the Prince of 
 
 Parliament ' o 
 
 ofii-eiaud. Wales, praying him to take upon himself 
 ' the government of this realm, during the continu- 
 ance of his Majesty's present indisposition, and no 
 longer, and under the style and title of Prince 
 Eegent of Ireland, in the name and on behalf of 
 his Majesty, to exercise and administer, according to 
 the laws and constitution of this kingdom, all regal 
 powers, jurisdictions and prerogatives to the crown 
 and government thereof belonging.' The lord lieu- 
 tenant, the Marquess of Buckingham, having re- 
 fused to transmit this address, the Parliament 
 caused it to be conveyed directly to his Royal 
 Highness, by some of their own members ; and 
 censured the conduct of the lord lieutenant as 
 unconstitutional.^ 
 
 To this address the prince returned an answer, in 
 which, after thanking the Parliament of Ireland for 
 
 • Adolphus's Hist., iv. 326, n. ; Mooro's Life of Sheridan, ii. 38. 
 
 * Debates of the Parliament of Ireland ; Pari. Refrister of Ireland, 
 ix. 119; Lords' Journ. (Ireland), vol. vi. 2-10 ; Com. Journ. (Ireland), 
 vol. xiii. 7. Plowden's Hist., ii. 230-250. The speech of Mr. Grat 
 lau was peculiarly- forcible and woU reasoned. 
 
proceedings m iSoi. 195 
 
 their loyalty and affection, he stated that he trusted 
 the king would soon be able to resume the personal 
 exercise of the royal authority, which would render 
 unnecessary any further answer, except a repetition 
 of his thanks.' 
 
 Soon after his recovery, the king said to Lord 
 Thurlow, ' what has happened may happen wise fore- 
 
 Slight of 
 
 again : for God's sake make some perma- tiie king, 
 nent and immediate pro\'ision for such a regency 
 as may prevent the country from being involved 
 in disputes and difficulties similar to those just 
 over.' Lord Thurlow and Mr. Pitt agreed as to 
 the expediency of such a measure : but differed as 
 to the mode in which it should be framed. The 
 former was soon afterwards out of office, and the 
 latter thought no more about the matter.^ It is in- 
 deed singular that the king's wise foresight should 
 have been entirely neglected ; and that on three 
 subsequent occasions, embarrassments arising from 
 the same cause should have been experienced. 
 
 In P'ebruaiy, 1801, the king was again seized 
 with an illness of the same melancholy The king's 
 character, as that by which he had been isui!^'" 
 previously afflicted.' If not caused, it was at least 
 aggravated by the excitement of an impending 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., Ist Ser., xviii. 183. 
 ' Lonl Malmesljury's Diary, iv. 23. 
 
 • Lord Malinesbury's Diary, Feb. 17th, 1801 : ' King got a had 
 cold; takes James's powder; Go<l forbid he should be ill!' Feb. 
 19th: ' This the first symptom of the king's serious ilbiess.' Mivlni. 
 Corr., iv. 11, 13. Feb. 22nd: 'King much worse; Dr. J. Willis 
 attended him all last nighf, and says h« was iu the hsight of a 
 plirenzy-fever, as bad as the worst period when lie s:iw liini iu 
 17S8.'— yW., 10 ; Kvid. Dr. lu,)uokls, IhJU. Jhms. Jjc/j., xviii. 
 
196 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 change of ministry,' in consequence of his dif- 
 ference of opinion with Mr. Pitt on the Catholic 
 question.^ 
 
 This illness, though not involving constitutional 
 Ministerial difficulties SO important as those of 1788, 
 changes. occurrod at a moment of no small political 
 embarrassment. Mr. Pitt had tendered his resigna- 
 tion ; and was holding office only until the appoint- 
 ment of his successor. Mr. Speaker Addingion, 
 havino; received the king's commands to form an ad- 
 ministration, had already resigned the chair of the 
 House of Commons. The arrangements for a new 
 ministry were in progress, when they were inter- 
 rupted by the king's indisposition. But believing it 
 to be nothing more than a severe cold, Mr. Adding- 
 ton did not think fit to wait for his formal appoint- 
 ment ; and vacated his seat, on the 1 9th February, 
 by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, in order to 
 expedite his retm-n to his place in Parliament. In 
 the meantime Mr. Pitt, who had resigned office, not 
 only continued to discharge the customary official 
 duties of chancellor of the Exchequer,' but on the 
 1 8th February, brought forward the annual budget,* 
 which included a loan of 25,500,000L, and new 
 taxes to the amount of 1,750,000?.* 
 
 Mr. Addington had fully expected that his formal 
 
 ' Lord Holland's Mem., i. 176. He had been cnillcd by remaining 
 very long in church on the Fast Day, Friday, Feb. 13, and on his re- 
 turn liome was seized with cramps. — Mabncshimj Corr., iv. 28. 
 See swpra, p. 93, et srq., and infra, Chap. Xll. 
 
 ' Malnicsbury Corr., xiv. 28. 
 
 « Pari. Hist., xx.\v. 972. 
 
 * It seems that ho spoke from the third bench, on the right hand 
 of the chair.— 3/r. Abbot's Liarij ; Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 345, n. 
 
Procecdinos in iSoi. 
 
 197 
 
 appointment as first lord of the Treasury and clian- 
 cellor of the Exchequer would have been completed 
 before his re-election : but this was prevented by the 
 king's illness ; and as his election could not legally 
 be postponed, he took his seat again on the 27th, — 
 not as a minister of the crown, but as a private 
 member. 
 
 On the 22nd, the king's condition was as critical as 
 at the worst period of his attack in 1788.' Towards 
 the evening of the following day he came to himself, 
 and indicated the causes of disturbance which were 
 pressing on his mind, by exclaiming : ' I am better 
 now, but I will remain true to tlie chm-ch;'^ and 
 afterwards, ' the king's mind, whenever he came to 
 himself, reverted at once to the cause of his dis- 
 quietude.'^ At the beginning of March his fever 
 increased again, and for a time his life was despaired 
 of but about the 5th, a favourable turn took place; 
 and though not allowed to engage in any business, 
 he was from this time gradually recovering.* On 
 the 10th, he wrote a letter approving of a minute of 
 the cabinet ; and on the 11th he saw Mr. Addington 
 and the chancellor, when he was pronounced, — 
 somewhat prematurely, — to be quite well.*' 
 
 On the 24th February, the bill for repealing the 
 brown bread Act of the previous session was awaiting 
 the royal assent ; and it was thought very desirable 
 that no delay should occur. Mr. Addington declined 
 
 ' MalmcsV^ury Corr., iv. 16 ; Lord Colchester's Diarj', i. 242; Corn- 
 wallis Corr., iii. 341. 
 
 ury Corr., iv, 20. ' IhiJ.^ 28. * Und.^ iv. 27. 
 
 » Ihid.. 30-33, et geq. ; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 245-249. 
 
 • Malmcsbury Corr., iv. 44 ; Lord Sidmouth's Life, i. 360 ; Lcid 
 Colchester's Uiary, 263. 
 
f 98 Illnesses of Oeorge the Third. 
 
 presenting the commission for his Majesty's signa- 
 ture; but the chaucellor, Lord Loughborough, waited 
 upon the king, who signed the commission, saying it 
 was a very good bill.' 
 
 INIeanwhile, who was minister — Mr. Pitt or Mr. 
 Addington ? or neither ? Both were in communica- 
 tion with the Prince of Wales on the probable 
 necessity of a regency : both were in official inter- 
 course with the king himself.'' The embarrassment 
 of such a position was relieved by the forbearance of 
 all parties, in both Houses of Parliament ; and at 
 length, on the 14th March, the king was sufficiently 
 recovered to receive the seals from JNIr. Pitt, and to 
 place them in the hands of Mr. Addington. This 
 acceptance of office, however, again vacated his seat, 
 which he was unable to resume as a minister of the 
 ci'own, until the 23rd March. The king was still 
 for some time obliged to abstain from unnecessary 
 exertion. On the 15th Api'il, he transferred the 
 great seal from Lord Loughborough to Lord Eldon 
 but though several other things were required to be 
 done, the ministers were unanimous that he should 
 only perform this single act on that day.^ 
 
 But even after the king had transacted business, 
 and his recovery had been formally announced, his 
 health continued to cause great anxiety to his family 
 and ministers. Apprehensions were entertained lest 
 
 • Life of Lorf] Sidmouth, i. 308; Malmesbury Corr., iv. 17, 18; 
 Lord Holland's Mem., i. 177 ; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 24.3, 249. 
 It appears, however, that the Chancellor did not himself see the 
 king, but sent in the commission by Dr. Willis. Fox Mom., iii. 336 ; 
 lioee's Corr., i. 315 ; Lord Stauliope's Life of I'itt, iii. 295. 
 
 2 Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 348, 350 ; Malmesb. Corr., iv. 25, &c. 
 
 ' Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 401. 
 
Proceedings in 1804. 199 
 
 ' his intellectual faculties should be impaired so 
 much as never to recover their former tone/' 
 Writing in August, 1801, Mr. T. Grenville says : 
 ' The king has seen the chancellor for two hours, and 
 the ministers give out that the king will hold a 
 council in a day or two at farthest.' ^ 
 
 On this occasion his Majesty's illness, however 
 alarming, passed over without any serious hindrance 
 to public business. It occurred while Parliament 
 w^s sitting, and at a time when the personal exercise 
 of the royal authority was not urgently required, 
 except for the purposes already noticed. The con- 
 stitutional questions, therefore, which had been so 
 fully argued in 1788, — though gravely considered by 
 those more immediately concerned, — did not come 
 again under discussion.^ It must be admitted that 
 the king's speedy recovery affords some justification 
 of the dilatory proceedings adopted regarding the 
 regency, in 1788. Too prompt a measure for sup- 
 plying the defect of the royal authority, would, 
 on the king's recovery, have been alike embarrass- 
 ing to his Majesty himself, the ministers, and Par- 
 liament. 
 
 In 1 804, the king was once more stricken with the 
 same grievous malady. In January, he was The wng-g 
 attacked with rheumatic gout, and about itwj4? 
 
 ' Malmesbury Corr., 20th March; iv. 61. 
 ' Court and Cal)ini ts of Geo. III., iii. 107. 
 
 • It wa*! sugf^cstfd that both parties, who had opposed each otho» 
 so violently in 1788 upon the question of a rouency, shouM now 
 make mutual concessions, and, if possible, avoid the discussion of 
 thoir conflicting opinions. In this view, it seems, Lortl Spencer, tho 
 Duke of Portland, Mr. T. Grenville, and Mr. T. Pelham concurred; 
 but Mr. Pitt appears not to have entirely acquiesceJ in it. — Malniet- 
 bimj Corr., iv. ID. Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 
 
200 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 the 12tli February, Lis mind became afifected.' He 
 gradually recovered, however, towards the end of the 
 month.'^ On the 26th, the archbishop offered a 
 thanksgiving for the happy prospect of his Majesty's 
 speedy recovery ; and on the same day, the physicians 
 issued a bulletin, announcing that any rapid amend- 
 ment was not to be expected.^ Henceforth his 
 malady continued, with more or less severity, so as 
 to make it requisite to spare him all unnecessary 
 exertion of mind, till the 23rd April, when he pre- 
 sided at a council. He remained under medical care 
 and control until the 10th June.'' For a time his 
 life was in danger ; but his mind was never so com- 
 pletely alienated as it had been in 1788 and 1801.''' 
 
 Meanwhile, the ordinary business of the session 
 was proceeded with. On the 27th February, the 
 king-'s illness was adverted to in the House of Com- 
 mons ; but ministers were of opinion that a formal 
 communication to the House upon the subject was 
 not required, and could secure no good object. Mr. 
 Addington stated that there was not, at that time, 
 any necessary suspension of such royal functions as 
 
 ' Lord Malmesbury says, althouj;li ' there was a council held about 
 the 24th January at the qupen's house, yet before the end of that 
 month it was no longer to be concealed that the king had a return of 
 his old illness.' — Corr., iv. 292. But it appears that the king's 
 reason was not affected until about the 12th of Februarj-. — Pellew's 
 Life of Lord Sidynovih, ii. 246 ; I/srd Colchester's Diary, i. 479. 
 
 ^ Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 249, ct seq. , Lord Colchester's 
 Diary, i. 481-484. 
 
 ' Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 250 ; Lord Colchester's 
 Diary, i. 483. 
 
 * Evidence of Dr. Heberden, 1810. He had otherwise been indis- 
 posed for a month previously, with symptoms of his old malady. 
 Malmesbury Corr., iv. 292 ; Fox's Mem., iv. 24, 35, 37 ; Lord Col- 
 chester's Diary, i. 517. 
 
 * Malmesbury Corr., iv. 293. 
 
Proceedings in 1 804. 
 
 201 
 
 it might be needful for his Majesty to discharge.' 
 That very day the cabinet had examined the king's 
 physicians, who were unanimously of opinion that 
 his Majesty was perfectly competent to understand 
 the effect of an instrument to which his sign-manual 
 was required : but that it would be imprudent for 
 him to encfagfe in longr argument, or fatis^uino- dis- 
 cussion.^ The delicate and responsible position of 
 the ministers, however, was admitted. The king 
 having already been ill for a fortnight, — how much 
 longer might they exercise all the executive powers 
 of the state, without calling in aid the authority of 
 Parliament ? At present they accepted the respon- 
 sibility of declaring that the interference of Parlia- 
 ment was unnecessaiy. On the 1st March, similar 
 assiu-ances were given by Lord Hawkesbury in the 
 House of Lords : the lord chancellor also declared 
 that, at that moment, there was no suspension of the 
 royal functions. 
 
 On the 2nd March, the matter was again brought 
 forward by Grey, but elicited no further expla- 
 nation.' On the 5th, the lord chancellor stated that 
 he had had inter\-iews, on that and the previous day, 
 with the king, who gave his consent to the Duke 
 of York's Estate Bill, so far as his own interest was 
 concerned ; and on the same day the physicians were 
 of opinion ' that his Majesty was fully competent to 
 transact business with his Parliament, by commission 
 and message.'* On the 9th, Mr. Grey adverted to 
 
 ' Hans. Dob., 1st Ser., i. 307, 526, 630. Seo also Stanhope's Life 
 of Pitt, iv. 119-126. 
 = Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 421 ; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 483. 
 » Hans. Deb., 1st Sep., i. 663. 
 * Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 422. 
 
202 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 the fact that fifteen bills had just received the royal 
 assent, — a circumstance which he regarded with ' un- 
 easiness and apprehension.'^ Among these bills 
 •were the annual Mutiny Acts, the passing of which, 
 in the midst of war, could not have been safely post- 
 poned. On this day also, the lord chancellor ass'ored 
 the House of Lords, ' that not satisfied with the 
 reports and assurances of the medical attendants, he 
 had thought it right to obtain a personal interview 
 with the sovereign, and that at that interview due 
 discussion had taken place as to the bills offered for 
 the royal assent, which had thereupon been fully ex- 
 pressed.' In reference to this interview, Lord Eldon 
 states in his anecdote book, that the king had noticed 
 that he was stated in the commission to have fully 
 considered the bills to which his assent was to be 
 signified; and that to be correct, he ought to have 
 the bills to peruse and consider. His Majesty added, 
 that in the early part of his reign he had always had 
 the bills themselves, until Lord Thurlow ceased to 
 bring them, saying : ' it was nonsense his giving 
 himself the trouble to read them.' If there was 
 somewhat of the perverse acuteness of insanity in 
 these remarks, there was yet sufficient self-possession 
 in the roval mind, to satisfy Lord Eldon that he was 
 justified in taking the sign-manual.* On the 23rd 
 March, seventeen other bills received the royal 
 assent ; and on the 26th March, a message from the 
 king, signed by himself, was brought to the House 
 of Commons by ^Ir. Addington : but no observ ation 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., i. 823. 
 
 « Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., i. 162 ; Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 419. 
 
Proceedings in 1804. 
 
 203 
 
 was made concerning his Majesty's health. There is 
 little doubt that his Majesty, though for some months 
 afterwards strange and disordered in his family circle, 
 was not incapacitated from attending to necessary 
 business with his ministers.' The opposition, how- 
 ever, and particularly the Carlton House party, were 
 disposed to make the most of the king's illness, and 
 were confidently expecting a regency.^ 
 
 Before his 3Iajesty had been restored to his ac- 
 customed health, the fall of his fas^ourite Change of 
 minister, I\Ir. Addington, was impending ; Wor^oie 
 
 ,11. 1 . . . king's re- 
 
 and the king was engaged m negotiations covery. 
 with the chancellor and Mr. Pitt, for the formation 
 of another administration.^ To confer with his 
 Majesty upon questions so formal as his assent to the 
 Mutiny Bills, had been a matter of delicacy : but to 
 discuss ^vith him so important a measure as the re- 
 construction of a ministry, in a time of war and 
 public danger, was indeed embarrassing. Mr. Pitt's 
 correspondence discloses his misgivings as to the state 
 
 ' Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 422; Malmesbuiy Corr., iv. 317, 325, 
 327, 344 ; Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 248, et seq. 
 
 ' Mr. Pitt, on beins; told that the Prince of Wales had asserted 
 that the king's illness must last for several months, said : ' Thy wish 
 was fath'-r, Harry, to that thought.' — Malmesbury Corr., iv. 298, 
 313,31.5. 
 
 • Lord Cokhester's Diary, i. 502-505 ; Twiss's Life of Lord 
 Eldon, i. 442; llose's Corr., ii. 113. The chancellor's conduct, on 
 this occasion, in negotiating for Mr. Pitt's return to oflBce, without 
 the knowledge of Mr. Addington and his colleagues, has exposed 
 him to the severest animadversions. — I^rd Brougham's Sketches of 
 Statesmen : Works, iv. 66, j».; Pellew's Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 277 ; 
 Lord Canipljell's Lives, vii. 166; Law Review, Nos. ii. and xi. ; Lord 
 Colchester's Diarv, i. 529. He was sensible of the awkwardness of his 
 mission : nor do there appear to be sufficient grounds for inferring 
 the con.sent of Mr. Addington. But see Court and Cabinets of Geo. 
 IIL, iii. 348 ; lulln. Rev., Jan. 1858, -p. 157 ; Lord Stanhope's Dfe 
 of Pitt, iv. 151-156 ; and App. 
 
204 Illnesses of George the TJiird. 
 
 of tlie king's mind.' But on the 7th May, he was 
 with him for three hours, and was amazed at the cool 
 and collected manner in which his Majesty had car- 
 ried on the conversation.'' It was probably from this 
 interview that Lord Eldon relates Mr. Pitt to have 
 come out ' not only satisfied, but much surprised with 
 the king's ability. He said he had never so baffled 
 him in any conversation he had had with him in his 
 life.'' Yet, on the 9th May, after another interview, 
 Mr. Pitt wrote to the chancellor : ' I do not think 
 there was anything positively wrong : but there was 
 a hurry of spirits and an excessive love of talking.' 
 . . . . ' There is certainly nothing in what I 
 have observed that would, in the smallest degree, 
 justify postponing any other steps that are in pro- 
 gress towards arrangement.' Nor did these continued 
 misgivings prevent the ministerial arrangements 
 from being completed, some time before the king 
 was entirely relieved from the care of his medical 
 attendants. 
 
 The conduct of the government, and especially of 
 imputa- \c>\^ chancellor, in allowing tlie royal 
 
 the'co'ilduct fuuctious to be cxcrcised during this period, 
 o£ ministers. ^gj.g ggveral ycars afterwards severely im- 
 pugned. In 1811, Lord Grey had not forgotten the 
 suspicions he had expressed in 1804 ; and in examin- 
 ing the king's physicians, he elicited, especially from 
 Dr. Heberden, several circumstances, previously un- 
 
 ' LoUors to Lord Eldon, April 22, May 8 ; Lord Canipbcll's Lives, 
 vii. IG'.), 17;i. 
 
 ' Malmcsljurv Corr., iv. 306. See also Lord Colchester's Diary, 
 M:iy 2)1(1 iiiid Sth, 1804, i. 502, 507. 
 ' Twiss's LilV, i. 119. 
 
Proceedings in 1804. 205 
 
 known, relative to the king's former illnesses. On 
 the 28th January, fortified by this evidence, he 
 arraioTied the lord chancellor of conduct 'little 
 short of high treason,' — of ' treason against the con- 
 stitution and the country.' He particularly relied 
 upon the fact, that on the 9th March, 1804, the 
 chancellor had affixed the great seal to a commis- 
 sion for giving the royal assent to fifteen bills ; and 
 accused the ministers of that day of 'having cul- 
 pably made use of the king's name without the king's 
 sanction, and criminally exercised the royal functions, 
 when the sovereign was under a moral incapacity to 
 authorise such a proceeding.'' Lord Sidmouth and 
 Lord Eldon, the ministers whose conduct was mainly 
 impugned, defended themselves from these impu- 
 tations, and expressed their astonishment at Dr. 
 Heberden's evidence, which, they said, was at 
 variance with the opinions of all the physicians, — 
 including Dr. Heberden himself, — expressed in 1804, 
 while in attendance upon the king. They stated 
 that his new version of his Majesty's former illness 
 had surprised the queen, not less than the ministers. 
 And it is quite clear, from other evidence, that Dr. 
 Heberden's account of the duration and continuous 
 character of the king's malady, was inaccurate."'* 
 Lord Eldon, oddly enougli, affirmed, that on the 9th 
 of March, the king understood the duty which the 
 chancellor had to pterform, better than he did liim- 
 self. This he believed he could prove. A motion 
 was made by Lord King, fur omitting Lord Eldon'a 
 
 ' ITans. Debates, 1st Scr., xviii. 1054. 
 * Sujpra, p. 109. 
 
2o6 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 name from the Queen's Council of Kegency ; and 
 its rejection was the cause of a protest, signed by 
 nine peers, — including Lords Grey, Holland, Lauder- 
 dale, and Erskine, — in which they affirmed his un- 
 fitness for that office, on the gTound that he had 
 improperly used the king's name and authority, 
 during his incapacity in 1804.' In the House of 
 Commons, Mr. Whitbread made a similar charge 
 against his lordship ; and the lord chancellor com- 
 plained, — not without reason, — that he had been 
 hardly dealt with by his enemies, and feebly de- 
 fended by his friends.'^ 
 
 In 1804, the propriety of passing a regency bill, 
 Necessity provide for any future illness of the 
 
 gency Act ^iug, was ouce morc the subject of grave 
 canvassed, consideration among the statesmen of the 
 period ;^ but, — as in 1789, so now again,— no sooner 
 did the king recover, than all further care seems to 
 have been cast aside. Six years later this want of 
 foresight ao'ain led to serious embarrassment. 
 
 The king's last mental disorder commenced in the 
 KiiiK'siu- autumn of 1810. His kingly career was 
 iiess in itiio. close for ever. Bereft of reason and 
 nearly blind, the poor old king, — who had ruled for 
 fifty years with so high a hand, and so strong a ■will, 
 — was now tended by physicians, and controlled by 
 keepers. His constitutional infirmity, aggravated 
 by political anxieties and domestic distresses, had 
 overcome him ; and he was too far advanced in 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xviii. 1031-1087. 
 Hans. Deb., Ist Ser., xix. 87; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 37; 
 Twiss s Life of Eldon, ii. 151-161. 
 ' Malniesbury Corr., iv. 31.5. 
 
Proceedings in 1810. 
 
 207 
 
 years to rally again. It was a mournful spectacle. 
 Like King Lear, he was 
 
 ' A poor old mau, 
 'As full of grief as age : wretched in both. 
 
 But as physicians will dispute at the bedside of the 
 dying patient, — so the hopes and fears of rival 
 parties, and the rude collisions of political strife, 
 were aroused into activity by the sufferings of 
 the king. The contentions of 1788 were re- 
 vived, though the leaders of that age had passed 
 away. 
 
 Parliament stood prorogued to the 1st November, 
 and a proclamation had appeared in the Meeting of 
 'Gazette,' declaring the king's pleasure that P'"^"'""'^"'- 
 it should be further prorogued by commission to the 
 29th. But before this commission could be siarned, 
 his Majesty became so ill that the lord chancellor, 
 unable to obtain his signature, did not feel justified 
 in affixing the great seal ; and in this view of his 
 duty, statesmen of all parties concurred.' Following 
 the precedent of 1788, both Houses met on the 1st 
 November ; and on being informed of the circum- 
 stances under which they were assembled,'^ adjourned 
 
 ' Lord Colohester's Diary, ii. 280. Loi-d Campbell, however, 
 says, ' It would have been but a small liliorty to liavo passed this 
 commission, for there had been an order made at a council, at which 
 the king presided, to prorogue Parliament from the 1st to the 29th 
 November, and to prepare a commission for this purpose.' — JJvc» of 
 the Chancel lorn, vii. 
 
 ' In the Commons, the ."Speaker first took his seat at the table, and 
 explained the circumstances under which tiie House had met, before 
 he took the chair. — Hansards Drhatia, 1st Sor., xviii. 3. On taking 
 the chair, he acquainted (he House' that he had issued a new 
 writ diiring the recess. See also Lord Colchester's Diarj, ii. 282, 
 tt seq. 
 
2o8 Illnesses of George tJie Third. 
 
 until the 15th, — fourteen days being the shortest 
 period within which Parliament may, by law, be 
 summoned for despatch of business. Circular letters 
 were directed to be sent, summoning the members 
 of both Houses to attend on that day. Strong hopes 
 had been entertained by the physicians, of his 
 Majesty's speedy recovery ; and in the interval they 
 were confirmed. Both Houses, therefore, on these 
 representations being made, again adjourned for a 
 KoT. 29. fortnight. Before their next meeting, the 
 king's physicians were examined by the privy coun- 
 cil ; and as they were still confident of his ^Majesty's 
 recovery, a further adjournment for a fortnight was 
 agreed upon, — though not without objections to so 
 long an interruption of business, and a division in 
 both Houses. 
 
 No longer delay could now be suggested ; and at 
 Deo. 13. the next meeting, a committee of twenty- 
 one members was appointed in both Houses, for the 
 examination of the king's physicians. They still 
 entertained hopes of his Majesty's ultimate recovery, 
 in spite of his age and blindness ; but could not 
 form any opinion as to the probable duration of his 
 illness. 
 
 Continuing to follow generally the precedent of 
 Precedent 1788, ministers proposed, on the 20th 
 
 of 1788 r r -> 
 
 foUowed. December, in a committee on the state of 
 the nation, three resolutions, — affirming the king's 
 incapacity, — the right and duty of the two Houses 
 to provide for this exigency, — and the necessity of 
 determining by what means the royal assent should 
 be signified to a bill for that purpose. 
 
The Regency, 1 8 1 1. 
 
 209 
 
 Again the question of proceeding by bill, or by 
 address was argued. The proceedings of -q^^^. 
 1788 were exposed to a searching criticism ; 
 and all the precedents of constitutional his- 
 tory, presenting any analogy to the present circum- 
 stances, learnedly investigated. The expedients which 
 had delighted Lord Eldon in his early career, foimd 
 little favour with the more philosophic lawyers of a 
 later school. Sir S. Eomilly regarded them ' in no 
 other light but as a fraudulent trick,' and asked what 
 would be said of ' a set of men joining together, and 
 making a contract for another in a state of insanity, 
 and employing a person as his solicitor, to affix his 
 seal or his signatiire to such a deed ?' 
 
 Considering the recency and complete application 
 of the precedent of 1788, it is not surprising that 
 both ministers and Parliament should have agreed 
 to follow it, instead of adopting a more simple 
 course : but to minds of the present age, the 
 arguments of those who contended for an address, 
 and against the ' phantom,' will appear the more 
 conclusive. The royal authority was wanting, and 
 could be supplied by Parliament alone. So far all 
 were agreed : but those who argued for proceeding 
 by means of a bill, accepted a notoriously fictitious 
 use of the king's name, as an equivalent for his real 
 authority ; while those who supported a direct ad- 
 dress, desired that Parliament, — openly recognising 
 the king's inability to exercise his royal authority, 
 — should, from the necessity of the case, proceed to 
 act without it. Of all the speeches against proceed- 
 ing by way of bill, the most learned, able, and argu- 
 
 TOL. I. r 
 
2IO Illnesses of Geo7's^e the Third. 
 
 mentative, was that of IMr. Francis Horner.' Com- 
 paring the proceedings of 1788, with those of the 
 Eevolution of 1688, he said : ' It is impossible not to 
 contrast the virtuous forbearance of all parties at 
 the Revolution, in concurring to provide for the 
 public interests, with the struggle that was made for 
 power in the other instance ; and, above all, to con- 
 trast the studied delays by which power was then so 
 factiously retained, with the despatch with which 
 our ancestors finished, in one short month, their 
 task of establishing at once the succession to the 
 crown, reducing its prerogatives within limitations 
 by law, and founding the whole structure of our 
 civil and religious liberties.'* 
 
 But independently of precedents and legal forms. 
 Political the ministers expecting, like their prede- 
 
 C&USG3 of 
 
 Jeiay. cessors in 1788, to be dismissed by the 
 regent, were not disposed to simplify the preliminary 
 proceedings, and accelerate their own fall ; while 
 the opposition, impatient for office, objected to 
 elaborate preliminaries, — as much, perhaps, for the 
 delays which they occasioned, as for their hollow 
 subtlety and uselessness. 
 
 The resolutions were agreed to, and communi- 
 cated to the Lords, at a conference. Tliere 
 Dec. 22. an amendment was moved by Lord Hol- 
 land, to the third resolution, by which an address to 
 the Prince of Wales was proposed to be substi- 
 tuted for the proceeding by bill, inviting the prince 
 to take upon himself the exercise of the powers and 
 authorities of the crown, but to abstain from the 
 
 ' H:ms. Deb., 1st Sor., xviii. 299. * Md., 306. 
 
The Regency, 1 8 1 1 . 
 
 211 
 
 exercise of sucli powers as the immediate exigencies 
 of the state shall not call into action, until Parlia- 
 ment had passed a bill for the future care of his 
 Majesty's person, and securing the resumption of his 
 authority.' The Dukes of York and Sussex spoke 
 in favour of this amendment, and all the seven 
 dukes of the blood royal voted for it : ^ but the 
 resolution was carried by a majority of twenty-six. 
 The royal dukes also signed protests against the 
 rejection of the amendment, and against the third 
 resolution.^ The chancellor differed widely from 
 the royal dukes, declaring that an address from the 
 two Houses to the Prince of Wales, praying him to 
 exercise the royal prerogatives during the king's 
 life, would be treasonable.'' 
 
 The next step was to propose, in committee on 
 the state of the nation, resolutions to the effect that 
 the Prince of Wales should be empowered, as regent 
 of the kingdom, to exercise the royal authority, in 
 the name and on behalf of his Majesty, subject to 
 such limitations as shall be provided : that for a 
 limited time the regent should not be able to 
 grant any peerage, except for some singular naval or 
 military achievement : * nor grant any office in re- 
 version: nor any office otherwise than during plea- 
 sure, except such offices as are required by law to be 
 granted for life or during good behaviour : that his 
 Majesty's private property, not already vested in 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., Ist Ser., xviii. 418. Life and Opiuioua of Earl 
 Grey, 256-266. 
 
 ' York, Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Sussex, Cambridge, and 
 Gloucester. 
 
 ' Hiiris. D.'b., Ist Ser., xriii. 471. * Ihid., l^iO, 7111. 
 
 ' This exception was subsequently omitted. 
 
 F 2 
 
212 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 trustees, should be vested in trustees for the benefit 
 of his Majesty : that the care of the king's person 
 should be committed to the queen, who, for a limited 
 time, should have power to appoint and remove 
 members of the royal household ; and that her Ma- 
 jesty should have a council, with power to examine 
 the king's physicians, upon oath, from time to 
 time. It was explained, at the same time, that 
 twelve months would be the period to which the 
 proposed limitations upon the regent's authority 
 would extend. 
 
 Four of these resolutions were agreed to in the 
 Commons by small majorities, and not without 
 strong argimaents against any restrictions upon the 
 authority of the regent. The fifth was amended 
 on a motion of Earl Grower, in such a manner as to 
 leave the queen merely 'such direction of the 
 household as may be suitable for the care of his 
 Majesty's person, and the maintenance of the royal 
 dignity.' 
 
 The resolutions were communicated to the Lords 
 at a conference. There, on the motion of the Mar- 
 quess of Lansdowne, the first resolution was amended 
 by the omission of the last words, viz., ' subject to 
 such limitations and restrictions as shall be pro- 
 vided ' ' — thus appointing the regent generally, with- 
 out restrictions upon his authority. But as the two 
 next resolutions, imposing limitations ujjon the grant 
 of peerages, places and pensions, were immediately 
 afterwards agreed to, the words were restored to the 
 first resolution. And thus the restrictions pro})osL'd 
 
 ' By a majority of 3. 
 
The Regency, i S 1 1. 
 
 213 
 
 by the Commons were ultimately agreed to without 
 alteration. 
 
 The next step, as in 1789, was to lay these resolu- 
 tions before the Prince of Wales, and to Resolutions 
 
 laid before 
 
 beg him to accept the trust, subject to the the prince, 
 proposed restrictions ; and in reply, he signiiied his 
 acceptance of the regency.' The queen was also 
 attended in regard to the direction of the royal 
 household. 
 
 Again, it was resolved by both Houses that a 
 commission should issue under the great Commission 
 seal for opening Parliament ; but warned rarUamenf. 
 by the precedent of 1788, ministers had taken the 
 precaution of consulting the royal dukes, and by 
 their desire omitted their names from the commis- 
 sion. On the 15th January, Parliament was opened 
 by virtue of this commission ; and the Regency Bill 
 was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 on the same day. The bill, though still Regency 
 the subject of much discussion, was rapidly i^^'P^^eu. 
 passed through both Houses, with some few amend- 
 ments. Resolutions were agreed to by both Houses, 
 authorising the issue of letters patent under the 
 great seal, for giving the royal assent by commis- 
 sion ; and on the 5th February, the bill received the 
 royal assent by virtue of that commission. 
 
 It is worthy of note, that both this commission and 
 that for opening Parliament, deviated ma- -^^^^^^ 
 terially from the usual form of such com- commiBsion. 
 missions, and instead of being issued by the advice 
 of the privy council, it was expressed thus : ' by thu 
 
 ' See suprv., p. 121. 
 
2 14 Illnesses of George the Third. 
 
 king himself, by and vdtli the advice of the Lords 
 spiritual and temporal, and Commons in Parliament 
 assembled.' 
 
 During these proceedings, an unexpected diflBculty 
 issue of pnb- arisen. Certain sums of money had 
 he mouey, already been granted, and appropriated by 
 Parliament, for the service of the army and na\'y : 
 but in consequence of the king's incapacity, the usual 
 warrants, under the privy seal, could not be prepared, 
 directing issues to be made from the Exchequer, for 
 such services. The Lord Keeper of the privy seal 
 was willing to take upon himself the responsibility 
 of affixing the seal to such a warrant,' although by 
 the terms of his oath he was restrained from using 
 it ' without the king's special command ; ' ^ but the 
 deputy clerks of the privy seal held themselves pre- 
 cluded by their oaths of office, from preparing letters 
 to pass the privy seal, until a warrant had been signed 
 by the king himself, for that purpose. The necessities 
 of the public service were urgent ; and the Treasury, 
 unable to obtain the money according to the usual 
 official routine, prepared two warrants addressed to 
 the auditor of the Exchequer, directing him to draw 
 one order on the Bank of England for 500,000Z., on 
 account of the army, and another to the same 
 amount, for the na\'y. The auditor. Lord Grenville, 
 Difficuitiea doubtiug the authority of +hese warrants, 
 Lord'^Gren. ^csired that the law officers of the crown 
 should be consulted. It was their opinion 
 that the Treasury warrants were not a sufficient 
 
 ' Speech of Mr. Percfval, 4th Jan., and of Lord Westmorland, 
 Sth Jan., \%\\.—Hans. Deb., 1st Scr., xviii. 759, 798. 
 
 ' Speech of Earl Spencer, oth Jan., 1811. — Hans. Bch., 1st Ser 
 xriii. 797. 
 
The Regency, 1 8 1 1 . 215 
 
 authority for the auditor, who accordingly refused to 
 issue the money ; and although the Treasury expresslj' 
 assumed the entire responsibility of the issue, he per- 
 sisted in his refusal. 
 
 It was now necessary to resort to Parliament to 
 supply the defect of authority which had Resoimjon 
 been discovered ; and on the 4th of Janu- Hon°es'' 
 ary the chancellor of the Exchequer moved ^h^iss^f of 
 a resolution in committee of the whole """""^y- 
 House, by which the auditor and officers of the Ex- 
 chequer were ' authorised and commanded ' to pay 
 obedience to Treasury warrants for the issue of such 
 sums as had been appropriated for the services of 
 the army and navy, as well as money issuable under 
 a vote of credit for 3,000,000^. To this resolution 
 it was objected, that it involved a further assump- 
 tion of the executive powers of the crown, and was 
 only rendered necessary by the unreasonable delays 
 which ministers had interposed, in providing for the 
 exercise of the royal authority : but the immediate 
 necessity of the occasion could not be denied ; and 
 the resolution was agreed to by both Houses. A 
 protest, however, was entered in the Lords' Journal, 
 signed by twenty-one peers, including six royal 
 dukes, which affirmed that the principle of the 
 resolution would justify the assumption of all the 
 executive powers of the crown, during any suspension 
 of the personal exercise of the royal authority; and 
 that this unconstitutional measure might have been 
 avoided without injury to tlie public service, by an 
 address to the Prince of Wales.' 
 
 ' Uans. Ucb., 1st Scr., xviii. 801 ; Twiss'e Life of Eldon, ii. MO. 
 
2 1 6 Illnesses of George the Fotirth. 
 
 Happily there has been no recurrence of circum- 
 The Royal stancBs similar to those of 1788 and 1811 . 
 
 Sign Manual 
 
 Biu.isso. but Parliament has since had occasion to 
 provide for the exercise of the royal authority, under 
 other contingencies. From an early period in the 
 reign of George IV., his Majesty's health had ex- 
 cited apprehensions.' In 1826, his life was said not 
 to be worth a month's piirchase ; but it was not until 
 within a few weeks of his death, that he suffered from 
 any incapacity to exercise his royal functions. In 
 1830, during the last illness of the king, his Majesty 
 found it inconvenient and painful to subscribe with 
 his own hand, the public instruments which required 
 the sign-manual ; and accordingly, on the 24th of 
 May, a message was sent to both Houses, desiring 
 that provision should be made for the temporary 
 discharge of this duty.^ The message was acknow- 
 ledged by suitable addresses ; and a bill was passed 
 rapidly through both Houses, enabling his Majesty 
 to empower by warrant or commission, imder his 
 sign-manual, one or more persons to affix, in his 
 presence, and by his command, signified by word of 
 mouth, the royal signature by means of a stamp. In 
 order to prevent the possibility of any abuse of this 
 power, it was provided that the stamp should not be 
 
 ' Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 309; Court nnd Cabinets of Goo. IV., 
 i. 313, 336, 447 ; Ihid., ii. 67, 217. f^ir Willi.am Kiiifrhtou's Mom., 
 88, &c. So far back as 1812 the, Priiioo had boon .afraid of paralysis, 
 Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 354. In Sopt. 1816, he was dangerously 
 ill at Hampton Court, his death being hourly expected. Ibid., ii. 
 581 ; Ihid.. iii. 112, 115, 116, 272, 2'J8. 
 
 - Mr. Phimer Ward to l)uko of Buckingham, April 21, 1826. 
 Court and Cabinets of George IV., ii. 297 ; Ihid., 300, 301. Lord 
 Colchest(^r's Diary, iii. 420. 
 
 » Hans. Deb., 2ud Sor., xxiv. 986, 1001. 
 
The Royal Sign-Mamial, i S30. 217 
 
 aflSxed any instrument, unless a memorandum 
 describing its object had been indorsed upon it, 
 signed by the Lord Chancellor, the President of the 
 Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the First Lord of the 
 Treasury, and the Secretaries of State, or any three 
 of them. The seal was directed to be kept in 
 the custody of one of these officers, and when used, 
 was required to be attested by one or more of 
 them. 
 
 The course thus adopted was not without prece- 
 dent. Henry VIII. had issued a patent, precedents 
 authorising tlie Archbishop of Canterbury, founded, 
 the Lord Chancellor, and other persons to apply a 
 stamp, bearing the impress of the royal signature, to 
 warrants for the payment of money out of the royal 
 treasury ; and had also issued several proclamations 
 and other instruments, on which his sign-manual 
 had been impressed by means of a stamp. His 
 signature to the commission for signifying the royal 
 assent to the bill for the attainder of the Duke of 
 Norfolk had been given by means of a stamp, 
 affixed, — not by his own hand, but by tluit of a 
 clerk, — and was on that account declared by Parlia- 
 ment to be invalid. Edward VI, had issued two 
 proclamations, to which his signature was affixed by 
 means of a stamp. Queen Mary had issued a pro- 
 clamation, in the same form, calling for aid to sup- 
 press the insurrection of Sir Thomas Wyatt. The 
 same queen had issued a patent, in 1558, stating that 
 in consequence of the great labour which she sus- 
 tained in the goverament and defence of the king- 
 dom, she was unable without much danger and 
 
2 1 8 Illnesses of George the Fourth. 
 
 inconvenience, to sign commissions, warrants, and 
 other instruments with her own hand ; empowering 
 certain persons to affix a seal in her presence ; and 
 declaring- that all instruments so sealed should be as 
 valid and effectual in law, as if signed with the hand 
 of the queen. It appears also that King William III., 
 being on the point of death, and no longer able to 
 sign his own name, affixed a stamp to a commission, 
 in presence of the Lord Keeper and the clerks of 
 the Parliament, by which the royal assent was 
 signified to the Bill of Abjuration, and the Malt 
 Duty Bill. 
 
 But notwithstanding these precedents, — which 
 proved that in former times the kings of England 
 had been accustomed, by their own authority, to 
 delegate to others the right of affixing their sign- 
 manual, — it was now laid down by ministers, and by 
 all legal authorities, that such a right could not 
 lawfully be conferred, except by the sanction of 
 Parliament. This sanction was readily given in this 
 particular case ; but not without warnings that as 
 his Majesty's present indisposition was merely phy- 
 sical, the proceedings then adopted should not here- 
 after be drawn into a precedent, if the mind of any 
 future king should become affected. In such an 
 event, the power of affixing the royal sign-manual 
 to instruments, would invest the ministers of tho 
 day with all the authority of the crown. On more 
 than one occasion, during the late reign, such a 
 power might have been liable to abuse; and it would 
 not again be conferred upon ministers, if there should 
 
Rege^icy Act, iZiJ. 219 
 
 be any doubt as to the mental capacity of the sove- 
 reign.' 
 
 When William IV. succeeded to the throne, he 
 was nearly sixty-five years of age, and his Question of 
 
 _ a regency on 
 
 heiress presumptive was a princess of eleven, the accession 
 
 r ^ r of William 
 
 It was, therefore, necessary to provide for a i'^- 
 regency ; but ministers were of opjinion that they 
 might safely defer this measure, until after the as- 
 sembling of a new Parliament. Even this brief 
 delay was represented as hazardous. It was said 
 that if the king should die suddenly, the crown 
 would devolve upon an infant jirincess, — subject, 
 perhaps, to the claims of a posthumous child of his 
 Majesty. This risk, however, the ministers were 
 prepared to encounter. The law did not recog-nise 
 the incapacity of an infant king ; and, in the event 
 of a sudden demise of the crown before a regent had 
 been appointed, the infant sovereign would be able 
 to give her assent to an act of Parliament, appoint- 
 ing a guardian for herself, and a regent for the king- 
 dom. Henry III., Eichard II., and Henry VI., had 
 succeeded to the throne, without any previous par- 
 liamentary provision for a regency ; and after their 
 accession, Parliament appointed persons to govern 
 the kingdom during their minority. 
 
 The lord chancellor said: ' On the accession of an 
 infant to the throne, the same course would be 
 adopted as if the sovereign were of mature years : a 
 declaration, similar to that which many of their lord- 
 
 ' 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will. IV. c. 23 ; ITans. Deb., 2n.l Ser., xxiv. 
 086, 1002, 1132, 1118, ll'J.'i; Kymor'.s Foudora, x. 2G1 ; Coth.i), 504 ; 
 Burnet's Own Time, iv. 659 ; Ilumt's llist., ii. 328 ; Suwlktt's Ilist- 
 i. 411. 
 
220 Reign of Wiiliain the Fourth. 
 
 ships had witnessed a few days ago, would be made. 
 The infant would have the power of continuing or 
 changing his ministers, and the same responsibility- 
 would exist as at present.'' And this doctrine of the 
 law was thus explained by Lord Eldon : ' If an infant 
 sovereign were to be on the throne, whose head coiild 
 not be seen over the integument which covered the 
 head of his noble and learned friend on the wool- 
 sack, he would, by what the Scotch called a fiction 
 of law, and by what the English called presumption, 
 in favour of a royal infant, be supposed to have as 
 much sense, knowledge, and experience, as if he had 
 reached the years of three-score and ten.'^ 
 
 This abstract presumption of the law was not de- 
 nied : but it was argued that to rely upon it in prac- 
 tice, would bring into contempt the prerogatives of 
 the crown, and might be fraught with dangers to the 
 state. An infant sovereign might indeed appoint 
 her own guardian, and a regent of the kingdom : but 
 she would scarcely be more competent to exercise 
 the discriminating judgment of a sovereign, than 
 was Greorge III. when the royal assent was given, in 
 his name, to the Regency Bill, by a phantom com- 
 mission. That necessary act had struck a blow at 
 royalty : it had shown how Parliament could make 
 laws without a king : it had exhibited the crown as 
 a name, a form, a mere fiction of authority : and to 
 allow a princess of eleven to assenu to another act 
 of regency, would be a dangerous repetition of that 
 precedent. But there are other dangers which ouglit 
 to be averted. It was easy, before the demise ol' t he 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 2ud Scr.. xxv. 738 ' Ihid., 71-'. 
 
Rege7uy Act, 1830-31. 
 
 221 
 
 crown, to nominate a regent "who might never be 
 called upon to exercise his power ; but to appoint a 
 regent, — possibly from among many claimants, — 
 who would at once assume all the authority of the 
 crown, might be difficult and embarrassing. Still 
 greater would be the embarrassment, if the right of 
 succession should be rendered doubtful, by the pro- 
 spective claims of an unborn child. An attempt 
 was made, in the Commons, to represent to the king 
 the importance of making immediate provision for 
 a regency : but ministers successfully resisted it ; 
 and the question was reserved for the consideration 
 of the new Parliament.' 
 
 Happily, these dreaded evils were not encountered , 
 and on the meeting of the new Parliament, The Re- 
 
 gency Sill, 
 
 a well-considered Regency Bill was intro- i83o-i83i. 
 duced. By this bill the Duchess of Kent was ap- 
 pointed sole regent, until her Majesty should attain 
 the age of eighteen. Departing from former prece- 
 dents, it was not proposed that the regent should be 
 controlled by a council. It was said that a regent, 
 for the maintenance of the royal authority, needed 
 the free exercise of the prerogatives of the crown, 
 even more than a king himself. Cases might, in- 
 deed, arise in which it would be necessary to control 
 the ambition and influence of a regent, by such a 
 council : but here the regent could never succeed to 
 tlie throne : her interests were identified with those 
 of the future sovereign, to whom she was united by 
 the tendcrest ties ; and she coidd have no object but 
 to uphold, in good faith, the authority of the infant 
 
 ' Huns. Deb., 2nd S. r., .\xv. 771-828. 
 
2 22 Rci'oji of William the Fourth. 
 
 qaeen. Her Royal Higlauess would, theretore, be 
 left to administer the government of the country, 
 by means of the responsible ministers cf the crown, 
 and to act upon their advice alone. 
 
 Another question of great constitutional delicacy 
 was also wisely dealt with. No precedent was to be 
 found, since the Norman conquest, of any provision 
 having been made for the exercise of the royal pre- 
 rogatives, between the demise of the crown, and the 
 birth of a posthumous child. The law upon this 
 important question was not settled : but reasoning 
 from the analogy of the law of real property, as well 
 as according to the dictates of common sense, it was 
 clear that an unborn child could not be seised of the 
 crown. There could be no abeyance or vacancy of 
 the crown. The king never dies. The crown must, 
 therefore, devolve at once upon the heir presump- 
 tive ; and be resigned, if a child should be born, 
 entitled to inherit it. If Parliament interposed, 
 and appointed a regent to administer the government 
 until the birth of a posthumous child, such a regent 
 would not be governing in the name and on behalf 
 of the sovereign, but would be a parliamentary 
 sovereign, created for the occasion, under the title 
 of regent. And, in the meantime, if no child should 
 be born, the heir presumptive would have been un- 
 lawfully deprived of her right to the throne. Upon 
 these sound principles the regency was now to be 
 established. If the king should die during the 
 minority of the Princess Victoria, she was to be pro- 
 claimed queen, subject to the rights of any issue of 
 his Majesty, which might afterwards be lorn of his 
 
Regency Acts, 1837 and 1S40, 
 
 223 
 
 consort. The Duchess of Kent would at once as- 
 sume the regency in the name of the infant queen, 
 and on her behalf ; and should a posthumous child 
 be born, her Majesty Queen Adelaide would forth- 
 with assume the regency, on behalf of her own child. 
 These principles were accepted by statesmen and 
 lawyers of every party ; and the Regency Bill, which 
 had been prepared by the government of the Duke 
 of Wellington, was adopted and passed by the go- 
 vernment of Lord Grey.' It was a wise provision 
 for contingencies, which fortunately never arose. 
 When King William IV. died, in 1837, after a short 
 but eventful reign, her most gracious Majesty had, 
 less than a month before, completed her eighteenth 
 year ; and ascended the throne, surrounded by happy 
 auguries, which have since been fully accomplished. 
 
 On the accession of her Majesty, the ^1^,1^^. 
 King of Hanover became heir presumptive ot QHe^i*^' 
 to the throne ; and as he would probably "^'^'o"*- 
 be resident abroad, it was thought necessary to pro- 
 vide that, in the event of her Majesty's decease, 
 ■while her successor was out of the realm, the ad- 
 ministration of the government should be carried 
 on in his name by lords justices, imtil his second rc- 
 arrival.'' JLJut the queen s marriage, m mo. 
 1840, required provision to be made for another con- 
 tingency, which, though more probable, has, happily 
 not arisen. Following the precedent of 1831, Par- 
 liament now provided, that in the event of any child 
 of her Majesty succeeding to the throne bcf ire the 
 
 ' Act 1 Will. IV. e. 2 ; Hans. Dob., 3rd Ser., i. 499, 764, 96-4, &c. 
 » 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 72. 
 
2 24 Regency Act, i'^ AO. 
 
 age of eighteen, Prince Albert, as the surviving 
 parent, sliould be regent, witbout any council of 
 regency, or any limitation upon the exercise of the 
 royal prerogatives, — except an incapacity to assent 
 to any bill for altering the succession to the throne, 
 or affecting the uniformity of worship in the Church 
 of England, or the rights of the Chui-ch of Scotland. 
 And, founded upon these principles, the bill was 
 passed with the approval of all parties.^ 
 
 ' 3 & 4 Vict. c. 52 ; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., Iv. 754, 850, 1074. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 iJJClENT EEVEXTES OF THE CROTVN. CIVIL l.IST OF TVILLIAM AND 
 
 ilARY : CIVIL LIST OF QUEEN ANNE, OF OEOIiGE I. AND GEOBGE 
 
 II. CIVIL LIST, EXPENDITURE, AND DEBTS OF GEORGE III.: 
 
 CIVIL LIST OF THE EEOENCY, AND OF THE REIGNS OF OEORGE IV., 
 ■WILLIAM IV., AND HER MAJESTY : — DUCHIES OF LANCASTER AND 
 
 CORNWALL : PRFVATE PROPERTY OF THE CEO'WN. — PROVISION FOR 
 
 THE ROYAL FAMILY : MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND EETONUES, ON 
 
 JiEHAI.F OF THE PUBLIC I — CIVIL LIST PENSIONS. — PREROGATIVES 
 OF THE CROWN, IN RELATION TO THE ROYAL FAMILY. 
 
 The history of tlie land revenues of the crown pre- 
 sents as many vicissitudes, and varied for- y^st posses- 
 tunes, as are to be found in the domestic crmvn'in''^ 
 annals of any family in the kingdom. ""'^ 
 
 The entire lands of the realm were originally held 
 of the crown, by various feudal tenures ; and the 
 royal revenues were derived from fines, fees, first- 
 fruits and tenths, and other profits arising from 
 these lauds, and from the rents of the ancient 
 demesnes of the crown. To support the barbarous 
 magnificence of his household, — his numerous re- 
 tainers, and rude hospitality, — was nearly the sole 
 expense of the king; for, as feudal superior, lie 
 commanded the services of his tenants in the field, 
 who fought by his side with an array of men and 
 horses, equipped and maintained at their own ex- 
 pense. 
 
 By means of escheats and forfeitures, there was 
 
 VOL. I. Q 
 
226 
 
 Revennes of the Crown. 
 
 tiven a danger of the crown becoming the absolute 
 Extensive proprietor of all the lands of the realm, 
 forfeitures, ^^^^ king's possessions, they 
 
 were not vast enough to satisfy the rapacity of his 
 followers ; and in every succeeding reign, the grants 
 Grants and alieuations of crown lands exceeded the 
 
 alienations, escheats and forfeitures. The estates of 
 the crown were further diminished by wrongful ap- 
 propriations, and encroachments. Eepenting their 
 liberality, kings frequently resumed their former 
 grants ; and alienations improvidently made, were 
 unjustly and violently revoked. Yet such had been 
 the waste of the once ample revenues of the crown, 
 that Henry III. complained that they had become 
 too scanty to furnish his royal table ; and the needy 
 monarch was reduced to the necessity of giving 
 tallies for the supply of beeves and grain for his 
 household. An extensive assumption of grants, 
 however, and the forfeiture of the estates of rebel 
 barons, retrieved his fallen fortunes. Such was the 
 liberality of Edward II. that an ordinance was passed 
 by Parliament prohibiting the alienation of crown 
 lands, — wliich was repealed, however, by a Parlia- 
 ment at York, in the loth year of his reign. But 
 the profusion of this king was supplied by prodigious 
 forfeitiu"es. 
 
 Richard II. again, was not less profuse in his 
 grants, nor less prodigal in his confiscations. The 
 Wars of the Roses were so fruitful of forfeitures, that 
 a large proportion of the land of the realm became 
 the property of the crown. Had it been retained, 
 there would have been no monarch iu Europe so 
 
Alienation of Crown Lands. 227 
 
 absolute as that of England: but the spoils of one 
 faction were eagerly grasped by the other ; and the 
 crown gained little by the lands which it won upon 
 the field of battle, or wrested from their owners on 
 the scaffold. In the reign of Henry V. the estates 
 of the croA^Ti were considerably augmented by the 
 appropriation of the Alien Priories, — one hundred 
 and ten in number. Yet the income of Henry VI. 
 was reduced so low as 5,000^ a year ; and in his 
 reign, several general resumptions of grants were 
 authorised by Parliament, in order to supply his 
 necessities. 
 
 The rapacity of Henry VII. was needed to re- 
 trieve the revenues of the cro^vn ; and his 
 exactions and thrift repaired the waste of land ro- 
 
 ~ . TT- • • i • 1 venne- bv 
 
 lormer reigns. His acquisitions, however, Henrv vii. 
 
 , . 1 . , , , , andVIU. 
 
 were as nothing compared with the whole- 
 sale plunder of the monasteries, and other religious 
 and charitable foundations, by Henry VIII., which 
 has been valued at upwards of 30,000,000L sterling.' 
 Yet such were the magnificence and prodigality of 
 this king, that at his death, his treasury was found 
 to be entirely empty. The crown was as poor as 
 ever : but the great nobles, who were enriched l)y 
 grants of the church lands — more provident tlian 
 their royal master — held tliem fast for their descend- 
 ants. In the seventh year of the reign of James I. 
 the entire land revenues of the crown and Ducliy of 
 Lancaster amounted to no more than G6,870L a year, 
 while the king's debts exceeded a million. 2 During 
 
 • St. John on the Land Rcvcnii'-s of the Crown, CS. * Vnd., 79. 
 « 2 
 
2 28 Revemies of the Crown. 
 
 his reign lie sold lands to the extent of 775,OOOL, and 
 left debts of about an equal amount. 
 
 But more evil days were at hand for the land 
 Destruction I'eveuues. Charles I., unable to obtain 
 vemies dur- supplies from Parliament, and gaining little 
 Common- from his illegal exactions, — was forced to 
 weikitii. mortgage the property of the crown. 
 
 The Parliament, after his death, completed the spo- 
 liation, of which he had set them the example ; and 
 sold nearly all the royal estates, in order to pay the 
 arrears due to the Parliamentary forces, and discharge 
 the debts of the new government.' At the Restora- 
 tion, these latter sales were declared void ; and many 
 of the estates of the crown were recovered. But 
 Their re- Were recovered, — to be again squan- 
 
 suhseque"nt dered and dispersed. In three years, 
 waste. Charles II. had reduced the income of the 
 crown lands from 217,900L to 100,000Z. a year. In 
 the first year of his reign he surrendered the court 
 of wards and liveries, and the military tenures, in 
 exchange for a settlement of certain duties of excise 
 being the first instance of a surrender by the crown 
 of its interest in any part of the hereditary revenues. 
 During this reign, a large proportion of the fee-farm 
 rents belonging to the crown, was sold by act of 
 Parliament and further grants of these rents 
 were made during the reigns of \^'^illiam III. and 
 Queen Anne. The liberality of William III. to bis 
 followers, provoked remonstrances from Parliament. 
 
 ' Seoboll, part ii. 51, lOG, 227, &c. 
 » 12 Car. II. c. 21. 
 
 » 22 Car. II. c. C ; 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 24. 
 
A lienation of Crown Lands. 229 
 
 He was even obliged to recall an enormous grant to 
 the Earl of Portland, which conveyed to that noble- 
 man four-fifths of the county of Denbigh, with a re- 
 served rent of 6s. 8(Z., payable to the crown : ' but 
 he compensated the Earl with other lands and 
 manors.'^ 
 
 So jealous were the Commons, at this period, of 
 the continual diminution of the hereditary revenues 
 of the crown, that several bills were brought in to 
 resume all grants made by Charles II., James II,, 
 and William ; ^ and to prevent further alienations 
 of crown lands."* At the end of William's reign. 
 Parliament having obtained accounts of the state of 
 the land revenues, found that they had been reduced 
 by grants, alienations, incumbrances, reversions, and 
 pensions, until they scarcely exceeded the rent-roll 
 of a squire.* 
 
 Such an abuse of the rights of the crown could no 
 longer be tolerated ; and on the settlement Alienations 
 of the civil list of Queen Anne, Parliament "Jnti^rr 
 at length interposed to restrain it. It was »''^*'"<'''- 
 now nearly too late. The sad confession was made, 
 ' that the necessary expenses of supporting the crown, 
 or the grefiter part of them, were formerly defrayed 
 by a land revenue, which had, from time to time, 
 been impaired by the grants of former kings and 
 
 • 1693 Pari. Hist, v. 978; Com. Journ., xi. 391, 395, 409. 
 Coin. Journ., xi. 608. 
 
 ' In 1697, 1699, 1700, 1702, and 1703: Com. Journ., xii. 90; 
 JUd., xiii. 208, 3oO ; Itjid.,x\v. 90, 269, 305. &c.; Miicauliiy'B Jlist., 
 V. 32. 
 
 « Im 1697 »n<l 1G99, Com. .Tourn., xii. 90; Ibi,/., 62. 
 ' Cum. Journ., iiii. 478, 498 ; Hi. JuLn on tho Land llevenuts, 
 99. 
 
230 Revenues of tJie Crown. 
 
 queens, so that her Majesty's land revenues could 
 then afford very little towards the support of her 
 government.'' Yet to preserve what was still left, 
 it was now provided that no future lease (except a 
 building lease) should be granted for more than 
 thirty-one years, or three lives ; and that a reason- 
 able rent should be reserved. If such a law as this 
 had been passed immediately after the Eestoration, 
 the land revenues would probably have provided for 
 the entire charge of the civil list of Queen Anne. 
 But at least the small remnant of crown lands was 
 saved, and in that and the next two reigns, some 
 additions were made to the royal estates, by escheats 
 and forfeitures.* 
 
 While this waste of the crown property had been 
 constitn. injurious to the public revenues, it favoured 
 of the im- the development of the liberties of the 
 pro^denceof p^^p^^^ Kiugs with vast hereditary re- 
 venues, — husbanded and improved, — would have 
 been comparatively independent of Parliament. 
 But their improvidence gradually constrained them 
 to rely upon the liberality of their subjects; until 
 their own necessities, and the increasing expenditure 
 of the state, at length placed them entirely under 
 the control of Parliament. 
 
 ' 1 Anne, c. 7, s. 5. 
 
 2 Much (furious learning is to be found concerning the land 
 revenues of the crown in Wright's Tenures; Hargrave's Xotes to 
 Coke on Littleton; Coke's 1st Inst.; Spelman's Works (of Feuds); 
 Lord Hale's History of the Common Law; Gilbert's Hist, of the 
 Exchequer ; Maddoxs Hist, of the Exchequer ; Darenant on Re- 
 sumptions ; Dugdale's Monasticon ; Rymer's Foedera ; Rapin's Hist. ; 
 and an interesting summary in St. John's Observrttious on the Land 
 Revenues of the Crown. 4to., I'S?. 
 
Befoj'c the Revolution. 
 
 231 
 
 No constitutional change has been more important 
 in secnring popular control over the execu- importance 
 tive government, than the voting of supplies ^ent of"^' 
 by the House of Commons: nor has any ^^.p^tsof 
 expedient been better calculated to restrain "^'^ crown, 
 the undue influence of the crown, than a strict 
 settlement of its revenues by Parliament. In the 
 reign of Charles II., the principle of appro- Revenaes of 
 priating supplies to specific service by pHor'tTthe 
 statute, — which had not been without pre- 
 vious recognition, — was formally established as one 
 of the conditions, under whicli Parliament granted 
 money for the service of the state. But mitil the 
 Kevolution, no limitation had been imposed upon 
 the personal expenditure of the sovereign. It had 
 been customary for Parliament to grant to the king, 
 at the commencement of each reign, the ordinary 
 revenues of the crown, which were estimated to 
 provide, in time of peace, for the support of His 
 j\Iajesty's dignity and civil government, and for the 
 public defence. To these were added, from time to 
 time, special grants for extraordinary occasions. 
 The ordinary revenues were derived, first, from the 
 hereditary revenues of the crown itself, and secondly, 
 from the produce of taxes voted to the king for life. 
 The nereditary revenues consisted of the rents of 
 crown lands, of feudal rights, the proceeds of the 
 post-office, and wine licenses ; and, after tlie surren- 
 der of feudal tenures by Charles If., in 1660, of part 
 of the excise duties. 
 
 In the reign of James II. the hereditary revenues, 
 together with the taxes voted for the king's Ufe, 
 
232 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 amounted on an average to 1,500,964^ a year.' 
 Whatever remained of this annual income, after the 
 payment of the necessary expenses of the governmeut, 
 was at the king's absolute disposal, — whether for the 
 support of his dignity and influence, or for his 
 pleasures and profusion. Not satisfied with these 
 resources for his personal expenditure, there is no 
 doubt that Charles 11. applied to his own privy purse, 
 large sums of money which had been specially ap- 
 propriated by Parliament, for carrying on the war.'^ 
 
 To prevent such abuses in future, on the accession 
 settipment of William and Mary, Parliament made a 
 
 of the ' Civil _ _ ' 
 
 , separate provision for the king's 'Civil 
 
 William and v r o 
 
 '"■''■^y- List,' — which embraced the support of the 
 royal household, and the personal expenses of the 
 king, as well as the payment of civil offices and 
 pensions. The revenue voted for the support of the 
 crown in time of peace, was 1,200,000/.; of which 
 tlie civil list amounted to about 700,000/., being 
 derived from the hereditary revenues of the crown, 
 estimated at 400,000/. a year and upwards, — and from 
 a part of the excise duties, producing about 
 list com- 300,000/.^ The system thus introduced 
 
 prised items , . , . . , 
 
 ot national was coutinued m succeeding reigns : and 
 
 expenditure. ,, . , , i,, 
 
 the civil list Still comprised not only tne 
 expenses of the sovereign, but a portion of the civil 
 expenditure of the state. 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., V. 151 ; Halliim, Const. Hist., ii. 279. 
 
 ''■ Lord Clai-endon'.s Lit'o, iii. 131 ; Pepjs' Diary, Sept. 23rd, and 
 Dec. 12tli, 1666, whence it appears that abovo 400,000/. had gona 
 into the Privy Purse since the War. Memoirs, iii. 47, 105. 
 
 » Pari. Hist., V. 193; Com. Journ., x. 438, 54; Smollett auJ 
 iluUuiu sUto the civil list at 600,000/. 
 
The Civil List. 
 
 233 
 
 The civil list of Queen Anne was settled by Par- 
 liament in the same form, and computed at cj^j Lj^t ot 
 the same amount as that of William III.' a^''^- 
 Her Majesty, while she feared the revenue granted to 
 her would fall short of that enjoyed by the late king, 
 promised that 100,000Z. ayear should be applied to 
 the public service.^ So far, however, from fulfilling 
 this promise, — during the twelve years of her reign, 
 she incurred debts amounting to 1,200,000^., which 
 were paid off by Parliament, by way of loans charged 
 upon the civil list itself. 
 
 The civil list of George I. was computed at 
 700,000L a year; and, during his reign, of George 
 debts were incurred to the extent of 
 
 I, 000,000L, which were discharged by Parliament, 
 in the same manner.' 
 
 The hereditary revenues were continued to George 
 
 II. , with a proviso that if they should pro- oeor -e 
 duce less than 800,000^. a year. Parliament ^^<""^- 
 would make up the deficiency. The king, however, 
 was entitled to any surplus above that sum.'' This 
 was an approximation to a definite civil list, as the 
 •minimum at least was fixed. For the last five years 
 of his reign these revenues had risen, on an average, 
 to 829,155/. a year: but during the whole of his 
 reign, they amounted to less than 800,000/.-"' In 
 1746 a debt of 456,000/. on the civil list was dis- 
 charged by Parliament. This debt was stated by 
 
 ' 1 Anne, c. 7- ^ riiil. Hist., vi. 11. 
 
 » 1 Uci). 1. c. 1.; Burke's Works, ii. JO'J. 
 
 * 1 Oio. II. c. 1. 
 
 * Rcijort on civil list, 1815, p. 4 ; Burke's Work.'., ii. 310. 
 
^34 
 
 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 the king to have been incurred in consequence of 
 the hereditary revenues having fallen short of 
 800,000^. a year ; and Parliament was, therefore, 
 bound by the terms of its original contract to make 
 up the deficiency. 
 
 On the accession of George III., the king consented 
 Civil List of naake such a disposition of his interest in 
 George ui. hereditary revenues of the crown in 
 England, as Parliament might think fit. Hitherto the 
 crown had enjoyed certain revenues which were calcu- 
 lated by Parliament to produce a sufficient income ; 
 but now the king agreed to accept a fixed amount as 
 his civil list, ' for the support of his household, and 
 the honour and dignity of the crown.' ' This was 
 the first time that the direct control of Parliament 
 over the personal expenditure of the king had been 
 acknowledged ; and it is not a little curious that so 
 important a change in the relations of the sovereign 
 to Parliament, should have been introduced at the 
 very period when he was seeking to extend his pre- 
 rogatives, and render himself independent of other 
 influences in the state. It soon appeared, however, 
 from the debts incurred, that his ^lajesty was not 
 inclined to permit this concession to diminish the 
 influence of the crown. 
 
 The money arising out of the hereditary revenues, 
 secured by various acts of Parliament to the king's 
 predecessors, was now carried to the ' aggregate 
 fund,' out of which the annual sum of 723,000L was 
 granted to his Majesty, during the continuance of 
 
 ' Com. Jouru., xxviii. 28. 
 
The Civil List. 
 
 235 
 
 the existing annuities to the Princess Dowager of 
 Wales, the Duke of Cumberland, and the Princess 
 Amelie ; and as these charges ceased, the amount of 
 the civil list was to be increased until it reached 
 800,000^. a year. He thus accepted the minimum 
 civil list of his predecessor ; and relinquished all 
 claim to the surplus, which for the first eight years 
 of his reign amounted, upon an average, to 100,000Z. 
 a year.' 
 
 But the king enjoyed other sources of income, 
 independent of Parliamentary control. He other 
 
 J • 1 111 c sources of 
 
 derived a considerable amount from the reveuue. 
 droits of the crown and Admiralty, the 4^ per cent, 
 duties, and other casual sources of revenue in 
 England. He was in possession of the hereditary 
 revenues of Scotland ; and of a separate civil list for 
 Ireland. He retained the rich Ducliies of Cornwall 
 and Lancaster. With these additions to the civil 
 list, Mr. Burke estimated the total annual income of 
 the crown at little less than a million ; exclusive of 
 tlie revenues of Hanover, and the Bishopric of 
 Osnaburgh.^ During this long reign, the droits of 
 tlie crown and Admiralty, and the casual revenues, 
 which were wholly withdrawn from the cognisance 
 of Parliament, amounted to the large sum of 
 12,70.5,46U. : out of which, however, he voluntarily 
 contributed 2,600,OOOZ. to the public service : while 
 5,372,834L were appropriated as the expenses of 
 captf>rs, and payments to persons concerned in taking 
 prizes. The surplus actually enjoyed by the crown, 
 
 ' 1 Ooo. nr. c. 1.; Rep. on Civil List, 1815. 
 ' Present DiscontentH, Uurkii's Works, ii. 281. 
 
236 Rt venues of the Crown. 
 
 after making these deductions, amounted, therefore, 
 to 4,732, George III. also succeeded to 
 172,605^. which the late king, — more frugal than 
 any prince since Henry III., — had saved out of his 
 civil list.^ 
 
 But great as were these revenues, the burthens on 
 Charges on them were still e-reater. Places and pen- 
 
 tlie civil . 1 . T , -1 -1 1 
 
 list. sions were multiplied, until the royal 
 
 income was inadequate to provide for their payment. 
 On the accession of George III., the greater part of 
 the late king's household was retained ; and, at the 
 same time, numerous personal adherents of his 
 Majesty were added to the establishment.' But 
 while the expenditure of the ci\al list was increased, 
 the king and his family were living, not only with 
 economy, but even with unkingly parsimony. In 
 1762 he purchased Buckingham House, and settled 
 it on the queen ; ' St. James's,' according to Horace 
 Walpole, ' not being a prison strait enough.' •* 
 Here he lived in privacy, attended only by menial 
 servants, and keeping up none of the splendour of a 
 court.'"^ ' In all this,' said Burke, ' the people see 
 nothing but the operations of parsimony, attended 
 with all the consequences of profusion. Nothing 
 
 ' Rpport, on tho Civil List, 1815 ; Hans. Dob., 3r(l Ser., 143. 
 
 ^ Gri'nville Papers, iii. 144 ; Wraxall's Mom., ii. 55. 
 
 s Walp. Mem., i. 25. * Ihid., i. 159 
 
 ' The king; continued this plain style of living throiigliont his 
 reign. — Wraxalfs Mon., i. 8-10. Mr. Addiiigton, writing to his 
 brother, 29fh Dec, 1804, said he had just partaken of the kings 
 dinner, ' vliich consisted of mutton cliops and pudding.' — Life of 
 iiid/iioii/h, ii. 342. Similar e.\anipli-s are to be found in Twiss's 
 Life of Lord Elilon, anil in Madame D'Arblay's Memoirs. 
 
The Civil List. 
 
 237 
 
 expended — nothing saved. . . . They do not believe 
 it to be hoarded, nor perceive it to be spent.' ' 
 
 While practising this apparent economy, the king 
 ■was engaged in that struggle to increase par]ia„,en. 
 the influence, and establish the ascendency ^^^^ed 
 of the crown, which has been described i^st'Jxp^n^ 
 elsewhere.* The large expenditure of the 
 civil list could not fail, therefore, to be associated 
 with the fidelity and subserviency of the court party 
 in Parliament, Tlie crown was either plundered by 
 its servants ; or Parliamentary support was piirohased 
 by places, pensions, and pecuniary corruption.' 
 
 In P^ebruary, 1769, before the king had yet been 
 nine years upon the throne, the arrears of Debt upon 
 
 , , , , . th« civil list, 
 
 the Civil list amounted to 513,olU.; and his nca. 
 Majesty was obliged to apply to Parliament to dis- 
 charge them. This demand was made at an untimely 
 moment, when the people were exasperated by the 
 persecution of Wilkes, — when the policy of the court 
 was odious, and the king himself unpopular. But 
 if the country was discontented, Parliament was 
 held in safe subjection. Inquiry was demanded 
 into the causes of the debt, and explanatory accounts 
 were sought : but all investigation being resisted by 
 ministers, the amount was granted without informa- 
 tion. In the following year, motions for inquiry into 
 the expenditure of the civil list were renewed, with 
 no better success.* Lord Chatham avowed his con- 
 
 ' Present Discontents, Works, ii. 280. 
 
 ' Supra, Chap. I. » Infra, Chap. IV. 
 
 * Pari. lliHt., xvi. 843, 926; Walp. Mem., iii. 343; Rockineh.ira 
 Mem., ii. 90, 167. The Duke of Kichmond, UTitinji to Lord 
 Il'>';kiagham as to a division in the Lords, says, ' Tho division of 
 
238 
 
 Revemces of the Crown. 
 
 viction that the civil list revenues were expended in 
 corrupting members of Parliament; ' and the civil 
 list expenditure, — and the withholding from Parlia- 
 ment such an explanation of its causes, as had been 
 customary in former reigns, — formed a prominent 
 topic in Mr. Burke's celebrated pamphlet on ' the 
 Causes of the Present Discontents.' 
 
 But the same causes of excessive expenditure, — 
 Further debt whatever they may have been, — continued 
 without a check; and after the lapse of 
 eight years, the king was again obliged to have 
 recourse to Parliament, not only to discharge a deVit 
 of 618,340L, but to inci-ease his annual civil list to 
 900,000^. a year. On this occasion, accounts ex- 
 planatory of the arrears were laid before Parliament. 
 Ministers no longer ventured to withhold them : 
 but they were not deemed satisfactory by the 
 opposition. Again the causes of increased expen- 
 diture were freely animadverted upon in Parlia- 
 ment. The income of the king was compared with 
 that of his predecessors, — the large amount of secret- 
 service money, and the increased pension list were 
 noticed, — and insinuations made of covert influence 
 and corruption.^ But Parliament acceded to Uie 
 demands of the king. When the speaker. Sir 
 Fletcher Norton, addressed the throne, on presenting 
 the bill for the royal assent, he said, the Commons 
 
 twenty-six on so courtly a point ns pnyiiip; his ^Majesty's debts, niid 
 enabling him to bribe higher, is, I think, a very strong one.' — Rock- 
 inyham Mem., ii. 92. 
 ' Pari. Hist., xvi. 849. 
 
 ' J/Hd.,xix. 103, 160, 187 ; Walp. Mom., iv. 92 ; Walp. Jouni., 
 ii. 110. 
 
Debts on tJie Civil List. 
 
 239 
 
 'have not only granted to your Majesty a large 
 present supply, hut also a very great additional 
 revenue; great beyond example ; great beyond your 
 Majesty's highest expense.' The speaker's uncom'tly 
 address became the subject of remark and censure in 
 the House of Commons : but his friend, Mr. Fox, 
 having come to the rescue, he was thanked for ex- 
 pressing wath ' just and proper energy, the zeal of this 
 House for the support of the honour and dignity 
 of the crown, in circumstances of great public 
 charge.' ' His conduct, however, was not forgiven 
 by the court; and in the next Parliament, he was 
 punished by the loss of the speaker's chair.' 
 
 Promptly as these demands of the crowm were met, 
 they yet excited lasting dissatisfaction. Debates 
 The public expenditure and the national chifust^ 
 debt had been prodigiously increased by 
 the American War, when the abuses of the civil list 
 were again brought under the notice of Parliament. 
 In 1779, the Duke of Kichmond moved an address 
 to the crown praying for the reduction of the civil 
 list, wliicli was rejected by a majority of more than 
 two to one.^ But a few days afterwards Mr. jj^. B„rke's 
 Burke gave notice of his motion on econo- f.c[l™,mic' 
 mic reform, with which his name has since '■'="'™> 
 been honourably associated. On the 11th of 
 February, 1780, — fortified, in the meantime, by 
 numerous petitions, — he propounded his elaborate 
 scheme. This embraced a considerable reduction uf 
 
 « Pari. Hist., xix. 227. 
 
 » Ihiil., xxi. 798-S()" ; 'Wnixull's Mom., i. 372. 
 • Dec. 7tli. 177'J: Vm\. ll'st.. xx. yi:uu 
 
240 
 
 Revenues of tJie Crown. 
 
 offices, a diminution of expenditure, and improved 
 administration and accounts in the various depart- 
 ments of the state ; and in his masterly review, the 
 expenditure of the civil list attracted a large share 
 of his scrutiny. Describing the royal household, he 
 pointed out the social changes which had taken 
 place, and the obsolete character of many of the 
 offices which were still retained. ' The royal house- 
 hold,' he said, ' has lost all that was stately and 
 venerable in the antique manners, without retrench- 
 ing anything of the cumbrous charge, of a gothic 
 establishment.' ' Examples of profusion and abuse 
 were given, — useless offices, and offices performed by 
 deputy, — the king's turnspit being a member of 
 Parliament,^ — jobbing, waste and peculation in every 
 department, without restraint. He proposed the 
 reduction and consolidation of offices, the diminu- 
 tion of the pension list to 60,000/. a year, and the 
 payment of all pensions at the Exchequer. 
 
 Mr. Burke obtained leave to bring in five bills to 
 carry out these various objects : but his Establish- 
 ment Bill ^ was the only one which was considered 
 in that session. It was read a second time, and 
 several of its provisions were discussed in committee : 
 but it was ultimately defeated by the government.'* 
 The discussions, however, led to a proposition from 
 Lord Nortli, for a commission of Public Accounts. 
 
 In the following year, Mr. Burke resumed his 
 
 > Pari. Hist, xxi. 30. 
 
 » Ihid., 33, and Lord Talbot's Speech in 1777; Md., six. 176. 
 
 • Si'c Pari. Hi.st., xxi. Ill, where it is printed at length. 
 
 • llAd., xxi. 714. 
 
The Civil List. 
 
 241 
 
 efforts, and again obtained leave to bring in his 
 
 Establishment Bill. In advocating this Mr. Burke's 
 
 measure he was boldly supported by young ^fent bui', 
 
 William Pitt, who then first offered himself 
 
 to the notice of Parliament. The bill was lost on 
 
 the second reading.' 
 
 But a sudden change soon took place in the 
 
 prospects of this question. Lord Rocking- Measures 
 
 ham's administration acceded to office, Rocking- 
 ham minia- 
 
 pledged to economic reform, and resolved ""y. i'S2. 
 to carry it into effect. Lord Rockingham, in lay- 
 ing his plan before the king, explained 'that not 
 a single article of the expense to be retrenched 
 touches anything whatsoever which is personal to 
 your Majesty, or to your Majesty's royal family, or 
 which in the least contributes to the splendour- oi 
 your court ; ' and that in fact he only intended to 
 reduce the patronage and influence of ministers.' 
 On the 15th April, 1782, a message from the king 
 was sent to both Houses, recommending economy in 
 all branches of the public expenditure, and stating 
 that he had already considered the reform and re- 
 gulation of his civil establishment. Well might 
 Mr. Burke congratulate the House of Commons and 
 the country, on so favourable a change in the policy 
 of the government, and on the attitude of the king 
 towards his people. In both Houses this communi- 
 cation was cordially received and acknowledged.' It 
 was soon followed by another, which though not so 
 
 ' Tarl. Hist., xxi. 1292; Wraxall's Mom., ii. 333; Lord Stan- 
 hope's Ijfi' of Pitt, i. /j4. 
 
 ' Lord J{oL-kiii(?liam's letter to th'o king. — Boch. Mem., ii. 477. 
 » Pari. Ui-.t., xxii. 12G9; Wraxall's Mem., 43-17, fll. 
 VOL. I. B 
 
242 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 satisfactory, at least afforded convincing proof of the 
 necessity of that economy ^^ticli had been already 
 recommended. 
 
 The king was now obliged to announce to Parlia- 
 civu list ment another debt upon his civil list ; but 
 debt, 1782. jjjstead of proposing that it should be dis- 
 charged, as on previous occasions, out of the general 
 revenues of the state, he intimated that its liquida- 
 tion was to be secured by intended reductions of the 
 civil list establishment. Notwithstanding the recent 
 additions to the civil list, the arrears now amounted 
 to 295,877L ; and the proposed savings, instead of 
 being available either to the king or to the country, 
 would thus become inomediately mortgaged for the 
 payment of a debt, by annual instalments. 
 
 The Civil List Act of Lord Eockingham. though 
 civuiist falling short of Mr. Biu'ke's original pro- 
 Acto£i/82. pQgj^][^ nevertheless a considerable 
 
 measure. Many useless offices were abolished, 
 restraints were imjDosed upon the issue of secret- 
 service money, the Pension List was diminished, 
 and secimties were provided for a more effectual 
 supervision of the royal expenditvu'e. And now, for 
 the first time, the civil list expenditure was divided 
 into classes, eight in number, which led to more 
 important changes hereafter.' 
 
 But debt continued to be the normal condition of 
 pnbsequent the civil Hst throughout the reign of George 
 
 debts in this . . i- . 
 
 reign. III. Again and again applications were 
 renewed to Parliament ; and the debts discharged at 
 
 ' 22 Geo. UI. c. 82 ; Pari. Hist., xxii. 1395 ; Ibid., xxiii. 121. 
 
The Civil List. 
 
 24: 
 
 diflferent periods after 1782, exceeded 2,300,000Z. 
 From the beginning to the end of this reign, the 
 several arrears paid oflf by Parliament, exclusive of 
 the debt of 300,000L charged on the civil list in 
 1782, amounted to 3,398,000L' 
 
 In defence of these continued excesses it was urged 
 that they were more than defraved by the surpins of 
 surplus of the hereditary revenues, which revenues, 
 the king had surrendered ; and which, in 1815, ex- 
 ceeded by upwards of 6,000,000^. the entire expendi- 
 ture of the civil list since the accession of the king, 
 — including all the debts which had been paid off 
 by Parliament, and the charges from which the civil 
 list had been relieved.^ 
 
 Meanwhile the civil list continued to comprise 
 charges wholly unconnected with the per- 
 sonal comfort and dignity of the sovereign, fr^'t^e 
 — the salaries of judges, ambassadors, and 
 other officers of state, — annuities to members of the 
 royal family, and pensions granted for public services 
 — all of which were more fairly chargeable to the 
 state revenues, than to the civil list of the crown. 
 
 In 1709 
 1777 
 1781 
 1786 
 1802 
 1 804 
 1805 
 1814 
 1814 
 1816 
 
 Tlepnrt on Ciinl List 
 Nov. 23r(l, 1837.— //"« 
 
 » Kcp'jrt on Civil List, ISl.'), p. 4. 
 
 K 2 
 
 £513.011 
 618,310 
 CO.OOO 
 210,000 
 990,0.53 
 691,812 
 10,t;)8 
 118,S.)7 
 
 100,000 (extra exponse.s.) 
 18.5,000 
 ■ £3,398,061 
 1815, p. 4; Speech of Mr. Spring Rice, 
 IJ(h.. 3r.l Sor., xuix. 144. 
 
244 Revenues of the Crozun. 
 
 From many of these charges the civil list was, 
 from time to time, relieved, — amounting, between 
 the accession of George III. and 1815, to 
 9 561,396^.' 
 
 On the expiration of the first year of the regency, 
 Regulation 1812, the civil list was increased by 
 hs*of the' 70,000^. a year, and a special grant of 
 regency. ioo,OOOL was voted to the prince regent.* 
 In 181G, the civil list was settled at 1,083,727^., 
 including the establisliment of the king ; and its 
 expenditui-e was, at the same time, subjected to 
 further regulation. It was relieved from some of 
 the annuities to the royal family : the payments on 
 account of the several classes of expenditure were 
 defined and controlled ; and the expenses of the 
 royal household were subjected to the supervision 
 and audit of a treasm-y officer, — the auditor of the 
 civil list.^ 
 
 King George IV., on his accession, expected a 
 Civil list on larger civil list than he had enjoyed as 
 
 accession o£ . 
 
 George IV. Prince Eegent : but yielding to the per- 
 suasion and remonstrances of his ministers, he stated 
 in hij speech from the throne, that so far from 
 desiring any arrangement which would lead to the 
 imposition of new burdens ujDon his people, he had 
 no wish to alter the settlement adopted by Parliament 
 in 1816." 
 
 ' Report on Civil List, 1815, p. 5. 
 
 * 62 Geo. III. c. 6, 7 ; Hans Deb., 1st Ser., xsl. 151, &c. 
 ' 56 Geo. 111. c. 46. 
 
 < Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 363; Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., i. 11. 
 
 Tills concession, ' if report be true, was obtained by nothing but 
 tlie most determined refusal of tlie ministers to do more.' — il/r. T, 
 Grcuvi/le to the 3/arqticss of Bitch-inyhxim, M:i}- -Itli, ISL'O. 
 
The Civil List. 
 
 245 
 
 The civil list being now free from the expenses of 
 the late king, was fixed by Parliament at other re- 
 
 venues of 
 
 845,727t. But during the whole of this the crown, 
 reign the king enjoyed, in addition to this income, 
 the hereditary revenues of Scotland, amounting on 
 an average to 109,000Z., and the civil list for Ireland 
 of 250,000L He also received the droits of the 
 crown and Admiralty, the \\ per cent, duties, the 
 West India duties, and other casual revenues, which 
 were still vested in the crown, and independent of 
 Parliament.' 
 
 King William IV., on his accession, for the first 
 time surrendered the interest of the crown cj^j 
 in all these sources of revenue ; and ac- ^""^ 
 cepted a civil list of 510,000Z. The future expendi- 
 ture of this amount was divided into five different 
 classes, to each of which a specific annual sum was 
 appropriated, including a Pension List of 75,000^. 
 At the same time, the civil list was still further re- 
 lieved from charges, which more properly belonged 
 to the civil government of the state. These charges 
 included judicial salaries, — which had been paid 
 partly out of the civil list, partly out of the 
 Consolidated Fund, and partly out of the fees ot 
 the Courts, — the salaries and pensions of the diplo- 
 matic service, — and numerous miscellaneous ex- 
 penses.'* 
 
 These arrangements were not concluded until the 
 accounts of thecivil list expenditure had been referred 
 
 ' Rpport on Civil Government Chiirges, 1831 : 1 Geo. IV. c. 1. 
 ' Koport on Civil Government Charfies, 1831; lieport on Civil 
 List Charges, 1833, 
 
246 
 
 Revejmes of tnc Crown. 
 
 to a select committee of the House of Commons, 
 and freely investigated. The Wellington ministry 
 resisted this investigation, and fell : when the settle- 
 ment of the civil list was left to the Whig ministry 
 of Earl Grey.^ The committee, in their inquiries, 
 not thinking it consistent with the respect due to 
 liis Majesty to scrutinise the details of his domestic 
 household, nevertheless recommended several re- 
 ductions in the salaries of the officers of state, 
 amounting in the aggregate to 11,529L^ The king, 
 however, remonstrated with his ministers against the 
 proposed reduction, saying : — ' If the people, accord- 
 ing to the new (reform) bill, are really to govern the 
 House of Commons, and the House of Commons is to 
 decide upon the amount of salary I am to give to 
 ray servants, then the prerogatives of the crown 
 will in reality pass to the people, and the monarchy 
 cannot exist.' The ministers yielded to this re- 
 monstrance, and induced the House of Commons to 
 restore the civil list to the amount originally pro- 
 posed.^ 
 
 The civil list of Queen Victoria was settled on the 
 Civil list of same principles as that of William IV., 
 Her Majesty. amounted to 385,000^. : the only 
 material variation being that in lieu of the Pension 
 List of 75,000^., her Majesty was empowered to 
 grant pensions annually to the extent of 1,200L 
 The crown was thus finally restricted to a definite 
 
 ' Hans. I)eb., 3rd Scr., i. 429, 526. Courts and Cabinets of 
 William IV. and Queen Victoria, i. 128. 
 
 " Report on the Civil List Accounts, March 21st, 18-31. 
 
 ' Eoehuck's Ilist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. lo'J; lliius. Deb., 3rd 
 Ser., iii. t)o9. 
 
The Civil List. 
 
 247 
 
 annuity for the support of its dignity, and for the 
 personal comfort of the sovereign.^ 
 
 It may be added, as at once a proof of the wisdom 
 of these arrangements, and of the improved No debts 
 
 ... . upon the 
 
 administration of our later sovereigns, that civii list 
 
 TT ■» T during three 
 
 neither in the reign of Her Most Gracious reigns. 
 Majesty, nor in the reig-ns of George IV. and 
 William IV., has any application been made to 
 Parliament for the discharge of debts upon the civil 
 list.2 
 
 While the civil list has been diminished in amount, 
 its relief from charges with which it had importance 
 formerly been incumbered, has placed it dviuist™^ 
 beyond the reach of misconstruction. The neous'^'^'^*' 
 crown repudiates the indirect influences 
 exercised in former reigns, and is free from imputa- 
 tions of con-uption. And the continual increase of 
 tlie civil charges of the government, which was 
 formerly a reproach to the crown, is now a matter 
 for which the House of Commons is alone responsible. 
 In this, as in other examples of constitutional pro- 
 gress, apparent encroachments upon the crown have 
 but added to its true dignity, and conciliated, more 
 than ever, the confidence and affections of the 
 people. 
 
 Until the accession of her JNIajesty, every previous 
 sovereign of her royal house had also enjoyed Kovonnes of 
 the revenue of the Kingdom of Hanover, 
 which was now detached from the crown of England. 
 Former sovereigns liad also inherited considerable 
 
 ' Hans. Dob., xxxix. 137, ft npq. 
 » Rep. 1837-8, on tho Civil List. 
 
248 
 
 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 personal property from their predecessors : but her 
 Duchies of Majesty succeeded to none whatever. The 
 and Corn- crown, however, still retains the revenues 
 of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. 
 The former are the property of the reigning- sove- 
 reign ; the latter the independent inheritance of the 
 Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall. The estates 
 of botli these duchies have been largely augmented 
 by judicious management, and by vigilant attention 
 to the interests of the crown. 
 
 At the commencement of her Majesty's reigTi, the 
 Revcnneof gross reveuuB of the Duchy of Lancaster 
 
 the Duchy ° 
 
 ofLaucastur. amouuted to 23,038i., and the charges to 
 14.126L, leaving a net revenue of no more than 
 8,912/. In 1859, the gross revenue had increased 
 to 45,43GL, and the net revenue to 31,349?., of 
 which 25,000L were paid to her Majesty's Privy 
 Purse.' 
 
 When Greorge, Prince of Wales, came of age in 
 Revenue of 1783, the iucome of the Duchy of Cornwall 
 
 the Duchy r\ ■> 
 
 ofcorawau. was less than 13,000i. a year. On the 
 accession of her Majesty, the gross income was 
 28,456i., and the payments were 12,670L, leaving a 
 net income of 15,786Z. In 1859, the gross income 
 had increased, under the admirable management of 
 the Prince Consort, to 63,704L, and the net revenue 
 to 50,777L ; of which no less than 40,785i. were 
 paid over to the trustees and treasurer of his Eoyal 
 Highness the Prince of Wales.^ Former sovereigns 
 had themselves appropriated the income of the 
 
 Pari. Papers, 1837-8 (GG6), 1860 (98). 
 
 2 1860 (13). 
 
Private Property of the Cro 
 
 -49 
 
 duchy, during the minority of the heir-apparent : 
 hut her [Majesty generously renounced it ; and out 
 of this ample revenue, accumulations exceeding 
 half a million, were invested for the future benefit 
 of his Eoyal Highness.' 
 
 In addition to these public revenues, the rights of 
 the crown to its own private property have private 
 been secured. The alienation of the land 
 revenues of the crown having been restrained 
 by the 1st Anne, a doubt subsequently arose, whether 
 the restrictions of that Act extended to the private 
 property of the sovereign, acquired by purchase, gift 
 or devise, or by descent, from persons not being 
 kings or queens of the realm. But such restrictions 
 being without any colour of justice, an Act was 
 passed, in 1800, declaring that property so acquired, 
 could be disposed of like the property of subjects.* 
 On the accession of George IV., however, doubts 
 were suggested whether this Act applied to property 
 acquired, by the reigning sovereign, before he had 
 succeeded to the throne, which were set at rest bv 
 statute in 1823.3 
 
 While the civil list has been ample for the sup- 
 port of the personal dignity of the crown, Provision 
 Parliament has also provided liberally for family, 
 the maintenance of the various members of the 
 royal family. A separate armuity to the Queen 
 
 ' Th« country had the fall benefit of this royal generosity and 
 foreiiirht, on the Prince's marriage. Report of the Council of the 
 Triii .-i of W:iles, 1863; Debate on Prince of Wales' Annuity Bill, 
 iel-. 23rJ, 1863. 
 
 » 39 & 40 Geo. III. e. 88. 
 
 * 4 Geo IV. c. 18; Hnns. Deb., 2nd .Ser., viii. 509, 651. 
 
250 
 
 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 Con?oit, with a large dowiy in case of the death 
 of the king, — annuities to the brothers, sisters, 
 and other relatives of his Majesty, — establishments 
 for each of his children on coming of age, and 
 even allowance for their education and main- 
 tenance, — marriage portions for princesses of the 
 royal house, — such are the claims which have been 
 made upon the liberality of Parliament, in addition 
 to the civil list. To these must be added, in the 
 reign of Greoro^e III., the debts of the Prince of 
 Wales. 
 
 The prince came of age in 1783, — a time ill- 
 Debts of the suited for heavy demands upon the public 
 Wales. purse. The people were still suffering 
 under the accumulated burthens of the American 
 War ; and the abuses of the ci\-il list had recently 
 imdergone a rude exposure. But the prince's ^Tiig 
 friends in the Coalition noinistry, overlooking these 
 considerations, proposed a settlement of 100,000^. a 
 year. They were glad to have this opportunity of 
 Btrengthening their political connection with the 
 heir-apparent. But the king was more sensible 
 than they, of the objections to such a proposal at 
 that time ; and being tenacious of his own power, — 
 lo\-ing his son but little, and hating his ministers 
 much, — he declined an arrangement which would 
 Lave secured the independence of the prince, and 
 drawn him still more closely to the party most 
 obnoxious to himself. He agreed, therefore, to 
 make the prince an allowance of 50,000/. a year out 
 of his civil list, \vhich had already proved unequal 
 to his own expenditure; and limited his demand 
 
Debts of tJic Prince of Wales. 2 5 1 
 
 upon Parliament to an outfit of 60,000L' To a 
 prudent prince such an allcwance ■would have been 
 ample : to the spendthrift and tlie gamester it was a 
 pittance. The prince was soon in difficulties ; and 
 his ' debts of honour ' to the blacklegs of Xewmarket, 
 and the sharpers of St. James's, left little for the 
 payment of the royal tradesmen. On the revision 
 of the civil list in 1786, another effort was made by 
 the prince's friends to obtain for him a more liberal 
 settlement : but Mr. Pitt was cold, and the king 
 inexorable. The prince broke up his establishment, 
 yet failed to pay his debts. 
 
 In 1787 his affairs had become desperate, when 
 the heir-apparent was saved from ruin by the friendly 
 intervention of a London alderman. j\Ir. Alderman 
 Xewnham ha^^ng given notice, in the House of 
 Commons, of an address to the king on the subject 
 of the prince's debts, and being supported by the 
 friends of his Royal Highness, the king thought it 
 better to arrange a compromise. This resulted in 
 the addition of 10,000Z. a year to the income of the 
 prince out of the civil list ; and the voting of 
 161,000L for the payment of his debts, and 20,000^. 
 for the buildings at Carlton House.' No less than 
 63,700Z. were afterwards granted by Parliament, at 
 different times, for the completion of this costly 
 palace,' which, after being the scene of tinsel 
 
 ' 25th Juno, 1783; Pari. Hist., xxiii. 1030; Lord J. Russell's 
 Life of Fox, ii. 8; Lord Auckland's Corr., i. E«rl Stanhope's 
 Life of Pitt, i. 123; AVraxall's M( m., iv. 4G4. 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxAi. MIO. 10^8, .1001, 1207; Tomline's Life of 
 Pitt, ii. 2f.O; L<jrd Auckland's Corr.. i. il.i, 41". 
 
 • Viz., 3j,000i. in 1789, 3,500/. in 1791, and 27,500/. in 1795. 
 
2-2 
 
 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 splendour and bad taste for little nnore than twenty 
 five years, was rased to the ground to make room for 
 metropolitan improvements.' 
 
 The king assured the House of Commons that the 
 prince had promised to confine his future expenses 
 within his income ; yet so little were these good 
 intentions carried out, that in 1792 his Eoyal High- 
 ness confessed to Lord Malmesbury that his debts 
 then amounted to 370,000L^ In 1795 they had 
 increased to the extraordinary sum of 650,000^. ; 
 when he was extricated from these embarrassments, 
 by his ill-fated marriage with Caroline of Brunswick. 
 To propose a grant for the payment of these debts, 
 was out of the question : but an additional annuity 
 of 6o,000/. was settled upon him, of which nearly 
 the whole was appropiiated, for many years, to the 
 gradual discharge of his incumbrances.' In 1803, 
 an addition of 60,000/. was made to his income, and 
 his debts were ultimately paid off.'* After a youth 
 of excess and extravagance, the spendthrift prince, — 
 though still fond of building and enlarging palaces 
 at the public expense, — learned, in his old age, to 
 husband his own resources, with the caution of a 
 miser. 
 
 Parliament has since cheerfully granted every 
 suitable provision for members of the royal family : 
 but its liberality has not been discredited by any 
 
 ' Court and Cabinets of tho Regency, i. 99; Lord Colchester's 
 Diary, ii. 336, iii. 522. 
 
 - Lord Jlalmesburv's Corr., ii. 415, 418. 
 
 ' King's Message," April 27th, 1795; Pari. Hist., xxxi. 14G4, 
 1496 ; ibid., xxxii. 90, 135; 35 Geo. III. c. 129. 
 
 * 43 Geo. in. c. 26; Pari. Hist., xxxvi. 1197: Lord Stanhope's 
 Life of Pitt, iv. 13; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 413. 
 
Management of Land Revenues. 253 
 
 further application for the pajmaent of their 
 debts. 
 
 We have seen that the income arising from the 
 land revenues of the crown was surrendered jusnja. 
 to the state, by George III. in exchange ?^|'Cd ' °* 
 for a civil list: but for a long time the STuSo 
 state was deprived, by mismanagement, of p"'''"'- 
 the greater part of the benefit to which it was en- 
 titled. Leases were improvidently, if not corruptly, 
 granted, — often without any survey of the property, 
 and even without a copy or counterpart of the lease 
 being retained by the Surveyor-General, on behalf of 
 the crown : renewals were conceded at the pleasure 
 of the tenants ; while extravagant fees, payable at 
 public offices, instead of being charged to the 
 tenants, were deducted from the fines, and became a 
 grievous burthen upon the revenues of the crown. 
 At least seven-eighths of the value of the land were 
 received in the shape of fines, and one-eighth only 
 in rent ; and these fines, again, were computed at 
 high rates of interest, by which the payments to the 
 crown were further diminished. 
 
 Encroachments and waste were permitted upon 
 tlie royal demesnes, with scarcely a check. Such 
 mismanagement, however, was not due to any want 
 of officers, appointed to guard the public interests. 
 On the contrary, their very number serve to facilitate 
 frauds and evasions. Instead of being a check upon 
 one another, these officers acted independently ; and 
 their ignorance, incapacity, and neglect went far to 
 ruin the property under their charge. As an illus- 
 tration of the S3'stem, it may be stated that tlie 
 
2 54 Rcvemies of the Crown. 
 
 land-tax was frequently allowed twice over to lessees ; 
 from which error alone, a loss was sustained of up- 
 wards of fifteen hundred pounds a year. Even with- 
 out mismanagement, the wide dispersion of the 
 estates of the crown multiplied the charges of 
 superintendence and administration. 
 
 From these various causes the noble estates of 
 the crown, for the first twenty-five years of the 
 reign of George III., produced an average net re- 
 venue little exceeding six thousand pounds a year.' 
 Some of these abuses were exposed by Mr. Burke in 
 1780, who suggested as a remedy, a general sale of 
 the crown lands.^ In 1786, the king sent a message 
 to Parliament, by the advice of Mr. Pitt, recom- 
 mending an inquiry into the condition of the woods, 
 forests, and land revenues of the crown ; and a com- 
 mission was accordingly appointed by Act, to make 
 that inquiry, and to suggest improvements in the 
 system of management.^ The recommendations of 
 this commission led to the passing of an Act in 1 794, 
 by which an improved administration of the land 
 revenues was introduced and means were taken 
 for making them more productive. This commission 
 had reported that, in their opinion, the estates 
 which had hitherto yielded so insignificant a revenue 
 might, under improved management, eventually 
 produce no less than 400,000L a year. Existing 
 interests postponed for a time the realisation of so 
 
 ' Reports of Commissioners of Inquiry into the Woods, Forests, 
 and Land Revenues, under Act 26 Geo. III. c. 87. 
 
 Pari. Hist., xxi. 26. ' IbuL, xxyi. 186, 202. 
 
 • 34 Geo. 111. c. 75. 
 
Management of Land Revenues. 255 
 
 sanguine an estimate: but in 1798 tlie cro>vTi lands 
 were valued at 201,2.50/. a year;' in 1812 they 
 were valued at 283,160^:2 in 1820 they actually 
 yielded 114,852/. ; in 1830, they produced 373,770/. ; 
 and in the year ending 31st March 1860, they re- 
 turned an income of 416,530/.' 
 
 But when the land revenues of the crown were at 
 length becoming nearly an equivalent for Appropria- 
 the civil list, a considerable proportion of proceeds of 
 
 . -n IP the land 
 
 the income was still diverted from the revenues. 
 Exchequer. The land revenues, and the woods 
 and forests, were originally managed, each by a 
 Surveyor-General: but in 1810 the functions of 
 these two offices were combined in a commission of 
 woods, forests, and land revenues.'' In 1832, the 
 superintendence of public works was added to the 
 duties of this commission ; * when it soon became 
 evident that what they received with one hand, they 
 were too ready to pay over to the other. The 
 revenue derived from the property of the crown, was 
 applied with too much facility, to the execution of 
 public works and improvements : the Exchequer 
 was deprived of the funds which were due to it, in 
 exchange for the civil list ; and Parliament was 
 denied its proper control over an important branch 
 of the public expenditure. To arrest this evil, an- 
 other administrative change was necessary ; and in 
 1851, the departments of Woods and Forests and 
 
 ' Report of Surveyor-General, Com. Joiim., liii. 187. 
 
 * ist Keport of Comm. of Woodsj and rorests, 1812. 
 
 • Finance Aocoiint.s, 18C0. « 60 Geo. III. c. 65. 
 » 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 1. 
 
256 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 of Public Works were again entirely separated,' 
 Hence, whatever may be the net proceeds of the 
 property of the crown, they form part of the public 
 revenue ; and whatever sums may be needed for 
 public works, are voted by Parliament out of the 
 general income of the state. 
 
 A very important part of the expenditure of the 
 oivii list civil lis^^ lias been caused, in every reign 
 pensions. -^^^ ^-j^^ present, by the payment of pen- 
 sions. Tlie grant of pensions by the crown has so 
 often been the subject of political discussion, that 
 a brief explanation of the law and usage by which 
 they were granted, and the funds from which they 
 were payable, will not be devoid of constitutional 
 interest. 
 
 Prior to the reign of Queen Anne, the crown had 
 Restrictions exerciscd the right of charging its heredi- 
 ofpen^onf ^^^J revcuues with pensions and annuities ; 
 upoifcrown ^"^^ '^^ \>&exi held that the king had 
 imds. power, in law, to bind his successors.^ But 
 on the accession of Queen Anne, in 1701, when 
 alienations of cro™ lands were for the first time 
 restrained by Parliament,^ it was also provided that 
 no portion of the hereditary revenues * could be 
 alienated for any term, longer than the life of the 
 reigning king.'' 
 
 " 14 and 15 Vict. c. 41. 
 
 ■-' Bankors' Case, 1691 ; State Trials, xiv. 3-43. 
 ' Rupra, p. 229. 
 
 ■* Tho hereditary revenues specified in the Act were these : the 
 lierediUiry duties on beer, ale, or other liquors, the post-ofRce, first- 
 fruits and tenths, fines on writs, post fines, wine licenses, sheriffs' 
 processus and compositions, and seizures of uncustomed and pro- 
 iiil)itud goods. ' 1 Anne, st. 1. c. 1. 
 
Civil List Pensions. 
 
 257 
 
 This Act, however, having been passed before the 
 union with Scotland, did not extend to the „„„ . 
 
 ' Pensions 
 
 hereditary revenues of the Scottish crown, hereditary 
 Nor was any similar Act passed in the Par- 
 liament of Ireland, restraining grants from the 
 hereditary revenues of Ireland : neither did the Act 
 of Anne extend to the 4^ per cent, duties. Subse- 
 quently to this Act, pensions on the hereditary 
 revenues of the crown in England could only be 
 gi'anted during the life of the reigning sovereign : 
 but were practically re-granted at the commence- 
 ment of every reign. But pensions charged on the 
 hereditary revenues of Scotland and Ireland, and on 
 the 4^ per cent, duties, continued to be granted for 
 the lives of the grantees. 
 
 On the accession of George III., the larger 
 branches of the hereditary revenues of the pensions 
 crown of England being surrendered in ex- fuist of 
 change for a fixed civil list, the pensions 
 which had previously been paid out of the heredi- 
 tary revenues, were henceforth paid out of the civil 
 list. There was no limit to the amount of the 
 pensions so long as the civil list could meet the 
 demand ; and no principle by which the grant of 
 them was regulated, but the discretion of the crown 
 and its advisers. 
 
 No branch of the public expenditure was regarded 
 with so much jealousy, as that arising out Jcaionsyof 
 of the unrestricted power of granting ust. 
 pensions by the crown. Not only did it involve a 
 serious public burthen, — being one of the principal 
 causes of the civil list debts, — but it increased the 
 
 VOL. I. 8 
 
258 Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 influence of the crown, and impaired the independ- 
 ence of Parliament. Mr. Burke, in brining for- 
 ward his scheme of economical reform in 1780, 
 dwelt much on the excessive amount of the pension 
 list, and the absence of proper regulations ; and 
 particularly adverted to a custom which then pre- 
 vailed, of gTanting pensions on a private list, during 
 pleasure, by which dangerous corruption might be 
 practised. Mr. Burke proposed that the English 
 pension list should be gradually reduced to 60,000Z., 
 and that pensions should be restricted to the reward 
 of merit, and ' real public charity ; ' extraordinary 
 cases being in future provided for by an address of 
 either house of Parliament. 
 
 By the Civil List Act of the Rockingham admi- 
 Eertriction nistratiou in 1782, the power of granting 
 grant of peusious was considerably limited. It was 
 
 pensions in 
 
 1782. provided that imtil the pension list should 
 be reduced to 90,000L no pension above 300L a year 
 should be granted : that the whole amount of pen- 
 sions bestowed in any year should not exceed 600?., 
 a list of which was directed to be laid before Parlia- 
 ment : that the entire pension list should afterwards 
 be restricted to 95,000L; and that no pension to 
 anyone person should exceed 1,200/. This Act fully 
 recognised the principles of Mr. Burke's plan : it 
 affirmed almost in his very words, that by the usage 
 of granting secret pensions during pleasure, ' secret 
 
 ' 22 Geo. III. c. 82. On the 21st Febraarr, 1780, Sir G. Savile's 
 motion for a list of the pensions was lost by a majority of two only. 
 —Varl. Hist., xxi. 104 ; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 37 (,Lttt«r 
 from Pitt). 
 
Civil List Pejisions. 
 
 259 
 
 and dangerous corruption may hereafter be practised;' 
 and it directed that in future all pensions should be 
 paid at the Exchequer. It fiuther acknowledged the 
 principle that pensions ought to be granted for two 
 causes only ; — viz. as a royal bounty for persons in 
 distress, ,or as a reward for desert. 
 
 So far, therefore, the English pension list was 
 regulated, and made subject to parliamen- inah pension 
 tary control. But the crown still retained ^"^^ 
 ample means, from other sources, of rewarding poli- 
 tical or personal serv ices. The hereditary revenues 
 of the crown, in Ireland, amounting to the net simi of 
 275,102/., were still at the sole disposal of the crown, 
 and were even alienable, so as to bind future 
 fiovereigns. It is natural that this convenient fund 
 should have been largely charged with pensions. 
 They had been granted in every form, — during the 
 pleasure of the crown, — for the life of the sovereign, 
 — for terms of years, — for the life of the grantee, — 
 and for several lives in being, or in reversion. As 
 there was no control whatever over such grants, the 
 pension list was continually increasing. Complaints 
 had long been made of the reckless prodigality of tht- 
 crown in bestowing pensions ; and so far back as 
 17o7, the Irish House of Commons had unanimously 
 resolved ' that the granting of so much of the public- 
 revenue in pensions is an improvident disposition of 
 the revenue, an injury to the crown, and detrimental 
 to the people.' Yet the pension list, which iu 
 1757 had amounted to 40,000/., was trebled in the 
 first thirty years of George III. ; and, in 1793, had 
 reached the prodigious siim of 124,000/. But the 
 
 8 2 
 
2 6o Revenues of the Crown. 
 
 abuse had now worked itself out, and could be toler- 
 ated no longer. In that year, therefore, the govern- 
 ment itself proposed a change, which was readily 
 adopted by the Irish Parliament.' The hereditary 
 revenues were surrendered in Ireland, — as they had 
 previously been surrendered in England, — in ex- 
 change for a fixed civil list of 145,000Z., exclusive 
 of pensions; and a pension list of 124,000^., to 
 be eventually reduced to 80,000^. Meanwhile the 
 crowu was restrained from granting pensions, in any 
 one year, exceeding 1,200^. : but still retained and 
 exercised the power of granting pensions for life, and 
 in reversion. It was not until 1813 that the Irish 
 pension list was reduced to 80,000^., as contemplated 
 by this Act. On the accession of George IV., this 
 list was further reduced to 50,000L : no grants ex- 
 ceeding 1,200^. in any one year being permitted 
 until that reduction had been effected.'^ 
 
 The hereditary revenues of the crown, in Scotland, 
 Scotch remained exempt from parliamentary con- 
 pensionust. ^^.^^^ ^^^-j jgjQ_ ^j^^^ time, the pensions 
 
 charged upon them amounted to 39,000Z. It was 
 then arranged by Parliament that no amount greater 
 than 800L should be granted in any one year, until 
 the pensions had been reduced to 25,000^. ; and 
 that no pension exceeding SOOL a year should be 
 given to any one person.^ 
 
 There was still one fund left beyond the control of 
 Pensions on Parliament, and of course amply charged 
 
 the per . . 
 
 cent.auties. with peusious. Uic 4^ per cent, duties 
 • 33 Geo. III. c. 31 (Ireland). 
 
 » Geo. IV. c. 1, s. 10. » 60 Goo. III. c. 111. 
 
Civil List Pensions. 
 
 261 
 
 were not surrendered until 1830, when William r\'. 
 gave up Ms own life interest in them : the pen- 
 sions previouslv granted being still payable by the 
 state. 
 
 At this time, the three pension lists of England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland, were consolidated ; Coiucuda- 
 
 tion of Tie 
 
 and the entire civil pension Ust for the penaoniias. 
 United Kingdom was reduced from 14:5,750/. to 
 7 5.000/. ; the remainder of the pensions being 
 charged upon the Consolidated Fimd. 
 
 Finally, on the accession of her present ^lajesty, 
 the right of the crown to grant pensions B«gni«tton 
 
 of pdkSOlB 
 
 was restricted to 1,200/. a year. Such pen- m issr. 
 sions were now confined, according to the terms of a 
 resolution of the House of Commons, of the 18th 
 Feb. 1834, to 'such persons as have just claims on 
 the royal beneficence, or who, by their personal 
 services to the crown, by the performance of duties 
 to the public, or by their useful discoveries in 
 science, and attainments in literatiu-e and the arts, 
 have merited the gracious consideration of their 
 sovereign, and the gratitude of their covmtry.' * At 
 the same time an inquiry was directed by the House of 
 Commons to be made into the existing pension list, 
 which resulted in the voluntary surrender of some 
 pensions, and the suspension or discontinuance of 
 others.* 
 
 The pensions thus reduced in amovmt, and sub- 
 jected to proper regulation, have since been beyond 
 the reach of constitutional jealousy. They no 
 longer afford the means, of corruption, — they add 
 
 ' I Vict, c 2 : Report on Ciril List. Dec 5di, 1 837. 
 * Eeport on Fcuaiuds, -J4tb Julj. 1638. 
 
262 
 
 Civil List Pensions. 
 
 little to the influence of the crown, — they impose a 
 trifling burthen on the people, — and the names of 
 Ihose who receive the royal bounty are generally 
 such as to command respect and sympathy. 
 
 Such being the pecuniaiy relations of the crown 
 i-on-ers of '^^^ royal family to Parliament, let us take 
 over^e ^ brief review of the relations of the royal 
 royal tamuy. fg^^jiy ^j^g peigTiing Sovereign. 
 
 Among the prerogatives of the crown is that of a 
 more than parental authority over the royal family ; 
 and, in 1772, the king sought the aid of Parliament 
 srarriageof for the enlarwmeut of his powers. The 
 
 theDnkeof " ^ 
 
 Gloucester. Duke of Glouccster had been married for 
 several years to the Countess Dowager of Walde- 
 grave ; but had not publicly acknowledged her as his 
 consort, nor had she assumed his title.' At court 
 she was neither recognised as his wife, nor discoun- 
 tenanced as his mistress: but held an equivocal 
 position between these two charactere. 
 
 But in the autumn of 1771, another of the king's 
 Of the Duke brothers, the Duke of Cumberland, an- 
 
 of Cumber- i i • i • • • i r 
 
 land. nounced to the km"- ms marnao-e with Jlrs. 
 Horton, whom he at once called Duchess of Cumber- 
 land. By a singular coincidence, his bride was a 
 daughter of Lord Irnham, and a sister of the famous 
 Colonel Luttrell, whom the court party had put 
 into Wilkes's seat for Middlesex. The mortification 
 uf the king, was only to be equalled by the malici- 
 ous triumph of Wilkes. The family which had 
 been made the instrument of his oppression, had 
 
 ' Walpole's Mem., iii. 402 408 
 
Marriages of the Kings Brothers. 263 
 
 now brought shame upon the king.' The Duke 
 and Duchess were not only forbidden to appear 
 at com-t themselves : but their society was inter- 
 dicted to all who desired to be admitted to the 
 palace.* At first the king was not without hope 
 that the validity of the marriage might be questioned. 
 It had been solemnised without the usual formali- 
 ties prescribed by law : but the royal family had 
 been excepted from Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, 
 by the express command of George II., who would 
 not allow restraints, intended only for his subjects, 
 to be imposed upon his own family.^ Such re- 
 straints might now have postponed, or even pre- 
 vented, this hateful marriage. The alliance of the 
 Duke of Cumberland with a subject was followed by 
 the public avowal of his marriage by the Duke of 
 Gloucester, whose wife's position would have been 
 seriously compromised by any longer concealment. 
 
 The king was now resolved to impose such restric- 
 tions upon future marriages in his own family, as 
 had never been contemplated for his subjects. And, 
 in truth, if alliances with persons not of royal blood 
 were to be prevented, the king and his brothers had 
 given proof enough of the dangers to which princes 
 are exposed. In his youth the king had been him- 
 self in love with Lady Sarah Lennox : * the Duke 
 
 ' Wdlpole says, ' Could punishment be morp severe than to be 
 thus scotirjied by tht-ir own insl i iinient ? And how sinpuhir the 
 fate of VV'ilkus, that n«w revongo iilwiiys presented itself to him 
 when he was sunk to the lowest, ebb ! ' — Mmi., iv. 3.36. 
 
 » Ihid., ;i62. • Ihid.. 3.VJ. 
 
 * M]-. (in iivillo relates in liis Diary, that tlie king actually pro- 
 posed to marry her, and tliiit her onf{a/.'enuMit with Lord Newbottle 
 was eoMscfjiiently broken off; but she broke hi^r le<; w hilo out ridin^r, 
 and during Irt absence tlio iiiateh was prevented, by represoula- 
 
264 Powers of the Kmg 
 
 of York had been attached to Lady Mary Coke ; and 
 now his Majesty was deploring the marriages of his 
 brothers. 
 
 The prerogative claimed by the crown, in matters 
 King-spower Concerning the royal family, was already 
 erand-^ Considerable. In 1718, King George I., 
 children. -^hen in open enmity with his son, the 
 Prince of Wales, maintained that he had power, by 
 virtue of his prerogative, to direct the education of 
 his grandchildren, and even to dispose of them in 
 marriage, to the exclusion of the parental authority 
 of the prince. A question was submitted to the 
 judges ; and ten out of the twelve, led by Lord 
 Chief Justice Parker, afterwards Lord Macclesfield, 
 decided in favour of the king's claim.' Even the two 
 dissentient judges, who were of opinion that the edu- 
 cation of the king's grandchildren belonged to their 
 father, yet held ' that the care and approbation of 
 their marriages, when grown up, belong to the king 
 of this realm.' 
 
 It was now proposed to enlarge this prerogative, 
 Boyai Mnr- and cxtcnd the king's powers, by the au- 
 
 riage Act, 
 
 177-'. thority of the law. On the 20th of February 
 1772, a message from the king was delivered to 
 both houses of Parliament, stating that he was 
 desirous ' that the right of approving all marriages 
 in the royal family (which ever has belonged to the 
 kings of this realm, as a matter of public concern) 
 may be made effectual ; ' and recommending to their 
 
 tions that she continued her intercourse with Lord Newbottle.— 
 Grcnv. Papers, iv. 209. 
 
 ' St. Tr., XV. 119.i ; Lord Campbell's Lives, iv. p. 621. 
 
 " St. Tr., XV. 1225. 
 
over the Royal Family. 265 
 
 consideration the expediency of guarding ' the 
 descendants of his late Majesty Greorge II.' (other 
 than the issue of princesses married into foreign 
 families), from marrying without the approbation of 
 the king. 
 
 On the following day, the Eoyal INIarriage Bill 
 was presented to the House of Lords. The Prerogative 
 
 . claimfd in 
 
 preamble affirmed the prerogative, as regard to 
 
 ^ ^ i o ' royal mar- 
 
 claimed in the message, to its fullest extent, riages. 
 and the wisdom and expediency of the king's re- 
 commendation. The bill provided that no descend- 
 ant of George II. (except the issue of princesses 
 married into foreign families) should be capable of 
 contracting matrimony, without the king's previous 
 consent, signified imder his sign-manual, and de- 
 clared in council ; and that any marriage contracted 
 without such consent, shoiild be null and void. 
 There was a proviso, however, — which it seems had 
 not been contemplated when the message was 
 delivered, — enabling members of the royal family, 
 above twenty-five years of age, to marry without 
 the king's consent, after having given twelve 
 months' previous notice to the Privy Council, unless 
 in the meantime both Houses of Parliament should 
 signify their disapprobation of the marriage. Tliis 
 concession, it is said, was caused by the resignation 
 of Mr. Fox, who intended to oppose the measure, 
 and by the disapprobation of some of the advisers of 
 the crown.' It was also provided that any person 
 Bolemnising, or assisting, or being present at the 
 
 ' Fox'h Mom., i. 7.5 (H. Wulpole). 
 
266 
 
 Powers of the King 
 
 celebration of such prohibited marriages, should 
 incur the penalties of prcemunire. 
 
 This was unquestionably the king's own measure, 
 and was reluctantly adopted by his ministers. His 
 views of prerogative were exalted ; and in his o\vn 
 family, at least, he was resolved that his authority 
 should be supreme. The absolute control which he 
 now sought for, over members of his family of full 
 age, was not a little startling. First, as to his claim 
 of prerogative. Had it ever yet been asserted to the 
 same extent ? It had been recognised by the ' grand 
 opinion' — as it was called — of the judges in 1718, 
 so far as regarded the king's grandchildren, but no 
 farther ; and it is impossible to read the arguments 
 of the judges in that case, without being impressed 
 ■\\ath the slender grounds, strained constructions of 
 law and precedent, and far-fetched views of expedi- 
 ency, upon whicli their conclusion was founded. As 
 a matter of state policy, it may be necessary that 
 the king should be empowered to negotiate alliances 
 for the royal family, and for that purpose should 
 liave more than parental authority. But the pre- 
 sent claim extended to brothers, of whatever age, — 
 to uncles, and to cousins. So comprehensive a claim 
 Question to could uot be at once admitted. This ques- 
 thejudt-es. ^j^^^ therefore, was put to the judges: 'is 
 tlie king entrusted by law with the care and appro- 
 bation of the marriages of the descendants of liis late 
 JNIajesty Greorge II., other than his present Majesty's 
 own children, during their minorities ? ' As this 
 question extended to all descendants of George II., 
 wliether within tliis kingdom or not, nine judges 
 
over the Royal Family. 
 
 267 
 
 unanimously answered it in the negative ; and to 
 another question, more restricted, they replied, ' that 
 the care and approbation of the marriages of the 
 king's children and grandchildren, and of the pre- 
 sumptive heir to the crown (other than the issue of 
 princesses married into foreign families), do belong 
 to the kings of this realm : but to what other 
 branches of the royal family such care and appro- 
 bation extend, we do not find precisely determined.' ' 
 It was plain that the bill declared the prerogative to 
 be much more extensive than that allowed by the 
 judges. Yet in spite of their opinion, the lord 
 chancellor, Lord Apsley, with an effrontery worthy 
 of Lord Thurlow, said that ' he would defend every 
 clause, every sentence, every word, every syllable, 
 and every letter ' in the bill ; and ' would not con- 
 sent to any amendment whatsoever ! ' The preroga- 
 tive, be asserted, was founded in its ' importance to 
 the state : ' an argument which might be extended 
 to any other power claimed by the crown, on the 
 same ground. 
 
 The arbitrary character of the bill was conspicuous. 
 It might be reasonable to prescribe certain Arbitrary 
 rules for the marriage of the royal family : tl!i's"Act" ° 
 as that they should not marry a subject, — a Koman 
 Catholic, — or the member of any royal house at war 
 with this country, without the consent of the king : 
 but to prescribe no rule at all save the absolute will 
 of the king himself, was a violation of all sound 
 principles of legislation. Again, to extend the 
 
 ' Pari. Hist.; xvii. 387. 
 
268 Powers of tJie King 
 
 minority of princes and princesses to twenty- five 
 created a harsh exception to the general law, in re- 
 gard to marriages.' The prohibition of a marriage 
 might continue until the age of twenty-six ; and 
 required nothing Lut the vote of a Parliament 
 subservient to the crown, to render it perpetual ; 
 aud this not by virtue of any general principle of 
 law — human or divine, — but by the arbitrary will 
 of a superior power. 
 
 But the personal will of the king triumphed over 
 all opposition, whether of argument or nimabers ; and 
 he was implacable against those who opposed it.'^ The 
 bill was passed rapidly through the House of Lords ; 
 though not without one protest, signed by fourteen 
 peers, and another signed by seven, in which the 
 most material objections to the measure were con- 
 cisely expressed. In the Commons the bill met 
 with a more strenuous and protracted opposition : — 
 the Lords' Jom-nals were searched for the opinion of 
 the judges, — and tlie most serious arguments against 
 the measure were ably and learnedly discussed. But 
 
 ' A squib appeared in answer to the objection that a prince 
 might ascend the throne at eighteen, yet might not marry till twenty- 
 five : 
 
 ' Quoth Tom to Dick,—" Thou art a fool, 
 
 And little know'st of life : 
 Alas ! 'tis easier far to rule 
 
 A kingdom, than a wife." ' — PjrZ, Hist. xvii. 407. 
 
 ' Fox's Mem., i. 75. Lord Chatham said of the Bill, 'the doctrine 
 of the Royal Marriage Bill is certainly new-tangled and impudent, 
 and the extcBit of the powers given wanton and tyrannical.' — 
 Letter to Lord Shclburne, April 3id, 1772, Corr., iv. 203. 
 
 Horace Walpole said, "Never was an Act passed against which so 
 much and fur which so little was said.' — Fox's Mem., i. 81. See also 
 Walpolc's Journ., i. 28-7'l. 
 
over the Royal Family. 
 
 269 
 
 it was still carried with a high hand. The door3 of 
 the House were closed against all strangers, — ^peers 
 in vain sought admission below the bar, — and the 
 government even went so far as to refuse the print- 
 ing of the bill, and supported their refusal by a large 
 majority. No amendment was suffered to be made, 
 except one of pedantic form, suggested by the 
 speaker, that the king's consent to a marriage should 
 be signified under the gi"eat seal ; and on the 24th 
 March the bill was passed. Attempts have since 
 been made, without success, to repeal this law,' and 
 to evade its provisions ; but it has been inflexibly 
 maintained. 
 
 In 1785, the Prince of Wales contracted a clan- 
 destine marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert, a ^^^^^^ 
 Koman Catholic. His marriage being with- X'^p;^nceoJ 
 out the king's consent, and consequently 
 invalid, the princely libertine ventured to satisfy 
 the fair lady's scruples, and to indulge his own pas- 
 sions ; while he was released from the sacred obli- 
 gations of the man-iage tie, and saved from the for- 
 feiture of his succession to the crown, which would 
 have been the legal consequence of a valid marriage 
 with a Eoman Catholic. Even his pretended 
 marriage, though void in law, would have raised 
 embarrassing doubts and discussions concerning the 
 penal provisions of the Bill of Kights ; and, if con- 
 fessed, would imdoubtedly have exposed Lim to 
 obloquy and discredit. The prince, therefore, denied 
 the fact of his marriage ; and made his best friend 
 
 ' By Lord Ilollaiid, in 1820 ; lliinsard's Dcbiitos, Now Ser., i. 
 1099. 
 
2 / O Powers of the King 
 
 the unconscious instrument of this falsehood and 
 deception.' 
 
 The Duke of Sussex was twice married without 
 Marriages the couseut of the crowu : iirst, in 1793, to 
 
 o£ the Duke -n/i- i-i -tc 
 
 of Sussex. Lady Augusta Murray ; and, later m life, 
 to Lady Cecilia Underwood. His first marriage hav- 
 ing been solemnised abroad, a question was raised 
 whether it was rendered invalid by the Eoyal 
 JMarriage Act. It was again celebrated in England, 
 where it was unquestionably illegal. 
 
 The king immediately directed a suit of nullity 
 of marriage to be commenced by his proctor, and it 
 was adjudged by the Court of Arches, that the 
 marriage was absolutely null and void.'^ 
 
 In 1831, the law officers of the crown were con- 
 sulted by the government as to the validity of this 
 marriage ; and their opinions confirmed the judg- 
 ment of the Court of Arches. On the death of the 
 Duke of Sussex in 1843, Sir Augustus D'Este, the 
 son of his Royal Highness by this marriage, claimed 
 the dukedom and other honours of his father. The 
 marriage had been solemnised at Rome in 1793, 
 according to the rights of the Church of England, 
 by a clergyman of that establishment, and would have 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxin.. 1070. Soe an oxcellent letter from Mr. Fox to 
 tlie Prince, Doc. lOtl', 1785, dissuiidii'g his Koyal Highness from 
 the marriage.— i^Vx',? Mem., ii. 278, 284, 287. The prince confessed 
 his marriage to Lord Grey ; Unci., 289. Lord J. Russell's Life of 
 Pox, ii. 177, et siq. Lord Holland's Mem. of the Wiiig Party, ii. 
 123-142,148. Langdale's Mem. of Mrs. Fit.zherbcrt. The general 
 incidents of this discreditable marriage do not fall within the do&ign 
 ot this work: but a most animated and graphic narrative of them 
 will be found in Mr. Massey's History, vol. iii. 315-331. 
 
 Hesekino v Lady A. Murray, Addam's Peports, ii. 400; Piu'n'a 
 Eccl. Law, ii. 433 ; Ann. Reg. l"791, p. 23. 
 
over the Royal Family. 271 
 
 been a valid contract between British subjects but 
 for the restrictions of the Eoyal Marriage Act ; and 
 it was contended before the House of Lords, that the 
 operation of that Act could not be extended beyond 
 the British dominions. But it was the unanimous 
 opinion of the judges, — in which tlie House of Lords 
 concurred, — that the prohibition of the statute was 
 personal, and followed the persons to whom it applied, 
 out of the realm, and beyond the British jurisdiction. 
 It was accordingly decided that the claimant had 
 not made out his claim.' 
 
 The prerogative of the king to direct the educa- 
 tion of his grandchildren, which had been j.j,„p,^tj(,n 
 established in 1718, was again asserted in cbrrVdtwf 
 1804. The king claimed the guardianship 
 of the Princess Charlotte ; and the Prince of Wales, 
 her father, perplexed with divided councils, was long 
 in doubt whether he should concede or contest the 
 right.^ At length, he appears to have agreed that 
 the king should have the direction of the princess's 
 education. The understanding not being very pre- 
 cise, a misapprehension arose as to its conditions ; 
 and it was said that the prince had withdrawn 
 from hia engagement.'' But Mr. Pitt ultimately 
 
 ' Clark and Finnclly's Reports, xi. 8.')-15l. 
 
 ' Lord Maliiiosbiiry says : 'The two factions pulled the prince dif- 
 forent ways ; Ladit's Moira, Ilntchinson, and Mrs. Fitzlierbert, were 
 for his rcdint; the child to the kincr ; the ])uke of Clarenoe and 
 Devonshiro House most violent apainst it, and the prince ever in- 
 clines to the faction he saw last. In the Devonshire House Cabal, 
 Lady Melbourne and Mrs. Fox act conspicuous iiarts, so that the 
 alternative for our future (jueen seems to bu whether i\[rs. i'cjx or 
 ilrs. Fitzherbert shall have the ascendency.' — Malm. Diar., iv. 313. 
 
 • Letters of Mr. T. Orenville to the ManjutDS of Uuckingham, 
 
272 Powers of the King. 
 
 arranged this difference by obtaining the removal 
 of the princess to Windsor, without excluding the 
 prince from a share in the control of her education.' 
 
 Nov. 26th, Dec. 1st and 11th, 1804 ; Court and Cab. of Geo. III., 
 iii. 372, 385, 389, 391. 
 
 " Ihid., 396, 398. Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 531. Lord Stan- 
 hope's Life of Pitt, iv. 229, 254. 
 
273 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE HOUSE OF LORDS : CONSTANT ADDITIONS TO ITS NUJinERS : 
 
 PROFUSE CREATIONS IN THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. AND SINCE. 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE PEERS OF SCOTLAND AND IBELAND : REPRESEN- 
 TATIVE CHARACTER OF THE PEERAGE :— LIFE PEERAGES. — THE 
 
 BI.SHDPS. POLITICAL POSITION OF THE HOUSE OP LORDS : ITS 
 
 ENLARGEMENT A SOURCE OF POWER : THREATENED CREATION OF 
 
 PEERS TO CARRY THE REFORM BILL. THE ARISTOCRACY, AND 
 
 CLASSES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. 
 
 NoTHiNa in the history of our constitution is more 
 remarkable than the permanence of every Permanence 
 
 r ■ PI of British 
 
 institution forming part of the government insutmions. 
 of the country, while undergoing continual, and 
 often extraordinary changes in its powers, privileges, 
 and influence. The crown, as we have seen, remains 
 with all its prerogatives undiminished, and vdth. its 
 sources of influence increased ; yet in the exercise of 
 its great powers by responsible ministers, it has been 
 gradually controlled by Parliament and public 
 opinion, until the authority of the crown in govern- 
 ment and legislation, bears as little resemblance to 
 the sway of the Tudor and Stuart kings, as to that 
 of Louis XIV. 
 
 So also the House of Lords continues to hold its 
 high place in the state, next to the croAvn, ^^^^ 
 and still enjoys the greater part of its 
 ancient privileges. Yet no institution has under- 
 gone greater changes. In its numbers, its composi- 
 tion, and its iuflueiicc, it is diflicult to recognise its 
 
 VOL. I. T 
 
2 74 House of Lords. 
 
 identity with the ' Great Council ' of a former age. 
 But the changes which it has undergone have served 
 to bring this great institution into harmony with 
 other parts of the constitution, and with the social 
 condition of the people, upon which time has worked 
 equal mutations. 
 
 The continual additions which have been made to 
 Constant number of temporal peers, sitting in 
 
 to us'°"^ Parliament, have been so remarkable as to 
 numbers. change the very constitution and character 
 of the House of Lords. No more than twenty-nine 
 temporal peers received writs of summons to the first 
 Parliament of Henry VII. ; and this number had in- 
 creased at the death of Queen Elizabeth to fifty-nine. 
 The Stuarts were profuse in their creations,' and 
 raised the number of the peerage to about one 
 hundred and fifty ;^ which William III. and Queen 
 Anne further increased to one hundred and sixty- 
 eight.' In the latter reign no less than twelve 
 Represen- P<^<^rs wcre Created at once, to seciue a ma- 
 j^rTof jority in favoiur of the court, which they 
 .Scotland. ^-^ Yery day of their introduction.* 
 
 ' James I created sixty-two ; Charles I., fifty-nine ; diaries II., 
 sixty-four; and James II., eight; being a total number of one 
 hundred and ninety-three ; but during these reigns ninety-nine 
 peerages became extinct, and thus the total addition to the peer- 
 age was ninety-four. From returns delivered to tlie House of 
 Lords in 1"19. As many of these peerages were sold by James 
 I. and Charl.-s II., it is surprising that the creations were not 
 even more numerous. 
 
 ' In 1661, one hundred and thirty-nine lords were summoned. 
 In 1696, tlie total number of temporal peers, exclusive of minors, 
 Eoman Catholics, and non-jurors, was about one hundred and 
 forty. — Macaulny's Hist., iv. 7'53. 
 
 ' See list of one hundred and fifty-seven Peers in the first Par- 
 liament of George I., capable of voting. — Pari. Hi<t., vii. 27. 
 
 * 2iid January, 1711. Lords' Joiirn., xix. 353 ; Somerville's 
 
Peerage Bill of ijk). 275 
 
 In this same reign were also added, on the Union 
 with Scotland, sixteen representative peers, — a 
 number scarcely adequate to represent an ancient 
 peerage, little less numerous than that of England,' 
 in a House of Lords, in which sat twenty-six bishops 
 to make laws for Presbyterian Scotland. But if 
 some injustice was then done to the Scottish peerage, 
 it has since been amply redressed, as will be seen 
 hereafter. 
 
 This rapid increase of the peerage had been re- 
 garded with much jealousy by that privi- TiiePeer- 
 
 f , 1 , , . , age BUI of 
 
 leged body, whose individual dignity and ina. 
 power were proportionately diminished. Early in 
 the reign of George I., several new creations further 
 aroused the apprehensions of the peers ; and, in 
 1719, partly to gratify their lordships, — but more, 
 perhaps, to further party objects,* — a bill was brought 
 into the House of Lords by the Duke of Somerset, 
 proposing an extraordinary limitation of the royal 
 prerogative, — to which the king himself was induced 
 to signify his consent. The crown was to be re- 
 strained from the creation of more than six beyond 
 the existing number of one hundred and seventy- 
 eight peerages, — the power being still reserved of 
 creating a new peerage whenever a peerage should 
 
 Queen Anne, 460 ; Swift's Four Last Years of Queen Anne, 44 ; 
 Smollett's Hist,, ii. 224. 
 
 ' There were one hundred and fifty-four Scottish Peers at the time 
 of the Union. The roll is printed in Lords' Journ., xviii. 458. 
 Lord llarersham said upwards of one hundred peers would be dis- 
 franchifiod. 
 
 The Prince of Wales was suppo.sed not to be friendly to the 
 Whig p;irly then in power, which was said to be the reawn why 
 Lord Sunderland per.-!uaded the king to consent to the bill. 
 
 .T 2 
 
2~(> Hotise of Lords. 
 
 become extinct ; and instead of sixteen representative 
 peers of Scotland, it was proposed that twenty-five 
 liereditary peers should have seats in the House of 
 Lords. This bill soon reached a third reading ; but 
 not until it had raised so miich dissatisfaction in the 
 House of Commons and the country, that its promo- 
 ters thought prudent to abandon it. In the next 
 session, however, another bill was introduced, by the 
 I)uke of Buckingham, and sent down to the Com- 
 mons ; where, after an effectual exposure of its un- 
 constitutional character, — especially by Sir Eichard 
 Steele, and Sir Eobert Walpole, — it was rejected by 
 a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine voices, 
 against one hundred and seventy-seven.^ It was, in 
 truth, an audacious attempt to limit the prerogative 
 of the crown, and discourage the granting of just 
 rewards to merit, for the sake of perpetuating a 
 close aristocratic body, — independent of the crown, 
 and irresponsible to the people. 
 
 The first two kings of the House of Hanover con- 
 Ivnmber of tinned to make occasional additions to the 
 tin? in peerage, which on the accession of George 
 ment 17C0. HI. amounted to one hundred and seventy- 
 four. Of this number, thirteen minors, and twelve 
 Koman Catholics, were incapable of sitting and 
 votinsr in Parliament.^ 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., rii. 589-594. Coxe's Life of Walpole, i. IIS. 
 Pari. Hist., vii. 606-627. Coxo's Life of Walpole, i. 117-125; 
 ii. 551. Sir Robert Walpole also opposed the measure in a pam- 
 phlet entitled, 'The Thoupjlits of a Member of the Lower House 
 lu relation to a project fur restraining and limitino; the power of 
 the Crown in the future creation of Peers.' Steele likewise op- 
 posed it in 'Tiie Plebeian,' while Addison warmly supported it in 
 ' The Old Wl-.ig.' . • 
 
 Court and City Eegister for 1700. 
 
Profuse Creations by George III. 277 
 
 Great as had been the additions to the peerage 
 since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, they 
 were destined to be far exceeded in this ^''^f"^ 
 and succeeding reigns. The creation of George^ 
 peers, having become an expedient for in- ' 
 creasing the influence of the crown, and the strength 
 of parties, was freely resorted to by successive 
 ministers. In the first ten years of this reign forty- 
 two peers were created, or raised to a higher order 
 in the peerage.' 
 
 Lord North was liberal in the creation of peers, 
 mth a \4ew to strengthen his own position creauona 
 
 ° bj Lord 
 
 as minister, and to carry out the policy of ^orth. 
 the court. In 1776, before the continued arrears 
 of the civil list were again brought before Parlia- 
 ment, twelve new peers were created, one baron was 
 raised to the dig-nity of a viscount, and three were 
 promoted to earldoms.^ In 1780, he created seven 
 new barons.^ During his administration he created 
 or promoted about thirty British peers.* In Ireland, 
 he distributed honours still more liberally. In 1777 
 he created eighteen barons, and raised seven barons 
 and five viscounts to higher dignities in tlie 
 peerage.* 
 
 ]Mr. Pitt, himself disdaining honours,^ dispensed 
 them to others with greater profusion than creations 
 any former minister. Duiing the first five Put. 
 
 ' Btatson's Political Index, i. 133. 
 
 ' LortI North's Aclministnition, 257. Walpolc's Journ., ii. 34. 
 Donne's Corr. of George III. with Lord North, ii. 22. 
 ' Wiiljiole's Journ., ii. 4-6. 
 
 * B. iit,son'8 Political Index, i. 137. 
 
 * AValpole called thorn "a mob of nobility.' Joum., ii. 58. 
 
 * In 1790 he declined the Garter, which the king pres.sed him tC 
 accept. — Lord Stanhopes IMe, of Pitt, ii. 85 ; Ji'ids, App., xiii. 
 
2/8 House of Lords. 
 
 years of his admiDistration, he had created nearly 
 fifty peers, and secured a safe majority.' The influ- 
 ence he had himself derived from thus gratifying his 
 supporters, suggested to him the precaution of 
 restricting the regent in the exercise of this pre- 
 Eestric- rogative. This restriction he proposed to 
 poL^^™" extend to the entire period of the regency, 
 regenMn which, howover, he trusted would be of 
 short duration. Having created peers to 
 consolidate his own power, he was unwilling to leave 
 the same instrument in the hands of his opponents. 
 Had his proposal taken effect, such a restraint, — 
 extending over the whole regency, — was open to 
 many of the objections which are admitted to apply 
 to the more extensive limitation contemplated in 
 1719. It was said by ]\Ir. Pitt that the exercise of 
 the prerogative was required to reward merit, to 
 recruit the peerage from the great landowners and 
 other opulent classes, and to render the crown inde- 
 pendent of factious combinations among the exist- 
 ing peers.^ All these grounds were as applicable to 
 the regency as to any other time : while the fact of 
 a powerful minister having recently made so large an 
 addition to the House of Lords from his own party, 
 R^tric- was the strongest argument against the 
 ingthe proposed restriction. To tie up the hands 
 r|gency o regent, was to perpetuate the power 
 
 ' In the debates upon tlie Regency, Mr. Fox said forty-two, and 
 Mr. Sheridan forty-eight. From Beatson's Political Index (i. 140) 
 the latter statement appears to be strictly accurate. Pari. Hist., 
 xxvii. 967, &c. 
 
 ■■' His speech on the 16th Jan. 1789, is so imperfectly reported, 
 that liis reasoning can only be gathered from the context of the 
 Uebate, in wiiicli his observations are adverted to. 
 
Mr. Piifs Peerages. 2 79 
 
 of the minister. A similar condition was after- 
 wards imposed upon the regent in 1810 : but, being 
 limited to one year, was exposed to less objection. 
 
 In 1792, when Mr. Pitt had been eight years in 
 power, he had created between sixty and continued 
 
 1 /< 1 creations by 
 
 seventy peers,' of whom the greater part Mr. Pitt. 
 owed their elevation to the parliamentary support 
 which they had themselves given to the minister, or 
 to their interest in returning members to the House 
 of Commons. In 1796 and 1797, he created and 
 promoted no less than thirty-five peers, — within the 
 space of two years.^ And, in 1801, he had created 
 or promoted, during the seventeen years of his ad- 
 ministration, upwards of one hundred and forty 
 peers, sitting by hereditary right.' Can we wonder 
 if some of these were unworthy of nobility ? He 
 also introduced as members of that body, iu 1801, 
 the Irish representative peers and bishops. It was 
 not without misgivings that the king and jNIr. Pitt 
 consented to so great an extension of the peerage 
 but it was forced upon them by the importunity of 
 
 . ' Mr. Sheridan's speech on Parliamentary Reform, April 30th, 
 1792. Mr. Courtonay, speaking in 1792, said: 'It had been ii 
 matter of complaint that twenty-eight peers had lieeu made in the 
 reign of George I., which, it was argued, would destroy the balance 
 of power in the other branches of the constitution.' lUit Pitt 'had. 
 created three times as many.' Pari. Hist , xxix. 1 19'1. The number 
 of creations and promoti ns appears to have been sixty-four. Beat- 
 son's Political Index, i. 114. 
 
 - lieatson's Political Index, i. 147. Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, 
 iii. 80. 
 
 ' ]5eatson's Political Index, i. 149, el seq. Collins' Peerage, by 
 Sir Egerton Brydges, viii. 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxvii. 1198, xxix. 1330, xxxiii. 1197; Butler's 
 Rem., i. 76. 
 
 * Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 307, App. xiii. ; and see WraxaU'B 
 Mem., iii. 149. 
 
House of Lords. 
 
 iriends and partisans, — by the rivalry of old and 
 new families, — and by the just claims of merit and 
 public service. Meanwhile, a host of Tory nobles 
 in one house, and their nominees in the other, were 
 sure allies and champions of the com't. 
 
 The peerage of Ireland, on the union of that 
 Fepresenta- couutry, was dealt with, in some measure, 
 
 Tive peers of i n 
 
 Ireland. upou different principles from that of Scot- 
 land. The principle of representation was followed ; 
 twenty-eight representative peers being admitted to 
 seats in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. But 
 they were elected, not for the Parliament only, as 
 in Scotland, but for life. Again, no Scottish peers 
 could be created after the Union : but the peerage 
 of Scotland was perpetuated, as an ancient and ex- 
 clusive aristocracy. It was otherwise with Ireland. 
 It was admitted that the peerage of that country 
 was too numerous, and ought gradually to be dim- 
 inished ; and with this view, the royal prerogative 
 was so far restricted, that one Irish peer only can be 
 created, whenever three Irish peerages, — in existence 
 at the time of the Union, — have become extinct. 
 But the object of this provision being ultimately to 
 reduce the number of Irish peers, — not having here- 
 ditary seats in Parliament, — to one hundred, it was 
 also provided that when such reduction had been 
 effected, one new Irish peerage may be created as 
 often as a peerage becomes extinct, or as often as 
 an Irish peer is entitled, by descent or creation, to a 
 peerage of the United Kingdom.' 
 
 ' In 18.j9. the Irish peerage consisted, besides the King of Han- 
 over and ouc Peeress, of 11)3, of whom 73 are als j English poeis. 
 
Increase of tJte Peerage. 281 
 
 Another peculiar arrangement, made on the union 
 of Ireland, was the permission granted to permission 
 Irish peers of sitting in the House of Com- pei^'' 
 mons for any place in Great Britain, — a Hou*eof*''* 
 privilege of which they have extensively 
 availed themselves.' 
 
 At the same time, an addition of four lords spirit- 
 ual was made to the House of Lords, to re- insh r. pre- 
 present the episcopal body of Ireland, and bLsUops. 
 to sit by rotation of sessions ; of whom an archbishop 
 of the Church in Ireland was always to be one.^ At 
 the imion there were twenty bishoprics and arch- 
 bishoprics of the Church in Ireland ; but provision 
 was made in 1833, by the Church Temporalities 
 Act, for the reduction of that number to ten ^ 
 
 Since the union, further additions have con- 
 tinually been made to the Peerag e of the Peerages of 
 
 TT • 1 T^- 1 1 1 ■ ^1 the United 
 
 United Kingdom ; and an analysis of the Kingdom, 
 existing peerage presents some singular results. In 
 
 It will probably be more than a century before the number is 
 reduced to 100. Note to Lord Comw.iUis' Corr., iii. 214. 
 
 ' By the Reform Kill of 1860, it was proposed to extend this 
 privilege to places in Ireland, as well as Great Britain. In ' A 
 Letter to the Earl of Listowel, M.P. for St. .-Vlbans, by a " .Joint of 
 the Tail,"' 1841, the position of his lordship as a peer of Ireland 
 and a member of the House of Commons, was thus adverted to: 
 ' A peer, and in your own right — and j'et a peer without rights! 
 Possessor of a name, of a diguity having no better reality than in a 
 sound. . . . Tnie, you are at this moment a leirislator, but by no 
 right of birth, and only as a commoner; and, again, as representa- 
 tive for an English town, not for one in Ireland. However great 
 your stake in that country, you could not, though fifty places were 
 held open for you, accept one ; your marrowless dignity gliding 
 gho'it-liki- in, to forbid the proffered seat.' 
 
 ' 15y the Act of 1869 for disestablishing the Church in Ireland, 
 theie bi.sho{)S lost their seats in Parliament. 
 
 • 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 37, schedule B. 
 
282 House of Lords. 
 
 1860, the House of Lords consisted of four hundred 
 Summary of ^'^^ sixtj lords, Spiritual and temporal, 
 creations. rpj^^ number of hereditary peers of the 
 United Kingdom had risen to thi'ee hundred and 
 eighty-iive, exclusive of the peers of the blood 
 royal. Of these peerages, one hundred and twenty- 
 eight were created in the long reign of George 
 III. ;' forty-two in the reign of George IV. and 
 one hundred and seventeen since the accession of 
 William IV.^ Thus two hundred and eighty- 
 seven peerages were created, or raised to their 
 present rank, since the accession of George III. ; or 
 very nearly three-fourths of the entire number. 
 But this increase is exhibited by the existing peer- 
 age alone, — notwithstanding the extinction or merger 
 of numerous titles, in the interval. The actual 
 number of creations during the reign of George III. 
 amounted to three hundred and eighty-eight ; or 
 more than the entire present number of the peer- 
 age." 
 
 No more than ninety-eight of the peerages ex- 
 Antiqnity of isting iu 1860 could claim an earlier crea- 
 
 the peerage. ^-^^^ ^j^j^j^ ^.j^g GoOrgC III. : butthis 
 
 fact is an imperfect criterion of the antiquity of the 
 peerage. When the possessor of an ancient dignity 
 
 ' Viz., two dukes, thirteen marquesses, tliirty-eiglit earls, eight 
 viscounts, and sixty-sevon barons. 
 
 ^ One duke, two marquesses, seven earls, three viscounts, twenty- 
 nine barons. 
 
 ' Two dukos, five marquesses, twenty earls, six viscounts, eight^'- 
 four barons. 
 
 ■* The followinc; Table, prepared by the late Mr. Pulman, Olaren- 
 eieux King of Arms, was placed at my disposal by the kindncf-s of 
 hib sou : 
 
Increase of the Peerage. 283 
 
 is promoted to a higher grade in the peerage, his 
 lesser dignity becomes merged in the greater, but 
 more recent title. An earl of the fifteenth centiuy, 
 is transformed into a marquess of the nineteenth. 
 Many of the families from which existing peers are 
 descended, are of great antiquity ; and were noble 
 before their admission to the peerage. Xor must 
 the ancient nobility of the Scottish peerage be for- 
 gotten in the persons of those high-bom men, who 
 now figure on the roll, as peers of the United King- 
 dom, of comparatively recent creation. 
 
 Great as this increase of peerages has been, it has 
 borne no proportion to the demands made xnmerons 
 
 TT» r- 1 • claims to 
 
 upon the favour of the crown. \\ e find m peerages. 
 Lord Malmesbury's Diary for 1 807 this entry : — 
 ' Lord Whitworth and Mr. Heathcote (Sir William's 
 son) urged me to apply for peerages. I told them 
 truly, there were no less than fifty-three candidates 
 for peerage, and to none of which the king would 
 
 Statement shounng the number of Peerages created within periods of 
 Twenty Years from 1700 to 1821. 
 
 
 Dnkes 
 
 Mar. 
 
 quesses 
 
 Earls 
 
 Vis- 
 counts 
 
 Barons 
 
 From 1700 to 1720 inclusive 
 
 22 
 
 14 
 
 33 
 
 30 
 
 58 
 
 „ 1721 10 17 10 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 
 8 
 
 19 
 
 „ 1741 to 1760 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 24 
 
 15 
 
 34 
 
 „ 1761 to 1780 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 14 
 
 9 
 
 46 
 
 „ 1781tolS0i) 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 24 
 
 23 
 
 91 
 
 „ 1801 to 1821 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 37 
 
 34 
 
 80 
 
 
 37 
 
 37 
 
 146 
 
 119 
 
 328 
 
 Total nuiTilier of pccriipps created. C67 ; of which 388 were croated 
 between 17(>1 and 1821. From 1830 to l.Sfio, 15.') peerages (includini; 
 promotions ) were created. From 1861 to 1870 inclusive, 60 peer.iges 
 \rere created. — Pari. Return, No. 81, 1871. 
 
284 House of Lords, 
 
 listen,' • And every minister since that time, has 
 probably been obliged to resist the solicitations of 
 not less than ten earnest claimants, for every peerage 
 -ivhich he has advised the crown to bestow. "When 
 Lord Grrey was contemplating the creation of nearly 
 one hundred peers in 1832, there was no lack of 
 candidates, although the occasion was neither 
 flattering to their self-esteem, nor free from offen- 
 sive imputations. And, more recently, another 
 minister discovered, in a single year, that upwards 
 of thirty of his supporters were ambitious of the 
 peerage, as an acknowledgment of their friendship 
 towards himself, and devotion to his party. 
 
 With this large increase of numbers, the peerage 
 Changes in Undergone fm-ther changes, no less re- 
 tlon^ofuie^' niarkable, in its character and composition. 
 Peerage. louger a couucil of the magTiates of 
 
 the land, — the territorial aristocracy, the descend- 
 ants or representatives of the barons of the olden 
 time ; but in each successive age, it has assumed a 
 more popular and representative character. ]Men 
 who have attained the first eminence in war and 
 diplomacy, at the bar or in the senate, — men wisest 
 in council, and most eloquent in debate, — have taken 
 their place in its distinguished roll ; and their 
 historic names represent the glories of the age from 
 which they sprung. Men who have amassed fortunes 
 in commerce, or whose ancestors have enriched 
 themselves by their own industry, have also been 
 admitted to the privileged circle of the peerage. 
 
 ' Lord ^falju. Diary, iv. 397. 
 
A Itcred Character of tJte Peerage. 2S5 
 
 Men of the highest intellects, achievements, and 
 wealth, the peerage has adopted and appropriated 
 to itself : men of secondary pretensions, it has still 
 left to the people. 
 
 A body so constantly changed, and recruited from 
 all classes of society, loses much of its dis- its repre- 
 
 1 T 1 -n • • sentative 
 
 tiuctive hereditary character, reers sitting character, 
 in Parliament by virtue of an hereditary right, share 
 their privilege "vs-ith so many, who by personal pre- 
 tensions have recently been placed beside them, that 
 the hereditary principle becomes divested of exclu- 
 sive power, and invidious distinction. 
 
 At the same time, the principle of representation 
 has been largely introduced into the con- Extension 
 stitution of the House of Lords. The represen- 
 
 tative 
 
 Sixteen representative peers 01 Scotland, principle, 
 elected only for a Parliament ; the twenty-eight 
 representative peers of Ireland, elected for life, 
 — form a body as numerous as the entire peerage 
 in the time of Henry VIII. And when to these 
 are added the twenty-six English bishops, holding 
 their seats for life, — the total number of Lords not 
 sitting by virtue of hereditary right, becomes a 
 considerable element in the constitution of the 
 Upper House.' 
 
 In analysing these numbers, however, the grow- 
 ing disproportion between the representa- nigpropo,. 
 tive lords and the hereditary peers cannot htm'Tw^" 
 fail to be apparent. If sixteen Scottish ""nJlve" 
 peeis were deemed an inadequate represen- 
 
 ' There are seventy lords of Parliament not sitting by hfreditary 
 riirht. 
 
286 House of Lords. 
 
 tation of the ancient peerage of Scotland in the 
 reign of Anne, — what are they now, when the peer- 
 age of the United Kingdom has been trebled in 
 numbers? But this inequality, — appai'ently exces- 
 sive, — has been corrected by tJie admission of 
 Scottish peers to hereditary seats in the British 
 Scottish House of Lords. In 1860 there were 
 
 peers cren- 
 
 ted^pcers seveuty-eight Scottish peers,' of whom no 
 Britain. less than forty, — or more than half, — sat in 
 Parliament by virtue of British peerages created in 
 their favoiir since the union. 
 
 Great was the jealousy with which the House of 
 Their right Lords at first regarded the admission of 
 to sit denied, g^ottish pecrs to the peerage of Great 
 Britain. In 1711, the Duke of Hamilton was 
 created Duke of Brandon, of the peerage of Great 
 Britain : when the Lords declared, by a majority of 
 five, that no patent of honour granted to any peer 
 of Great Britain who was a peer of Scotland at the 
 time of the Union, entitled such peer to sit and 
 vote in Parliament, or to sit upon the trial of peers.^ 
 The undoubted prerogative of the queen was thus 
 boldly set aside for a time, by an adverse determi- 
 nation of the House of Lords. 
 
 At the time of this decision, the Duke of Queens- 
 Rishtsot berry was sitting by virtue of a British 
 Pwread- peerage, created since the union. The 
 mitteiL determination of the Lords prevented, for 
 
 ' There were also two peeresses, and the Prince of Wales, who is 
 Duke of Rothesay. 
 
 - Lords' .lonrn., xix. 346; Peere Williams, i. 582; Burnet's Owu 
 Time, vi. 8fi ; Somerville's Queen Anne, 549. 
 
Rig Ids of Scottish Peers. 28 7 
 
 many years, the direct admission of any otb^r 
 Scottish peers to the peerage of Great Britain ; but 
 this restriction was cleverly evaded by frequent 
 creations of their eldest sons, who, having obtained 
 seats in the House of Lords, succeeded, on the death 
 of their fathers, to their Scottish peerages.' At 
 length, in 1782, the question of the disability of 
 Scottish peers to receive patents of peerage in Great 
 Britain, was referred to the Judges, who were un- 
 animously of opinion that no such disability had 
 ever been created by the Act of Union. The Lords, 
 therefore, reversed the decision of 1711 ; and hence- 
 forth Scottish peers were freely admitted to the 
 ranks of the British peerage.* 
 
 In 1787, another important question arose, affect- 
 ing the rights of the Scottish peerage. It ^^^^ 
 had been the plain intention of the Act of 'h,'S/'rU;M9 
 Union, that the peers of Scotland, who were tativel^re 
 denied a seat in the Parliament of Great 
 Britain, should be entitled to representation by 
 members of tlieir own body, subject to the same 
 political conditions as themselves. The right of 
 the crown to admit Scottish peers to the peerage of 
 Great Britain having at length been recognised, the 
 king exercised the right in favour of the Earl of 
 Abercorn and the Duke of Queensberry, — both of 
 whom were sitting, at that time, in the House of 
 Lords, as representative peers of Scotland. That 
 these noblemen, who now sat by hereditary right, 
 
 ' Walpole'g Mom. of Geo. III., ii. 412. 
 
 ' 6th June, 1782 ; Lords' Journ., xxxvi. 517. 
 
288 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 sliould continue to be the representatives of the 
 Scottish peerage, was a constitutional anomaly which 
 could not easily be maintained. As well might it 
 have been contended that a member of the Lower 
 House continued to represent the constituents by 
 whom he had been elected, notwithstanding his 
 elevation to a seat in the House of Peers. In 1736, 
 indeed, the Duke of Athol had inherited the Barony 
 of Strange, and had continued to sit as a represen- 
 tative peer, without any decision of the House of 
 Lords, or any question being raised concerning his 
 legal position. But now Lord Stormont brought 
 the matter before the House of Lords, in a clear and 
 vmanswerable argument ; and though he was boldly 
 opposed by Lord Thurlow, the House resolved that 
 the Earl of Abercorn and the Duke of Queensberry 
 ]iad ceased to sit as representatives of the peerage of 
 Scotland.' 
 
 The two peers thus disqualified from sitting as 
 representatives, immediately proceeded to vote as 
 Scottish peers for their successors, in contravention 
 of a resolution of the House of Lords, in 1708. An 
 attempt was made to defend their right to vote, and 
 to cast doubts upon the former determination of the 
 House : but the Lords were not to be convinced ; 
 and directed a copy of the resolution of January 21, 
 1708-9, to be transmitted to the Lord Registrar of 
 Scotland, with an 'injunction to him that he do 
 conform thereto.' For a time this order was 
 
 ' Lords' .Tourn., xxxvii. 594 ; P:irl. Ilist., xxvi. 596. 
 ^ Pari. Hist., xxvi. 1158 (May 18, 1787); Lords' Journ., xxxvii. 
 709. 
 
Rights of Scottish Peers. 289 
 
 observed : but in 1793, it was superseded by another 
 decision ; and since that time, all peers of Scotland 
 have been permitted to vote for representatives.' 
 
 Meanwhile, the admission of Scottish peers to 
 hereditary seats in the House of Lords, is present 
 tending to a singular result. At no distant the'scott^h 
 period, the Scottish peerage will probably p**^"^""*- 
 become absorbed in that of the United Kingdom. 
 One half their number have already been absorbed : 
 more may hereafter be admitted to the House of 
 Lords ; and, as no new creations can be made, we 
 may foresee the ultimate extinction of all but sixteen 
 Scottish peers, not embraced in the British peerage. 
 These sixteen peers, instead of continuing a system 
 of self-election, will then probably be created here- 
 ditary peers of Parliament. The Act of Union will 
 have worked itself out ; and a Parliamentary incor- 
 poration of the two countries will be consummated, — 
 more complete than any which the most sanguine 
 promoters of the Union could, in their visions of the 
 future, have foreshadowed. 
 
 A similar absorption of the Irish peerage into the 
 peerage of the United Kingdom has also p,i,jent 
 been observable, though, by the terms of uTirtsV' 
 the Act of Union, the full number of one '^"'"'^ 
 hundred Irish peers will continue to be maintained. 
 In 1860, there were one hundred and ninety-three 
 Irish peers,^ of whom seventy-one had seats in Par- 
 
 ' Cases of Duke of Queensberry and Earl of Abercorn, 6'h June, 
 1793. Lords' Journ., xxxix. 726. 
 
 • There is also one perress ; and the King of Hanover is Earl of 
 Armagh in the pceraj^e of Ireland. 
 
 VOL. I. U 
 
House of Lords. 
 
 liament, as peers of the United Kingdom. Thus, 
 the peers of Ireland sitting in Parliament, — includ- 
 ing the representative peers, — amounted to ninety- 
 nine. 
 
 By this fusion of the peerages of the three king- 
 Fusion of doms, the House of Lords has grown at once 
 
 the peer- 
 ages of the more national, and more representative in 
 
 three king- 
 doms, its character. As diflferent classes of 
 
 society have become represented there, so different 
 nationalities have also acquired a wider representa- 
 tion. Nor ought it to be overlooked that Scotland 
 and Ireland are furtlier represented in the House of 
 Lords by numerous commoners, of Scottish and Irish 
 birth, who have been raised to the dignity of the 
 peerage for distinguished services, or other eminent 
 qualifications. 
 
 But all temporalpeers,— whether English, Scottish, 
 Hereditary or Irish, and whether sitting by hereditary 
 of the^peer- right or by election, — have been ennobled 
 in blood, and transmit their dignities to 
 their heirs. Hereditary descent has been the charac- 
 teristic of the peerage, and — with the exception 
 of the bishops — of the constitution of the House of 
 Lords. 
 
 In 1856, however. Her ]Majesty was advised to 
 Defects in introduce among the hereditary peers of the 
 late juris- realm, a new class of peers, created for life 
 the Lords. Only. W(>ll-foundcd complaints had been 
 made of the manner in which the appellate juris- 
 diction of the House of Lords had been exercised. 
 The highest court of appeal was often without 
 judges, theiv place being filled by peers unlearned 
 
Life Peerages. 
 
 291 
 
 in the law, who sat as members of the court, without 
 affecting to participate in its judgments. This had 
 been an evil of long standing ; though it had not, 
 until lately, aroused the vigilance of suitors and the 
 public. For some years after the Eevolution, there 
 had not been a single law-lord in the House, — Lord 
 Somers having heard appeals as Lord Keeper. 
 When that distinguished lawyer was at length 
 admitted to a seat in the House of Peers, he was the 
 only law-lord. During the greater part of the 
 reigns of Greorge II. and George III., appeals had 
 been heard by Lord Hardwicke, Lord Mansfield, 
 Lord Thurlow, and Lord Eldon, sitting in judicial 
 solitude, — while two mute, unlearned lords were to 
 be seen in the background, representing the collective 
 wisdom of the court. In later times a more decor- 
 ous performance of judicial duties had been exacted 
 by public opinion ; and frequent changes of adminis- 
 tration having multiplied ex-chancellors, the number 
 of law-lords was greater than at former periods. 
 But in an age in which reforms in the administra- 
 tion of justice had become an important department 
 of legislation, and a subject of popular interest, 
 theoretical improvements, at least, were demanded 
 in the constitution of tlie first court of appeal. 
 
 As an expedient for adding to the judicial strength 
 of the House, without a permanent increase ufc-peer- 
 of its numbers, it was suggested that the "^''^ 
 most eminent judges might be admitted to the pri- 
 vilege of sitting there, for life only. The pmictice 
 of granting peerages for life was not a constitutional 
 u 2 
 
292 House of Lords. 
 
 novelty, but had long fallen into desuetude. 
 Between the reigns of Eichard II. and Henry VI., 
 several precedents were to be found of the creation 
 of life-peerages. Some of these, however, had been 
 made, — like many other peerages of that period, — 
 in full Parliament : some had been granted to peers 
 already entitled to sit in Parliament by hereditary 
 right : some peers so created had never sat in the 
 House of Peers : one had been a foreigner, who 
 could not claim a seat by virtue of his title : and, 
 for upwards of four hundred years, there was no 
 instance on record, in which any man had been 
 admitted to a seat in the House of Lords, as a peer 
 Life-peer- for life. But there were many later in- 
 
 ages to . i-iiT 11 - iTf 
 
 women. stauccs lu which ladies had received liie- 
 peerages. Charles II. had created the beautiful 
 Louise-de Querouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth for 
 life ; James II. had created Catherine Sedley a 
 baroness, by the same tenure ; George I. had raised 
 Madame de Schulemberg to the rank of Duchess of 
 Kendal for life, and had conferred a life-peerage 
 upon her niece ; ' and George II. had made Madame 
 Walmoden Countess of Yarmouth for life. Between 
 the reign of James I. and that of George II., peer- 
 ages for life had been granted to no less than 
 eighteen ladies. But as the fair sex are unable to 
 sit in Parliament, this class of peerages could not be 
 relied upon, in support of the right of the crown to 
 introduce life-peers into the Houce of Lords. 
 
 There was, however, another class of peerages, 
 
 ' Or reputed daughter, the Countess of Walsingham. 
 
Life Peerages. 
 
 293 
 
 whence a strong argument was derived in favour of 
 the royal prerogative. Though peerages Peerages 
 
 / ^ ° & r o mth remain- 
 
 in their general character have been here- dei-sover. 
 
 ditary, — descending like estates to the elder son, — 
 yet peerages have been continually granted to 
 persons, with remainder to collateral relatives, or to 
 the elder son of the peer by a second wife, or to the 
 son of a younger brother, or other relative not in 
 the direct line of succession, as heir at law. All 
 grants of this class — being governed, not by the 
 general law of descent, but by the special limitations 
 in the patent — were exceptions from the principle 
 of hereditary succession. The first grantee was, in 
 effect, created a peer for life, though the second 
 grantee became entitled to the peerage, subject to 
 the ordinary rights of succession. But the grant of 
 a peerage of this class was plainly distinguishable 
 from a peerage for life, as it provided — though in 
 an exceptional manner — for the duration of the 
 dignity beyond the life of the first grantee. It was 
 indeed maintained that such peerages afforded 
 fm-thor evidence against the legality of life-peerages, 
 as. they had been constantly granted, without 
 objection, while none of the latter had been created 
 for centuries. 
 
 But if these precedents and analogies were obso- 
 lete, or of doubtful application, the legality Authorities 
 of life-peerages had been recognised by J," ufei'i^r- 
 nearly all constitutional authorities. Lord 
 Coke had repeatedly affirmed the doctrine, that the 
 crown may create peerages ' for life, in tail, or in 
 fee : ' the loarnod Solden had referred to the ancient 
 
294 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 custom witliout comment : Chief Baron Comyns and 
 Cruise had accepted the authority of Coke as im- 
 questioned law : the popular Blackstone had re- 
 peated and enforced it ;^ and, lastly, Lord Eedes- 
 dale's committee, ' On the dignity of a Peer,' in 1822, 
 had acknowledged it without reserve.*^ Butler was 
 the only eminent writer who had expressed any 
 doubt upon the subject.' The doctrine had also 
 been generally received among statesmen as well as 
 la\vyers. Lord Liverpool's administration, impressed 
 with the necessity of improving the appellate juris- 
 diction of the Lords, had, at one time, imanimously 
 resolved to create life-peers. In 1851, the govern- 
 ment of Lord John Russell had offered a life-peerage 
 to Dr. Lushington, the distinguished judge of the 
 Admiralty Court, who, by a late statute, had been 
 denied the privilege of sitting in the House of 
 Commons. In the Devon peerage case. Lord 
 Brougham had stated from the woolsack, as chan- 
 cellor, that the crown had not only the power of 
 creating a peerage for the life of the grantee him- 
 self, but for the life of another person ; and upon 
 a more recent occasion, Lord Campbell had laid it 
 down in debate, that the ' crown might create, by 
 its prerogative, a peerage for life, but not a peerage 
 during a man's continuance in office : that would 
 
 ' ' For a man or ■woman may be created noble for their own lives, 
 and the dignity not descend to their heirs at i-ll, or descend only to 
 some particular heirs, as where a peerage is limited to a man and the 
 heirs male of his body, by Elizabeth, his present lady, and not to 
 such heirs by any former or future w ife.' — Steph. Blackstone, ii. 68SL 
 
 - 3rd Rep. 37, 38. 
 
 » Coke's Inst., 19th edit., by Hargrave and Butler. 
 
Life Peerages. 295 
 
 require an enactment of the three branches of the 
 legislature.' ' 
 
 Eelying upon these precedents and authorities, 
 ministers advised her Majesty, before the The wens- 
 
 leydale 
 
 meeting of Parliament in 1856, to issue peerage, 
 letters patent to Sir James Parke, lately an eminent 
 baron of the Com-t of Exchequer, creating him Baron 
 Wensleydale for life. The letters patent were 
 issued : but the peers loudly protested against the 
 intrusion of a life-peer to sit amongst the hereditary 
 nobles of the realm. An untimely fit of the gout 
 disabled Lord Wensleydale from presenting himself, 
 with his writ of summons, on the first day of the 
 behtiion ; and on the 7th of February, Lord Lyndhurst 
 proposed, in a masterly speech, to refer his excep- 
 tional patent to the Committee of Privileges. 
 
 Throughout the learned del)ate which followed, 
 the abstract prero2:a,tive of the crown to Ar<^jments 
 
 1 . ~ for and 
 
 create a life-peerage was scarcely ques- against it. 
 tioned; but it was denied that such a peerage con- 
 ferred any right to sit in Parliament. It was 
 treated as a mere title of honour, giving rank and 
 precedence to its possessor, but not a place in an 
 hereditary legislative chamber. The precedents 
 and authorities in support of life-peerages were ex- 
 posed to a searching criticism, which failed, how- 
 ever, to shake the position that the crown had, in 
 former times, introduced life-peers to sit in the 
 House of Lords. But it was admitted on all sides, 
 that no such case had occurred for upwards of four 
 
 • Hans, Deb., June 27tli, 1851,3rd SericB, cxvii. 1312. 
 
296 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 hundred years. Hence arose a most difficult question 
 of constitutional law. Had the ancient prerogative 
 of the crown been lost by desuetude ; or could it be 
 exercised, if the Queen thought fit to revive it ? 
 The ministers, relying upon the maxim, nullum 
 tempus occurrit regi^ argued that there could be 
 no loss of prerogative by lapse of time. But their 
 opponents forcibly contended that the crown could 
 not alter the settled constitution of the realm. In 
 ancient times, — before the institutions of the 
 country had been established by law and usage, — 
 the crown had withheld writs of summons from 
 peers who were unquestionably entitled, by inheri- 
 tance, to sit in Parliament : the crown had disfran- 
 chised ancient boroughs by prerogative ; and had 
 enfranchised new boroughs by royal charter. What 
 would now be said of such an exercise of the prero- 
 gative ? By constitutional usage, having the force 
 of law, the House of Lords had been for centuries a 
 chamber consisting of hereditary councillors of the 
 crown, while the House of Commons had been 
 elected by the suffrages of legally qualified electors. 
 The crown could no more change the constitution of 
 the House of Lords by admitting a life-peer to a 
 seat in Parliament, than it could change the repre- 
 sentation of the people, by issuing writs to Birken- 
 head and Staleybridge, or by lowering the franchise 
 of electors. 
 
 Passing beyond the legal rights of the crown, the 
 opponents of life-peerages dilated upon the hazard- 
 ous consequences of admitting this new class of peers. 
 Was it probable that such peerages would be con- 
 
Life Peerages. 
 
 297 
 
 fined to law-lords ? If once recognised, would they 
 not be extended to all persons whom the ministers 
 of the day might think it convenient to obtrude 
 upon the House of Lords ? flight not the heredi- 
 tary peers be suddenly overpowered by creatures of 
 the executive government, — not ennobled on accoimt 
 of their public services, or other claims to the favour 
 of the crown, but appointed as nominees of ministers, 
 and ready to do their bidding ? Nay ! might not 
 the crown be hereafter advised to discontinue the 
 grant of hereditary peerages altogether, and gradu- 
 ally change the constitution of the House of Lords 
 from an hereditary assembly, to a dependent senate 
 nominated for life only ? Nor were there wanting 
 eloquent reflections upon the futm-e degradation of 
 distinguished men, whose services would be rewarded 
 by life-peerages instead of by those cherished honom-s 
 which other men, — not more worthy than themselves, 
 — had enjoyed the privilege of transmitting to their 
 children. Sitting as an inferior caste, among those 
 whom they could not call their peers, they would 
 have reason to deplore a needless innovation, which 
 had denied them honours to which their merits 
 justly entitled them to aspire. 
 
 Such were the arguments by which Lord Wensley- 
 dale's patent was assailed. They were ably Decision of 
 combated by ministers; and it was even t^o Lords, 
 contended that without a reference from the crown, 
 the Lords had no authority to adjudicate upon the 
 right of a peer to sit and vote in their House ; but, 
 on a division, the patent was referred to the Com- 
 
2q8 House of Lords. 
 
 mittee of Privileges, by a majority of tliirty-three.' 
 After an inquiry into precedents, and more learned 
 and ingenious debates, the committee reported, and 
 the House agreed, 'that neither the letters patent, 
 nor the letters patent with the usual writ of sum- 
 mons issued in pursuance thereof, can entitle the 
 grantee to sit and vote in Parliament.'^ 
 
 Some hereditary peers, who concurred in this 
 conclusion, may have been animated by the same 
 spirit of jealousy which, in 1711, had led their 
 ancestors to deny the right of the cro^vn to admit 
 Scottish peers amongst them, and in 1719 had 
 favoured a more extensive limitation of the royal 
 prerogative : but with the exception of the lord 
 chancellor, — by whose advice the patent had been 
 made out, — all the law-lords of both parties sup- 
 ported the resolution, which has since been generally 
 accepted as a sound exposition of constitutional law. 
 Where institutions are founded upon ancient usage, 
 it is a safe and wholesome doctrine that they shall 
 not be changed, unless by the supreme legislative 
 authority of Parliament. The crown was forced to 
 submit to the decision of the Lords ; and Lord 
 Wensleydale soon afterwards took his seat, under a 
 new patent, as an hereditary peer of the realm. 
 
 But the question of life-peerages was not imme- 
 Further diately set at rest. A committee of the 
 fu°rin^re- Lords having been appointed to inquire 
 ute"pe^- ii^^^o appellate jurisdiction of that 
 
 House, recommended that her Majesty 
 
 ' Content, 138; not content, 105. Hans. Dot)., 3ril Sor., cxI. 203. 
 ' Ibid., WWl tt scq.\ licport of Commiltee of rrivilegcs; Clark's 
 House of Lords' Cases, v. 'Jo8. 
 
Lords Spiritual. 
 
 299 
 
 should be empowered by statute, to confer life-peer- 
 ages upon two persons who had served for five years 
 as judges, and that they should sit with the lord 
 chancellor as judges of appeal and ' deputy speakers.' 
 A bill, founded upon this recommendation, was 
 passed by the House of Lords ; but after much dis- 
 cussion, it miscarried in the House of Commons.' 
 
 In reviewing the rapid growth of the temporal 
 peers sitting in Parliament, it is impossible 
 not to be struck with the altered propor- 
 tions which they bear to the lords spiritual, as com- 
 pared with former times. Before the suppression of 
 the monasteries by Henry VIII., in 1539, when the 
 abbots and priors sat with the bishops, the lords 
 spiritual actually exceeded the temporal lords in 
 number. First in rank and precedence, — superior 
 in attainments, — exercising high trusts and extended 
 influence, — they were certainly not inferior, in 
 political weight, to the great nobles with whom they 
 were associated. Even when the abbots and priors 
 had been removed, the bishops alone formed about 
 ane third of the House of Lords. But while the 
 temporal lords have been multiplied since that 
 period about eight-fold, the English bishops sitting 
 in Parliament have only been increased from twenty- 
 one to twenty-six, — to whom were added, for a time, 
 the four Irish bishops. The ecclesiastical element in 
 our legislature has thus become relatively incon- 
 siderable and subordinate. Instead of being a third 
 of the House of Lords, as in former times, it now 
 
 ' Hans. Deb.. 3rd Sor., cxlii. 780, 899, 1059 • Hid., cxliii. 428, 
 583,613. 
 
300 House of Lords. 
 
 forms less than a fifteentli part of that assembly : 
 nor is it likely to receive any accession of strength. 
 When the pressing demands of the church obtained 
 from Parliament the constitution of the new 
 bishopric of Manchester, care was taken that not 
 even one spiritual lord should be added to the exist- 
 ing number. The principle of admitting a new 
 bishop to sit in Parliament was indeed conceded ; 
 but he was allowed that privilege at the expense of 
 the more ancient sees. Except in the case of the 
 sees of Canterbury, York, London, Durham, and 
 Winchester, the bishop last appointed receives no 
 writ of Summons from the crown to sit in Parlia- 
 ment, until another vacancy arises.^ The principle of 
 this temporary exclusion of the junior bishop, though 
 at first exposed to objections on the part of the 
 chm'ch, has since been found to be not without its 
 advantages. It enables a bishop recently inducted, 
 to devote himself without interruption to the labours 
 of his diocese, while it relieves him from the ex- 
 penses of a residence in London, at a time when they 
 can be least conveniently borne. 
 
 But, however small their numbers, and diminished 
 Attempts their influence, the presence of the bishops 
 wshops"'"' Parliament has often provoked opposition 
 House*of remonstrance. This has probably 
 
 arisen, more from feelings to which episco- 
 pacy has been exposed, than from any dispassionate 
 objections to the participation of bishops in the 
 
 ' Bishopric of Manohcstor Act, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 108. Sco also 
 Debates, 1 844, in the House of Lords, on the St. Asaph and Baagor 
 Dioceses' Bill. 
 
Lords Spiritual. 
 
 301 
 
 legislation of the country. Proscribed by Presby- 
 terian Scotland, — ejected from Parliament by the 
 English Pm-itans,' — repudiated in later times, by 
 every sect of dissenters, — not regarded with too 
 much favour, even by all the members of their own 
 church, — and obnoxious, from their dignity and out- 
 ward pomp, to vulgar jealousies, — the bishops have 
 had to contend against many popular opinions and 
 prejudices. Nor has their political conduct, gene- 
 rally, been such as to conciliate public favour. 
 Ordinarily supporting the government of the day, — 
 even in its least popular measures, — leaning always 
 to authority, — as churchmen, opposed to change, — 
 and precluded by their position from courting popu- 
 larity, — it is not surprising that cries have some- 
 times been raised against them, and efforts made to 
 pull them down from their high places. 
 
 In 1834, the Commons refused leave to bring in a 
 bill ' for relieving the bishops of their legislative 
 and judicial duties in the House of Peers,' by a 
 majority of more than two to one.* By a much 
 greater majority, in 1836, they refused to affirm 
 ' that the attendance of the bishops in Parliament, 
 is prejudicial to the cause of religion.'^ And again 
 in the following year, they denied, with equal 
 emphasis, the proposition that the sitting of the 
 bishops in Parliament ' tends to alienate the affec- 
 tions of the people from the established Church.'* 
 
 ' 16 Car. I. c. 27. 
 
 ' 13th March, 1834. Ayos, 58 ; Nops, 125. 
 
 • 26th April, 1836. Ayes, .i.'k; Noes, 180. 
 
 • 18th February, 1837. Ayes, 92; Noea, 197. 
 
302 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 Since that time, there were no adverse motions 
 in Parliament, and few unfriendly criticisms else- 
 where, in relation to the Parliamentary functions of 
 the bishops. 
 
 Their place in our venerable constitution has 
 Circum- hitherto been upheld by every statesman, 
 favmirabie and by nearly all political parties. At the 
 bishops. same time, the liberal policy of the 
 legislature towards Roman Catholics and Dissenters, 
 has served to protect the bishops from much 
 religious animosity, formerly directed against the 
 church, of which they are the most prominent 
 representatives. Again, the church, by the zeal and 
 earnestness with which, during the last thirty years, 
 she has followed out her spiritual mission, has greatly 
 extended her own moral influence among the people, 
 and weakened the assaults of those who dissent from 
 her doctrines. And the increased strength of the 
 clim-ch has fortified the position of the bishops. 
 That they are an exception to the principle of here- 
 ditary right — the fixed characteristic of the House 
 of Lords — is, in the opinion of many, not without 
 lis theoretical advantages. 
 
 The various changes in the constitution of the 
 Political House of Lords, which have here been 
 the Ho"s^^ briefly sketched, have considerably aff'ected 
 of Lords. ^jjg political position and influence of that 
 branch of the legislature. It is not surprising that 
 peers of ancient lineage should liave regarded with 
 jealousy the continual enlargement of their own 
 privileged order. The proud distinction which tli< y 
 enjoyed lost some of its lustre, whcu shared Ijy a 
 
Its Ntimbers a Sou7'ce of Strength. 303 
 
 larger body. Their social preeminence, and the 
 weight of their individual votes in Parliament, were 
 alike impaired by the increasing number of those 
 whom the favour of their sovereig-n had made equal 
 to themselves. These effects, however, have been 
 rendered much less extensive than might have been 
 anticipated, by the expansion of society, and by the 
 operation of party in all political affairs. 
 
 But however the individual privileges of peers 
 may have been affected by the multiplica- j^^^^ 
 tion of their numbers, it is scarcely to be ^^^o^rof 
 questioned that the House of Lords has 
 gained importance, as a political institution, by its 
 enlargement. Let us suppose, for a moment, that 
 the jealousy of the peers had led either to such a 
 legal restraint upon the prerogative, as that pro- 
 posed in the reign of George L, or to so sparing an 
 exercise of it, that the peerage had remained without 
 material increase since the accession of the House of 
 Hanover. Is it conceivable tliat an order so limited 
 in number, and so exclusive in chai-acter, could have 
 maintained its due authoritv in the legislature ? 
 With the instinctive aversion to change, which 
 characterises every close corporation, it would have 
 opposed itself hauglitily to the active and improving 
 spirit of more popular institutions. It might even 
 liave attempted to maintain some of its more in- 
 vidious privileges, which have been suffered to fall 
 into desuetude. Hence it would necessarily have 
 been found in opposition to the House of Commons, 
 tlie press, and popuhir opinion; while its limited 
 and unjjopular constitution would liuve faikd to give 
 
304 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 it strength to resist the pressure of adverse forces. 
 But the wider and more liberal constitution which 
 it has acquired from increased numbers, and a more 
 representative character, has saved the House of 
 Lords from these political dangers. True to the spirit 
 of an aristocracy, and to its theoretical uses in the 
 state, it has been slower than the House of Commons 
 in receiving popular impressions. It has often 
 checked, for a time, the progressive policy of the 
 age ; yet, being accessible to the same sympathies 
 and influences as the other House, its tardier convic- 
 tions have generally been brought, without violence, 
 into harmony with public opinion. And when 
 measures, demanded by the national welfare, have 
 sometimes been injuriously retarded, the great and 
 composite qualities of the House of Lords, — the 
 eminence of its numerous members, — their talents 
 in debate, and wide local influence, — have made it 
 too powerful to be rudely overborne by popular 
 clamour. 
 
 Thus the expansive growth of the House of 
 , , , Lords, — concurring with the increased au- 
 
 And suited ' o 
 
 poplar in- thority of the House of Commons, and the 
 Btitutions. enlarged influence of the press, — appears 
 to have been necessary for the safe development 
 of our free institutions, in which the popular ele- 
 ment has been continually advancing. The same 
 cause has also tended to render the peers more inde- 
 pendent of the influence of the crown. To that 
 influence they are naturally exposed : but the larger 
 their number, and the more various their interests, 
 the less effectually can it be exercised : while the 
 
Altered Character- of the Peerage. 305 
 
 crowTi is no longer able to secure their adherence by 
 grants of land, offices, and pensions. And if the 
 peerage has occasionally been discredited by the 
 indigence or abasement of some few of its number, 
 its dignity has been well maintained by territorial 
 power, — by illustrious ancestiy, — by noble deeds, — 
 by learning, eloquence, and public virtue. 
 
 These changes in the constitution of the House 
 of Peers must further be considered in their 
 
 The peerage 
 
 relations to party. The general object '^^^^^^^^ 
 which successive ministers have had in 
 view in creating peers, — apart from the reward of 
 special public services, — has been to favour their 
 own adherents, and strengthen their Parliamentary 
 interest. It follows that the House of Lords has 
 undergone considerable changes, from time to time, 
 in its political composition. This result has been 
 the more remarkable, whenever one party has en- 
 joyed power for a great length of time. In such 
 cases the number of creations has sometimes been 
 sufficient to alter the balance of parties; or, if tliis 
 cause alone has not sufficed, it has been aided by 
 political conversions, — the not uncommon fruit of 
 ministerial prosperity. The votes of the bishops 
 have also been usually recorded with that party to 
 whom they owed their elevation. Hence . 
 it was that, on the accession of George III., p'irty coL 
 when the domination of the great Whig jll^^'^.'^t** 
 families had lasted for nearly half a cc i»- 
 tury, — the House of Lords was mainly Whig. Honoe 
 it was that, on the accession of William IV., when 
 the Tory rule — commenced under Lord Bate, 
 
 VOL. I. X 
 
3o6 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 strengthened by Lord North, and consolidated by 
 Mr. Pitt — had enjoyed ascendency for even a longer 
 period, the House of Lords was mainly Tory. 
 
 Under such conditions as these, when a ministry, 
 Danger from having established a sure majority in the 
 
 this cause of <• t i • 1 1 i 
 
 collisions Housc 01 Lords, IS overthrown by an oppo- 
 the Houses, sitiou Commanding a majority oi the House 
 of Commons, the two Houses are obviously in dan- 
 ger of being brought into collision. A dissolution 
 may suddenly change the political character of the 
 House of Commons, and transfer power from one 
 party to another ; but a change in the political 
 character of the House of Lords may be the work 
 of half a century. In the case of Whig administra- 
 tions since the Reform Act, the creation of a majority 
 in the Upper House has been a matter of peculiar 
 difficulty. The natural sympathies of the peerage 
 are conservative ; and are strengthened by age, pro- 
 perty, and connections. A stanch Whig, raised to> 
 the Upper House, is often found a doubting, critical, 
 fastidious partisan, — sometimes an absentee, and not 
 unfrequently an opponent of his own party. No 
 longer responsible to constituents for his votes, and 
 removed from the liberal associations of a popular 
 assembly, he gradually throws off his political alle- 
 giance ; and if habit, or an affectation of consistency, 
 still retain him upon the same side of the House, or 
 upon the neutral ' cross-benches,' his son will pro- 
 bably be found an acknowledged member of the 
 opposition. Party tics, without patronage, have been 
 slack, and easily broken. 
 
 While the influence of the crown was sufficiently 
 
Relations of the Two Houses. 307 
 
 great to direct the policy of the country ; and while 
 a large proportion of the members of the Theinflu- 
 Lower House were the nominees of peers, c"ofv-^'fo^! 
 collisions between the two Houses, if ^re'coS'^ 
 not wholly averted, were at least easily 
 accommodated. There had been frequent contests 
 between them, upon matters of privilege. It was 
 not without protracted struggles, that the Commons 
 liad established their exclusive right to grant sup- 
 plies and impose taxes. The two Houses had con- 
 tended violently in 1G75, concerning the appellate 
 jurisdiction of the Lords ; they had contended, with 
 not less violence, in 1704, upon the jurisdiction of 
 the Commons, in matters of election ; they had 
 quarrelled rudely, in 1770, while insisting upon the 
 exclusion of strangers. But upon general measures 
 of public policy, their differences had been rare and 
 unimportant. George III., by inducing the Lords 
 to reject Mr. Fox's India Bill, in order to overthrow 
 the coalition ministry, brought them into open colli- 
 sion witli the Commons ; but harmony was soon re- 
 stored between them, as the crown succeeded, by 
 means of a dissolution, in obtaining a large majority 
 in the Lower House. In later times, the Lords 
 opposed themselves to concessions to the Roman 
 Catholics, and to amendments of tlie Criminal Law, 
 which had been approved by the Commons. For 
 several years, neither the Commons nor the people 
 were sufficiently earnest to enforce the adoption of 
 those measures : but when public opinion could n^ 
 longer be resisted, the Lords avoided a collision with 
 the Commons, by actpiioficing in measures of which 
 X 2 
 
3o8 House of Lords. 
 
 they still disapproved. Since popular opinion has 
 been more independently expressed by the Com- 
 mons, the hazard of such collisions has been greatly 
 increased. The Commons, deriving their authority 
 directly from the people, have increased in power ; 
 and the influences which formerly tended to bring 
 them into harmony with the Lords, have been 
 impaired. 
 
 The memorable events of 1831 and 1832, arising 
 
 7heBe- out of the measures for extending the re- 
 form Bill • f 1 I 
 
 of is^i^re- presentation oi the people, exposed the 
 the Lords, authority of the House of Lords to a 
 rude shock ; and even threatened its constitution 
 with danger. Never since the days of Cromwell 
 had that noble assembly known such perils. The 
 Whig Ministry having, by a dissolution, secured a 
 large majority of the Commons in favour of their 
 second Eeform Bill, its rejection by the Lords was 
 still certain, if the opposition should put forth their 
 strength. For seventy years, the House of Lords 
 had been recruited from the ranks of the Tory party ; 
 and was not less hostile to the Whig ministry than 
 to Parliamentary reform.' The people had so re- 
 cently pronounced their judgment in favour of the 
 bill, at the late election, that it now became a ques- 
 tion, — who should prevail, the Lords or the Commons? 
 The answer could scarcely be doubtAil. The excised 
 people, aroused by a great cause, and encouraged by 
 
 ' 'I stilted my views of the present state of the Houfo of Lnrds, 
 which hiid given to a party in it, which liad possessed the Government 
 for the hist seventy years, a power which enabled thorn to resist the 
 unind wishes ol' the House of Cojumioos, and the people.' — Minute 
 l>y l arl Urev of his Conversation witli the King, 1st April, ISIil! ; 
 Earl Grey's Cure, li. 300. 
 
TJie Reform Bill of 1832. 
 
 309 
 
 bold and earnest leaders, were not likely to yield. 
 The Lords stood alone. The king's ministers, the 
 House of Commons, and the people were demanding 
 that the bill should pass. Would the Lords venture 
 to reject it? If they should bend to the rising 
 storm, their will indeed would be subdued, — their 
 independent judgment set aside ; but public danger 
 would be averted. Should tliey brave the storm, 
 and stand up against its fury, they could still be 
 overcome by the royal prerogative. 
 
 Already, before the second reading, no less than 
 sixteen new peers had been created, in order to 
 correct, in some measure, the notorious dispropor- 
 tion between the two parties in that House ; but a 
 majority was still known to be adverse to the bill. 
 A further creation of peers, in order to ensure tlie 
 success of the measure, was then in contemplation ; ' 
 but the large number that would be required for that 
 purpose, the extreme harshness of such a course, and 
 the liope, — not ill-founded, — tliat many of the peers 
 should yield to the spirit of the times, discouraged 
 ministers from yet advising this last resource of 
 power. The result was singular. The peers hesi- 
 tated, wavered, and paused. Many of them, actuated 
 l)y fear, by prudence, by policy, or by public spirit, 
 refrained from voting. But the bishops, — either less 
 alarmed, or less sensible of the imminent danger of 
 
 ' The king, in a letter to Earl Grey, 8th Oct., 1831, wrote: — 
 ' The evil (i.e., a collision between the two ITousps) cannot be met by 
 resorting to mcaHures tor oljtiiininjj; a inajoi iiv in the llouso of Lords, 
 wiiii'h no government could propose, and no sovereign consent to, 
 without losing sight of wiiat is due to tlio character of that Hou^e, 
 to tile honour of tlic arislcKjiaey ol" the country, and to the dignity of 
 the crown.' — ijirl (Jroja Curr. m'th Will. Jl'., i. 362. 
 
House of Lords. 
 
 the occasion, — mustered in unusual force. Twenty- 
 two were present, of whom twenty-one voted against 
 the bill. Had they supported ministers, the bill 
 would have been saved : but now they had exactly 
 turned the scale, — as Lord Grey had warned them 
 that they might, — and the bill was lost by a majority 
 of forty-one. 
 
 The House of Commons immediately supported 
 Ministers ministers by a vote of confidence ; the 
 bT'^Jhe^^'^ people were more excited than ever ; and 
 Commons. reformers more determined to prevail 
 
 over the resistance of the House of Lords. 
 
 Parliament was prorogued merely for the purpose 
 Reform of introducing another Eeform Bill. This 
 
 Bill of ° 
 
 1831-2. bill was welcomed by the Commons, with 
 larger majorities than the last; and now the issue 
 between the two Houses had become still more 
 serious. To ' swamp the House of Lords ' had, at 
 length, become a popular cry : but at this time, not 
 a single peer was created. Lord Grey, however, on 
 the second reading, while he declared himself averse 
 to such a proceeding, justified its use in case of 
 necessity. The gravity of the crisis had shaken the 
 courage of the majority. A considerable number of 
 ' waverers,' as they were termed, now showed them- 
 selves ; and the fate of the bill was in their hands. 
 Some who had been previously absent, including five 
 bishops, voted for the bill ; others who had voted 
 against the former bill, abstained from voting ; and 
 seventeen who had voted against the last bill actually 
 voted for this I From these various causes, the second 
 reading was carried by a majority of nine. 
 
Creation of Peers. 
 
 Meanwhile it was well known, both to ministers 
 and the people, that the further progress The crisis, 
 of the measure was exposed to imminent danger ; 
 and while the former were contemplating, with re- 
 luctance and dread, the immediate necessity of a 
 further creation of peers, the popular cry was raised 
 more loudly than ever, that the House of Lords 
 must be ' swamped.' Such a cry was lightly encou- 
 raged by reckless and irresponsible politicians : but 
 the constitutional statesmen who had to conduct the 
 country through this crisis, weighed seriously a step 
 which nothing but the peril of the times could 
 justify. Lord Brougham — perhaps the boldest of 
 all the statesmen concerned in these events — has thus 
 recorded his own sentiments regarding them : — 
 ' When I went to Windsor with Lord Grey, I had a 
 list of eighty creations, framed upon the principles 
 of making the least possible permanent addition to 
 our House and to the aristocracy, by calling up 
 peers' eldest sons, — by choosing men without any 
 families, — by taking Scotch and Irish peers. I had 
 j» strong feeling of the necessity of the case, in the 
 very peculiar circumstances we were placed in ; but 
 such was my deep sense of the dreadful consequences 
 of the act, that I much question whether I should 
 not have preferred running the risk of confusion 
 that attended the loss of the bill as it tlien stood, — 
 ratlier than expose the constitution to so imminent 
 a hazard of subversion.' ' 
 
 ' Lord Brouffham's Politioal Philosophy, iii. 308. Tho British 
 Coiisl itution, 18(il, p. 270. Sic';ilso .Miniilo of Cuiivcrsalion with 
 thi' Kinfj, 1st April, 1832, in whicii tho numbor of poers to lie 
 cre:itf(l was eNtiiiiated at fifty or bixty. — Earl Grcu's Corr. wUh 
 mil. IV., ii. 30i. 
 
3 1 ? House of Lords. 
 
 No sooner was the discussion of the bill com- 
 Ministere menced in committee, than ministers 
 creatfonof Suddenly found themselves in a minority 
 of thirty-five.' Now, then, was the time, 
 if ever, for exercising the royal prerogative ; and 
 accordingly the cabinet unanimously resolved to 
 advise the king to create a sufficient number of 
 peers, to tui-n the scale in favour of the bill ; and in 
 the event of his refusal, to tender their resignation, 
 lie refused ; and the resignation of ministers was 
 immediately tendered and accepted. In vain the 
 Duke of Wellington attempted to form an adminis- 
 tration on the basis of a more moderate measure of 
 reform : the House of Commons and the people 
 were firm in their support of the mirdsters ; and 
 nothing was left for the peers, but submission or 
 coercion. The king unwillingly gave his consent, 
 in writing, to the necessary creation of peers ; ^ but 
 in the meantime, — averse to an offensive act of 
 authority, — he successfully exerted his personal in- 
 fiuence with the peers, to induce them to desist from 
 further opposition.^ The greater part of the Oppo- 
 
 ' 151 aiul ll';. 
 
 ' ' The kintr frrants permission to Earl Grey, and to his chancellor. 
 Lord Brougham, to create such ;i numljerof peers as will be sufficient 
 to ensure the passing of the Reform Bill, — first calling up peers' 
 eldest sons. William R. Windsor, May 17th, 1832.' — llocbucUi 
 HUt. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 331-333. On t! e 18th May the king 
 wrote to Earl Grey: — 'His Majesty authorises Earl Grey, if 
 any obstacle should arise during the further progress of the bill, 
 to submit to him a creation of peers to such extent as shall 
 be necessary to enable him to carry the bill,' &c. &c. — Earl Griy's 
 Corr., ii. 43-1. 
 
 ' See his Circular Letter, supra, p. 144; and infra, Chapter 
 VL 
 
Creation of Peers. 
 
 313 
 
 sition peers absented themselves ; and the memor- 
 able Eeform Bill was soon passed through all its 
 further stages. The prerogative was not exercised ; 
 but its efficacy was not less signal in overcoming a 
 dangerous resistance to the popular will, than if it 
 had been fully exerted ; while the House of Lords 
 — humbled, indeed, and its influence shaken for a 
 time — was spared the blow which had been 
 threatened to its dignity and independence. 
 
 At no period of our history, has any question 
 arisen of greater constitutional importance opj^jonof 
 than this proposed creation of peers. The ^f^vJi-'^^ 
 peers and the Tory party viewed it with 
 consternation. ' If such projects,' said the Duke of 
 Wellington, ' can be carried into execution by a 
 minister of the crown with impunity, there is no 
 doubt that the constitution of this House, and of this 
 country, is at an end. I ask, my lords, is tliere any 
 one blind enough not to see that if a minister can 
 with impunity advise his sovereign to such an un- 
 constitutional exercise of his prerogative, as to there- 
 by decide all questions in this House, there is 
 absolutely an end put to the power and objects of 
 deliberation in tliis House, and an end to all just 
 and proper means of decision. . . . ? And, my 
 lords, my opinion is, that the threat of carrying this 
 measure of creating peers into execution, if it sliould 
 have the effect of inducing noble lords to absent 
 themselves from the House, or to adopt any particu- 
 lar line of conduct, is just as bad as its cxcscution ; 
 for, my lords, it does by violence force a decision on 
 
3 1 4 House of L ords. 
 
 this House, and on a subject on -whicli this House is 
 not disposed to give such a decision.' ' 
 
 He was finely answered by Lord Grey : ' I ask what 
 Opinion of 'would bo the consoqueuces if we were to 
 Earl Grey, guppogg that such a prerogative did not 
 exist, or could not be constitutionally exercised ? 
 The Commons have a control over the power of the 
 crown, by the privilege, in extreme cases, of refus- 
 ing the supplies ; and the crown has, by means of its 
 power to dissolve the House of Commons, a control 
 upon any violent and rash proceedings on the part 
 of the Commons ; but if a majority of this House 
 is to have the power, whenever they plea^ie, of op- 
 posing the declared and decided wishes both of the 
 crown and the people, without any means of mo- 
 difying that power, — then this country is placed 
 entirely under the influence of an uncontrollable 
 oligarchy. I say, that if a majority of this House 
 should have the power of acting adversely to the 
 crown and the Commons, and was determined to 
 exercise that power, without being liable to check 
 or control, the constitution is completely altered, 
 and the government of this country is not a limited 
 monarchy : it is no longer, my lords, the Cro^vn, 
 the Lords and the Commons, but a House of Lords, 
 — a separate oligarchy, — governing absolutely the 
 others.' * 
 
 It must not be forgotten that, although Parlia- 
 
 ' May 17fh, 1832. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xii. 995. In 1819, the 
 King of Frrtnco created .sixty-tlii-ce new potrs, in order to overcome 
 tlie party opposed to the ministry.' — Lord Vdfhcstvrs Diary, 
 iii. 71. 
 
 2 May 17th, 1832. Hans. Deb., 3rd Scr., 1006. 
 
Creation of Peers. 
 
 315 
 
 menfc is said to be dissolved, a dissolution extends, 
 in fact, no further than to the Commons, a creation 
 
 ' of peers 
 
 The peers are not affected by it, — no change 
 can take place in the constitution of solution, 
 their body, except as to a small number of Scotch 
 representative peers. So far, therefore, as the 
 House of Lords is concerned, a creation of peers by 
 the crown, on extraordinary occasions, is the only 
 equivalent which the constitution has provided, for 
 the change and renovation of the House of Commons 
 by a dissolution. In no other way can the opinions 
 of the House of Lords be brought into harmony 
 with those of the people. In ordinary times the 
 House of Lords has been converted gradually to the 
 political opinions of the dominant party in the state, 
 by successive creations : but when a crisis arises, in 
 which the party, of whose sentiments it is the ex- 
 ponent, is opposed to the majority of the House of 
 Commons and the country, it must either yield to 
 the pressure of public opinion, or expose itself to 
 the hazard of a more sudden conversion. States- 
 men of all parties would condcnm such a measure, 
 except in cases of grave and perilous necessity: but, 
 should the emergency be such as to demand it, it 
 cannot be pronoimced unconstitutional.' 
 
 ' In a minute of Cabinet, 13th January 1832. it was said: — 
 'It must bo admitted tliat cases may occur, in wiiich tlie House of 
 Lords, eontinuinii; to place itself in opposition to tlie pi-nerai wishes 
 of the nation, and to the declared sense of the House of Commons, 
 the greatest danfjep mif;lit arise, if no means existed of putting an 
 end to the collision which such circnmstanees would produce, and 
 which, wliile it continued, must unavoidiibly ocea>ion the greatest 
 evils, and in its final i>'Suo might involve consofiuences fatal on the 
 one hand to public lilierty, and to the power and security of the 
 government on the other. 
 
 ' It is with u view lo a danger of this nature, that the conalitution 
 
3 1 6 House of L ords. 
 
 It was apprehended that, by this moral coercion, 
 the legitimate influence of the peers would be im- 
 position of paired, and their independence placed at the 
 
 the Lords , . . , 
 
 since the mercj 01 any popular minister, supported 
 
 Reform 
 
 Acc by a majority of the House of Commons. 
 
 To record the fiats of the Lower House,— sometimes, 
 perhaps, with unavailing protests, — sometimes with 
 feeble amendments, — ^would now be tlieir humble 
 oSice. They were cast down from their high place 
 in the legislature, — their ancient glories were de- 
 parted. Happily, these forebodings have not since 
 been justified. The peers had been placed, by their 
 natural position, in opposition to a great popular 
 cause ; and had yielded, at last, to a force which 
 they could no longer resist. Had they yielded 
 earlier, and with a better grace, they might have 
 shared in the popular triumph. Again and again, 
 the Commons had opposed themselves to the influ- 
 ence of the crown, or to popular opinion, and had 
 Vjeeu overcome ; yet their permanent influence was 
 not impaired. And so was it now with the Lords. 
 The Commons may be overborne by a dissolution, — 
 the Lords by a threatened creation of peers, — the 
 crown by withholding the supplies ; and all alike 
 must bow to the popular will, when constitutionally 
 expressed. 
 
 The subsequent history of the Lords attests their 
 Their in- Undiminished influence since the Reform 
 encc. Act of 1832. That measure unquestion- 
 
 has given to the crown the power of dissolving, or of making an jid- 
 jlition to the llousc of Lonls, hy the exercise of the hi^h prerogative 
 of creatins; peers, which has been vested in the king for this as well 
 as fir otlier ImDortunt purposes.' — Earl Grry's Corr., ii. 98. 
 
Its Position since the Reform Act. 317 
 
 alily increased the authority of the House of Com- 
 mons. But the Lords have not shown themselves 
 less independent in their judj>ment, or less free in 
 their legislative action. It had previously been 
 tlieir function, not so much to originate legislation, 
 and to direct the policy of the country, as to con- 
 trol, to amend, and to modify measures received 
 from the Commons ; and in that function, they have 
 since laboured with as much freedom as ever. In 
 1835 and 1836, the Commons maintained that the 
 principle of appropriating the surplus revenues of 
 the cJiurch in Ireland, was essential to the settle- 
 ment of the question of Irish tithes. Yet the 
 Lords, by their determined resistance to this prin- 
 ciple, obliged the Commons, and ministers who had 
 fought their way into office by its assertion, defini- 
 tively to abandon it. They exercised an uncon- 
 strained judgment in their amendments to tlie 
 English Municipal Eeform Bill, which the Commons 
 were obliged reluctantly to accept. They dealt with 
 the bills for the reform of the Irish corporations, 
 with equal freedom. For four sessions their amend- 
 ments, — wholly inconsistent with the principles of 
 legislation asserted by the Commons, — led to the 
 aljandonment of tliose measures. And at length they 
 forced the Commons to accept amendments, repug- 
 nant to the policy for whicli they had been con- 
 tending. Again, they resisted, for several years, 
 the removal of the Jewish disabilities, — a measure 
 approved by the settled judgment of the Commons 
 and the people ; and obliged the advocates of reli- 
 gious liberty to accept, at last, an unsatisfactory 
 
House of Lords. 
 
 compromise. But these examples of independence 
 are thrown into the shade by their proceedings in 
 1860, when, — treading upon the forbidden groimd 
 of taxation, they rejected a bill which the Commons 
 had passed, — as part of the financial arrangements 
 of the year, — for repealing the duties upon paper. 
 The controverted question of privilege involved in 
 this vote, will be touched upon hereafter ; ' but here 
 it may be said, that the Commons have ever been 
 most jealous of their exclusive rights, in matters of 
 supply and taxation ; and that their jealousy has 
 been wisely respected by the Lords. But, finding a 
 strong support in the Commons, — an indiflferent and 
 inert public opinion, — much encouragement from an 
 influential portion of the press, — and a favourable 
 state of parties, — the Lords were able to defy at 
 once the government and the Commons. There 
 had been times, wlien such defiance would have 
 been resented and returned ; but now the Lords, 
 rightly estimating their o^m strength, and the 
 causes by which retaliation on the part of the Com- 
 mons was restrained, overruled the ministers of tl;e 
 crown and the Commons, on a question of finance ; 
 and, by their single vote, continued a considerable 
 tax upon the people. The most zealous champion 
 of the independence of the peers, in 1832, would 
 not then have counselled so hazardous an enterprise. 
 Still less would he have predicted that it would be 
 successfully accomplished, within thirty years after 
 the passing of the Keform Act. 
 
 > Injm, Chap. VIL 
 
Its Position since the Reform Act. 319 
 
 In short, though tlie Lords were drivels, in 1832, 
 from an indefensible position, which they had held 
 with too stubborn a persistence, they have since 
 maintained their independence, and a proper weigh 
 in the legislatme. It was admirably said by Lord 
 Granville, on a recent occasion : ' — ' My Lords, you 
 have power, — great power, — immense powei" — for 
 good ; but there is one power you have not ; you 
 liave not, more than the House of Commons, — • 
 more than the constitutional sovereigns of this 
 country, — more, I will add, than the despotic 
 sovereigns of some great empires, in civilised com- 
 munities, — you have not the power of thwarting the 
 national will, when properly and constitutionally 
 expressed.' 
 
 As a legislative body, the Lords have great facilities 
 for estimating the direction and strength of Vantage- 
 public opinion. Nearly every measure has the Lords, 
 been fully discussed, before they are called upon to 
 consider it. Hence they are enabled to judge, at 
 leisure, of its merits, its defects, and its popularity. 
 If the people are indifferent tu its merits, tliey can 
 safely reject it altogether: if too popular, in prin- 
 ciple, to be so dealt with, they may qualify, and 
 perhaps neutralise it by amendments, without any 
 bliock to public feeling. 
 
 At the same time they are able, by their debates, 
 to exercise an extensive influence upon the convic- 
 tions of the people. Sitting like a court of review 
 upon measures originating in the Lower House, they 
 
 ' 14th June, 1869, on niDving second reading of Iiibh Cliuicli lliU. 
 190 Iluns. UfL., 3id Ser., lGo(i. 
 
320 House of Lords. 
 
 can select from the whole armouiy of debate and 
 public discussion, the best arguments, and the mout 
 effective appeals to enlightened minds. Nor have 
 there ever been wanting, amongst their numbers, 
 the first orators of their age and country. 
 
 But with these means of influence, the political 
 pmaii at- Weight of the House of Peers has been 
 of peers much afifccted by the passive indifference 
 their wluch it ordinanlv displays to the business 
 
 political . . •' . . 
 
 weight. of legislation. The constitution of that 
 assembly, and the social position of its members, 
 have failed to excite the spirit and activity which 
 mark a representative body. This is constantly 
 made apparent by the small number of peers who 
 attend its deliberations. Unless great party ques- 
 tions have been under discussion, the House has 
 ordinarily presented the appearance of a select com- 
 mittee. Three peers may wield all the authority of 
 the House. Nay, even less than that number are 
 competent to pass or reject a law, if tlicir unanimity 
 should avert a division, or notice of their imperfect 
 constitution. Many laws have, in fact, been passed 
 by numbers befitting a committee, rather than the 
 whole House.' That the judgment of so small a 
 number should be as much respected as that of the 
 large bodies of members who throng the House of 
 Commons, can scarcely be expected. 
 
 ' On April 7th, 18")4. tho Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill -was read 
 .1 third time Viy a majority of two in a house of twelve. On tho 2dth 
 .Auijust, 1860, the Tfnuro and Improvoment of Land (Ireland) Bill, 
 ■whioh had ociupied weeks of discussion in the Commons, was nearly 
 Inst by a disagreement between the two Houses; the numbers, on a 
 division, being seven and six. See also Beutham, Political Tactics, 
 Bowring's ed., ii. 3(i8. 
 
Indiffci'cnce to Biisiness. 
 
 321 
 
 A quorum of three, — though well suited for judi- 
 cial business, and not wholly out of proportion to 
 the entire number of its members, in the earlier 
 periods of its history, — has become palpably inade- 
 quate for a numerous assembly. That its members 
 are not accountable to constituents, adds to their 
 moral responsibilities ; and should suggest safeguards 
 against the abuse of the great powers which the 
 constitution has entrusted to them. 
 
 The indifiference of the great body of the peers to 
 public business, and their scant attendance, 
 by discouraging the efforts of the more able toln^l-'^^ 
 and ambitious men amongst them, further 
 impair the influence of the Upper House. States- 
 men who have distinguished themselves in the House 
 of Commons, have complained, again and again, of 
 the cold apathy by which their earnest oratory has 
 been checked in the more patrician assembly. The 
 encouragement of numbers, of ready sympathy, and 
 of warm applause, are wanting ; and the disheartened 
 orator is fain to adapt his tone to the ungenial tem- 
 perament of his audience. Thus to discourage public 
 spirit, and devotion to the great affairs of state, can- 
 not fail to diminish the political influence of the 
 House of Lords. 
 
 The itiertness of the House of Lords has produced 
 another result prejudicial to its due influ- Their 
 ence in public affairs. It has generally J Sera, 
 yielded, with an indolent facility, to the domination 
 of one or two of its own members, gifted with the 
 strongest wills. Lord Tluirlow, Lord Eldon, the 
 Duke of Wellington, and Lord Lyndhurst, hiive 
 
 VOL. 1. y 
 
32 2 House of Lords. 
 
 swayed it, at dififerent times, almost with the power 
 of a dictator. Such men had acquired their activity 
 and resolution in a different school from that of an 
 hereditary chamber ; and where peers by hereditary 
 descent, like the Earl of Derby, have exercised an 
 equal sway, they have learned how to lead and 
 govern men, amidst the more stirring scenes of the 
 House of Commons. Every assembly must have its 
 leaders : but the absolute surrender of its owti judg- 
 ment to that of a single man, — perhaps of narrow 
 mind, and unworthy prejudices, — cannot fail to im- 
 pair its moral influence. 
 
 Such, then, are the political position of the House 
 The peerage of Lords, and the causes of its strength and 
 
 in its social <■ i • i rm 
 
 relations. weakness, as a part of the legislature. The 
 peerage is also to be regarded in another aspect, — 
 as the head of the great community of the upper 
 classes. It represents their interests, feelings, and 
 aspirations. Instead of being separated from other 
 ranks in dignified isolation, it is connected with 
 them by all the ties of social Life. It leads them 
 in politics : in the magistracy : in local admi- 
 nistration : in works of usefulness, and charity : in 
 the hunting-field, the banquet, and the ball- 
 room. 
 
 The increase of the peerage has naturally ex- 
 niearis- tended the social ramifications of the aris- 
 tocracy, tocracy. Six hundred families ennobled,- ■ 
 their children bearing titles of nobility, — allied by 
 descent or connection with the first county families, 
 and with the wealthiest commoners of other classes, — 
 have struck their roots far and wide into the soil of 
 
The Aristocracy. 323 
 
 English society. In every county their influence is 
 great, — in many paramount. 
 
 The untitled landed gentiy, — iipheld by the con- 
 servative law of primogeniture, — are an The lauded 
 ancient aristocracy in themselves ; and the 
 main source from which the peerage has been re- 
 cruited. In no other country is there such a class, 
 — at once aristocratic and popular, and the bond 
 of connection between the nobles and the com- 
 monalty. 
 
 Many of these have been distinguished by heredi- 
 tary titles, — inferior to nobility, and con- Thebaronet- 
 ferring no political privileges ; yet highly 
 prized as a social distinction. The baronetage, 
 like the peerage, has been considerably increased 
 during the last century. On the accession of George 
 III., there were about five hundred baronets ; ' in 
 1860, they had been increased to no less than eight 
 hundred and sixty.^ During tlie sixty years of a single 
 reign, the extraordinary number of four hundred 
 and ninety-foiu" baronetcies were created.^ Of these 
 a large number were conferred for political services; 
 and by far the greater part are enjoyed by men of 
 family and fortune. Still the taste for titles was 
 difficult to satiate. 
 
 Tlie ancient and honourable dignity of knighthood 
 
 ' Betham's Baronet iige. Gentl. Mag., lix. 308. 
 
 * Viz., si.x liuiidi'od and .sevcniy-four baronets of Great Britain, one 
 hundrfd and cloven baronets of Scotland and Nova Scotia, and 
 eeventy-five of Ircbind. 
 
 • This niiTnlfer is from 17GI to 1821 ; frf)ni a paper prepared by 
 tho late Mr. i'uhnan, Clarencieux King-at-./Vrm8. 
 
 X 2 
 
324 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 was conferred unsparingly by Greorge III. upon little 
 Orders of ^^^^ ^^"^ little services, until the title was 
 knighthood. ^^^Y nigh degraded. After the king's es- 
 cape from assassination at the hands of Margaret 
 Nicholson, so many knighthoods were conferred on 
 persons presenting congratulatory addresses to the 
 crown, that ' a knight of Peg Nicholson's order ' 
 became a by-word. The degradation of knighthood 
 by the indiscriminate liberality of the crown in 
 granting it, continued until a recent time. 
 
 Still there were not knighthoods enough ; and in 
 1783 the king instituted the Order of St. Patrick. 
 Scotland had its most ancient Order of the Thistle : 
 bvit no order of knighthood had, until that time, 
 been appropriated to Ireland. The Hanoverian 
 Guelphic Order of Knighthood had also been opened 
 to the ambition of Englishmen ; and William IV., 
 during his reign, added to its roll a goodly company 
 of English knights. 
 
 The Order of the Bath, originally a military 
 order, was enlarged in 1815 ; and again in 1847, 
 the queen added a civil division to the order, to 
 comprise such persons as by their personal services 
 to the crown, or by the performance of public duties, 
 have merited the royal favour.' 
 
 Besides these several titled orders, may be noticed 
 otherci«.«e3 officers enjoyiug naval and military rank, 
 tife'arirto-'' whose numbcrs were extraordinarily aug- 
 cracy. mcnted by the long war with France, and 
 by the extension of the British possessions abroad. 
 Men holding high offices in the state, tlie church, 
 
 ' Letters Patent, 24tli May, 184'; London Gazette, u. 1961. 
 
A ristocratic SympatJiies. 
 
 the law, the universities, and other great incorpora- 
 tions, have also associated their powers and influence 
 with those of the nohility. 
 
 The continual growth and accumulation of pro- 
 perty liave been a source of increasing -y^reaitii 
 strengtli to the British nobles. Wealth is, [^^r/arit 
 in itself, an aristocracy. It may desire to 
 rival the nobility of a country, and e^en to detract 
 from its glory. But in this land of old associations, 
 it seeks only to enjoy tlie smiles and favours of the 
 aristocracy, — craves admission to its society, — aspires 
 to its connection, — and is ambitious of its dignities. 
 The learned professions, commerce, manufactures, 
 and public employments have created an enormous 
 body of persons of independent income ; some con- 
 nected with the landed gentry, others with the 
 commercial classes. All these form part o^ the 
 independent ' gentry.' They are spread over the 
 fairest parts of the country ; and noble cities have 
 been built for their accommodation. Bath, Chelten- 
 hiun, Leamington, and Brighton attest their numbers 
 and tlu'ir opulence.' With much social influenc(i 
 and political weight, they form a strong outwork of 
 the peerage, and uphold its ascendency by moral as 
 well as political support. 
 
 Tlie professions lean, as a body, on the higher 
 ranks of society. The Church is peculiarly Thopro. 
 connected with the landed interest. Every- 
 where the clergy cleave to power ; and the vast lay 
 patronage vested in the proprietors of the soil, draws 
 close tlie bond between them and the Church. Tlic 
 
 ' Jialh has been terme d IIim ' ''■Uy of tho Tliroo-iicr-ccnt. Cunsols.' 
 
320 
 
 House of Lords. 
 
 legal and medical professions, again, being mainly 
 supported by wealthy patrons, have the same poli- 
 tical and social interests. 
 
 How vast a community of rank, wealth, and 
 intelligence do these several classes of society con- 
 stitute ! The House of Lords, in truth, is not only 
 a privileged body, but a great representative insti- 
 tution, — standing out as an embodiment of the 
 aristocratic influence, and sympathies of the country. 
 
327 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 TOR HOUSE OF COMMONS : NOMINATION BOHOUGHS : — VARIOUS AXD 
 
 LIMITED RIGHTS OF ELECTION: BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS: SALE 
 
 OF SEATS : — (iOVERN:MENT INFLUENCE IN LARGE TOWNS : — REVENUE 
 
 OFFICERS DISFRANCHISED : — VEXATIOUS CONTESTS IN CITIES. 
 
 REPRESENTATION OF SCOTLAND AND IRELAND. INJUSTICE IN THE 
 
 TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS. PLACES AND PENSIONS. BRIBES 
 
 TO MEJIBERS : SHARES IN LOANS, LOTTERIES, AND CONTRACTS. 
 
 SUCCESSIVE SCHEMES OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM PRIOR TO 1 830 : 
 
 THE REFORM BILLS OF 1830-31, 1831, AND 1831-32 : — CHANGES 
 
 EFFECTED IN THE REPRESENTATION, BY THE REFORM ACTS OF 
 
 1832. BRIBERY SINCE 1832, AND MEASURES T.\KEN TO RESTRAIN 
 
 IT. — DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS : —VOTE BY BALLOT : — PROPERTY 
 QUALIFICATION. LATER MEASURES OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 In preceding chapters, the various sources of political 
 influence enjoyed by the crown, and by the unfaithfui- 
 House of Lords, have been traced out. House of 
 
 mi • ■ 1 1 • • 1 ConimonB 
 
 J heir united powers long maintained an to its trust, 
 ascendency in the councils and government of the 
 state. But great as were their own inherent powers, 
 the main support of that ascendency was found 
 among the representatives of the people, in the 
 House of Commons. If that body had truly repre- 
 sented the people, and had been faithful to its trust, 
 it would have enjoyed an authority equal at least, 
 if not superior, to that of the crown and the House 
 of Lords combined. 
 
 The theory of an equipoise in our legislature, 
 however, had been distorted in practice; itscu.pon- 
 and the House of Connnoiis was at once cinuption. 
 
328 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 dependent and corrujjt. The crown, and the domi- 
 nant political families who wielded its power, 
 readily commanded a majority of that assembly. 
 A large proportion of the borough members were 
 the nominees of peers and great landowners; or 
 were mainly returned through the political interest 
 of those magnates. Many were the nominees of the 
 crown ; or owed their seats to government influence. 
 Eich adventurers,— having purchased their seats of 
 the proprietors, or acquired them by bribery, — 
 supported the ministry of the day, for the sake of 
 honours, patronage, or court favour. The county 
 members were generally identified with the terri- 
 torial aristocracy. The adherence of a further class 
 was secured by places and pensions ; by shares in 
 loans, lotteries, and contracts ; and even by pecu- 
 niary bribes. 
 
 Tlie extent to which these various influences pre- 
 vailed, and their effect upon the constitution of the 
 legislature, are among the most instructive inquiries 
 of the historian. 
 
 The representative system had never aimed at 
 ucfocts of theoretical perfection ; but its general de- 
 seutative ^^8"^ '"'^^ assemble representatives from 
 Bystem. ^j^g places bost able to contribute aids and 
 subsidies for the service of the crowu. This design 
 would naturally have allotted members to counties, 
 cities, and boroughs, in proportion to their popu- 
 lation, wealtli, and prosperity ; and tliuugh rudely 
 carried into effect, it formed the basis of represen- 
 tation in early times. V>\\i tlicre were few large 
 towns tlie population was widely scattered : indue- 
 
Representative System. 
 
 329 
 
 try was struggling with unequal success in different 
 places ; and oppressed burgesses, — so far from press- 
 ing their fair claims to representation, — were reluc- 
 tant to augment their burthens, by returning 
 members to Parliament. Places were capriciously 
 selected for that honour by the crown, — and some- 
 times even by the sheriff,' — and were, from time to 
 time, omitted from the writs. Some small towns 
 failed to keep pace with the growing prosperity of 
 the country, and some fell into decay ; and in the 
 meantime, unrepresented villages grew into places 
 of importance. Hence inequalities in the repre- 
 sentation were continually increasing. They might 
 have been redressed by a wise exercise of the ancient 
 prerogative of creating and disfranchising boroughs ; 
 but the greater part of those created between the 
 reigns of Henry VIII. and Charles II. were incon- 
 siderable places, wliich afterwards became notorious 
 as nomination boroughs.^ From the reign of 
 Charles II., — when this prerogative was superseded, 
 — the growing inequalities in the representation were 
 left wholly without correction.' 
 
 FVom these causes an electoral system had be- 
 come establislied, — wholly inconsistent with any 
 rational theory of representation. Its defects, — 
 
 ' Glanvillc's Keports, Pref. v. 
 
 * One liiiiuiri ii and ciKlity members were added to the House of 
 Commons, liy royal charier, between the reigns of llenry Vlll. and 
 Charh s ]I. (ilanville's Hejiorts, eii. 
 
 " In 1 Cromwell (lisfranchiscd many small liorouf;lis, increased 
 thi' nnmlii r of eounty meml)er^, and enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, 
 and JIalilax.— a testimony at once to his stalesmiiiiship, and to the 
 anomalies of a representation wliich were not correcte<l fur nearly 
 200 yars. — Art for the Sittlei/wut cf the (jovernmeat of the Coiuiium- 
 wcaflh, lOlh Dec, 1063. 
 
330 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 originally great, and aggravated by time and change, 
 — had attained monstrous proportions in the middle 
 of the last century. 
 
 The first and most flagrant anomaly was that 
 Nomina- of nomination boroughs. Some of these 
 
 tioii bo- 
 
 roughs. boroughs had been, from their first crea- 
 tion, too inconsiderable to asjjire to independence ; 
 and being without any importance of their own, 
 looked up for patronage and protection to the 
 crown, and to their, territorial neighbours. The 
 influence of the great nobles over such places as 
 tliese was acknowledged and exerted so far back as 
 the fifteenth century.' It was freely discussed, in 
 the reign of Elizabeth; when the House of Com- 
 mons was warned, with a wise foresight, lest ' Lords' 
 letters shall from henceforth bear all the sway.' * As 
 the system of parliamentary government developed 
 itself, such interest became more and more imnor- 
 tant to the nobles and great landowners, who ac- 
 cordingly spared no pains to extend it ; and the 
 insignificance of many of the boroughs, and a 
 limited and capricious franchise, gave them too 
 easy a conquest. Places like Old Sarum, with 
 fewer inhabitants than an ordinary hamlet, avow- 
 edly returned the nominees of their proprietors.^ 
 In other boroughs of more pretensions in respect of 
 population and property, the number of inhabitants 
 enjoying the franchise was so limited, as to bring the 
 
 ' Paston Letters, ii. 103. 
 
 - Debate on the Bill for the validity of burgesses not resiant, 19th 
 April, lo71 ; D'E«-es Journ., 16S-171. 
 ' Pari. Return, Sess. 1831-32, No. 92. 
 
Limited Rights of Election. 331 
 
 fepresentation under the patronage of one or more 
 persons of local or municipal influence. 
 
 Not only were the electors few in number : but 
 partial and uncertain rights of election ^^^^^^ 
 prevailed in different boroughs. The com- rf/hti'^f^'^ 
 mon law right of election was in the in- 
 habitant liouseholders resident within the borough : ' 
 but, in a large proportion of the boroughs, peculiar 
 customs prevailed, by which this liberal franchise 
 was restrained. In some, indeed, popular rights 
 were enjoyed by custom ; and all inhabitants paying 
 'scot and lot,' — or parish rates, — or all ' potwallers,' 
 — being persons furnishing their own diet, whether 
 householders or lodgers, — were entitled to vote. In 
 others, none but those holding lands by burgage- 
 tenure had the right of voting : in several, none 
 but those enjoying corporate rights by royal charter. 
 In many, these different rights were combined, or 
 qualified by exceptional conditions. 
 
 Rights of election, so uncertain and confused, were 
 founded upon the last determinations of Rights of 
 the House of Commons, which, — however tormined by 
 
 . . 11 • 1 r. 1-1 *''''^ House of 
 
 capricious, and devoid of settled princi- commona. 
 pies, — had a general tendency to restrict the ancient 
 franchise, and to vest it in a more limited number 
 of persons.* 
 
 In some of the corporate towns the inhabitants 
 paying scot and lot, and freemen, were admitted to 
 
 ' Com. Dig., iv. 288. Glanvillo's Reports. 
 
 ^ Gliiiiville'.s I{oportH ; Dctr-i'minations of tho IIouso of Commons 
 conooriiiiif; IClcclions, 8vo., 1780; Iiilrodiictioii to Jlorcwctlior and 
 Stephens, llistorv of lionaif^lis ; i\Iale's Election Law, 28'J, 317; 
 Ludern' Eleelion Reports, iSoc. 
 
332 House of Covnuons. 
 
 vote : in some, the freemen only : and in many, none 
 but the governing body of the corporation. At 
 Bucking]) am, and at Bewdley, the right of election 
 was confined to the bailiff and twelve buro-esses : 
 at Bath, to the mayor, ten aldermen, and twenty- 
 fom- common-councilmen : at Salisbury, to the mayor 
 and corporation, consisting of fifty-six persons. And 
 where more popular rights of election were acknow- 
 ledged, there were often very few inhabitants to 
 exercise them. Gratton enjoyed a liberal franchise: 
 all freeholders and inhabitants paying scot and lot 
 were entitled to vote, but they only amounted to 
 seven. At Tavistock, all freeholders rejoiced in the 
 franchise, but there were only ten. At St. Michael, 
 all inhabitants paying scot and lot were electors, but 
 there were only seven.' 
 
 In 1793, the Society of the Friends of the Peo- 
 Number of plc wcre prepared to prove that in England 
 roughs. an d Wales seventy members were returned 
 by thirty-five places, in which there were scarcely 
 any electors at all ; that ninety members were 
 returned by forty-six places with less than fifty 
 electors ; and thirty-seven members by nineteen 
 jjlaces, having not more than one hundred electors.'^ 
 Such places were returning members, wliile Leeds, 
 Birmingham, and Manchester were unrepresented ; 
 and their jjretended representatives were the no- 
 minees of peers and other wealthy patrons, and 
 voted at their bidding.^ No abuse was more flagrant 
 
 ' Pari. Jleturn, Sess. 1831-2, No. 92. 
 ' Pari. Hist., XXX. 789. 
 
 ' Thrt relations of patrons ami nominees were often creditable to 
 both parties; but tlio right ot tlie patron to direct tho political con- 
 
Bribery at Elections. 333 
 
 than the direct control of peers, over the constitu- 
 tion of the Lower House. The Duke of Norfolk 
 was represented by eleven member ; Lord Lonsdale 
 by nine ; Lord Darlington by seven ; the Duke of 
 Eutland, the Marquess of Buckingham, and Lord 
 Carrington. each by six.* Seats were held, in both 
 Houses alike, by hereditary right. 
 
 Where the number of electors in a borough was 
 sufficient to ensiu-e their independence, in gr-ibervat 
 the exercise of the franchise, they were 
 soon taught that their votes would command a price ; 
 and thus, where nomination ceased, the influence of 
 bribery commenced. 
 
 Bribery at elections has long been acknowledged 
 as one of the most shameful e\-ils of our constitutional 
 government. Though not wholly imknown in earlier 
 times, it appears, — like too many other forms of 
 corruption, — to have first become a systematic abuse 
 in the reign of Charles II.- The Kevolution, by 
 increasing the power of the House of Commons, 
 served to enlarge the field of bribery at elections. 
 As an example of the extent to which this practice 
 prevailed, it was alleged that at the Westminster 
 election, in 1695, Sir Walter Clarges, an imsuccessful 
 candidate, expended 2,000^ in bribery in the course 
 of a few hours.' 
 
 These notorious scandals led to the passing of the 
 Act 7 William III. c. 4. Bribery had already been 
 
 dnet of his members was unquestioned. Lord Campbell's Lives, vi. 
 216. I»rd Colchester's Diar}-, L 13, 17, 121 -131. Lorvl Suinho{«'s 
 Life, i. 4". 
 
 ' Oiafield's Representatire Hist., ri. 286. 
 
 ' Macaulay's His:., i. 236. » Ibid., iv. Old. 
 
334 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 recognised as an offence, by the common law ; ' 
 The Bribery and had been condemned by resolutions of 
 
 Act of Wil- 
 
 uain m. the House of Commons : ^ but this was the 
 first statute to restrain and punish it. This necessary 
 measure, however, was designed rather to discourage 
 the intrusion of rich strangers into the political 
 preserves of the landowners, than for the general 
 repression of bribery. It seems to have had little 
 effect ; for Davenant, writing soon afterwards, spoke 
 of ' utter strangers making a progress through Eng- 
 land, endeavoiu-ing by very large sums of money to 
 get themselves elected. It is said there were known 
 brokers who have tried to stock-job elections upon 
 the exchange ; and that for many boroughs there 
 was a stated price.' ^ An act of parliament was not 
 likely to touch the causes of such corruption. The 
 increasing commerce of the country had bi-ought 
 forward new classes of men, who supplied their want 
 of local connections by the unscrupidous use of 
 riches. Political morality may be elevated by ex- 
 tended liberties : but bribery has everywhere been 
 the vice of growing wealth.* 
 
 ' Burr., iii. 1235, 1388; Dougl., iv. 29-i; Male's Election Law, 
 339-345. 
 
 Com. Journ., ix. 411, 517. 
 
 ' Essay on the Balance of Power; Davenant's Works, iii. 326.328. 
 Sfo also raiiiphlets, 'Freeholder's Plea against Stock-jobbing Elec- 
 tions of Parliament Men ; ' ' Considerations upon Corrupt Elections 
 of Members to serve in Parliament,' 1701. 
 
 * 'The elfect produced by the rapid increase in wealth upon poli- 
 tical morality [in Pome] is proved by the frequent laws against 
 bribery at elections, which may be dated from the j-ear 181 B.C. In 
 that year it was enacted that anyone found guilty of using bribery 
 to gain votes should be declared incapable of becoming a caniiidate 
 for the next ten years.' — Br. Liddell's Ili-it. of Ho me, Theso laws 
 arc enumerated in Colquhoun's Poinan Civil Law, § 2402. lu Franca 
 
Bribery at Elections. 335 
 
 The prizes to be secured through seats in Parlia- 
 Dient, during the corrupt administrations of Walpole 
 and Pelham, further encouraged the system of 
 bribery ; aud early in the reign of George III. its 
 notoriety became a public scandal. 
 
 The very first election of this reign, in 1761, was 
 sigTialised by unusual excesses. Never General eiec- 
 perhaps had bribery been resorted to with 
 so much profusion.' One class of candidates, now 
 rapidly increasing, consisted of men who The'Na- 
 had amassed fortunes in the East and West 
 Indies, and were commonly distinguished as ' Nabobs.' 
 Their ambition led them to aspire to a place in the 
 legislature : — their great wealth gave them the 
 means of bribery ; and the scenes in which they had 
 studied politics, made them unscrupulous in corrup- 
 tion. A seat in Parliament was for sale, like an 
 es*:ate ; and tliey bought it, ivithout hesitation or 
 misgiving. Speaking of this class. Lord Chatham 
 said : ' without connections, without any natmal 
 interest in the soil, the importers of foreign gold 
 have forced their way into Parliament, by such a 
 torrent of corruption as no private hereditary fortune 
 could resist.' ^ 
 
 To the landed gentry they have long since been 
 obnoxious. A country squire, whatever his local in- 
 fluence, was overborne by the profusion of wealthy 
 strangers. Even a powerful noble was no match for 
 
 and America, bribery has bcpn practised upon representatives rather 
 than electors. — Dc Tocqi'eiille, i. 264, &c. 
 
 ' 'lioth the Court and particulars went greater lengths than in 
 any preceiling times. In truth, the corruption of electors met, if not 
 ezeeeded, that of ciindidati s." — iVulp. Mem., i. 42. 
 
 ' Jan. 22nd, 1770. Pari. Hist., xvi. 752. 
 
336 House of Connnons. 
 
 men, who brought to the contest the ' wealth of the 
 Indies.' Nor were they regarded with much favour 
 by the leaders of parties : for men who had bought 
 their seats, — and paid dearly for them, — owed no 
 allegiance to political patrons. Free from partv 
 connections, they sought admission into Parliament, 
 not so much with a view to a political career, as to 
 serve mere personal ends, — to forward commercial 
 speculations, to extend their connections, and to 
 gratify their social aspirations. But their inde- 
 pendence and ambition well fitted them for the 
 sei'vice of the comi. The kinir was struo-gling to 
 disengage himself from the domination of party 
 leaders ; and here were the very men he needed, — 
 without party ties or political prepossessions, — 
 daily increasing in numbers and influence, — and 
 easily attracted to his interests by the hope of those 
 rewards which are most coveted by the wealthy. 
 They soon ranged themselves among the king's 
 friends ; and thus the com-t policy, — which was 
 otherwise subversive of freedom,- — became associated 
 with parliamentary corruption. 
 
 The scandals of the election of 1761 led to the 
 Bribery Act P^^ssing of an act in the following year, by 
 of 1762. which pecimiary penalties were first im- 
 posed for the oflfence of bribery.^ But the evil 
 which it sought to correct, still continued without a 
 check. 
 
 Where the return of members was left to a small, 
 Sale of independent body of electors, their in- 
 
 boroughs. dividual votes were secured by bribery ; 
 ' 2 Geo. III. c. 24. 
 
Bribery at Elections. 
 
 and -when it rested with proprietors or corporations, 
 the seat was purchased outright. The sale of 
 boroughs, — an abuse of some antiquity,' — and often 
 practised since the time of Charles II., — became, at 
 the commencement of this reign, a general and no- 
 torious system. The right of property in boroughs 
 was acknowledged, and capable of sale or transfer, 
 like any other property. In 1766, Lord Hertford 
 prevailed upon Lord Chatham's ministry to transfer 
 to him the borough of Orford, which belonged to 
 the crown.^ And Sudbury, infamous for its cor- 
 ruption until its ultimate disfranchisement,' publicly 
 advertised itself for sale.'' 
 
 If a seat occupied by any member happened to be 
 required by the government, for some other candi- 
 date, he was bought out, at a price agreed upon 
 between them. Thus in 1764, we find Lord Ches- 
 terfield advising his son upon the best means of 
 securing 1,000L for the surrender of his seat, which 
 had cost him 2,000^. at the beginning of the Parlia- 
 ment.' 
 
 The general election of 1768 was at least as corrupt 
 as that of 1761, and the sale of seats more Gomr.ii 
 open and undisguised. They were bought I'us- 
 by the Treasury,'' by great nobles for their clients, 
 by speculators, and by gentlemen for whom there 
 
 ' In l.OTl, the borough of Wcstbury was fined by the House of 
 Commons for rereiving a bribe of 4/. ; and the mayor was ordered to 
 refund \\\v money. — (join. Journ., i. 88. 
 
 2 Walpolc'.i Mem., ii. 3G1. 
 
 • 7 & 8 Vict., c. 53. 
 
 • Walpolo's Mem., i. 42. 
 
 » Oct. 19th, 1764. Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his Son, iv. 
 218. 
 
 • Ann. Eeg. 1768, p. 78. 
 
 "VOL. I. Z 
 
House of Commons. 
 
 was no other way into Parliament. Some of the 
 cases were so flagrant as to shock even the moral 
 sentiments of that time. The corporation of Oxford 
 being heavily embarrassed, offered again to return 
 their members, Sir Thomas Stapylton and Mr. Lee, 
 on payment of their bond debts, amounting to 
 5,670L These gentlemen refused the offer, saying 
 that as they did not intend to sell the corporation, 
 they could not afford to buy them ; and brought 
 the matter before the House of Commons. The 
 mayor and ten of the aldermen were committed to 
 Xewgate ; but after a short imprisonment, were dis- 
 cliarged with a reprimand from the Speaker. Not 
 discouraged, however, by their imprisonment, they 
 completed, in Newgate, a bargain which they had 
 already commenced ; and sold the representation of 
 their city to the Duke of Marlborough and the Earl 
 of Abingdon. Meanwhile the town clerk carried oflf 
 the books of the corporation which contained evi- 
 dence of the bargain ; and the business was laughed 
 at and forgotten.' 
 
 For the borough of Poole there were three can- 
 didates. Mauger, the successful candidate, pro- 
 mised the corporation 1,000?., to be applied to 
 public purposes, if he should be elected ; Gulston 
 made them a present of 750L, as a mark of gratitude 
 for the election of his father on a former occasion ; 
 and Calcraft appears to have vainly tempted them 
 with the more liberal offer of 1,500^. The election 
 was declared void.'^ 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xvi. 397; Walpole's Mem., iii. 153. 
 * Feb. 10th. '7r,9 ; Com. Journ., xxxii. ly9. 
 
Bribery at Elections. 
 
 339 
 
 The representation of the borough of Ludgershall 
 was sold for 9,000^. by its owner, the celebrated 
 George Selwyn ; and the general price of boroughs 
 was said to be raised at that time, from 2,500L to 
 4,000^, or 5,000L, by the competition of the East and 
 West Indians.' It was notorious at the time, that 
 agents or ' borough-brokers ' were commissioned by 
 some of the smaller boroughs to oflFer them to the 
 highest bidder. Two of these, Reynolds and Hickey, 
 were taken into custody, by order of the House ; 
 and some others were sent to Newgate.* While 
 some boroughs were thus sold in the gross, the 
 electors were purchased elsewhere by the most lavish 
 bribery. The contest for the borough of North- 
 ampton was stated to have cost the candidates ' at 
 least 30,000^. a side.'' Nay, Lord Spencer is said 
 to have spent the incredible sum of 70,000^. in con- 
 testing this borough, and in the proceedings upon 
 an election petition which ensued.* 
 
 In 1771, the systematic bribery which had long 
 prevailed at New Shoreham was exposed New 
 
 , . . . t r- Shoreham 
 
 by an election committee — the first ap- case, 1771. 
 pointed under the Grenville Act.' It appeared that 
 a corrupt association, comprising the majority of the 
 electors, and calling itself the ' Christian Club,' had, 
 under the guise of cliarity, been in the habit of sell- 
 ing the borough to the highest bidder, and dividing 
 
 ' Letters of Lord Chesterfield to his Son, Dec. 19th, 1767; April 
 12th, 1768, iv. 269, 274. 
 ' VViilpole'g Jlt-m., iii. 157. 
 
 • Lord Che.'.torlield to his Son, April 12th, 1768, iv. 274. 
 
 • Waljioli-'s Mem., iii. 198, w, by .Sir D. Le Marchant. 
 " Cnveudish Deb., i. 191. 
 
 z 2 
 
House of Com7nojis. 
 
 the spoil amongst its members. They all fearlessly 
 took the bribery oath, as the bargain had been made 
 by a committee of their club, who abstained from 
 voting ; and the money was not distributed till 
 after the election. But the returning officer, having 
 lieen himself a member of the society, and knowing 
 all tlie electors who belonged to it, had rejected 
 their votes. This case was too gToss to be lightly 
 treated; and an act was passed to disfranchise the 
 members of the club, eighty-one in number, and to 
 admit to the franchise all the forty shilling free- 
 holders of the Eape of Bramber. An address was 
 also voted to prosecute the five members of the 
 committee for a corrupt conspiracy.' 
 
 In 1775, bribery was proved to have prevailed so 
 Hindon and widelv and shamelessly at Hindon, that an 
 
 Shaftesbury 
 
 cases. election committee recommended the dis- 
 franchisement of the borough;^ and at Shaftesbury 
 the same abuse was no less notorious.' 
 
 In 1782, the universal corruption of the electors 
 crickiade Cricklade was exposed before an election 
 case. committee. It appeared that out of two 
 hundred and forty voters, eighty-three had already 
 been convicted of bribery ; and that actions were 
 pending against forty-three others.'* A bill was ac- 
 cordingly brought in, to extend the franchise to all 
 the freeholders of the adjoining hundreds. Even 
 this moderate measure encountered much opposition, 
 — especially in the Lords, where Lord Mansfield and 
 Lord Chancellor Thurlow fought stoutly for the 
 
 > Com. .ToHrn., xxxiii. 69, 102, 179 ; 11 Geo. III. c. 65. 
 » Com. Journ.. xxxv. 118. ' Ibid., 311. 
 
 * Pari. Hist., xxii. 1027, 1167, 1388. 
 
Bribery encouraged by the King. 34 1 
 
 corrupt electors. Though the bill did not seek to 
 disfranchise a single person, it was termed a bill 
 of pains and penalties, and counsel were heard 
 against it. But the cause of the electors, even with 
 such supporters, was too bad to be defended ; and 
 the bill was passed.' 
 
 There can be little doubt that the king himself 
 was cognisant of the bribery which, at this Bribery 
 
 . n 1 encouraged 
 
 period, was systematically used to secure i^y the King. 
 Parliamentary support. Nay, more, he person- 
 ally advised and recommended it. Writing to Lord 
 North, 16th October, 1779, he said: 'If the Duke 
 of Northumberland requires some gold pills for 
 the election, it would be wrong not to satisfy 
 him.' 
 
 As these expenses were paid out of the king's civil 
 list, his jNIajesty, however earnest in the cause, found 
 Ihem a heavy burthen upon his resources. Writing 
 to Lord North on the 18th April, 1782, he said : ' As 
 to the immense expense of the general election, it 
 has quite surprised me : the sum is at least double 
 of what was expended on any other general election 
 since I came to the throne.' ^ And Lord North, in 
 excusing himself for this heavy outlay, entered into 
 some curious details, illustrative of the part which 
 the king and himself had taken in various elections. 
 He said,: ' If Lord North had thought that the expense 
 attending elections and re-elections in the years 1779, 
 1780, and 1781, would have amounted to 72,000/., 
 ' 22 Opo. III. c. 31. 
 
 ' Kings Letters to Lord North; Lord Broiighani's Works iii. 
 137, 138. 
 
 • Corr. of Geo. IH Trith Lord North, ii. 423. 
 
342 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 lie certainly would not Lave advised his Majesty to 
 have embarked in any such expense.' And he pro- 
 ceeded to explain the reasons which had induced him 
 to spend 5,000L at Bristol, 8,000L at Westminster, 
 4,000i. in Surrey, 4,000Z. in the city of London, and 
 how the last general election had altogether cost the 
 crown 50,000/., as well as certain pensions.' 
 
 When the disgraceful traffic in boroughs was ex- 
 Attempts posed in the House of Commons, before the 
 roiTupUon, general election of 1768, Alderman Beck- 
 ]iG8-i/Sb. ^^^^ brought in a bill requiring an oath to 
 be taken by every member, that he had not been 
 concerned in any bribery. According to Horace 
 Walpole, the country gentlemen were favourable to 
 this bill, as a protection against 'great lords, Nabobs, 
 commissaries, and West Indians:'^ but the extreme 
 stringency of the oath, which was represented as an 
 incitement to perjury, — a jealousy lest, under some 
 of the provisions of the bill, the privileges of the 
 House should be submitted to the courts of law, — 
 and above all, a disinclination to deal hardly with 
 practices, which all had been concerned in, had pro- 
 fited by, or connived at, — ultimately secured its 
 rejection. Again, in 1782 and 1783, Lord Mahon 
 vainly proposed bills to prevent bribery and expenses 
 at elections. In 1786, he brought in a bill for the 
 improvement of county elections, which was sup- 
 ported by iSIr. Pitt, and passed by the Commons, but 
 rejected by the Lords.^ The same evil practices con- 
 
 ' Corr. of Geo. III. with Lord North, ii. 424. See also Lor^ 
 Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii., App. p. zi.; Sir G. Lewis's Lettt-rs. 411. 
 * Walp. Mem., iii. 1.53, 157, 169. 
 
 ' Wraxall's Mem., iii. 1.36; Lord Stiinhope's Life of Pitt, i. 294 
 W^TiU's Pol. Papers, iv. 512; Wilborfoivo's Life, i. 114. 
 
Sale of Seats. 
 
 343 
 
 tinued, — unc'hecked by legislation, connived at by 
 statesmen, and tolerated by public opinion. 
 
 The system of purciiasing seats in the House of 
 Commons, however indefensible in princi- saie of 
 
 seats; its 
 
 pie, was at least preferable to the general >ises. 
 corruption of electors, and in some respects, to the 
 more prevalent practice of nomination. To buy a 
 seat in Parliament was often the only means, by 
 which an independent member could gain admission 
 to the House of Commons. If he accepted a seat 
 from a patron, his independence was compromised : 
 but if he acquired a seat by purchase, he was free to 
 vote according to his own opinions and conscience. 
 Thus, we find Sir Samuel Komilly, — the most pure 
 and virtuous of public men, — who had declined on« 
 seat from the favour of the Prince of Wales,^ justi 
 fying the purchase of another, for the sake of his 
 own independence, and the pubKc interests. Writing 
 in September, 1805, he says : 'As long as burgage- 
 tenure representatives are only of two descriptions, 
 — they who buy their seats, and they who discharge 
 the most sacred of trusts at the pleasure, and almost 
 as the servants of another, — surely there can be no 
 doubt in which class a man would choose to enrol 
 himself ; and one who should carry his notions of 
 purity so far, that, thinking he ptfssessed the means 
 of rendering service to his country, he would yet 
 rather seclude himself altogether from Parliament, 
 than get into it by such a violation of the theory 
 of the constitution, must be under the dominion of 
 a species of moral superstition wliicli must wholly 
 
 ' Eomilly's Life, ii. Il l 120. 
 
344 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 disqualify him for the discharge of any public 
 duties.' ' 
 
 The extent to which the sale of seats prevailed, 
 and its influence over the composition of the House 
 of Commons, may also be exemplified from the diary 
 of Sir Samuel Eomilly, in 1807. Thus he writes: 
 ' Tierney, who manages this business for the friends 
 of the late administration, assures me that he can 
 hear of no seats to be disposed of. After a Parlia- 
 ment which had lived little more than four months, 
 one would naturally suppose that those seats which 
 are regularly sold by the proprietors of them, would 
 be very cheap : they are, however, in fact, sold now 
 at a higher price than was ever given for them be- 
 fore. Tierney tells me that he has offered 10,000^. 
 for the two seats of Westbury, the property of the 
 late Lord Abingdon, and which are to be made the 
 most of by trustees for creditors, and has met with 
 a refusal. 6,000^. and 5,500^. have been given for 
 seats, with no stipulation as to time, or against the 
 event of a speedy dissolution by the king's death, or 
 by any. change of administration. The truth is, that 
 the new ministers have bought up all the seats that 
 were to be disposed of, and at any prices. Amongst 
 
 others, Sir C. H , the great dealer in boroughs, 
 
 has sold all he had to ministers. With what money 
 all this is done I know not, but it is supposed that 
 the king, who has greatly at heart to preserve this 
 new administration, the favourite objects of his 
 choice, has advanced a very large sum out of his 
 privy purse. 
 
 ' Diary; Life, ii. 122. 
 
Sah of Seats. 
 
 345 
 
 ' This buying of seats is detestable ; and yet it is 
 almost the only way in which one in my situation, 
 who is resolved to be an independent man, can get 
 into Parliament. To come in by a popular election, 
 in the present state of the representation, is quite 
 impossible ; to be placed there by some great lord, 
 and to vote as he shall direct, is to be in a state of 
 complete dependence ; and nothing hardly remains 
 but to owe a seat to the sacrifice of a part of one's 
 fortune. It is true, that many men who buy seats 
 do it as a matter of pecuniary speculation, as a pro- 
 fitable way of employing their money : they carry 
 on a political trade ; they buy their seats and sell 
 their votes.'' He afterwards bought his seat for 
 Horsham of the Duke of Norfolk, for 2,000L=* 
 
 So regular was the market for seats, that where it 
 was inconvenient to candidates to pay down Annual 
 
 rents for 
 
 the purchase-money, tney were accoramo- stats in 
 
 Tarlia- 
 
 dated by its commutation into an annual meat, 
 rent. It was the sole redeeming quality of this 
 traffic, that boroughs were generally disposed of to 
 persons professing the same political opinions as the 
 proprietors.' These nominees were unknown to 
 
 ' Romilly's Life, ii. 200-201. 
 
 * Lord l'iiln)eraton, iii his Diary, Kov. 180G, writes: — ' Fitz- 
 llarris and I paid each 1,500/. for the pleasure of sitting under the 
 piUery for a week, in our capacity of petitioners.' At the dissolu- 
 tion wo 'rejoiced m our good fortune at not having paid 5,000/. 
 ( which would have been its price) for a three months' seat.'— Z?!</!tier'« 
 Life of I'aliucrtitiin, i. 10. 
 
 ' Komilly's Life, ii. 202. Somitime.s differences of opinion were 
 Appraised at a money value. At Petersfield, for example, a candi- 
 date, by paying guineas instead of pounds, overcame the proprietor's 
 repuguanccj to hia politics. — From private inj'orimlion. 
 
^4^ Hojcsc of Commons. 
 
 their constituents, and were sometimes under an en- 
 gagement not to make their acquaintance.^ 
 
 The practice of selling and letting seats, by which 
 
 Sale of ministers themselves were sometimes corn- 
 seats re- . 
 
 strained promised,'^ at last become so notorious, that 
 1809. it could no longer be openly tolerated by 
 Parliament. In 1809, Mr. Ciu'wen brought in a bill 
 to prevent the obtaining of seats in Parliament by 
 corrupt practices, which, after much discussion in 
 both Houses, he succeeded in passing. It imposed 
 heavy penalties upon corrupt agreements for the 
 return of members, whether for money, office, or 
 other consideration ; and in the case of the person 
 returned, added the forfeiture of his seat.^ 
 
 But notwithstanding these penalties, the sale of 
 This Act seats, — if no longer so open and avowed, — 
 
 inopera- . n n • i • i 
 
 tive. continued to be earned on by private ar- 
 
 rangement, so long as nomination boroughs were suf- 
 fered to exist, as one of the anomalies of our repre- 
 sentative system. The representation of Hastings, 
 being vested in a close corporation, was regularly 
 sold, until the reform act had enlarged tlie fran- 
 chise, for 6,000^'' And until 1832, an extensive 
 sale of similar boroughs continued to be negotiated 
 
 ' ' I came into Parliament for Newtown, in the Isle of V.'ight, a 
 borough of Sir Leonard Holmes'. One condition required was, tliat 
 I would never, even for the election, set foot in the place. Sojealous 
 was the patron lest any attempt should be made to get a new interest 
 in the borough.' — Lord I'alm^rstou's Dia'-y, May, 1807; Bu/wcr's 
 Life, i. 23. 
 
 See cases of Lord Claiicarty and Mr. Quentin Dick, in 1 809 ; 
 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xiv. 218,486; Komilly's Life, ii. 280; Lo:\l 
 Colchester's Diary, ii. 169, 179. 
 
 " 49 Geo. in. c. 118 ; Hans. Deb., xiv. 3,Vt, 617, 837, 1032, .*v:c. 
 Lord O.ilehester's Diary, ii. 186, 179-193. 
 
 * i'rom private information. See also Lord Bruughanis Life, ii. 71. 
 
Goveimment Influence. 
 
 347 
 
 by the Secretary to the Treasury, by the ' 'whippers- 
 in ' of the opposition, and by proprietors and close 
 corporations. So long as any boroughs remained, 
 which could be bought and sold, the market was 
 well supplied with buyers and sellers. 
 
 Boroughs whose members were nominated, as to 
 an office, and boroughs bought in the open Covprn- 
 
 mentin- 
 
 market, or corrupted by lavish bribery, flneneein 
 
 larger 
 
 could not pretend to popular election. The boi^ughs. 
 members for such places were independent of the 
 people, whom they professed to represent. But 
 there were populous places, thriving ports, and 
 manufacturing to'svns, whence representatives, freely 
 chosen, might have been expected to find their way 
 into the House of Commons. But these very places 
 were the favourite resort of the government candi- 
 dates. The seven years' war had increased the 
 national debt, and the taxation of the country. The 
 number of officers employed in the collection of the 
 revenue was consequently augmented. As servants 
 of the government, their votes were secured for the 
 ministerial candidates. It was quite understood to 
 be a part of their duty, to vote for any candidate 
 who hoisted the colours of the minister of the day ; 
 and their number was the greatest, precisely where 
 they wore most needed by the government. The 
 smaller boroughs were already secured by purchase, 
 or overwhelming local interest : but the cities and 
 ports had some pretensions to independence. Here, 
 however, troops of petty officers of customs and 
 excise were driven to tlie poll, and, — supported 
 by venal freemen, — overpowered the independent 
 electors. 
 
348 
 
 House of Coviinoiis. 
 
 In 1768, !Mr. Dowdeswell had in vain endeavoured 
 to insert a clause in Alderman Beckford's 
 franchisej. bribery bill, for the disqualification of re- 
 venue officers. In 1770, he proposed a bill to dis- 
 qualify these officers from voting at elections, and 
 ■was supported by Mr. Grenville. It was urged, how- 
 ever, that they were already prohibited from inter- 
 fering at elections, though not from voting ; and 
 that no further restraint could reasonably be re- 
 quired. But, in truth, the ministry of Lord North 
 were little disposed to surrender so important a 
 source of influence, and the bill was accordingly 
 rejected.' 
 
 The measure, however, was merely postponed for 
 a time. The dangerous policy of the court, under 
 Lord North, — and its struggle to rule by preroga- 
 tive and influence, — convinced all liberal statesmen 
 of the necessity of protecting public liberty, by 
 more effectual safeguards. Meanwhile the disastroixs 
 American war fm-ther aggravated the evils of taxes, 
 and tax-collectors. 
 
 In 1780, a bill to disqualify revenue officers was 
 proposed by ]Mr. Crewe, and though rejected on the 
 second reading, it met with much more support thau 
 Mr. Dowdeswell's previous measure.'^ It was again 
 brought forward in 1781, with less success than in 
 the previous year.^ But the time was now at hand, 
 when a determined assault was contemplated upon 
 the influence of the crown; and in 1782, the dis- 
 
 ' By a majority of 263 to 188 ; Pari Hist., xvi. 834 ; Cavendiah 
 Deb., i. 442. 
 
 * The numbers were 224 to 19.") ; Pari. ITi-'^t., xxi. 403. 
 
 • The numbers being 133 to 86 ; Pari. Hist., xii. 1398. 
 
Government Influence. 
 
 349 
 
 qualification of revenue officers, — which had hitherto 
 been an opposition measure, — was proposed by the 
 ministry of Lord Eockingham. Its imperative 
 necessity was proved by Lord Rockingham himself, 
 who stated that seventy elections chiefly depended 
 on the votes of these officers ; and that eleven thou- 
 sand five hundred officers of customs and excise were 
 electors." In one borough, he said that one hundred 
 and twenty out of the five hundred voters had ob- 
 tained revenue appointments, throiigh the influence 
 of a single person. 
 
 This necessary measure was now carried through 
 both Houses, by large majorities, though not with- 
 out remonstrances against its principle, especially 
 from Lord Mansfield. It is not to be denied that 
 the disqualification of any class of men is, abstract- 
 edly, opposed to liberty, and an illiberal principle 
 of legislation ; but here was a gross constitutional 
 abuse requiring correction ; and though many voters 
 were deprived of the rights of citizenship, — these 
 rights could not be freely exercised, and were sacri- 
 ficed in order to protect the general liberties of the 
 people. Had there been a franchise so extensive as 
 to leave the general body of electors free to vote, 
 without being overborne by the servants of the 
 crown, it would have been difficult to justify the 
 policy of disfranchisement.* But with a franchise 
 so restricted that the electors were controlled by the 
 
 ' Jnnn 3r(l, 1782 ; Pari. Hist., xxii. 95. 
 
 " This principle hii.M siiioo Ijciti rccdcniscd lij' tho Lctiislnture ; and 
 in 18()8, rcpral of this disqualiMciilioii !icc(iMi|uinii'cl the i-xlriidrd 
 franchises of ihiit time. — 31 & 'il Vict. c. 7^, 1U2 ; llaU!*. LVb., 3rtl 
 Ser., 1362, &c. ; 37 & 38 Vict. c. 22. 
 
350 
 
 House of Comvions. 
 
 crown, in the choice of their representatives, the 
 measure was necessary in the interests of freedom. 
 
 Such being the dependence and corruption of the 
 Vexations Smaller boroughs, — and such the govern- 
 popSo^"" ment influence in many of the larger towns, 
 cities. — there were still a few great cities, with 
 popular rights of election, whose inhabitants neither 
 landowners nor government covild control, and which 
 were beyond the influence of corruption. Here, at 
 least, there might have been a free expression of 
 public opinion. But such were the vices of the 
 laws which formerly regulated elections — laws not 
 designed for the protection of the franchise, — that a 
 popular candidate, with a majority of votes, might 
 be met by obstacles so vexatious and oppressive, as 
 to debar him from the free suffrage of the electors. 
 If not defeated at the poll, by riots and open vio- 
 lence, — or defrauded of his votes, by the partiality 
 of the returning ofEcer, or the factious manoeuvres 
 of his opponents, — he was ruined by the extravagant 
 costs of his victory. The poll was liable to be kept 
 open for forty days, entailing an enormous expense 
 upon the candidates, and prolific of bribery, treating, 
 and riots. During this period, the public houses 
 were thrown open ; and drunkenness and disorder 
 prevailed in the streets, and at the hustings. Bands 
 of hired ruffians, — armed with bludgeons, and in- 
 flamed by drink, — paraded the public thoroughfares, 
 intimidating voters, and resisting their access to the 
 polling places. Candidates assailed with oflfensive, 
 and often dangerous missiles, braved the penalties of 
 the pillory ; while their suppoi-ters were exposed to 
 
Westminster Election, 1784. 351 
 
 the fuiy of a di'uriken mob. Even now, a contested 
 
 election, which lasts but a day, is often a reproach to 
 
 a civilised people. What then must it have been 
 
 before any of its worst vices had been controlled, 
 
 and when it continued for upwards of a month ? 
 
 The most conspicuous example of all the abuses 
 
 of which the old electoral system was capa- Westmin- 
 ster elec- 
 
 ble, was that of the Westminster election, won, i784. 
 in 1784. IVIr. Fox had incurred the violent resent- 
 ment of the government, by his recent opposition to 
 ]VIr. Pitt, and the court party. It had been deter- 
 mined, that all the members who had supported the 
 coalition should be opposed, at the general election ; 
 and Mr. Fox, their ablest leader, was the foremost 
 man to be assailed. The election, — disgraced 
 throughout by scenes of drunkenness, tumult, and 
 violence,' — and by the coarsest libels and lam- 
 poons, — was continued for forty days. When the 
 poll was closed, j\Ir. Yos. was in a majority of two 
 hundred and thirty-six above Sir Cecil Wray, one 
 of the court candidates. But he was now robbed of 
 the fruits of his victory by the High Bailiff, who 
 withheld his return, and commenced a scrutiny into 
 the votes. By withholding the return, after the day 
 on which the writ was returnable, he denied the 
 successful candidate his right to sit in Parliament; 
 and anticipated the jurisdiction of the House of 
 Commons, by which court alone, the validity of the 
 election could tlien properly be determined. This 
 
 ' In one of tlin brawls which arose durinp its procrre«s, a man was 
 killod, whoso 'lentil was charfjed a(;ainst persons belonging to Mr. 
 i''ox'B party, but I hoy were all acquitted. 
 
352 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 iinwarrantable proceeding would have excluded Mr. 
 Fox from his rightful place in Parliament : but he 
 had already been returned for Kirkwall, and took 
 his seat, at the commencement of the session. 
 
 Apart from the vexation and injustice to which 
 INIr. Fox had been exposed, the expense of the 
 scrutiny was estimated at 18,000Z, In vain his 
 friends endeavoured to induce the House of Com- 
 mons to order the High Bailiff to make an imme 
 diate return. That officer was upheld by ]\Ir. Pitt, 
 who was followed, at first, by a large majority. ]\Ir, 
 Fox, in his bitterness, exclaimed : ' I have no reason 
 to expect indulgence : nor do I know that I shall 
 meet with bare justice in this House.' As no return 
 had been made, which could be submitted to the 
 adjudication of an election committee, ]\Ir. Fox was 
 at the mercy of a hostile majority of the House. 
 The High Bailiff was, indeed, directed to proceed 
 with the scrutiny, with all practicable despatch : 
 but at the commencement of the following session, — 
 when the scrutiny had been proceeding for eight 
 months, — it had only been completed in a single 
 parish ; and had but slightly affected the relative 
 position of the candidates. Notwithstanding this 
 exposure of the monstrous injustice of the scrutiny, 
 JMr. Pitt still resisted a motion for directing the 
 High Bailiff to make an immediate return. But, — 
 blindly as he had hitherto been followed, — such was 
 the iniquity of the cause which hs persisted in sup- 
 porting, that all his influence failed in commanding 
 a larger majority than nine ; and on the 3rd of 
 March, he was defeated by a majority of thirty- 
 
County Elections. 
 
 eight.' The minister was justly punished for his 
 ungenerous conduct to an opponent, and for his 
 contempt of the law, — indignantly ascribed by Mr. 
 Fox, to ' the malignant wish of gratifying an inor- 
 dinate and implacable spirit of resentment.'^ But 
 a system which had thus placed a popular candi- 
 date, — in one of the first cities of the kingdom, — at 
 the mercy of factious violence, and ministerial op- 
 pression, was a flagrant outrage upon the principles 
 of freedom. Parliament further marked its repro- 
 bation of such proceedings, by limiting every poll 
 to fifteen days, and closing a scrutiny six days 
 before the day on which the writ was returnable.^ 
 
 In the counties, the franchise was more free and 
 liberal, than in the majority of cities and Territorial 
 boroughs. All forty-shilling freeholders incoanties. 
 were entitled to vote ; and in this class were com- 
 prised the country gentlemen, and independent 
 yeomanry of England. Hence the county consti- 
 tuencies were at once the most numerous, the most 
 responsible, and tlie least corrupt. They repre- 
 sented public opinion more faithfully than other 
 electoral bodies ; and, on many occasions, had great 
 weight in advancing a popular cause. Such were 
 their respectability and public spirit, that most of 
 the earlier schemes of parliamentary reform con- 
 templated the disfranchisement of boroughs, and 
 
 ' Bv 162 against 124; Ann. Reg., 1784, xxvii. 180; Adolphus's 
 Hist., iv. ILi-llS, 1G8. 
 
 » Pari. Uisr., x.\iv. 808, 843, 846 ; Ihii., xxv. 3 ; Tomlint'.s Life ot' 
 Pitf, i. 542; ii. 7, 24, &o. ; Lord .T. KushoH's Life of Fox, ii. 99; 
 Lord .Stanliope'H Life of Pitt, i. 207-211, 253. 
 
 » 2.> Cieo. III. c. 81. 
 
 VOL. I. A A 
 
354 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 the simple addition of members to the counties. 
 But notwithstanding their unquestionable merits, 
 the county electors were peculiarly exposed to the 
 influence of the great nobles, who held nearly a 
 feudal sway. Illustrious ancestry, vast possessions, 
 high offices, disting\iished political services and 
 connections, placed them at the head of the society 
 of their several counties ; and local influence, and 
 the innate respect for aristocracy which animates 
 the English people, combined to make them the 
 political leaders of the gentry and yeomanry. In 
 some counties, powerful commoners were no less 
 dominant. The greater number of the counties in 
 England and Wales were represented by members 
 of these families, or by gentlemen enjoying their 
 confidence and patronage.* 
 
 A contested election was more often due to the 
 rivalry of great houses, than to the conflict of poli- 
 tical principles among the electors : but, as the 
 candidates generally belonged to opposite parties, 
 their contentions produced political discussion and 
 enlightenment. Such contests were conducted with 
 the spirit and vigour which rivalry inspires, and 
 with an extravagance which none but princely 
 fortunes could support. They were like the wars 
 of small states. In 1768, the Duke of Portland is 
 said to have spent 40,000Z. in contesting Westmore- 
 land and Cumberland with Sir James Lowther ; 
 who, on his side, must have spent at least as much.' 
 In 1779, Mr. Chester spent between 20,000^. and 
 
 ' Oldfield's Rpprpsfiitaliv Hist., vi. 285. 
 ' Wttlpolo's Mum., iii. 197. 
 
Representation of Scotland. 355 
 
 30,000?. in a great contest for Gloucestershire ; and 
 left, at his death, from 3,000Z. to 4,000L unpaid, of 
 which 2,000Z. was defrayed by the king, out of his 
 civil list.^ And, within the memory of some men 
 still living, an election for the county of York 
 has been known to cost upwards of 150,000^^ 
 
 Great as were the defects of the representation of 
 England, — those of Scotland were even Bepresen- 
 
 tation of 
 
 greater, and of more general operation. Scotland. 
 The county franchise consisted in ' superiorities,' 
 which were bought and sold in the market, and 
 were enjoyed independently of property or residence. 
 The burgh franchise was vested in self-elected town- 
 councillors. The constituencies, therefore, repre- 
 sented neither population nor property : but the 
 narrowest local interests. It was shown in 1823, 
 that the total number of persons enjoying the 
 franchise was less than three thousand. In no 
 county did the number of electors exceed two 
 hundred and forty : in one it was as low as nine ; 
 and of this small number, a considerable proportion 
 were fictitious voters, — without property, and not 
 even resident in the coimtry.^ 
 
 In 1831, the total number of county voters did 
 not exceed two thousand five hundred ; and the 
 constituencies of the sixty-six boroughs amounted 
 
 ' Lord North to the King ; Corr. of Geo. III. with Lord North, 
 ii. 424. 
 
 » Speech of Ix)r(l J. Russell, March 1st, 1831 ; Hans. Deb., .Tnl 
 Ser., ii. 1074. In 1807, the joint expenses of I/ord Milton and Mr. 
 LascelU'S, in contesting this county, were 200,000/. ; while 64,000/. 
 were sulisi-ribcd lor Mr. Wilberforce, but not t xpi-nded.— H'UUrJorce i 
 Life, iii. 324. 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 611 
 
 A k2 
 
356 Hozise of Cotnmons. 
 
 to one thousand four hundred and forty. Thus the 
 entire electoral body of Scotland was not more than 
 four thousand. The county of Argyll, with a popu- 
 lation of one hundred thousand, had but one hun- 
 dred and fifteen electors, of whom eighty-four were 
 out-voters, without any land within the county. 
 Caithness, with thirty thousand inhabitants, con- 
 tained forty-seven freeholders, of whom thirty-six 
 were out-voters. Inverness-shire, with ninety thou- 
 sand inhabitants, had but eighty- eight freeholders, 
 of wliom fifty were out-voters. Edinburgh and 
 Glasgow, the two first cities of Scotland, had each 
 a constituency of thirty-three persons.' 
 
 With a franchise so limited and partial as this, 
 all the counties and burghs, without exception, had 
 fallen under the influence of political patrons.^ A 
 great kingdom, with more than two millions of 
 people,^ — intelligent, instructed, industrious, and 
 peaceable, — was virtually disfranchised. Mean- 
 while, the potentates who returned the members to 
 Parliament, — instead of contending among them- 
 selves, like their brethren in England, and joining 
 opposite parties, — were generally disposed to make 
 their terms with ministers ; and by skilful manage- 
 ment, the entire representation was engrossed by 
 the friends and agents of the government. It was 
 not secured, however, without a profuse distribution 
 of patronage, which, judiciously administered, had 
 
 ' Speech of Lord Advocate, Sept. 23rd, 1831 ; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., 
 vii. 529. 
 
 Oldfield's Kepresentative Hist., vi. 294 ; Edinburgh Review, Oct 
 1830, Art. X. 
 
 Ihc population of Scotland in 1831 was 2,365,807. 
 
Representation of Scotland. 357 
 
 long retained the allegiance of members coming 
 from the north of the Tweed.' 
 
 Lord Cockbum, a contemporary witness, has given 
 a spirited account of the mode in which elections in 
 Scotland were conducted. He says : ' The return of 
 a single opposition member was never to be expected. 
 . . . The return of three or four was miraculous, 
 and these startling exceptions were always the re- 
 sult of local accidents. . . . Whatever this system 
 may have been originally, it had grown, in reference 
 to the people, into as complete a mockery, as if it 
 had been invented for their degi-adation. The people 
 had nothing to do with it. It was all managed by 
 town-councils, of nerer more than thirty-three 
 members ; and every town-council was self-elected, 
 and consequently perpetuated its own interests. 
 The election of either the town or the county mem- 
 ber, was a matter of such utter inditference to 
 the people, that they often only knew of it by the 
 ringing of a bell, or by seeing it mentioned next 
 day in a newspaper ; for the farce was generally 
 performed in an apartment from which, if conve- 
 nient, the public could be excluded, and never in 
 the open air.'* 
 
 Where there were districts of burghs, each town- 
 council elected a delegate, and the four or five 
 delegates elected the member ; ' and, instead of 
 bribing the town-councils, the established practice 
 
 ' Jt was said of one Scotch county mombcr, ' that his invariable 
 rule was never to bo present at a debate, or absent at a division ; 
 and that he had only once, in his long politicJil life, ventured to vote 
 acordinc to his conscience, and tluit he found on that occasion he 
 had V(jt('d wrong." — llans. l)eb., 3rd Scr., vii. 543. 
 
 ' Life of Juflrey, i. 7o. 
 
358 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 was to bribe only the delegates, or indeed onlv one 
 of them, if this could secure the majority.' ' 
 
 A case of inconceivable grotesqneness was related 
 by the Lord Advocate, in 1831. The county of 
 Bute, with a population of fourteen thousand- had 
 twenty-one electors, of whom orm only resided in 
 the county. ' At an election at Bute, not beyond 
 the memory of man, only one person attended the 
 meeting, except the sheriff and the returning oflBcer. 
 He, of course, took the chair, constituted the meeting, 
 called over the roll of freeholders, answered to his 
 own name, took the vote as to the Preses, and elected 
 himsel£ He then moved and seconded his own 
 nomination, put the question as to the vote, and 
 was unanimously returned-'* 
 
 This close system of elections had existed even 
 before the Union : but though sufficiently notiDrious, 
 the British Parliament had paid little attention to 
 its defects. 
 
 In 1818, and again in 1823, Lord Archibald 
 Hamilton had shown the state of the Eoval 
 Btirghs, — the self-election, and irrespon- 
 i»is.ie3. sibility of the councillors, — and their un- 
 controlled authority over the local funds. The 
 questions then raised referred to mxmicipal rather 
 than parliamentary reform : but the latter came 
 incidentally under review, and it was admitted that 
 there was 'no popular election, or pretence of 
 popular election.'' Lq 1823, Lord Archibald ex- 
 
 ' Gxkbnm's MenL, L S8. 
 
 > Hans. Deb^ Srd Ser^ Tii. 529. 
 
 * Sir J. Mackintosh; Haas. X>eb, 1st Ser.. xxxriL Ul; i&i^., 2iMi 
 Bet, TiiL 73o. 
 
Representaticni of Ireland. 359 
 
 posed the state of the county representation, and 
 the general electoral system of the country, and 
 found one hundred and seventeen supporters.' 
 
 In 182-1, the question of Scotch representation was 
 brought forward by ^Ir. Abercromby. The Bei^esen- 
 iuhabitants of Edinburgh complained, by ^^^ti^ 
 petition,* that the representation of this 
 capital city — the metropolis of the Xorth, with 
 upwards of one hundred thousand inhabitants — 
 was returned by thirty-three electors, of whom 
 nineteen had been chosen by their predecessors in 
 tlie town-council I !Mr. Abercromby moved for leave 
 tu bring in a bill to amend the representation of that 
 city, — as an instalment of parliamentary reform in 
 Scotland. His motion failed, and being renewed in 
 1826, was equally unsuccessful. Such proposals 
 were always met in the same manner. W hen 
 general measures of reform were advocated, the 
 maomitude of the change was urged as the reason 
 f jr rejecting them ; and when, to obviate such 
 objections, the correction of any particular defect 
 was attempted, its exceptional character was a 
 decisive argTiment against it.^ 
 
 Prior to 1801, the British Parliament was not 
 concerned in the state of the representation Repreen- 
 
 . tatioD at 
 
 of the people of Ireland. But on the luiion Ireland, 
 of that country, the defects of its representation 
 were added to those of England and Scotland, in 
 
 ' Hang. Deb., 2nd S«r., ix. 611. 
 
 ' This petition had Wn presented May 6th, 1823, drawn up by 
 Mr. Jefirey, and signed by 7.000 oat of the 10,000 householders ii 
 the city. — Corkburn Mem., 40*. 
 
 * Hong. Deb.. 2od Ser., x. 455 -..Ibid., xir. 107 ; Rid., xr. 163. 
 
360 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 the constitution of the united Parliament. The 
 counties and boroughs in Ireland were at least as 
 much under the influence of great patrons as in 
 England. It is true, that in arranging the terms of 
 the imion, ^Lr. Pitt took the opportunity of abo- 
 lishing several of the smaller nomination boroughs : 
 hut many were spared, which were scarcely less 
 under the patronage of noblemen and landowners ; 
 and places of more consideration were reduced, by 
 restricted rights of election, to a similar dependence. 
 In Belfast, in Carlow, in Wexford, and in SHgo, the 
 right of election was vested in twelve self-elected 
 burgesses : in Limerick and Kilkenny, it was in the 
 corporation and freemen. In the counties, the 
 influence of the territorial families was equally 
 dominant. For the sake of political influence, the 
 landowners had subdivided their estates into a pro- 
 digious nimiber of forty-shilling freeholds ; and until 
 the freeholders had fallen under the dominion of the 
 priests, they were faithful to their Protestant patrons. 
 According to the law of Ireland, freeholds were 
 created without the possession of property ; and the 
 votes of the freeholders were considered as the ab- 
 solute right of the proprietor of the soil. Hence 
 it was that after the union more than two thirds of 
 the Irish members were returned, not by the people 
 of Ireland, but by about fifty or sixty influential 
 patrons.' 
 
 ' Wakefield's Statistical and Political Account of Ireland, ii. 299, 
 cf !ff-q.; Oldfleld's Eepreaentative Hist., vi. 209-280; Infra, Chap. 
 
 xvx 
 
Number of Members Nominated. 361 
 
 Such being the state of the representation in the 
 United Kingdom, an actual majority of the Majority 
 members of the House of Commons were members 
 returned by an inconsiderable number of 
 persons. According to a statement made by the Duke 
 of Richmond in 1780, not more than sis thousand 
 men returned a clear majority of the House of 
 Commons.' It was alleged in the petition of the 
 Society of the Friends of the People, presented by 
 3Ir. Grey in 1793, that eighty-four individuals ab- 
 solutely returned one hundred and fifty-seven mem- 
 bers to Parliament ; that seventy influential men 
 secured the return of one himdred and fifty mem- 
 bers ; and that, in this manner, three hundred and 
 fifty-seven members, — being the majority of the 
 House, before the union with Ireland, — were re- 
 turned to Parliament by one himdred and fifty-foiu" 
 patrons; of whom forty were peers.* In 1821, Mr. 
 Lambton stated that he was prepared to prove by 
 evidence, at the bar of the House of Commons, 
 ' that one hundred and eighty individuals returned, 
 by nomination or otherwise, three hundred and fifty 
 members.' ' 
 
 Dr. Oldfield's Representative History furnishes 
 still more elaborate statistics of parliamentary 
 patronage. According to his detailed statements, 
 no less than two hundred and eighteen members 
 were returned for counties and boroughs, in England 
 
 > Pari. Hist., rri. 686. * Ibii., xxx. 787. 
 
 » Haas. Dill., 2nd Scr , v. 359. Writing in 1S21, Sydney Smith 
 i^ays: ' The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, 
 the Duke of Xfwca>.tle. and about twenty other holders of boroughs. 
 They are our masters." — Mtiu., ii. 215. 
 
362 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 and Wales, by tlie nomination or influence of 
 eighty-seven peers : one hundred and thirty-seveu 
 Nvere returned by ninety commoners, and sixteen by 
 the Government ; making a total number of three 
 hundred and seventy-one nominee members. Of 
 the forty-five members for Scotland, thirty-one were 
 returned by twenty-one peers, and the remainder by 
 fourteen commoners. Of the hundred members for 
 Ireland, fifty-one were returned by thirty-six peers, 
 and twenty by nineteen commoners. The general 
 result of these surprising statements is, — that of 
 the six hundred and fifty-eight members of the 
 House of Commons, fom* hundred and eighty-seven 
 were returned by nomination ; and one hundred and 
 seventy-one only were representatives of independent 
 constituencies.' Such matters did not admit of 
 proof, and were beyond the scope of parliamentary 
 inquiries : but after making allowances for imper- 
 fect evidence and exaggeration, we are unable to 
 resist the conclusion, that not more than one third 
 of the House of Commons were the free choice even 
 of the limited bodies of electors then entrusted 
 with the franchise. 
 
 Scandalous as were the electoral abuses which law 
 Inj iistioe and custom formerly permitted, the con- 
 triai of duct of the House of Commons, in the 
 
 ejection 
 
 petitions. trial of elcctiou petitions, was more scan- 
 dalous still. Boroughs were bought and sold, - • 
 electors were notoriously bribed by wholesale and 
 retail, — returning officers were partial and corrupt. 
 But, in defiance of all justice and decency, the 
 
 ' Oldfield's Roprt'st'iitative Hist., 181G, vi. 285-300. 
 
Ti'ial of Election Petitions. 363 
 
 majority of the House of Commons connived at 
 these practices, when committed by their own party ; 
 and only condemned them, when their political 
 opponents were put upon their trial. Dot veniam 
 corvis, — vexat censura columbas. The Commons 
 having, for the sake of their own independence, 
 insisted upon an exclusive jurisdiction in matters of 
 election, were not ashamed to prostitute it to party. 
 They were charged with a grave trust, and abused 
 it. They assumed a judicial oflBce, and dishouom'ed 
 it. This discreditable perversion of justice had 
 grown up with those electoral abuses, which an 
 honest judicature would have tended to correct; 
 and reached its greatest excesses in the reigns of 
 George II. and George III. 
 
 Originally, controverted elections had been tried 
 by select committees specially nominated, and after- 
 wards by the Committee of Privileges and Elections. 
 This latter committee had been nominated by the 
 Ifouse itself, being composed of Privy Councillors 
 and eminent lawyers, well qualified by their learning 
 for the judicial inquiries entrusted to them. In 
 1603, it comprised the names of Sir Francis Bacon 
 and Sir Thomas Fleming;' in 1623, the names of 
 Sir Edward Coke, Sir Ileneage Finch, ^Ir. Pym, Mr. 
 Glanville, Sir Roger North, and Mr. Selden.* The 
 committee was then confined to the members nomi- 
 nated by the House itself : ' but being afterwards 
 enlarged by the introduction of all Privy Councillors 
 
 ' Cm. Journ., i. 119 (March 23rd, 1603). Thoro are earlier ap- 
 poiiittiiciits in U'Kwcs' Journal. 
 
 * Coin. Journ., i. 710 ; Glanvillo's Hop., Pref. vii. 
 
 • Com. Journ., i. 71 G ; Cavendish Dob., i. 608. 
 
3f>4 House of Commons. 
 
 and G-entlemen of the Long Robe, it became, after 
 1672, an open committee, in which all who came 
 were allowed to have voices. This committee was 
 henceforth exposed to all the evils of large and 
 fluctuating numbers, and an irresponsible constitu- 
 tion ; and at length, in the time of Mr. Speaker 
 Onslow, a hearing at the bar of the House itself, — 
 which in special cases had already been occasionally 
 resorted to, — was deemed preferable to the less 
 public and responsible judicature of the committee. 
 Here, however, the partiality and injustice of the 
 judges were soon notorious. The merits of the elec- 
 tion, on which they affected to adjudicate, were little 
 regarded. To use the words of Mr. Grenville, ' The 
 coiu-t was thin to hear, and full to judge.'' Parties 
 tried their strength, — the friends of rival candidates 
 canvassed and manoeuvred, — and seats corruptly 
 gained, were as corruptly protected, or voted away. 
 The right of election was wrested from the voters, and 
 usurped by the elected body, who thus exercised a 
 vicious self-election. The ministers of the day, when 
 they commanded a majority, sustained their own 
 friends ; and brought all their forces to bear against 
 the members of the Opposition. This flagitious cus- 
 tom formed part of the parliamentary organisation, 
 by which the influence of the crown and its ministers 
 wa^ maintained. It was not until a government was 
 falling, that its friends were in danger of losing 
 their seats. The struggle between Sir Eobert 
 Walpole and his enemies was determined in 1741, — 
 
 ' This had been previously said of the House of Lords, by the 
 Puke of Argyll. 
 
Trial of Election Petitions. 365 
 
 not upon any question of public policy, — but by the 
 defeat of the minister on the Chippenham Election 
 Petition. 
 
 To remedy these evils, and remove the opprobrium 
 of notorious injustice from the House of TheGren- 
 
 viUe Act, 
 
 Commons, Mr. Grenville introduced, m 1770. 
 1770, his celebrated measure, — since known as the 
 Grenville Act, and a landmark in the Parliamentary 
 history. He proposed to transfer the judicature, in 
 election cases, from the House itself, to a committee 
 of thirteen members, selected by the sitting mem- 
 bers and petitioners from a list of forty-nine, chosen 
 by ballot, — to whom each party should add a no- 
 minee, to advocate their respective interests. This 
 tribunal, constituted by Act of Parliament, was to 
 decide, without appeal, the merits of every contro- 
 verted election : being, in fact, a court independent 
 of the House, though composed of its own members.' 
 The main objection urged against this measure was 
 that the privileges of the House were compromised, 
 and its discretion limited, by the binding obligations 
 of a statute. It is certain that much might have 
 been done by the authority of the House itself, 
 which was henceforth regulated by a statute, — the 
 only legal power required, being that of adminis- 
 tering an oath. But Mr. Grenville distrusted the 
 House of Commons, and saw no security for the 
 permanence, or honest trial of the new system, ex- 
 cept in a law which they could not set aside. 
 
 This Act was at first limited to one year ; and 
 Horace Walpole insinuates that >Ir. Grenville, when 
 
 ' Pari. Hisf., xvi. 90-1-923; Cavendish Deb., i. 476, 505. 
 
366 House of Commons. 
 
 in opposition, was willing ' to give a sore wound to 
 the influence of the crown : ' but hoping to return to 
 office, took care not to weaken his own future power 
 as a minister.' But the suggestion for making the 
 Act temporary proceeded from Lord Clare,^ and not 
 from ]Mr. Grrenville, who was honestly persuaded that 
 the ' system must end in the ruin of public liberty, 
 if not checked.' ^ At this time his health and spirits 
 were failing ; and he died a few months after the 
 passing of his measure. 
 
 The Grrenville Act was continued from time to 
 Made per- time; and in 1774, Sir Edwin Sandys 
 petuai. brought in a bill to make it perpetual. It 
 encountered a strong opposition, especially from Mr. 
 Fox, who dreaded the surrender of the privileges of 
 the House : but the successful operation of the Act, 
 in the five cases which had already been tried under 
 its provisions, was so generally acknowledged, that 
 the bill was passed by a large majority.^ 'This 
 happy event,' wrote Lord Chatham, ' is a dawn of 
 better times ; it is the last prop of Parliament: should 
 it be lost in its passage, the legislature will fall into 
 incurable contempt, and detestation of the nation.' 
 ' The Act does honour to the statute-book, and will 
 endear for ever the memory of the framer.'^ 
 
 This Act was passed on the eve of another general 
 election, which does not appear — so far as evidence 
 
 ' Walp. Mpm. Geo. III., ii. 384, n. 
 
 Cavendish Dob., i. 613. 
 " Hatsell's Prec, ii. 21. 
 
 ' 250 to 122; Pari. Hist, xvii. 1071; Fox Mem., i. 95, 133; 
 Walpole's Journ., i. 314-325. 
 
 » Letter to Lord Shilburnc, March 6th, 1774 ; Corr., iv. 332. 
 
Trial of Election Petitions. 367 
 
 is accessible — to have been marked by so much cor- 
 ruption as that of 1768. But the value of boroughs 
 had certainly not declined in the market, as Gatton 
 was sold for 7. 5,000^1 
 
 For a time this measure undoubtedly introduced 
 a marked improvement in the judicature imperfect 
 of the House of Commons. The disrup- 
 tion of the usual party combinations, at that period, 
 ■was favoui-able to its success ; and the exposure of 
 former abuses discouraged their immediate renewal, 
 in another form. But too soon it became evident, 
 that corruption and party spirit had not been over- 
 come.'^ Crowds now attended the ballot, as they had 
 previously come to the vote, — not to secure justice, 
 but to aid their own political friends. The party 
 which attended in the greatest force, was likely to 
 have the numerical majority of names drawn for 
 the committee. From this list each side proceeded 
 to strike thirteen of its political opponents ; and 
 the strongest thus secured a preponderance on the 
 committee. Nor was this all. The ablest men, 
 being most feared by their opponents, were almost 
 invariably struck off, — a process familiarly known aa 
 ' knocking the brains out of the committee ; ' and 
 thus the committee became at once partial and in- 
 competent. The members of the committee were 
 sworn to do justice between the rival candidates ; 
 jet the circumstances under which they were no- 
 toriously cliosen, their own party bias, and a lax con- 
 ventional morality, — favourt-d by the obscurity and 
 
 ' Lnrd Million's Tlist.. vi. 27. 
 ' VValpolb's Alciii., iv. Ill itiiJ «. 
 
368 House of Commons. 
 
 inconsistencies of the election law, and by the con- 
 flicting decisions of incapable tribunals, — led to this 
 equivocal result: — that the right was generally 
 discovered to be on the side of the candidate who 
 professed the same political opinions as the majority 
 of the committee.' A Whig candidate had scant 
 justice from a Tory committee : a Tory candidate 
 pleaded in vain before a Whig committee. 
 
 By these means, the majority of the House con- 
 improved tinued, — with less directness and certainty, 
 of eiecuon" perhaps with less open scandal, — to 
 
 committees, nominate their own members, as they had 
 done before the G-renville Act. And for half a 
 century, this system, with slight variations of pro- 
 cedure, was suffered to prevail. In 1839, however, 
 the ballot was at length superseded by Sir Eobert 
 Peel's Act : ^ committees were reduced to six mem- 
 bers, and nominated by an impartial body, — the 
 general committee of elections. The same principle 
 of selection was adhered to in later Acts, with addi- 
 tional securities for impartiality ; and the committee 
 was finally reduced to five members.' The evil was 
 thus greatly diminished : but still the sinister in- 
 fluence of party was not wholly overcome. In the 
 nomination of election committees, one party or the 
 other necessarily had a majority of one ; and though 
 these tribunals undoubtedly became far more able 
 and judicial, their constitution and proceedings 
 
 ' These evils were ably exposed in the Eeport of the Committee 
 on Controverted Elections (Mr. C. Buller), 1837-38, No. 44. 
 
 2 2 & 3 Vict. c. 38 ; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xlv. 379 ; Ibid., xlvii. 
 576, &c. 
 
 • 4 & 5 Vict. c. 58. and 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98 ; Eeport on Contro- 
 verted Elections, 1844, No. 373. 
 
Places and Pensiom. 
 
 369 
 
 too often exposed them to imputations of political 
 bias.' 
 
 Such being the vices and defects of the electoral 
 system, — what were their results upon the Distribution 
 
 of places and 
 
 House of Commons ? Kepresentatives hold- peusions. 
 ing their seats by a general system of corruption, 
 could scarcely fail to be themselves corrupt. What 
 they had bought, they were but too ready to sell. 
 And how glittering the prizes ofiFered as the price of 
 their services I Peerages, baronetcies, and other 
 titles of honour, — patronage and court favour for the 
 rich, — places, pensions, and bribes for the needy. All 
 that the government had to bestow, they could com- 
 mand. The rapid increase of honours ^ attests the 
 liberality with which political services were re- 
 warded ; while contemporary memoirs and corre- 
 spondence disclose the arts by which many a peerage 
 has been won. 
 
 From the period of the Kevolution, places and 
 pensions were regarded as the price of po- Restrained 
 litical dependence ; and it has since been men"''* 
 the steady policy of Parliament to restrain the 
 number of placemen entitled to sit in the House of 
 Commons. To William III. fell the task of hrst 
 working out the difficult problem of a constitutional 
 goverament; and among his expedients for con- 
 trolling his Parliaments, was that of a multi- 
 plication of ofl5ces. The country party at once 
 perceived the danger with which their newly-bought 
 
 ' At IfT.gth, in 18G8, the trial of controverted elections was trans- 
 ferred to judges of the nuperior courts. 31 iSi 32 Vict. c. 125. 
 ' See stq/ra, pp. 277, 323. 
 
 VOL. I. B. B 
 
370 House of Commons. 
 
 liberties were threatened from this cause, and en- 
 deavoured to avert it. In 1693, the Commons 
 passed a bill to prohibit all members hereafter 
 chosen from accepting any office under the crown : 
 but the Lords rejected it. In the following year it 
 was renewed, and agreed to by both Houses ; when 
 the king refused his assent to it. Later in his reign, 
 however, this principle of disqualification was com- 
 menced, — the Commissioners of Revenue Boards 
 being the fir:~t to whom it was applied.' And at 
 last, in 1700, it was enacted that after the accession 
 of the House of Hanover, ' no person who has an 
 office or place of profit under the king, or receives a 
 jDension from the crown, shall be capable of serving 
 as a member of the House of Commons.' ' This too 
 stringent provision, however, was repealed, — before 
 it came into operation, — early in the reign of Anne.^ 
 It was, indeed, incompatible with the working of 
 constitutional government ; and if practically en- 
 forced, would have brought Parliament into hopeless 
 conflict with the executive. 
 
 By the Act of Settlement of that reign, other 
 Acts of restrictions were introduced, far better 
 George I. adapted to correct the evils of corrupt iu- 
 andii. fluence. The holder of every new office 
 created after the 25th of October, 1705, and every 
 one enjoying a pension from the crown, during plea- 
 sure, was incapacitated from sitting in Parliament ; 
 and members of the House of Commons accepting 
 
 ' 4 & 5 Will. & Mary, c. 21 (Stamps) ; 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 2 
 (E.xeise). 
 
 ' 12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2, s. 3. M .\ime, c. S, s. 25. 
 
Places and Pensions. 371 
 
 any old office from the crown, were obliged to vacate 
 their seats, but were capable of re-election.' It was 
 the object of this latter provision to submit the 
 acceptance of office, by a representative, to the 
 approval of his constituents : a principle which, — 
 notwithstanding several attempts to modify it, — has 
 since been resolutely maintained by the legislature.^ 
 Restrictions were also imposed upon the multiplica- 
 tion of commissioners.' 
 
 At the commencement of the following reign, in- 
 capacity was extended to pensioners for ^^^^^^ pg^. 
 terms of years ; ^ but as many pensions were 
 then secretly granted, the law could not be put in 
 force. In the reign of Greorge II. several attempts 
 were made to enforce it : but they all miscarried.'' 
 Lord Halifax, in debating one of these bills, said 
 that secret pensions were the worst form of bribery: 
 ' A bribe is given for a particular job : a pension is 
 a constant, continual bribe.''' Early in the reign of 
 George III. Mr. Rose Fuller — who had been a 
 stanch Whig, — was bought off by a secret pension 
 of 500L, which he enjoyed for many years. The 
 cause of his apostasy was not discovered until after 
 his death.' 
 
 ' 6 Anne, c. 7. 
 
 * A modifieatiou of this law, however, was made by the Reform 
 Act of 18G7, in favour of menibi rs who may be removed fi-om one 
 office under the Crown to another. — 30 & 31 Vict., c. 102, s. 52, asid 
 BCh. H. 
 
 ' 8 Anne, c. 7. « 1 Geo. I. c. 56. 
 
 ' No less than six bills were pas.fed by the Commons, and rejected 
 by the Lords; Pari, llist., viii. 7«9 ; Vi'ul., ix. 309 ; Ihid., xi. 510; 
 Ihid., xii. 591. 
 
 " P.irl. Hist., xi. 522. 
 
 ' Almon'a Corr., ii. 8 ; Hockinjjjham Mem., i. 79, ». 
 
 r ii 2 
 
372 
 
 House of Cojnmons. 
 
 Still the policy of restricting the number of offices 
 TLe Place Capable of being held by members of the 
 BiUofi.42. jjQ^gg q£ Commons, was steadily pursued. 
 In 1742, the Place Bill, which had been thrice re- 
 jected by the Commons, and twice by the Lords, at 
 length received the Eoyal assent.^ It was stated in 
 a Lords' protest, that two hundred appointments 
 were then distributed amongst the members of the 
 House of Commons.* This Act added many offices 
 to the list of disqualifications, but chiefly those of 
 clerks and other subordinate officers of the public 
 departments. 
 
 By these measures the excessive multiplication of 
 Places in offices had been restrained: but in the reisn 
 
 the reign of , ^ 
 
 George lu. of Gcorge III. their number was still very 
 considerable ; and they were used, — almost without 
 disguise, — as the means of obtaining parliamentary 
 support. Horace Walpole has preserved a good 
 example of the unblushing manner in which bar- 
 gains were made for the votes of members, in ex- 
 change for offices. Mr. Grrenville wrote him a letter, 
 proposing to appoint his nephew, Lord Orford, to 
 the rangership of St. James's and Hyde Parks. He 
 said, ' If he does choose it, I doubt not of his and 
 his friend Boone's hearty assistance, and believe I 
 sliall see you, too, much oftener in the House of 
 Commons. This is offering you a bribe, but 'tis such 
 a one as one honest good-natured man may, without 
 offence, offer to another.' As Walpole did not 
 receive this communication with much warmth, ami 
 
 ' 15 Geo. II. c. 22. 
 
 » Lords' ProlCBts, 1741 ; Pai-I. Hist. xii. % 
 
Places and P elisions. 
 
 declined any participation in the bargain, payments 
 due to him on account of his patent offices in the 
 Exchequer, were stopped at the Treasury, for several 
 months.' 
 
 The Whig statesmen of this period, who were striv- 
 ing to reduce the influence of the crown, Lord Rock- 
 were keenly alive to the means of corrup- Act, i-s2. 
 tion which a multiplicity of places still afforded. 
 ' The great number of offices,' said Lord Eockiugham, 
 ' of more or less emolument, which are now tenable by 
 parties sitting in Parliament, really operate like prizes 
 in a lottery. An interested man purchases a seat, 
 upon the same principle as a person buys a lottery 
 ticket. The value of the ticket depends upon the 
 quantum of prizes in the wheel.' ^ It was to remove 
 this evil, even more than for the sake of pecuniary 
 saving, that Mr. Burke, in 1780, proposed to abolish 
 thirty-nine offices held by members of the House of 
 Commons, and eleven held Vjy peers. And by Lord 
 Eockingham's act for the regulation of the civil list 
 expenditure in 1782, several offices connected with 
 the government and royal household were suppressed, 
 which had generally been held by members of Par- 
 liament ; and secret pensions were discontinued.^ 
 
 In 1793, the Parliament of Ireland adopted the 
 principles of the English act of Anne, and oinccsin 
 disqualified the holders of all offices under 
 the cro\vn or lord-lieutenant, created after that 
 time. On the union with Ireland, all the disquali- 
 
 ' Nov. 2lHt, 1762 ; Walpole's Mem., i. 213-216. 
 
 ' ]{<)fkin(i;li;im .Mom., ii. .'{.'59. 
 
 ' 22 (ico. 111. c. 82 ; Wraxairn Mem., iii. 44, 50, 54. See aim) 
 tupru, 2.50. 
 
374 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 ficatious for the Irish Parliament were extended to 
 the Parliament of the United Kingdom ; and several 
 new disqualifications were created, in reference to 
 other Irish offices.' 
 
 The general scheme of official disfranchisement 
 Further was now Complete : but the jealousy of 
 
 di-qnalifi- t> i • -ni i t i t 
 
 cations. Parliament was still shown by the disquali- 
 fication of new officers appointed by Acts of Par- 
 liament. So constant has been this policy, that 
 upwards of one hundred statutes, still in force, 
 contain clauses of disqualification ; and many similar 
 statutes have been passed, which have since expired, 
 or have been repealed.'^ 
 
 The result of this vigilant jealousy has been a 
 great reduction of the number of placemen sitting 
 in the House of Commons. In the first Parliament 
 of George I., there had been two hundred and 
 seventy-one members holding offices, pensions, and 
 sinecures. In the first Parliament of George II. 
 there were two hundred and fifty-seven : in the first 
 Parliament of George IV. there were but eighty- 
 nine, exclusive of officers in the army and navy.^ 
 The number of placemen, sitting in the House of 
 Commons, has been further reduced by the abolition 
 and consolidation of offices ; and in 1833, there were 
 only sixty members holding civil offices and pen- 
 sions, and eighty-three holding naval and military 
 commissions.* 
 ' 41 Geo. III. c. 52. 
 
 ' Author's Pamphlet on the Consolidation of the Election Laws, 
 18.50. 
 
 = Report on Returns made by Members, 1822 (542); 1823 (569); 
 Hans. Deb., Srd Ser., ii. 1118, 
 
 * Report on Membern in Office, 1833, No. 671. 
 
Places and Pensions. 
 
 375 
 
 The policy of disqualification has been maintained 
 to the present time. The English judges Judicial 
 
 officers (lis* 
 
 had been excluded from the House uf qualified. 
 Commons, by the law of Parliament. In the inte- 
 rests of justice, as well as on grounds of constitu- 
 tional policy, this exclusion was extended to their 
 brethren of the Scottish bench, in the reign of Greorge 
 II.,' and to tlie judges of the comts in Ireland, in 
 the reign of George IV.^ In 1840, the same prin- 
 ciple was applied to the Judge of the Admiralty 
 Court.' All the new judges in equity were disquali- 
 hed by the acts under which they were constituted. 
 The solitary judge still enjoying the capacity of 
 sitting in the House of Commons, is the Master of 
 the Rolls. In 1853, a bill was introduced to with- 
 draw this exceptional privilege : but it was defeated 
 by a masterly speech of Mr. Macaulay.'* 
 
 These various disqualifications were deemed neces- 
 sary for securina: the independence of Par- Policy of 
 
 , • . .„ disquaUfi. 
 
 liament ; and their policy is still recog- caucus, 
 nised, when the dangers they were designed to avert, 
 are less to be apprehended. It is true that indepen- 
 dence has been purchased at the cost of much intel- 
 lectual eminence, which the House of Commons 
 could ill afford to spare : but this sacrifice was due 
 to constitutional freedom, and it has been wisely 
 made. 
 
 I 7 Gpo. II. c. 16. M & 2 Geo. IV. c. 44. 
 
 ^ Much to tho porKonal regret of all who were acquainted with 
 that oniinent man, Ur. Lushington, who lo.st the seat in which heliad 
 Ko long (iistinp^uKlied himself. 
 
 * .huldcs' K.\clusion BUI, Juno 1st, 1853; Haas. Deb., 3rd Ser., 
 
 cxsvii. yyy. 
 
376 House of Commons. 
 
 But tlie independence of Parliament was formerly 
 I'mraiary Corrupted by grosser expedients than places 
 luemuers. and peusious. Vulgar bribes were given, — 
 directly and indirectly, — for political support. Our 
 parliamentary history was tainted with this disgrace, 
 from the reign of Charles II. far into that of Greorge 
 III. That Charles, himself unscrupulous and cor- 
 rupt, should have resorted to bribery, is natural 
 enough. His was a debased reign, in which all forms 
 of corruption flom-ished. Members were then first 
 systematically exposed to the temptation of pecu- 
 niary bribes. In the reigns of the Tudors and the 
 first two Stuarts, prerogative had generally been too 
 strong to need the aid of such persuasion ; ^ but 
 after prerogative had been rudely shaken by the 
 overthrow of Charles I., it was sought to support the 
 influence of the crown by the subtle arts of corrup- 
 tion. Votes which were no longer to be controlled 
 by fear, were purchased with gold. James II., again, 
 — seciue of a servile Parliament, and bent upon 
 ruling once more by prerogative, — disdained the 
 meaner arts of bribery.'^ 
 
 The Eevolution, however favourable to constitu- 
 tional liberty, revived and extended this scandal ; 
 and the circumstances of the times unhappily fa- 
 vom-ed its development. The prerogative of the 
 
 ' According to Lord Bolingbroke, Richard II. obliged members, 
 ' sometimes by threats and terror, and sometimes by gifts, to con- 
 cent to those things Tvhieh were prejudicial to the realm.' — Works, 
 iii. 173. ]Mr. Hallam dates the bribery of members from James I. 
 — Const. Hist., ii. Q."). Such bribery, as a system, howerer, cannot 
 bo traced earlier than Charles II. 
 
 -' Burnet's Own Time, i. 626. Barillon's De.xpateh, 30th April, 
 1 685 ; Fox's Hist, of James II., App. btix. ; Bolingbroke's Works, 
 ii. 280. 
 
Bribes to Members. 
 
 crown had been still further limited : the power and 
 activity of Parliament being proportionately in- 
 creased, while no means had yet been taken to 
 ensure its responsibility to the people. A majority 
 of the House of Commons, — beyond the reach of 
 pubUc opinion, — not accountable to its constituen- 
 cies, — and debating and voting with closed doors, — 
 held the political destinies of England at its mercy. 
 The constitution had not yet provided worthier means 
 of influence and restraint ; and William III., though 
 personally averse to the base practices of Charles II., 
 was forced to permit their use. His reign, other- 
 wise conducive to freedom and national greatness, 
 was disgraceful to the character of the statesmen, 
 and to the public virtue of that age.' 
 
 The practice of direct bribery notoriously con- 
 tinued in the three succeeding reigns ; and if not 
 proved by the records of Parliament, was attested 
 by contemporary writers, and by the complaints 
 openly made of its existence. Under the adminis- 
 tration of Sir Kobert Walpole, it was reduced to an 
 organised system, by which a majority of the House 
 of Commons was long retained in subjection to the 
 minister-'* It is true that, after all, liis enemies 
 failed in proving their cliargcs against him : but the 
 entire sti'ength of the court, the new ministry, and 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., v. 807, 840 ; Burnet's Own Time, ii. 144, 145. See 
 Lord Miicaiilay'8 instruci ive sketch of tlio rise unci progress of Par- 
 liamcntJiry corruption, Hist., iii. ,541, 687; Vnd., iv. 146, 305, 427 
 478, 545, und 55i ; Com. Journ., xi. .'JSl, jlay 2nd, 1695. 
 
 Debates, Lords arid ('oinnions, 1711, on tiiolions for tlif> romoval 
 of Sir R. Walpole, Pari. Hist., xi. 1(127-1303; Coxo'a Mem. of Sir 
 H. Widpoli', i. ofi'J. 611, 710; Debates on appointment of Com- 
 mittee of In'juiry, I'arl. Hist., xii. 418; Cooko's Hisl. of I'.irly, 
 ii. 131; Lecky, lli-st. of England, i. 306. 
 
378 
 
 House of Covimons. 
 
 the House of Lords, was exerted to screen him. The 
 witnesses refused to answer questions ; and the Lords 
 declined to pass a bill of indemnity, which would have 
 removed the ground of their refusal.' Nor must it 
 be overlooked that, however notorious corruption 
 may be, it is of all things the most difficult of 
 proof. 
 
 This system was continued by his successors, 
 throughout the reign of George II. ; and is believed 
 to have been brought to perfection, imder the ad- 
 ministration of iNIr. Henry Pelham. 
 
 In approaching the reign of Greorge III., it were 
 Bribery well if no traces could be found of this 
 
 niider Lord i- • i i 
 
 Bute. political depravity : but unhappily the 
 early part of this reign presents some of its worst 
 examples. Lord Bute, being resolved to maintain 
 his power by the corrupt arts of Sir Robert Walpole, 
 secured, by the promise of a peerage, the aid of that 
 minister's experienced agent, Mr. Henry Fox, in 
 carrying them out with success.^ The office en- 
 trusted to him was familiarly known as ' the manage- 
 ment of the House of Commons.' 
 
 In October, 1762, Mr, Grenville had impressed 
 upon Lord Bute the difficulties of carrying on the 
 business of the House of Commons, ' without being- 
 authorised to talk to the members of that house 
 upon their several claims and pretensions ; ' ' and 
 these difficulties were effectually overcome. Horace 
 AValpole relates a startling tale of the purchase of 
 
 ' Report of Commitfep of Imuiiv, 1742; Tarl. Hist., xii. 626, 
 788 ; Coxe's iMcm. of Sir R. WiilpoU^ i. 71 1. 
 
 * Kockiugham Mem., i. 127. ' Gronvillo Papers, i. 483. 
 
Bribes to Members. 
 
 379 
 
 votes by 'Six. Fox, in December, 1762, in support of 
 Lord Bute's preliminaries of peace. He says, ' A 
 shop was publicly opened at the Pay Office, ■whither 
 the members flocked, and received the wages of their 
 venality in bank-bills, even to so low a sum as 200^. 
 for their votes on the treaty. 25,000?., as Martin, 
 Secretary of the Treasury, afterwards owned, were 
 issued in one morning ; and in a single fortnight, a 
 vast majority was purchased to approve the peace I ' ' 
 Lord Stanhope, who is inclined wholly to reject this 
 circumstantial story, admits that Mr. Fox was the 
 least scrupulous of ^\'alpole's pupils, and that the 
 majority was otherwise unaccountable.* The accoimt 
 is probably exaggerated: but the character of Mr. 
 Fox and his parliamentary associates is not repug- 
 nant to its probability ; nor does it stand alone. A 
 suspicious circimistance, in confirmation of Horace 
 "NValpole, has also been brought to light. Among 
 Mr. Grenville's papers has been preserved a state- 
 ment of the secret-service money from 1761 to 
 1769; whence it appears that in the year ending 
 2.5th October, 1762, 10,000?. had been disbursed to 
 Mr. Martin, Secretary to the Treasury ; and in the 
 following year, to which the story refers, no less 
 than 41,000/.' 
 
 The general expenditure for secret sen'ice, during 
 Lord Bute's period, also exhibits a remarkable ex- 
 cess, as compared with other years. In the year 
 ending 25th October, 1761, the secret-serWce money 
 
 ' Walp. Mem. Geo. III., i. 199 ; and se* Hist of a late Minority, 
 p. 84. 
 
 • Lord Mahon's Hist., r. 15. • Grenville Fapen, ilL 144. 
 
380 House of Commons. 
 
 had amounted to 58,000L Lord Bute came into 
 office on the 29th May, 1762; and in this year, 
 ending 25th October, it rose at once to 82,1 68^. In 
 the next year, — Lord Bute having retired in April, 
 — it fell to 61 OOOL In 176-i, it was reduced to 
 36,837^. : and in 1765, to 29,374?.' 
 
 The Grenville ministry distributed bribes or gra- 
 Tincier the tuitics with Icss profusiou than Lord Bute, 
 
 Grenrille t i 
 
 ministry. yet With SO little restraint, that a donation 
 to a member of Parliament appears to have been re- 
 garded as a customary compliment. It might be 
 offered without offence : if declined an apology was 
 felt to be due to the minister. In the Grrenville 
 Papers we find a characteristic letter from Lord Say 
 and Sele, which exemplifies the relations of the 
 minister with his parliamentary supporters. 
 
 'London, Nov. 26th, 1763. 
 
 ' Honoured Sir, — I am very much obliged to you for 
 that freedom of converse you this morning indulged me 
 in, which I prize moi'e than the lucrative advantage I 
 then received. To show the sincerity of my words 
 (pardon, Sir, the perhaps over niceness of my disposi- 
 tion), I return inclosed the bill for 300Z. you favoured 
 me with, as good manners would not permit my refusal 
 of it, when tendered by you. 
 
 ' P.S. — As a free horse wants no spur, so I stand in 
 need of no inducement or douceur, to lend my small 
 assistance to the ting, or his friends in the present 
 administration.' * 
 
 * There is an obscurity in these accounts ; but it seems as if the 
 srcrot-gprvieo money had been derived from different sources, the 
 amount paid from one source, between 1 7G1 and 1769, being Ii)6,000/., 
 and from ihe ol her 'i'J l,oiJ'!i. The detiiils of the laller sum only are 
 given. • GrenviUe Papers, iii. 145. 
 
B fides to Members. 381 
 
 Mr. Grenville, however, complained, — and ap- 
 parently with justice, — ' that the secret-service 
 money was by a great deal less than under any other 
 minister.' ' 
 
 Throughout the administration of Lord North, 
 the purchase of votes in Parliament, by jjnderLord 
 direct pecuniary bribes, was still a common 
 practice. The king's complicity, — always suspected, 
 — is now beyond a doubt. Writing to Lord North 
 on the 1st March, 1781, his Majesty said: — 'Mr. 
 Eobinson sent me the list of the speakers last night, 
 and of the very good majority. I have this morning 
 sent him 6,000L to be placed to the same purpose as 
 the sum transmitted on the 21st August.'* No 
 other conclusion can be drawn from this letter, than 
 that the king was in the habit of transmitting 
 money, to secure majorities for the minister, who 
 was then fighting his battles in the House of Com- 
 mons. Again, on the retirement of Lord North in 
 1782, the king writing on the 18th April, said: — 
 ' I shall make out also the list paid by Mr. Robinson 
 to Peers, and shall give it to the first Lord of the 
 Treasury ; but I cannot answer whether, under the 
 idea of influence, there will not be a refusal to con- 
 tinue them. Those to members of the House of 
 
 ' Grenville Papers, iii. 144. 
 
 ' King's Letters to Lord North ; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 
 157. Mr. Robinson, as Secrftary to the Treasury, had the manage- 
 ment of the Hou.se of Commons, and was the depository of the 
 Livre rovge, supposed to contain the names of mrmWrs retained by 
 ministers. — Wraxall Mem., ii. 225. In a canvassing list of Mr. 
 Robinson, found among Lord Auckland's papers, is this suspicious 
 entr^' — ' Heme, Franci.s, a friend of Mr. Higby's, paid 4.00ii/.' — 
 MS. kindly lent me by Mr. Hogge, the editor of the Auckland Cor- 
 ri'spondenco ; see also Walpole's Journ., i. 280. 
 
382 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 Commons cannot be given ; they may apply, if they 
 please, to Lord Eockingham: but by what he has 
 said to me, I have not the smallest doubt he will 
 refuse to bring their applications, as well as those 
 of any new solicitors in that House.' ' 
 
 So far there was a hope of improvement ; and it 
 siibse- seems that the system of direct bribery 
 decline of ^id not long survive the ministry of Lord 
 the system, ^orth." It may not have wholly died out ; 
 and has probably been since resorted to, on rare and 
 exceptional occasions. But the powerful and popu- 
 lar administration of Mr. Pitt did not need such 
 support. The crown had triumphed over parties, — 
 its influence was supreme, — and Mr. Pitt himself, 
 however profuse in the distribution of honours to his 
 adherents, was of too lofty a character, to encourage 
 the baseness of his meaner followers. 
 
 Another instrument of corruption was found, at 
 Shares in the beginning of this reign, in the raising 
 
 loans and r. i it • i i 
 
 lotteries. of money lor the public service, by loans 
 and lotteries. This form of bribery, though less 
 direct, was more capable of proof. A bribe could 
 
 ' Corr. of Goo. III. with Lord North, ii. 422. 
 
 ' Mr. Hallam says th;it the practice of direct l)ribery of Members 
 of Parliament • is generally supposed to have ceased about the ter- 
 mination of the American Wjir.' — Const. Hist., ii. 428. 
 
 Mr. William Smith, one of the oldest m.imbers of the House of 
 Commons, related the foUowini;: anecdote of his own time: — A 
 pentleman, being at Sir Benjamin Ilammett's liank, hoard a member, 
 one of Lord North's friends, ask to have a oOU/. bill ' broken,' which 
 was done ; and upon the applicant leaving the bank, Sir B. Uammett 
 saw a cover lyiiifi on the floor, which he picked up and jnit into his 
 friend's hand, without comment. It was addressed to iho member, 
 ' with Lord North's compliments.' Mr. Amyaft, Member for Sonth- 
 am]ifon, was reputed to be the last member in receipt of a pension 
 for I'ai'liamentary support. — -rrivatc InJ'urmatimi, 
 
Loans and Lotteries. 383 
 
 be given in secret : the value of scrip was notorious. 
 In March, 1763, Lord Bute contracted a Lo^d Bute's 
 loan of three millions and a half, for the 
 public service ; and having distributed shares among 
 his friends, — the scrip immediately rose to a pre- 
 mium of 11 per cent, in the market ! So enormous 
 a miscalculation of the terms upon which a loan 
 could be negotiated, is scarcely to be reconciled 
 with honesty of purpose ; and according to the 
 practice of that time, the minister was entirely free 
 from control in the distribution of the shares. Here 
 the country sustained a loss of 385,000L ; and the 
 minister was openly charged with having eni'iched 
 his political adherents at the public expense. The 
 bank-bills of Mr. Fox had been found so persuasive, 
 that corruption was applied on a still larger scale, in 
 order to secm-e the power of the minister. The par- 
 ticipation of many members, in the profits of this 
 iniquitous loan could not be concealed ; and little 
 pains were taken to deny it.' 
 
 The success of this expedient was not likely to be 
 soon forgotten. Stock-jobbing became the Duke of 
 fashion ; and many members of Parliament loan, 17(>7. 
 were notoriously concerned in it. Horace Walpole, 
 the chief chronicler of these scandals, states that, in 
 1767, sixty members were implicated in such trans- 
 actions, and even the chancellor of the Exchequer 
 himself.'^ Another contemporary, Sir George Cole- 
 brooke, gives an account quite as circumstantial, of 
 
 ' Pari. Hint., xr. ISOfl ; Adnlphus, i. Ill ; History of the lato .Mi- 
 nority. 107 ; 'Tin- North Biituii,' No. 42; Lovil Mahon"» IIi«t , v. 2U; 
 Bute MS.S., in Uritish Mvispuin ; Cooke's Hist ol' I'urty, iii. 'Li, 
 WuliJoluB .Mem., Cico. 111., ii. 428. 
 
384 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 the monstrous corruption of the time. He says, 
 ' the Duke of Grafton gave a dinner to several of 
 the principal men in the city, to settle the loan. 
 Mr. Townshend came in in his niohtsfown, and aftei 
 dinner, when the terms were settled, and every one 
 present wished to introduce some friend on the list 
 of subscribers, he pretended to cast up the sums 
 already subscribed, said the loan was full, huddled 
 up his papers, got into a chair, and returned home, 
 reserving to himself, by this manoeuvre, a large share 
 in the loan.'' 
 
 A few years later, similar practices were exposed 
 Lotteries. in another form. Lotteries were then a 
 favourite source of revenue ; and it appeared from 
 the list of subscribers in 1769 and 1770, that shares 
 had been allotted to several members of Parliament. 
 On the 23rd of April, 1771, Mr. Seymour moved 
 for the list of persons who had subscribed to the 
 lotteries of that year, alleging that it appeared from 
 the list of 1769, that twenty thousand tickets had 
 been disposed of to members of Parliament, which 
 sold at a premium of nearly H. each. His motion 
 was refused.^ On the 25th April, Mr. Cornwall 
 moved to prohibit any member from receiving more 
 than twenty tickets. He stated that he was ' cer- 
 tainly informed,' that fifty members of Parliament 
 had each subscribed for five hundred tickets, which 
 would realise a profit of 1,000L, and secure the 
 minister fifty votes. His motion also was rejected.' 
 
 ' Cited in Walpole's Mem., iii. 100, n. 
 ^ Pari. Hist., xvii. 174. 
 
 ' Walp. Mem., iv. 320; Chatham Corr., iv. 148, «. ; Pari. Hist., 
 xvii. 186. 
 
Loans and Lottei'ies. 
 
 385 
 
 Again, in 1781, the very circumstances of Lord 
 Bute's flaoitious loan were repeated under Lord 
 
 ° ^ , North's 
 
 Lord North. A loan of 12,000,000/, was loau.nsi. 
 then contracted, to defray the cost of the disastrous 
 American war, of which lottery tickets formed a 
 part. Its terms were so favourable to the subscri- 
 bers, that suddenly the scrip, or omnium, rose nearly 
 11 per cent.' The minister was assailed with in- 
 jurious reproaches, and his conduct was repeatedly 
 denounced in Parliament as wilfully corrupt. These 
 charges were not made by obscure men : but by 
 Lord Rockingham, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Byng, 
 Sir G. Savile, and other eminent members of oppo- 
 sition. It was computed by Mr. Fox, that a profit 
 of 900,000L would be derived from the loan ; and 
 by others, that half the loan was subscribed for by 
 members of the House of Commons. Lord Eocking- 
 ham said, ' the loan was made merely for the jiur- 
 pose of corrupting the Parliament, to support a 
 wicked, impolitic, and ruinous war.' Mr. Fox de- 
 clared, again and again, that a large sum had been 
 placed in the ' hands of the minister to be granted 
 as douceurs to members of that House, ... as a 
 means of procuring and continuing a majority in 
 the House of Commons, upon every occasion, and to 
 give strength and support to a bad administration.'" 
 
 ' Sir P. J. Gierke, on the 8th March, said it had risen from 9 to 
 1 1 in the AUtty that day. Lord North said it had only risen to 9, and 
 had fallen again to 7^. Lord ilockinglmm estimated it at 10 per 
 cent. 
 
 Debates in the Commons. 7th, 8th, I'ilh, and Mth Marcli, and in 
 iho Ix)rds, 21»t March, 1781 ; Pari.. Him.. x:;i. 1 aS-t - 1 .SSfi ; Hooking- 
 liftin Mem., ii. 437 ; Lord J. UubsoU's Life of l-'ox, i. 23.')-211. 
 Wraxall's Mem., ii. 360-376. Among the bubbcriljors to this luau 
 VOL. \. CO 
 
386 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 The worst feature of this form of corruption was 
 its excessive and extravagant cost to the country. 
 If members of Parliament were to be bribed at all, — 
 bank-notes, judiciously distributed, were far cheaper 
 than improvident loans. Lord Bute had purchased 
 a majority, on the preliminaries of peace, with thirty 
 or forty thousand pounds. Lord North's experi- 
 ment laid a burthen upon the people of nearly a 
 million. It was bad enough that the representa- 
 tives of the people should be corrupted ; and to pay 
 so high a price for their coiTuption was a cruel 
 aggravation of the wrong. 
 
 In 1782, Lord North, in raising another loan, did 
 Lord not venture to repeat these scandals : but 
 loan, 1782. disappointed his friends by a new system 
 of close subscriptions. This arrangement did not 
 escape animadversion : but it was the germ of the 
 modern form of contracts, by sealed tenders.' Mr. 
 Disconti- Pitt had himself condemned the former 
 the svstem system of jobbing loans and lotteries ; and 
 Pitt. " when he commenced his own financial oper- 
 ations, as first minister of the crown, in 1784, he 
 took effectual means to discontinue it. That the 
 evil had not been exaggerated, may be inferred from 
 the views of that sagacious statesman, as expounded 
 by his biographer and friend Dr. Tomline. Mr. 
 Pitt ' having, while in opposition, objected to the 
 practice of his predecessors in distributing bene- 
 ficial shares of loans and lottery tickets, under tlie 
 
 were seven members for 70,"00i. ; others for 50,000/. ; and one for 
 100,000/. ; but tlie greater numl)er being holders of scrip ouly, did 
 nor appeur in tlie list — Wrnxiill Mem., 'i. 3()7. 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxii. luoG ; W nixall's Mem., li. 522. 
 
Contractors. 
 
 387 
 
 market price, among their private friends, and the 
 parliamentary supporters of the government, 
 adopted a new plan of contracting for loans and 
 lotteries by means of sealed proposals from different 
 persons, which were opened in the presence of each 
 other ; and while this competition ensured to the 
 public the best terms which could be obtained under 
 existing circumstances, it cut off a very improper 
 source of showing favour to individuals, and increas- 
 ing ministerial influence.' ' The lowest tenders were 
 accepted, and Mr. Pitt was able to assure the House 
 of Commons that not a shilling had been reserved 
 for distribution to his friends.'^ 
 
 One other form of parliamentary corruption yet 
 remains to be noticed. Lucrative contracts contrac- 
 for the public service, necessarily increased 
 by the American war, were found a convenient mode 
 of enriching political supporters. A contract to 
 supply rum or beef for the navy, was as great a prize 
 for a member, as a share in a loan or lottery. This 
 species of reward was particularly acceptable to the 
 commercial members of the House. Nor were its 
 attractions confined to tlie members who enjoyed the 
 contracts. Constituents being allowed to participate 
 in their profits, were zealous in supporting govern- 
 ment candidates. Here was another source of in- 
 fluence, for which again the people paid too dearly. 
 Heavy as their burthens were becoming, they were 
 increased by the costly and improvident contracts, 
 which this system of parliamentary jubbing en- 
 
 ' Life of Pitt, iii. 633.' 
 
 » Lord .Stiinliupi 's I,if.. of PiU, 1. 219. 
 
 c c 2 
 
388 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 couraged. The cost of bribery in this form, was 
 even greater and more indefinite than that of loans 
 and lotteries. In the latter case, there were some 
 limits to the premium on scrip, which was public 
 and patent to all the world : but who could estimate 
 the profits of a contract loosely and ignorantly — not 
 to say corruptly — entered into, and executed without 
 adequate secvuities for its proper fulfilment ? These 
 evils were notorious ; and efiforts were not wanting 
 to correct them. 
 
 In 1779, Sir Philip Jennings Gierke obtained 
 leave to bring in a bill to disqualify contractors from 
 sitting in Parliament, except where they obtained 
 contracts at a public bidding: but on the 11th of 
 March, the commitment of the bill was negatived.' 
 Again, in February 1780, Sir Philip renewed his 
 motion, and succeeded in passing his bill through 
 the Commons, without opposition : but it was re- 
 jected by the Lords on the second reading.* In 
 1781 it was brought forward a third time, but was 
 then lost in the House of Commons.^ 
 
 Meanwhile, Lord North's administration was fall- 
 ing: the opposition were pledged to diminish the 
 influence of the crown, and to further the cause of 
 economic reform; and in 1782, Sir Philip Gierke 
 was able to bring in his bill, and carry the second 
 reading.* In committee, Mr. Fox struck out the 
 exception in favour of contracts obtained at a public 
 bidding, and extended the measure to existing as 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xi. 123-129. 
 
 - Jhid., xxi. 414. « Ihid., 1390. 
 
 • Ihid., xxii. 1214, 133"), 13.')6. Debates, 19th March; 15th and 
 1 7th April ; Ist and 27th May, 1782. 
 
Evidence of Corruption. 389 
 
 well as future contracts. Immediately afterwards, 
 the Rockingham ministry coming into office, 
 adopted a measure so consonant with their own 
 policy ; and, imder such auspices, it was at length 
 passed.' It was another legislative condemnation of 
 corrupt influences in Parliament. 
 
 In weighing the evidence of parliamentary corrup- 
 tion, which is accessible to us, allowance Abuses 
 must be made for the hostility of many of ^j^^^^ 
 the witnesses. Charges were made against 
 the government of the day, by its bitterest oppo- 
 nents ; and may have been exaggerated by the hard 
 colouring of party. But they were made by men of 
 high character and political eminence ; and so 
 generally was their truth acknowledged, that every 
 abuse complained of was ultimately condemned by 
 Parliament. Were all the measures for restraining 
 corruption and undue influence groundless? Were 
 the evils sought to be corrected imaginary ? The 
 historian can desire no better evidence of contem- 
 porary evils than the judgment of successive Parlia- 
 ments, — pronounced again and again, and ratified by 
 pot;terity.' The wisdom of the legislature averted 
 
 ' The bill contaioed an exception in favour of persons subscribing 
 to a public loan. It was said, however, that the loan was a more 
 dangerous enj^ine of influence than contracts, and ultimately the ex- 
 ception was omitted, ' it being generally understood that a separate 
 bill should be brought in for that purpose,' which, howercr, was 
 never done. This matter, as stated in the debates, is exceedingly 
 obscure and inconsistent, and scarcely to be relied upon, though it 
 WHS frequently adverted to, in discussing the question of Baron 
 Kothschild's disability in ISSr). 
 
 ' In painting the pulilic vices of hie age, Cowper did not omit to 
 stigmatise, as it deser\-ed, its political corruption. 
 
 ' I'ut when a eountrj' (one that I could name), 
 In prostitution sinks 'the sense of shame ; 
 When inlainous Vonality. grown bold, 
 Writes on his bosom, " tv be lei or sold." ' 
 
 — Table Talk. 
 
390 House of Commons. 
 
 the ruin of the constitution, which the philosophical 
 JVIontesquieu had predicted, when he said, ' II perira, 
 lorsque la puissance legislative sera plus corrompue 
 que I'executrice.'' 
 
 Such was the state of society in the first years of 
 state of so- reign of George III. that the vices of 
 inthe^reign the government received little correction 
 of Geo. ui. public opinion. A corrupt system of 
 
 government represented but too faithfully, the pre- 
 valent corruption of society. Men of the highest 
 rank openly rioted in drunkenness, gambling, and 
 debauchery : the clergy were indifferent to religion : 
 the middle classes were coarse, ignorant, and sensual ; 
 and the lower classes brutalised by neglect, poverty, 
 and evil examples. The tastes and habits of the age 
 were low : its moral and intellectual standard was 
 debased. All classes were wanting in refinement, 
 and nearly all in education. Here were abounding 
 materials for venal senators, greedy place-hunters, 
 and corrupt electors. 
 
 Having viewed the imperfections of the repre- 
 Howpopu- sentative system, and the various forms of 
 cipies'were corruptiou by which the constitution was 
 keptauve. formerly disfigured, we pause to inquire 
 how popular principles, statesmanship, and public 
 
 ' Liyre xi. c. 6. Lord Bolingbroke wrote in the same spirit ; — 
 'Whenever the people of Britain become so dogenerate and base, as 
 to be induced by corruption, — for they are no longer in danger of 
 being awed by prerogative, — to choose per.sons to represent tiiom in 
 Parliament, whom they have found by experience to be under an in- 
 fluence arising from private interest, dependents on a court, and the 
 creatures of a minister; or others that are unknown to the people 
 that elect them, and having no recommendation but that which they 
 carry in their purses: then may the (>noniii>s of our constitution 
 boast, that they have got the better of it, and that it is no longer 
 able to preserve itself, nor to defend liberty.'— Works, iii. 271. 
 
Causes aiding Liberty. 391 
 
 virtue were kept alive, amid such adverse influences?' 
 The country was great and glorious ; and its history, 
 -—though stained with many blots, — is such as 
 Englishmen may justly contemplate with pride. 
 The people, if enjoying less freedom than in later 
 times, were yet the freest people in the world. 
 Their laws, if inferior to modern jurisprudence, did 
 not fall short of the enlightenment of the age, in 
 which Parliament designed them. How are these 
 contrasts to be explained and reconciled? How 
 were the people saved from misgovemment ? What 
 were the antidotes to the baneful abuses which pre- 
 vailed? In the first place, parliamentary govern- 
 ment attracted the ablest men to the service of the 
 state. Whether they owed their seats to the patron- 
 age of a peer, to the purchase of a borough, or to 
 the suffrages of their fellow-countrymen, they 
 equally enlightened Parliament by their eloquence, 
 and guided the national councils by their statesman- 
 ship. In the next place, the representation, — 
 limited and anomalous as it was, — comprised some 
 popular elements; and the House of Commons, in 
 tlie worst times, still professed its responsibility to 
 the people, and was not insensible to public opinion. 
 Nor can it be denied that the small class, by whom 
 the majority of the House of Commons was returned, 
 were the most instructed and enlightened in the 
 country ; and as Englishmen, were generally true to 
 principles of freedom. 
 
 ' ' Of all ingenious inKtrumonls of despotism,' said Sydney .Smith, 
 'I most eommctid a popular assembly wlierc tlio majiuity are paid 
 and hired, and a few bold and ai)le nier, by their brave speeches, 
 make the people beliere they are free.' — Men^., ii. 214. 
 
392 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 Two other causes, which exercised a wholesome 
 restraint upon Parliament and the governing class, 
 are to be found in the divisions of party, — finely 
 called by Sir Bulwer Lytton ' the sinews of freedom,' 
 — and the growing influence of the press. However 
 prone the ruling party may sometimes have been to 
 repress liberty, the party in opposition were forced 
 to rely upon popular principles ; and pledged to 
 maintain them, at least for a time, when they 
 succeeded to power. Party again supplied, in some 
 degree, the place of intelligent public opinion. As 
 yet the great body of the people had neither know- 
 ledge nor influence : but those who enjoyed political 
 power, were encouraged by their rivalries and am- 
 bition, not less than by their patriotism, to embrace 
 those principles of good government, which steadily 
 made their way in our laws and institutions. Had 
 all parties combined against popular rights, nothing 
 short of another revolution could have overthrown 
 them. But as they were divided and opposed, the 
 people obtained extended liberties, before they were 
 in a position to wrest them from their rulers, by 
 means of a free representation. 
 
 Meanwhile the press was gradually creating a more 
 elevated public opinion, to which all parties were 
 obliged to defer. It was long, however, before that 
 great political agent performed its office worthily. 
 Before the press can be instructive, there must be 
 enlightenment, and public spirit among the people : 
 it takes its colour from society, and reflects its pre- 
 vailing vices. Hence, while flagrant abuses in the 
 government were tolerated by a corrupt society, the 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 393 
 
 press was venal, — teeming with scurrilous libels and 
 factious falsehoods, in the interests of rival parties, 
 — and disfigured by all the faults of a depraved 
 political morality. Let us be thankful that prin- 
 ciples of liberty and public virtue were so strong, as 
 constantly to advance in society, in the press, and in 
 the government of the country. 
 
 The glaring defects and vices of the representative 
 system, which have now been exposed, — the re- 
 stricted and unequal franchise, the bribery Argu- 
 
 c f • t 1 111 menta for 
 
 or a limited electoral body, and the corrup- Parua- 
 
 ^ mentary 
 
 tion of the representatives themselves, — Reform, 
 formed the strongest arguments for parliamentary 
 reform. Some of them had been partially corrected ; 
 and some had been ineffectually exposed and de- 
 nounced; but the chief evil of all demanded a 
 bolder and more hazardous remedy. The theory of 
 an equal representation, — at no time very perfect, — 
 had, in the course of ages, been entirely subverted. 
 Decayed boroughs, without inhabitants, — the abso- 
 lute property of noblemen, — and populous towns 
 without electors, returned members to the House of 
 Commons : but great manufacturing cities, distin- 
 guished by their industry, wealth, and intelligence, 
 were without representatives. 
 
 Schemes for partially rectifying these inequalities 
 were proposed at various times, by states- Loni chat- 
 raen of very different opinions. Lord ^Tmoof 
 Chatham was the first to advocate reform. "770™' 
 Speaking, in 17G6, of the borougli representation, 
 lie called it 'the rotten part of our constitution;' 
 aiid said 'it cannot continue a century. If it does 
 
394 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 not drop, it must be amputated.'' In 1770, he sug- 
 14th Mar. gested that a third member should be added 
 to every county, 'in order to counterbalance the 
 weight of corrupt and venal boroughs.'^ Such was 
 his opinion of the necessity of a measure of this cha- 
 racter, that he said : ' Before the end of this century, 
 either the Parliament will reform itself from within, 
 or be reformed with a vengeance from without.'^ 
 Mr. Wilkes's The uest scheme was that of a very notable 
 1T76. ' politician, Mr. Wilkes. More comprehen- 
 sive than Lord Chatham's, — it was framed to meet, 
 more directly, the evils complained of. In 1776, he 
 moved for a bill to give additional members to thp 
 metropolis, and to JNIiddlesex, Yorkshire, and other 
 large counties : to disfranchise the rotten boroughs, 
 and add the electors to the county constituency : 
 and lastly, to enfranchise Manchester, Leeds, Shef- 
 field, Birmingham, and ' other rich populous trading 
 towns.' His scheme, indeed, comprised all the 
 leading principles of parliamentary reform, which 
 were advocated for the next fifty years without 
 success, and have been sanctioned within our own 
 time. 
 
 The next measure for reforming the Commons, 
 Bnke of was brouglit forward by a peer. On the 3rd 
 
 Kirhmond'B . . r> t i 
 
 bui, 1780. June, 1 i 80, m the midst oi Lord ueorge 
 
 ' Debates on the Address, January, 1766. 
 
 ' Walp. Mem., iv. 68 ; Chatham Corr., iv. 157, whore he supports 
 his views by the precedent of a Scotch act at the Revolution. 
 Strangers were excluded during this debate, which is not reported iu 
 the Parliamentary History. 
 
 » Pari. Hist., xvii. 223, n. 
 
 * 21.st March, 1776, Pari. Hist., xviii. 1287. The motion was 
 negatived without a division. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 395 
 
 Gordon's riots, the Duke of Kichmond presented a 
 bill for establishing annual parliaments, universal 
 suffrage, and equal electoral districts. A scheme 
 60 wild and inopportune was rejected without a 
 division.' 
 
 Nor was the duke's extravagant proposal an iso- 
 lated suggestion of his own. Extreme other 
 
 schemes of 
 
 changes were at this time popular, — em- reform, nso. 
 bracing annual parliaments, the extinction of rotten 
 boroughs, and universal sutfiage. The graver states- 
 men, who were favourable to improved representa- 
 tion, discountenanced all such proposals, as likely to 
 endanger the more practicable schemes of economic 
 reform by which they were then endeavouring, — 
 with every prospect of success, — to purify Parliament, 
 and reduce the influence of the crown. The peti- 
 tioners by whom they were supported, prayed also 
 for a more equal representation of the people : but 
 it was deemed prudent to postpone, for a time, the 
 agitation of that question.* 
 
 The disgraceful riots of Lord George Gordon 
 rendered this time unfavourable for the discussion of 
 any political changes. The Whig party were charged 
 with instigating and abetting these riots, just as, at 
 a later period, they became obnoxious to imputations 
 of Jacobinism. The occasion of the king's speech, 
 at the end of the session of 1780, was not lost by 
 the tottering government of Lord North. His 
 Majesty warned the people against ' the hazard of 
 innovation ; ' and artfully connected this warning 
 
 • Pari. Hist., xxi, fiSfi. 
 
 " Auu. Eeg., zxiv. 140, 194 ; Kuckiughnm Mem., ii. 895, 411. 
 
396 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 with a reference to ' rebellious insurrections to resist 
 or to reform the laws.' ' 
 
 Among the more moderate schemes discussed at 
 this period, by the temperate supporters of parlia- 
 mentary reform, was the addition of one himdred 
 county members to the House of Commons. It was 
 objected to, however, by some of the leading Whigs, 
 'as being prejudicial to the democratical part of the 
 constitution, by throwing too great a weight into 
 the scale of the aristocracy.'^ 
 
 Mr. Pitt was now commencing his great career ; 
 Mr Pitt's early youth is memorable for the 
 
 iaqnl^f°'^ advocacy of a measure, which his father 
 had approved. His first motion on this 
 subject was made in 1782, during the Eockingham 
 administration. The time was well chosen, as that 
 ministry was honourably distinguished by its exer- 
 tions for the purification of Parliament : while the 
 people, dissatisfied with their rulers, scandalised by 
 the abuses which had lately been exposed, and dis- 
 gusted by the disastrous issue of the American war, 
 May 7th. Were ripe for constitutional changes. After 
 a call of the House, he inti'oduced the subject in a 
 speech, as wise and temperate as it was able. In 
 analysing the state of the representation, he described 
 the Treasury and other nomination boroughs, without 
 property, population, or trade ; and the boroughs 
 which had no property or stake in the country but 
 their votes, which they sold to the highest bidder. 
 The Nabob of Arcot, he said, had seven or eight 
 
 ' Piirl. Uist., xjcvi. 767. 
 
 ' Li Uer of Duko of Portland ; Eockingliara Mem., ii. 412. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 
 
 397 
 
 members in that House ; and might not a foreign 
 state in enmity with this country, by means of such 
 boroughs, have a party there ? He concluded by 
 moving for a committee of inquiry. He seems to 
 have been induced to adopt this course, in conse- 
 quence of the difficulties he had experienced in 
 obtaining the agreement of the friends of reform to 
 any specific proposal." This motion was superseded 
 by reading the order of the day, by a majority of 
 twenty only.* 
 
 Again, in 1783, while in opposition to the coali- 
 tion ministry, ]\Ir. Pitt renewed his exer- Mr. Pitfs 
 tions m the same cause. His position had, tiona, 
 
 Hay 7th, 
 
 in the meantime, been strengthened by n»3. 
 numerous petitions, with 20,000 signatures.' He 
 no longer proposed a committee of inquiry, but 
 came forward with three distinct resolutions: — 1st, 
 That effectual measures ought to be taken for pre- 
 venting bribery and expense at elections ; 2nd, That 
 when the majority of voters for any borough should 
 be convicted of corruption, before an election com- 
 mittee, the borough should be disfranchised, and the 
 unbribod minority entitled to vote for the county : 
 3rd, That an addition should be made to the knights 
 of the shire, and members for the metropolis. In 
 support of his resolutions, he attributed the disasters 
 of the American war to tlie corrupt state of the 
 
 ' Ann. TlcR., xxv. 181. 
 
 « IGl to 141; Pari. Hist., xxii. 1416 ; Fox's Mem., i. 321-2 ; Lord 
 8tanliopo'« Lii'e of I'itt, i. 72-75. 
 
 ' All tlio y)i'tition.s whicli hiul )ieon presfiitoil for I ho last month, 
 had been brought into tlio llouse by the Clerk, ami hiid on the floor 
 near the table. 
 
398 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 House of Commons, and the secret influence of tlie 
 crown, which, he said, ' was sapping the very founda- 
 tion of liberty, by corruption.' Universal suffrage 
 he condemned ; and the disfranchisement of ' rotten 
 boroughs ' he as yet shrank from proposing. A great 
 change, however, had now come over the spirit of 
 the Commons. The people, once more enjoying the 
 blessings of peace, were contented with the moderate 
 reforms effected by Lord Eockingham ; and their 
 representatives rejected Mr. Pitt's resolutions by a 
 majority of one hundred and forty-four.' 
 
 Before Mr. Pitt had occasion again to express his 
 „ , , . sentiments, he had been called to the head 
 
 Yorkshire ' 
 
 jfn'Tuth affairs, and was carrying on his memor- 
 able contest with the coalition. On the 1 6th 
 January, 1784, Mr. Buncombe presented a petition 
 from the freeholders of Yorkshire, praying the House 
 to take into serious consideration the inadequate state 
 of the representation of the people. Mr. Pitt sup- 
 ported it, saying, that he had been confirmed in his 
 opinions in favour of reform, by the recent conduct 
 of the opposition. ' A temperate and moderate 
 reform,' he said, 'temperately and moderately pur- 
 sued, he would at all times, and in all situations, be 
 ready to promote to the utmost of his power.' At 
 the same time, he avowed that his cabinet were not 
 united in favour of any such measure ; and that he 
 despaired of seeing any cabinet unanimous in tlie 
 cause. In this opinion Mr. Fox signified his con- 
 currence ; but added, that Mr. Pitt had scarcely 
 
 ' Pari. Ilisr., xxiii. 82" ; Fox's Mem., ii. 79; Wraxall's Mem., iii. 
 86, 400 ; Lord Staiiliopi.' s Lil'c of I'itl, i. 118. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 399 
 
 introduced one person into his cabinet, who would 
 support his views in regard to parliamentary reform.' 
 
 The sincerity of Mr. Pitt's assurances was soon to 
 be tested. In the new Parliament he found Mr. Pitfs 
 himself supported by a powerful majority ; nso. 
 and he enjoyed at once the confidence of the king, 
 and the favour of the people. Upon one question 
 only, was he powerless. To his measure of parlia- 
 mentary reform, the king was adverse,'^ — his cabinet 
 were indifferent or unfriendly ; and his followers in 
 the House of Commons, could not be brought to vote 
 in its favour. The Tories were generally opposed to 
 it ; and even a large portion of the Whigs, including 
 the Duke of Portland and Lord Fitzwilliam, failed 
 to lend it their support.^ Public feeling had not 
 yet been awakened to the necessity of reform ; and 
 the legislatui'e was so constituted, that any effective 
 scheme was hopeless. 
 
 In the first session of the new Parliament he was 
 not prepared with any measure of his own : but he 
 spoke and voted in favour of a motion of Mr. Alder- 
 man Sawbridge ; and promised tliat, in the next 
 session, ho should be ready to bring the question 
 forward himself.'' He redeemed this pledge, and on 
 the 18th April, 1785, moved for leave to introduce 
 a Bill ' to amend the representation of the people of 
 P^ngland, in Parliament.' Having proved, by nume- 
 rous references to history, that the representation 
 had frequently been changed, according to the vary- 
 ing circumstances of the country: tliat many decayed 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxiv. .317. ' Sec supra, p. 91. 
 
 • Lonl .1. Riis.seir« Lii'r «\ Fox, ii. 17C. 
 
 * Pari. Hist., xxiv. 97o. 
 
400 
 
 Hotise of Commons. 
 
 boroTighs had ceased to retiim members to Parlia- 
 ment, while other boroughs had been raised or re- 
 stored to that privilege ; he proposed that seventy- 
 two members, then returned by thirty-six decayed 
 boroughs, should be distributed among the counties 
 and the metropolis. But this part of his scheme 
 was accompanied by the startling proposal, that the 
 condemned boroughs should not be disfiranchised, 
 except with the consent of their proprietors, who 
 were to receive compensation from the state, amount- 
 ing to a million sterling I He further proposed to 
 purchase the exclusive rights of ten corporations, 
 for the benefit of their fellow-citizens ; and to ob- 
 tain by the same means, the surrender of the right 
 of returning members from four small boroughs, 
 whose members covild be transferred to populous 
 towns. By these several means, a hundred seats 
 were to be re-distributed. The enlargement of the 
 coimty constituency, by the addition of copyholders 
 to the freeholders, formed another part of his plan. 
 It was estimated that by this change, and by the 
 enfranchisement of great towns, a total addition of 
 ninety-nine thousand would be made to the electoral 
 body. The portion of this scheme most open to ob- 
 jection wai? that of compensating the proprietors of 
 borotighs ; and he admitted that it ' was a tender 
 part ; but at the same time it had become a neces- 
 sary evil, if any reform was to take place.' It seems, 
 indeed, that not hoping to convince those interested 
 in the existing state of the representation, of the 
 expediency of reform, he had sought to purchase 
 their support. The boroughs which were always in 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 401 
 
 the market, he proposed to buy, on behalf of the 
 state ; and thus to secure purity, through the in- 
 struments of corruption. Such a sacrifice of prin- 
 ciple to expediency may have been necessary ; but 
 it did not save his scheme of reform from utter 
 failure. His motion for leave to bring in the bill, 
 was negatived by a majority of seventy-four.' 
 
 As this was the last occasion on which Mr. Pitt 
 advocated the cause of parliamentary re- p^^.^ 
 form, his sincerity, even at that time, has ^""'"''J'- 
 been called in question. He could scarcely have 
 hoped to carry this measure : but its failiu-e was due 
 to causes beyond his control. The king and Parlia- 
 ment were adverse, and popular support was wanting. 
 To have staked his power as a minister, upon the 
 issue of a measure fifty years in advance of the 
 public opinion of his day, — and which he had no 
 power to force upon Parliament, — would have been 
 the act of an enthusiast, rather than a statesman. 
 The blame of his subsequent inaction in the cause 
 was shared by the Whigs, who, for several years, 
 consented to its entire oblivion. 
 
 In the five ensuing years of j\Ir. Pitt's prosperous 
 administration, the word ' reform ' was Mr. Flood's 
 
 . motion, 
 
 scarcely whispered in Parliament. At i'»o. 
 length, in 1790, Mr. Flood moved for a bill to 
 amend the representation of the people. His plan 
 was to add one hundred members to the House of 
 Commons, to be elected by the resident householders 
 of every county. JNIr. Pitt, on tliis occasion, pro- 
 
 ' Ayes, 174; Noes, 248. Piiri. Hist., xxv. 432-475; Tomline'a 
 Life of I'M, ii. 41 ; Lord Stiiuhopr's Life of Pitt, i. 2^)6. 
 
 ' ' I) I) 
 
402 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 fessed himself to be as firm and zealous a friend as 
 ever to parliamentary reform ; but could not assent 
 to Mr. Flood's motion, -whicli was superseded by the 
 adjournment of the House.' 
 
 Meanwhile, the cause of parliamentary reform had 
 ' Friends been advocated by several political associa- 
 Peopie.' tions, and more particularly by the ' Friends 
 of the People.' This society embraced many gentle- 
 men eminent in politics and literature ; and twenty- 
 eight members of Parliament, of whom Mr. Grey 
 and Mr. Erskine took the lead. It was agreed 
 amongst them, that the subject should again be 
 pressed upon the attention of Parliament. And, 
 Mr. Grey's accordingly, on the 30th of April, 1792, 
 
 notice, 30th -.r^^ . « ... 
 
 April, 1792. Mr. Grcy gave notice of a motion, m the 
 ensuing session, for an inquiry into the representa- 
 tive system.^ A few years earlier, the cause of re- 
 form, — honestly supported by moderate men of all 
 parties, — might have prevailed : but the perils of 
 the time had now become too great to admit of its 
 fair discussion. That ghastly revolution had burst 
 forth in France, which for two generations was 
 destined to repress the liberties of England. Mr. 
 Pitt avowed that he still retained his opinion of the 
 propriety of parliamentary reform : but was per- 
 suaded that it could not then be safely tried. He 
 saw no prospect of success, and groat danger of 
 anarchy and confusion in the attempt. ' This is 
 not a time,' said he, ' to make hazardous experi- 
 
 ' Pari. Hist., xxviii. 452. 
 
 ' Mr. Speaker Adtlington permittpd a debate to arise on this 
 occasion, which, according to the stricter practice of later times, 
 would hav'.' l>tcn wliollj' uadmissible. — Lord Sidi/wuth's Life, i. 88. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 403 
 
 ments.' He had taken his stand against revolu- 
 tionary principles, and every question with which 
 they could be associated. ^Ir. Burke, the honoured 
 reformer of an earlier period, and in another cause,' 
 and many respected members of his party, henceforth 
 supported the minister, and ranged themselves with 
 the opponents of reform. A period was commencing, 
 not only hostile to all change, but repressive of free- 
 dom of opinion ; and the power of Mr. Pitt, as the 
 champion of order against democracy, was absolute.^ 
 On the 6th of May, 1793, Mr. Grey brought for- 
 ward the motion, of which he had given Mr. Grey s 
 
 . . motion, 
 
 notice in the previous session. First he 1793. 
 presented a long and elaborate petition from the 
 society of the Friends of the People, exposing the 
 abuses of the electoral system, and alleging various 
 grounds for parliamentary reform. This petition 
 having been read, ilr. Grey proceeded to move that 
 it be referred to the consideration of a committee. 
 Like Mr. Pitt, on a former occasion, — and probably 
 for the same reasons, — he made no specific proposal ; 
 but contented himself with arguments against the 
 existing system. A more unsuitable time for such 
 a motion could not have been foimd. The horrors 
 of the French revolution had lately reached their 
 climax in the execution of the king : many British 
 subjects had avowed their sympathy with revolu- 
 tionary principles : the country was at war with the 
 French repuljlic : the Wliig party had been broken 
 up ; and the great body of the people were alarmed 
 
 ' iMr. Burke had ncvi r Rupportod parliamentary reform. 
 * r.irl. Hist., s.xix. 1300; Tnmliiio's Life of Pitt, iii. 322. 
 D u2 
 
404 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 for the safety of their institutions. At such a time, 
 the most moderate proposals were discountenanced ; 
 and after two nights' debate, Mr. Grey's motion 
 found only forty-one supporters.' 
 
 After such discouragement, and under circum- 
 Mr. Grey's stauces SO adverse, Mr. Grey did not at- 
 motion, tempt to renew the discussion of parlia- 
 mentary reform, until 1797. He now had a definite 
 plan ; and on the 26th May, he moved for leave to 
 bring in a bill for carrying it into effect. He pro- 
 posed to increase the county members from ninety- 
 two to one hundred and thirteen, by giving two 
 members to each of the three ridings of the county 
 of York, instead of two for the whole county, and 
 by similar additions to other large counties ; and to 
 admit copyholders and leaseholders for terms of 
 years, as well as freeholders, to the county franchise. 
 As regards the boroughs, he proposed to substitute 
 for the numerous rights of election, one uniform 
 household franchise. And in order to diminish the 
 expense of elections, he suggested that the poll 
 should be taken, throughout the whole kingdom, at 
 one time. His scheme comprised, in fact, an outline 
 of the great measure, which this eminent statesman 
 was ultimately destined to mature, as the cons^um- 
 mation of his labours during half a century. His 
 motion was seconded by Mr. Erskine, in a speech 
 which went far to contradict the assertion, — so often 
 made, — that in the House of Commons this great 
 forensic orator was wholly unequal to his reputation. 
 
 ' Piirl. Hist, XXX. 787-92.'); Ayes, 41; Noes, 232; Lord J. 
 KussuU's Lile of Fox, ii. 281-283,349. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 
 
 405 
 
 At once eloquent, impassioned, and argumentative, 
 it displayed those rare qualities, which have never 
 been equalled at the British bar, and not often in 
 the senate. The motion was also supported, in an 
 admirable speech, by ^Mr. Fox. But vain were 
 moderate and well-considered plans, — vain were elo- 
 quence and argument. The feelings, fears, and pre- 
 judices of the people were adverse to the cause : 
 reform being now confounded with revolution, and 
 reformers with Jacobins. Whatever was proposed, 
 — more was said to be intended ; and Paine and the 
 ' Eights of Man ' were perversely held up, as the 
 true exponents of the reformer's creed. The motion 
 was rejected by a large majority.' 
 
 Again the question slept for many years. The 
 early part of the present century was a pnrther 
 period scarcely more favourable for the dis- ^*^u,"nt of 
 cussion of parliamentary reform, than the ■'^f"™'- 
 first years of the French revolution. The prodigious 
 efforts of the country in carrying on the war, — 
 victories and disasters, — loans, taxes, and subsidies, 
 — engrossed the attention of Parliament, and the 
 thoughts of the people. The restoration of peace 
 was succeeded by other circumstances, almost equally 
 impropitious. Tlie extreme pressure of the war 
 upon the industrial resources of the country, had 
 occasioned suffering and discontent amongst the 
 working classes. The government were busy in re- 
 pressing sedition ; and the governing classes, trained 
 under a succession of Tory administrations, had 
 learned to scout every popular principle. Und^r 
 
 ' Pari. Ilist., xxxiii. C U. Ayes, 91 ; Now 'i^'iO. 
 
4o6 
 
 Hotisc of Commons. 
 
 such discouragements, many of the old supporters 
 of reform, either deserted the cause, or shrank 
 from its assertion ; while demagogues, of dubious 
 character, and dangerous principles, espoused it. 
 ' Hampden Clubs,' and other democratic associations, 
 — chiefly composed of working men, — were demand- 
 ing universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, which 
 found as little favour with the advocates of reform, 
 as with its opponents ; and every moderate scheme 
 was received with scorn, by ultra-reformers.' 
 
 But not^vithstanding these adverse conditions, the 
 Sir F. Bur- qucstion of reform was occasionally dis- 
 
 riett's plan, . . 
 
 i8t>9. cussed in Parliament. In 1809, it was 
 revived, after the lapse of thirteen years. Mr. Pitt 
 and Mr. Fox, — who had first fought together in sup- 
 port of the same principles, and afterwards on oppo- 
 site sides, - were both no more : Mr. Grey and Mr. 
 Erskine had been called to the House of Peers ; and 
 the cause was in other hands. Sir Francis Burdett 
 was now its advocate, — less able and influential tlian 
 his predecessors, and an eccentric politician, — but a 
 thorough-bred English gentleman. His scheme, 
 however, was such as to repel the support of the 
 few remaining reformers. He proposed that every 
 county should be divided into electoral districts ; 
 that each district should return one member ; and 
 that the franchise should be vested in the taxed male 
 population. So startling a project found no more 
 than fifteen supporters.'^ 
 
 ' Com. Jonrn., Ixv. .'^60, &c. Reports of Secret Committees of 
 Lonls and Commons. 1817; Wilberforce's Life, iv. 315; Bamforcl's 
 Life of ti Rnilical, i. If>2-1(!.5. 
 
 2 Huns. Deb., 1st Ser., xiv. 1041. Ayes, 15; Noes, 74. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 407 
 
 In the following year, several petitions were pre- 
 sented, praying for a reform of Parliament ; 
 and on the 21st May, Mr. Brand moved for ^™?on! 
 a committee of inquiry, which was refused ^'lo.^'^'' 
 by a large majority.' On the 13th June, fs^thj^e', 
 Earl Grey, in moving an address on the 
 state of the nation, renewed his public connection 
 with the cause of reform, — avowed his adherence to 
 the sentiments he had always expressed, — and pro- 
 mised his futiu-e support to any temperate and judi- 
 cious plan for the correction of abuses in the repre- 
 sentation. He was followed by Lord Erskine, in the 
 same honourable avowal.'^ 
 
 In 1818, Sir F. Burdett, now the chairman of the 
 Hampden Club of London, proposed reso- sir f. bup- 
 lutions in favour of universal male suf- isis^io. 
 frage, equal electoral districts, vote by ballot, and 
 annual Parliaments. His motion was seconded by 
 Lord Cochrane : but found not another supporter in 
 the House of Commons. At this time, there were 
 numerous public meetings in favour of universal 
 suffrage ; and reform associations, — not only of men 
 but of women, — were engaged in advancing the 
 same cause. And as many of these were advocating 
 female suffrage, Sir F. Burdett, to avoid miscon- 
 struction, referred to male suffrage only.' 
 
 In 1819, Sir F. Burdett again brought forward a 
 motion on the subject. He proposed that the House 
 
 ' y\vos, 115; NocB, 234. ITans. Dob., 1st Str., xvii. 123. 
 ' Ihid., xvii. 569, 590. 
 
 • Sou 11 Iciirnwi and ingenious urticio in the Edin. Rov., Jiinnnry, 
 1819, liy Sir J. Miiokiiilosh, on Universal Suffrage, Art. viii. ; Biim- 
 foi-d's J.ifi' ofii Kudiial, i. 16t. 
 
4o8 House of Commons. 
 
 should, early in the next session, take into its con- 
 sideration the state of the representation. In the 
 debate, Lord John Eussell, who had recently been 
 admitted to Parliament, expressed his opinion in 
 favour of disfranchising such boroughs as were noto- 
 riously corrupt. The motion was superseded by read- 
 ing the orders of the day.' 
 
 At the commencement of the following session, 
 LordJ. Lord John Eussell, — whose name has ever 
 
 RusseU, 
 
 1820. since been honourably associated with the 
 cause of reform, — proposed his first motion on the 
 subject. In the preceding session, he had brought 
 under the notice of the House the scandalous pro- 
 ceedings at Grampound. He now took broader 
 ground, and embraced the general evils of tlie 
 electoral system.^ The time was not favourable to 
 moderate counsels. On one side were the intem- 
 perate advocates of universal suffrage : on the 
 other the stubborn opponents of all change in the 
 representation.* But such was the moderation of 
 Lord John's scheme of reform, that it might have 
 claimed the support of the wiser men of all parties. 
 He showed, in a most promising speech, that in 
 former times decayed boroughs had been dis- 
 charged from sending members, and populous 
 places summoned by writ to return them ; he de- 
 scribed the wonderful increase of the great manu- 
 
 I Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1440. ' Ihld., xli. 302, 1091. 
 
 ' Notwithstanding the small cnconraRt'ment given <at this time to 
 ihe cause of reform, it was making nnu'h jirourcss in public opinion. 
 Sydney Smith, writing in 1819, said, 'I think all wise men should 
 begin to turn their minds reform wards. We sliall do it better 
 than Mr. Hunt or Mr. Cobbett. Done it muat, aud lu'iU be.' — Mem., 
 ii. 191. 
 
Parliamentary Refor^n. 409 
 
 facturing towns, which were unrepresented ; and the 
 corruption of the smaller boroughs, which sold their 
 francliise. He concluded by moving resolutions : — 
 1. That boroughs in which notorious bribery and 
 corruption should be proved to prevail, should cease 
 to return members — the electors not proved guilty 
 being allowed to vote for the county : 2. That the 
 right thus taken from corrupt boroughs, should be 
 given to great towns with a population of not less 
 than 15,000, or to some of the largest counties: 3. 
 That further means should be taken to detect corrup- 
 tion ; and lastly, that the borough of Grampound 
 should cease to send members. 
 
 As the motion was met by the government in a 
 conciliatory manner ; and as Lord Castle- 
 reagh was ready to concur in the disfran- frauctS^ 
 chisement of Grampound ; Lord John 
 Russell consented to withdraw his resolutions, and 
 gave notice of a bill for disfranchising Grampound.' 
 The progress of tliis bill was interrupted by the 
 death of the king ; but it was renewed in the follow- 
 ing session, and reached the House of Lords, where, 
 after evidence being taken at the bar, it dropped by 
 reason of the prorogation. Again it was passed by 
 the Commons, in 1821. That House had given the 
 two vacant seats to the great town of Leeds ; but 
 the Lords still avoided the recognition of such a 
 principle, by assigning two additional members to 
 the county of York ; in wliich form the bill was at 
 length agreed to.' 
 
 ' ITiing. Deb., Ist Sor., xli. 1091-1122. 
 ' 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 17. 
 
Hotisc of Commons. 
 
 ^In 1821, two motions were made relating to par- 
 liamentary reform, the one by Mr. Lambton, and the 
 Mr. Lamb- Other by Lord John Eussell. On the 17th 
 ilo^air" April, the former explained his scheme. 
 
 In lieu of the borough representation, he 
 proposed to divide counties into districts containing 
 twenty-five thousand inhabitants, each returning a 
 member, — to extend the franchise for such dis- 
 tricts to all householders paying taxes, — to facili- 
 tate polling by means of numerous polling-booths, 
 and by enabling overseers to receive votes, — and to 
 charge the necessary expenses of every election upon 
 the poor-rates. To the county constituencies he 
 proposed to add copyholders, and leaseholders for 
 terms of years. After a debate of two days, his 
 motion was negatived by a majority of twelve.' 
 Lord J. On the 9th of May, Lord John Russell 
 
 Kussell's 1 , . 
 
 plan, 1821. moved resolutions with a view to the dis- 
 covery of bribery, the disfranchisement of corrupt 
 boroughs, and the transfer of the right of returning 
 members, to places which had increased in wealth 
 and population. His resolutions were superseded 
 by the previous question, which was carried by a 
 majority of thirty-one.^ 
 
 In 1822, Lord John Russell having, as he said, 
 An.i in '' f't'i'^cd au apprenticeship in the cause of 
 i8.">. reform,' again pressed the matter upon the 
 notice of the House. The cry for universal suffrage 
 had now subsided, — tranquillity prevailed throughout 
 
 ' .Vyos, 43 ; Noes, ho. Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., v. 359-453. Mr. 
 L.ambton had prepared a bill, wiiich is printed in the Appendix to 
 that volume of Di4)ate.s. 
 
 Hans. Deb., 2nd Si r., v. fi03 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 4 1 1 
 
 the country, — and no circumstance could be urged 
 as unfavourable to its fair consideration. After 
 showing the great increase of the wealth and in- 
 telligence of the country, he proposed the addition 
 of sixty members to the counties, and forty to the 
 great towns; and, — not to increase the total number 
 of the House of Commons, — he suggested that one 
 hundred of the smallest boroughs should each lose 
 one of their two members. His motion, reduced to a 
 modest resolution, ' that the present state of repre- 
 sentation required serious consideration,' was rejected 
 by a majority of one hundi-ed and five.' 
 
 In 1823, Lord John renewed his motion in the 
 same terms. He was now supported by in 1823. 
 numerous petitions, — and amongst the number by 
 one from seventeen thousand freeholders of the 
 county of York ; but after a short debate, was de- 
 feated by a majority of one hundred and eleven.* 
 
 Again, in l82fi. Lord John proposed the same 
 resolution to the House ; and pointed out Lord j 
 forcibly, that the increasing wealth and in- n,"ti^u^ 
 telligence of the people were daily aggra- 
 vating the ineriuality of the representation. Nomi- 
 nation boroughs continued to return a large propor- 
 tion of the members of the House of Commons> 
 while places of enormous population and commercial 
 prosperity were without representatives. After an 
 interesting debate, his resolution was negatived by 
 a majority of one hundred and twenty-four.' 
 
 ' Hiins. Deb., 2n(l Ser, rii. Sl-lSO. Ayes, 164 ; Noes, 269. 
 « Ihhl., viii. 12G0. A}rs, 169 ; No. s, 280. 
 » Ihid., XV. .')'.. Ayes, 127 ; Noes. 217. 
 
412 House of Commons. 
 
 In 1829, a proposal for reform proceeded from an 
 j^p^ij unexpected quarter, and was based upon 
 ^e^fT&ia- principles entirely novel. The measure of 
 Catholic emancipation had recently been 
 carried ; and many of its opponents, of the old Tory 
 party,— disgusted with their own leaders, by whom 
 it had been forwarded, — were suddenly converted to 
 the cause of parliamentary reform. On the 2nd 
 June, Lord Blandford, who represented their 
 opinions, submitted a motion on the subject. He 
 apprehended that the Eoman Catholics would now 
 enter the borough-market, and purchase seats for 
 their representatives, in such numbers as to en- 
 danger our Protestant constitution. His resolutions 
 condemning close and corrupt boroughs, found only 
 forty supporters, and were rejected by a majority of 
 seventy-four.' At the commencement of the next 
 session, Lord Blandford repeated these views, in 
 moving an amendment to the address, representing 
 the necessity of improving the representation. Being 
 seconded by Mr. O'Connell, his anomalous position 
 as a reformer was manifest.^ Soon afterwards ho 
 moved for leave to bring in a bill to restore the 
 constitutional influence of the Commons in the 
 Parliament of England, which contained an elaborate 
 machinery of reform, including the restoration of 
 waires to members.* His motion served no other 
 purpose, than that of reviving discussions on the 
 general (question of reform. 
 
 But in the meantime, questions of no less general 
 
 • lliuis. Deb., 2nd Sor., xxi. 1672. Ayes, 40 ; Noes, 114. 
 2 Lbid., xxii. 171. ' xxii. 078. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 
 
 413 
 
 application had been discussed, which eventually pro- 
 duced the most important results. The dis- Northamp- 
 cloRures which followed the general election Lekester 
 
 cases, 
 
 of 1826, and the conduct of the government, 182C-27. 
 gave a considerable impulse to the cause of reform. 
 The corporations of Northampton and Leicester 
 were alleged to have applied large sums Feb. 21st. 
 from the corporate funds, for the support March isth. 
 of ministerial candidates. In the Northampton 
 case, Sir Kobert Peel went so far as to maintain the 
 right of a corporation to apply its funds to election 
 purposes : but the House could not be brought to 
 concur in such a principle ; and a committee of 
 inqiury was appointed.' In the Leicester case, all 
 inquiry was successfully resisted.'^ A bill to restrain 
 such corporate abuses was passed by the Commons 
 in the next session, but Lord Eldon secured its re- 
 jection by the Lords, on the third reading.* 
 
 Next came two cases of gross and notorious bri- 
 bery,— Penryn and East Eetford. They pe^^j-naDd 
 were not worse than those of Shoreham ^>^i'ea!^ 
 and Grampound, and might have been as 
 easily disposed of ; but, — treated without judgment 
 by ministers, — they precipitated a contest, which 
 ended in the triumph of reform. 
 
 Penryn had long been notorious for its corruption, 
 which had been already twice exposed yet minis- 
 ters resolved to deal tenderly with it. Instead of 
 disfranchising so corrupt a borough, they followed 
 
 ' ITiinB. Dob., 2nd Sor., xvi. 600. i IhuU, 1198. 
 
 * l;illi .June, Ifi27; liordH' J<iiirn., lis. 403; Lord ColchcBlir'n 
 Diiiry, lii. ■310 {'mt reported in lliuisiird). 
 
 ♦ in 180" luid 1X19. 
 
414 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 tlie precedent of Shoreham ; and proposed to em- 
 brace the adjacent hundreds, in the privilege of 
 returning- members. But true to the principles he 
 had already carried out in the case of Grampound, 
 Lord Jolm Kussell succeeded in introducing an 
 amendment in the bill, by which the borough was to 
 be entirely disfranchised.' 
 
 In the case of East Eetford, a bill was brought in 
 to disfranchise that borough, and to enable the town 
 of Birmingham to return two representatives. And 
 it was intended by the reformers to transfer the 
 franchise from Penryn to Manchester. The session 
 closed without the accomplishment of either of these 
 objects. The Penryn disfranchisement bill, having 
 passed the Commons, had dropped in the Lords ; 
 and the East Eetford bill had not yet passed the 
 Commons. 
 
 In the next session, two bills were introduced ; 
 Penrvn and ouc bv Lord Johu Eussell, for transferring 
 
 EastRutforcl , „ , . „ ^ nr i 
 
 bills, is-'8. the franchise irom renryn to JManches- 
 ter ; and anotlier by JNIr. Tennyson, for disfranchising 
 East Eetford, and giviug i-epresentatives to Bir- 
 miugham.^ The government proposed a compro- 
 mise. If both boroughs were disfranchised, they 
 offered, in one case to give two members to a popu- 
 lous town, and in the other to the adjoining hun- 
 dreds.* When the Penryn bill had already reached 
 the House of Lords, — where its reception was ex- 
 tremely doubtful, — the East Eetford Bill came on 
 for discussion in the Commons. The government 
 
 ' Hans. Dr-b., 2iid Scr., xvii. C82, 10.55. 
 
 ' n>Ld., xviii. Sa. ' Hid., IHl, 1282. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 
 
 4^5 
 
 now opposed the transference of the franchise to 
 Birmingham. Mr. Huskisson, however, voted for 
 it ; and his proffered resignation being accepted by 
 the Duke of Wellington,' led to the withdrawal of 
 Lord Palmerston, Lord Dudley, Mr. Lamb, and Mr. 
 Grant, — the most liberal members of the govern- 
 ment, — the friends and colleagues of the late Mr. 
 Canning. The cabinet was now entirely Tory ; and 
 less disposed than ever to make concessions to the 
 reformers. The Penryn bill was soon afterwards 
 thrown out by the Lords on the second reading ; 
 and the East Retford bill, — having been amended so 
 as to retain the franchise in the hundreds, — was 
 abandoned in the Commons.'^ 
 
 It was the opinion of many attentive observers of 
 these times, that the concession of demands Proposal to 
 so reasonable would have arrested, or post- Leeds, Bir- 
 poned tor many years, the progress of re- and Man- 
 form. They were resisted ; and further i^ao. 
 agitation was encouraged. In 18.30, Lord John 
 Russell, — no longer hoping to deal with Penryn and 
 East Retford, — proposed at once to enfranchise 
 Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester ; and to pro- 
 vide that the three next places proved guilty of 
 corruption should be altogether disfranchised.^ 
 His motion was opposed, mainly on the ground that 
 if the franchise were given to these towns, the 
 claims of other large towns could not afterwards be 
 
 ' Ilfins. Dob., 2nd Sor., xix. 915. Soe Yonge's Life of the 
 Duko of WulliiiKtoii, ii. 160-1,04 ; Lord ColchostiTs Diary, iii, 666; 
 Buhvpr'H Lite of Viscount Piilmcrston, i. 261-279. 
 
 ' IJiins. Dob., 2nd Sor., xix. 1630. 
 
 ' Ihid., xiii. 86'J. 
 
4i6 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 resisted. Where, then were such concessions to stop ? 
 It is remarkable that on this occasion, Mr. Huskis- 
 son said of Lord Sandon, who had moved an amend- 
 ment, that he ' was young, and would yet live to see 
 the day when the representative franchise must be 
 granted to the great manufacturing districts. He 
 thought such a time fast approaching ; and that one 
 day or other, His Majesty's ministers would come 
 down to that House, to propose such a measure, as 
 necessary for the salvation of the country.' Within 
 a year, this prediction had been verified ; though 
 the unfortunate statesman did not live to see its 
 fulfilment. The motion was negatived by a majority 
 of forty-eight ; ^ and thus another moderate proposal, 
 — free from the objections which had been urged 
 against disfranchisement, and not affecting any 
 existing rights, — was sacrificed to a narrow and 
 obstinate dread of innovation. 
 
 In this same session, other proposals were made 
 other pro- of a widely different character. Mr. O'Con- 
 1830. nell moved resolutions in favour of uni- 
 versal suffrage, triennial Parliaments, and vote by 
 ballot. Lord John Eussell moved to substitute 
 other resolutions, providing for the enfranchisement 
 of large towns, and giving additional members to 
 populous counties ; while any increase of the num- 
 bers of the House of Commons was avoided, by 
 disfranchising some of the smaller boroughs, and 
 restraining others from sending more than one mem- 
 ber,* Sir Robert Peel, in the coui'se of the debate, 
 
 ' Ayes, HO; No«s, 188. ' Hans. Deb., 2ud Ser., xiiv. 1204 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 4 1 7 
 
 said : ' They had to consider whether there was not, 
 ou the whole, a general representation of the people 
 in that House ; and whether the popular voice was 
 not sufficiently heard. For himself he thought tliat 
 it was.' This opinion was but the prelude to a more 
 memorable declaration, by the Duke of Wellington. 
 Both the motion and the amendment failed : but 
 discussions so frequent served to awaken public 
 sympathy in the cause, which great events were soon 
 to arouse into enthusiasm. 
 
 At the end of this session. Parliament was dis- 
 solved, in consequence of the death of Dissolution 
 George IV. The government was weak, — ^^^"^ 
 parties had been completely disorganised by the 
 passing of the Catholic Belief Act, — much discontent 
 prevailed in the country ; and the question of par- 
 liamentary reform, — which had been so often dis- 
 cussed in the late session, — became a popular topic 
 at the elections. !Meanwliile a startling event abroad, 
 added to the usual excitement of a general election. 
 Scarcely had the writs been issued, when Charles X. 
 of France, — having attempted a coxvp cVetat, — sud- 
 denly lost his crown, and was an exile on his way to 
 England.' As he had fallen, in violating the liberty 
 of the press, and subverting the representative con- 
 stitution of PVancc, this revolution gained the sym- 
 pathy of the English people, and gave an impulse to 
 liberal opinions. The excitement was further in- 
 creased by the revolution in Belgium, which imme- 
 diately followed. The new Parliament, elected 
 
 ' Parliament was dissolved July 24th. The 'three diije' com- 
 menced in I'rance, on thv 27th. 
 VOJL. I. EE 
 
4i8 
 
 House of Coininons. 
 
 under such circumstances, met in October. Being 
 •without the restraint of a strong government, ac- 
 knowledged leaders, and accustomed party connec- 
 tions, it was open to fresh political impressions ; 
 and the first night of the session determined their 
 direction. 
 
 A few words from the Duke of W^ellington raised 
 j3„j.g a storm, which swept away his government, 
 Sn's'rif-" ^iid destroyed his party. In the debate on 
 tiaration. addrcss. Earl Grey adverted to reform, 
 
 and expressed a hope that it would not be deferred, 
 like Catholic emancipation, until government would 
 be ' compelled to yield to expediency, what they re- 
 fused to concede upon principle.' This elicited 
 from the Duke an ill-timed profession of faith in 
 our representation. 'He was fully convinced that 
 the country possessed, at the present moment, a 
 legislature which answered all the good purposes of 
 legislation, — and this to a greater degree than any 
 legislature ever had answered, in any country what- 
 ever. He would go further, and say that the legis- 
 lature and system of representation possessed the full 
 and entire confidence of the country, — deservedly 
 possessed that confidence, — and the discussions in 
 the legislature had a very great influence over the 
 opinions of the country. He would go still further, 
 and say, that if at the present moment he had im- 
 posed upon him the duty of forming a legislature 
 for any country,— and particularly for a country like 
 this, in possession of great property of various des- 
 cri])tions, — he did not mean to assert that he could 
 form such a legislature as they possessed now, foi 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 419 
 
 the nature of man tois incapable of reaching such 
 excellence at once : but his great endeavour would 
 be to form some description of legislature, which 
 would produce the same results. . . . Under these 
 circumstances he was not prepared to bring forward 
 any measure of the description alluded to by the 
 noble lord. He was not only not prepared to bring 
 forward any measure of this nature ; but he would 
 at once declare that, as far as he was concerned, as 
 long as he held any station in the government of 
 the country, he should always feel it his duty to 
 resist such measures, when proposed by others.' ' 
 
 At another time such sentiments as these might 
 have passed unheeded, like other general panegyrics 
 upon the British constitution, with which the public 
 taste had long been familiar. Yet, so general a 
 defence of our representative system had never, 
 perhaps, been hazarded by any statesman. ^Ministers 
 had usually been cautious in advancing the theoretical 
 merits of the system, — even when its abuses had 
 been less frequently exposed, and public opinion less 
 awakened. They had spoken of the dangers of 
 innovation, — they had asserted that the system, if 
 imperfect in theory, had yet ' worked well,' — they 
 had said that the people were satisfied, and desired 
 no change, — they had appealed to revolutions abroad, 
 and disaffection at home, as reasons for not enter- 
 taining any proposal fjr change : but it was reserved 
 for the Duke of Wellington, — at a time of excitement 
 like the present, — to insult the understanding of the 
 
 ' Hans. Dfb. 3rJ Ser., i. 52. The Duke, on a subsequent occasion, 
 explained this speech, but did not deny that he had used the expres- 
 sions attributed to him. — Hans. Ihh., 3rJ Ser., vii. 1186. 
 
 H B 2 
 
420 House of Commo7ts. 
 
 people, by declaring that the system was perfect in 
 itself, and deservedly possessed their confidence.* 
 
 On the same night, Mr. Brougham gave notice of 
 FaUofthe ^ motion on the subject of parliamentary 
 government, reform. Within a fortnight, the duke's 
 administration resigTied, after an adverse division in 
 the Commons, on the appointment of a committee 
 to examine the accounts of the civil list.'* Though 
 this defeat was the immediate cause of their resig- 
 nation, the expected motion of Mr. Brougham was 
 not without its influence, in determining them to 
 withdraw from further embarrassments. 
 
 Earl Grey was the new minister ; and Mr. 
 Lord Grey's Brougham his lord chancellor. The first 
 
 ministry, 
 
 1830. announcement of the premier was that the 
 government would ' take into immediate considera- 
 tion the state of the representation, with a view to 
 the correction of those defects which had been 
 occasioned in it by the operation of time ; and with 
 a view to the re-establishment of that confidence 
 upon the part of the people, which he was afraid 
 Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full 
 extent that is essential for tlie welfare and safety 
 
 ' Tliis declaration was condemned even by his own part}'. Lord 
 Grenville wrote to the Duke of Buckinfrham, Nov. 21 st, 1830: 'It 
 has been most unfortunate for him, and not less so for the question. 
 Absolute resistance, in limine, to any reform, is manifestly no longer 
 possible.' — Courts and Cabinets of Wm. IV. and Quein Vict., i. 146. 
 Tlie Duke himself, liowever, far from perceiving his error, wrote, 
 March 2Uh, 1831 : 'In my opinion, the fault of which those have 
 been guilty who oppose the measure, is the admission that any 
 reform is necessary.' — 1/iiJ., 260. 
 
 Sydney Smith, writing Nov. 18,30, says: ' Never was any ad- 
 ministration so completely and so suddenly destroyed ; and, I believe, 
 entirely by the Duke's declaration, made, I suspect, in perfect igno- 
 rance of the state of public feeling and opinion.' — Mem., ii. 313. 
 
Parliajnentary Reform. 421 
 
 of the country, and tlie preservation of the govern- 
 ment.' ' 
 
 The government were now pledged to a measure 
 of parliamentary reform ; and during the Agitation in 
 Christmas recess, were occupied in pre- reform, 
 paring it. Meanwhile, the cause was eagerly sup- 
 ported by the people. Public meetings were held, 
 political unions established,* and numerous petitions 
 signed, in favour of reform. So great were the 
 difficulties with which the government had to con- 
 tend, that they needed all the encouragement that 
 the people could give. They had to encounter the 
 reluctance of the king,^ — the interests of the pro- 
 prietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt, unable to 
 overcome, had sought to purchase, — the opposition 
 of two-thirds of the House of Lords, and perhaps of 
 a majority of the House of Commons, — and above 
 all, the strong Tory spirit of the country. Tory 
 principles had been strengthened by a rule of sixty 
 years. Not confined to the governing classes, but 
 pervading society, — they were now confirmed by 
 fears of impending danger. On the other hand, the 
 too ardent reformers, while they alarmed the oppo- 
 nents of reform, embarrassed the government, and 
 injured the cause, by tlieir extravagance. 
 
 On the 3rd February, when Parliament reas- 
 sembled. Lord Grey announced that the First Re- 
 government had succeeded in framing ' a i.H:m-;)i. 
 measure which would be effective, without exceediri'r 
 the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation,' 
 
 ' Hiins. Deh., 3rd Scr., i. 006. ' 3. o Chap. X. 
 
 • tsupra, y. l."9. 
 
422 House of Commons. 
 
 and Avbich ' had received the unanimous consent of 
 the ■whole government.' 
 
 On the 1st March, this measure was brought 
 forward in the House of Conamons by Lord John 
 Russell, to whom, — though not in the cabinet, — 
 this honourable duty had been justly confided. In 
 the House of Commons he had already made the 
 question his own ; and now he was the exponent of 
 the policy of the government. The measure was 
 brieflv this : — to disfranchise sixtv of the smallest 
 boroughs ; to withdraw one member from forty- 
 seven other boroughs ; to add eight members fof 
 the metropolis ; thirty-four for large towns ; and 
 fifty-five for coimties, in England ; and to give five 
 additional members to Scotland, three to Ireland, 
 and one to Wales. By this new distribution of the 
 franchise, the House of Commons woidd be reduced 
 in number from six hundred and fifty-eight, to 
 five hundred and ninety-six, or by sixty-two mem- 
 bers.' 
 
 For the old rights of election ia boroughs, a 10^. 
 household franchise was substituted ; and the cor- 
 porations were deprived of their exclusive pri\'ileges. 
 It was computed that half a milUon of persons 
 would be enfranchised. Improved arrangements 
 were also proposed, for the registration of votes, and 
 the mode of polling at elections. 
 
 This bold measure alarmed the opponents of re- 
 form, and failed to satisfy the radical reformers : 
 but on the whole, it was well received by the reform 
 party, and by the coimtry. One of the most stirring 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Scr.. ii. 1061. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 423 
 
 periods in our history was approaching: but its 
 events must be rapidly passed over. After a debate 
 of seven nights, the bill was brought in without a 
 division. Its opponents were collecting their forces, 
 while the excitement of the people in favour of the 
 measure, was continually increasing. On the 22nd 
 March, the second reading of the bill was carried by 
 a majority of one only, in a House of six hundred 
 and eight, — by far the greatest number which, up to 
 that time, had ever been assembled at a division.' 
 On the 19th of April, on going into committee, 
 ministers foimd themselves in a minority of eight, 
 on a resolution proposed by General Gascoyne, that 
 the number of members returned for England, ougfht 
 not to be diminished,* On the 21st, ministers an- 
 nounced that it was not their intention to proceed 
 with the bill. On that same night, they were again 
 defeated on a question of adjournment, by a majority 
 of twenty-two,' 
 
 This last vote was decisive. The very next day, 
 Parliament was prorogued by the king in person, 
 
 ' According to Lord Colchester, tho largest division since the 
 Union had been on Mr. Tiemey's motion, on the state of tho nation, 
 21st May, 1819, when 530 were present, including the Speaker and 
 tellers. — Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 76. For oiher cases of large 
 divi>ions, see Ihid., i. 520; ii. 123, 377. Tlie largest division since 
 known was on the 4th June. 1841, on tho vole of want of confidenco 
 in Lonl Melbourne's ministry, when 628 were present, including the 
 i>pcak<T and tellers. — Curnu-alUs Corr., iii. 181. 
 
 » Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., iii. 1687. 
 
 • Ihid., 18i'6. It has ofien been represented, — and was so stated 
 by Lord Brougham on the following day, — that tliis vote amount«-d 
 to ' .stopping tiie supplies.' It eannot, however, bear such a construc- 
 tion, the question before tho House being a motion concerning tho 
 Liverpool election. Late down in the list of onlers of the day, a 
 report from the Committee of Supply wu to bo received, wliich 
 djvppod by reason of ilie adjournmeal. 
 
424 House of Commons. 
 
 ' with a view to its immediate dissolution.' ' It 
 Dissolution '^^^ '^'^^ most Critical days in the 
 
 m 1831. history of our country. At a time of grave 
 political agitation, the people were directly appealed 
 to by the king's government, to support a measure 
 by which their feelings and passions had been 
 aroused, — and which was known to be obnoxious to 
 both Houses of Parliament, and to the governing 
 classes. 
 
 The people were now to decide the question ; — 
 Second Re- and they decided it. A triumphant body 
 
 form BiU, 
 
 1831. of reformers was returned, pledged to carry 
 the reform bill ; and on the 6th July, the second 
 reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a 
 majority of one hundred and thirty-six.^ The most 
 tedious and irritating discussions ensued in com- 
 mittee, — night after night ; and the bill was not dis- 
 posed of luitil the 21st September, when it was 
 passed by a majority of one hundred and nine.^ 
 
 That the peers were still adverse to the bill was 
 Rejected by Certain : but whether, at such a crisis, they 
 the Lords, ^ould Venture to oppose the national will, 
 was doubtful.'' On the 7th October, after a debate 
 of five nights, — one of the most memorable by 
 which that House has ever been distinguished, and 
 itself a great event in history, — the bill was rejected 
 on the second reading, by a majority of forty-one.* 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., iii. 1810. Sop supra, p. 141. 
 = Ibid., iv. 906. Ayes, 367 ; Noos, 231. 
 
 ' Ihid., vii. 464. The division was taken on the question 'That 
 this bill do pass.' 
 
 * The position of the peers at this time has been already noticed, 
 tujira, p. 308, et srq. 
 
 » Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., viii. 340. This debate I heard myself. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 425 
 
 The battle was to be foug-bt a";ain. Ministers 
 were too far pledged to the people to think Third He- 
 
 • • , 1 . ^ ^ , form BUI, 
 
 of resigning ; and on the motion of Lord 1831-32. 
 Ebrington, they were immediately supported by a 
 vote of confidence from the House of Commons.* 
 On the 20th October, Parliament was prorogued ; 
 and after a short interval of excitement, turbulence 
 and danger, met again on the 6th December. A 
 third reform bill was immediately brought in, — 
 changed in many respects, — and much improved by 
 reason of the recent census, and other statistical 
 investigations. Amongst other changes, the total 
 number of members was no longer proposed to be 
 reduced. Tliis bill was read a second time on 
 Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority 
 of one hundred and sixty-two.* On the 23rd March, 
 it was passed by the House of Commons, and once 
 more was before the House of Lords. 
 
 Here the peril of again rejecting it could not 
 be concealed. The courage of some was „ , , 
 
 o Jli aii second 
 
 shaken, — the patriotism of others aroused ; Lon,s''*i'ith 
 and after a debate of four nights, the -^^p"""- 
 second reading was affirmed by the narrow majority 
 of nine.' But danger still awaited it. The peers 
 who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, 
 were preparing to change its essential character by 
 amendments. Meanwhile the agitation of the people 
 
 being proHPiit in tho House of Lonls until tho (ln.vlii;ht division on 
 tho 7th Ootobcr. It was the first Ji-balc, in tho LorJs, which 1 had 
 yet liad the privilof^o of attcndiiiK- 
 ' ILiriH. Deb., 3rd Sit., viii. .')8(). 
 
 ' /7'iv/., ix. .oie. 
 
 ' piiil., xii. 4iVt ; and for a spirited sliotch of tlio sconi', soo Cock- 
 burn's Life of Jeffrey, i. 328. 
 
426 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 was becoming dangerous. Compulsion and physical 
 force were spoken of ; and political unions, and ex- 
 cited meetings assumed an attitude of intimidation. 
 A crisis was apjwoaching,— fatal, perhaps, to the 
 peace of the country : violence, if not revolution, 
 seemed impending. 
 
 The disfranchisement of boroughs formed the 
 Disfran- basis of the measure ; and the first vote of 
 classes" peers, in committee on the bill, post- 
 
 postponed, p^^g^ ^j^g consideration of the disfran- 
 chising clauses, by a majority of thirty-five.' Not- 
 withstanding the assurances of opposition peers, that 
 they would concede a large measm'e of reform, — it 
 was now evident that amendments would be made, 
 to which ministers were bound in honour to the 
 people and the Commons, not to assent. The time 
 had come, when either the Lords must be coerced, 
 or ministers must resign.'^ This alternative was 
 submitted to the king. He refused to create peers : 
 the ministers resigned, and their resignation was 
 accepted. Again the Commons came to the rescue 
 of the bill and the reform ministry. On the motion 
 of Lord Ebrington, an address was immediately 
 voted by them, renewing their expressions of un- 
 altered confidence in the late ministers, and im- 
 ploring his Majesty ' to call to his coimcils such 
 pei-ftons only, as will carry into effect, unimpaired in 
 all its essential provisions, that bill for reforming 
 the representation of the people, which has recently 
 passed tliis House.' 
 
 The king, meanwhile, insisted upon one condition, 
 
 • Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xii. 077. 
 
 Soe supra, p. 311. 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 
 
 427 
 
 — ^that any new ministry, — however constituted,- - 
 should pledge themselves to an extensive Reform Act 
 measure of reform.' But, even if the p*^- 
 Commons and the people had been willing to give 
 up their own measure, and accept another at the 
 hands of their opponents, — no such ministry could 
 be formed. The public excitement was greater 
 than ever ; and the government and the people 
 were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, 
 when Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his 
 sovereign. The bill was now secure. The peers 
 averted the threatened addition to their numbers, 
 by abstaining from fm-ther opposition ; and the bill, 
 — the Great Charter of 1832, — at length received 
 the Eoyal Assent.^ 
 
 It is now time to advert to the provisions of this 
 famous statute ; and to inquire how far it The Reform 
 corrected the faults of a system, which had land, 1832. 
 been complained of for more than half a century. 
 The main evil had been the number of nomination, 
 or rotten boroughs enjoying the franchise Fifty-six 
 of these, liaving less than two thousand inhabitants, 
 and returning one hundred and eleven members, 
 were swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less 
 tlian four thousand inhabitants, lost each a member. 
 AVeymouth and ^Melcombe Kegis lost two. This 
 disfranchisement extended to one hundred and ftjrty- 
 three members. The next evil had been, that large 
 populations were unrepresented ; and this was now 
 redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including me- 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3^1 Ser., xii. 783 ; Ihid., 995 ; the Duke of Welling- 
 ton's exjjlanation, May 17th; Kotbuck's Whig MiniBtry, ii. 313. 
 » 2 & 3 WiU. IV. c. 45. 
 
428 House of Commons. 
 
 tropolitan districts, received the privilege of return- 
 ing two members ; and twenty more, of returning 
 one. The large county populations were also re- 
 garded in the distribution of seats, — the number of 
 county members being increased from ninety-four to 
 one hundred and fifty-nine. The larger counties were 
 divided; and the number of members adjusted ■nith 
 reference to the importance of the constituencies. 
 
 Another evil was the restricted and imequal fran- 
 chise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights 
 of election were set aside in boroughs ; and a 10^. 
 household franchise was established. The freemen 
 of corporate towns were the only class of electors 
 whose rights were reserved : but residence within 
 the borough was attached as a condition to their 
 right of voting. Those freemen, however, who had 
 been created since March 1831, were excepted from 
 the electoral privilege. Crowds had received their 
 freedom, in order to vote against the reform candi- 
 dates at the general election : they had served their 
 purpose, and were now disfranchised. Birth or 
 servitude were henceforth to be the sole claims to 
 the freedom of any city, entitling freemen to vote. 
 
 The county constituency was enlarged by the 
 addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for terms 
 of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of 50^. 
 a year. The latter class had been added in the 
 Commons, on the motion of the ^Marquess of 
 Chandos, in opposition to the government. The 
 object of this addition was to strengthen the in- 
 terests of the landlords, which it undoubtedly ef- 
 fected : but as it extended the franchise to a con- 
 
Parliamentary Reform. 42^ 
 
 siderable class of persons, it was at least consistent 
 with the liberal design of the reform act. 
 
 Another evil of the representative system had 
 been the excessive expenses at elections. This too 
 was sought to be mitigated by the registration of 
 electors, the division of contaties and boroughs into 
 convenient polling districts, and the reduction of 
 the days of polling. 
 
 It was a measure, at once bold, comprehensive, 
 moderate, and constitutional. Popular, but not 
 democratic : it extended liberty, without hazarding 
 revolution. Two years before. Parliament had re- 
 fused to enfranchise a single unrepresented town ; 
 and now this wide redistribution of the franchise 
 had been accomplished ! That it was theoretically 
 complete, and left nothing for future statesmen to 
 effect, — its authors never affirmed : but it was a 
 masterly settlement of a perilous question. Its 
 defects will be noticed hereafter, in recounting the 
 efforts which have since been made to correct them ; 
 but whatever they were, — no law since the Bill of 
 Eights, is to be compared with it in importance. 
 Worthy of the struggles it occasioned, — it conferred 
 immortal honour on the statesmen who had the 
 wisdom to conceive it, and the courage to command 
 its success. 
 
 The defects of the Scotch representation, being 
 even more flagrant and indefensible than The Reform 
 those of England, were not likely to be uud, issa. 
 omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of reform. 
 On the 9th March, 1831, a bill was brought iu 
 to amend the representation of Scotland : but tha 
 
450 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 discussions on the English bill, and the sudden 
 dissolution of Parliament, interrupted its further 
 progress. The same lot awaited it, in the short 
 session of 1831 : but in 1832, its success was assured 
 in the general triumph of the cause.' The entire 
 representation was remodelled. Forty-five members 
 had been assigned to Scotland at the Union : this 
 number was now increased to fifty-three, of whom 
 thirty were allotted to counties, and twenty-three 
 to cities and burghs. The county franchise was 
 extended to all o^vners of property of 10^. a year, 
 and to certain classes of leaseholders ; and the bui'gh 
 franchise to all lOi. householders. 
 
 The representation of Ireland had many of the 
 The Reform defects of the English system. Several 
 
 Act, Ireland, . . , 
 
 1832. rotten and nomination boroughs, however, 
 had already been disfranchised on the union with 
 England ; and disfi'anchisement, therefore, did not 
 form any part of the Irish Eeform Act. But the 
 right of election was taken away from the corpora- 
 tions, and vested in lOL householders ; and large 
 additions were made to the county constituency. 
 The number of members in Ireland, which the Act 
 of Union had settled at one hundred, was now in- 
 creased to one hundred and five.^ 
 
 This measure was the least successful of the three 
 Further gTcat rcform acts of 1832. Complaints 
 of the Irish worc immediately made of the restricted 
 
 franchise, i-i-ii 
 
 1850. franchise which it Jiad created ; and the 
 number of electors registered, proved much less 
 
 ' 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. fi.-). 
 
 * 2 & 3 Will. IV. e. 88. Huns. Dob., 3rd Ser., iii. 862; Ihid., ix. 
 595; Ibid., xiii. 119. 
 
ParliafJtentary Reform. 431 
 
 than had been anticipated. After repeated discus- 
 sions, a measure was passed in 1 850, hy which the 
 borough franchise was extended to householders 
 rated at Si. ; and further additions were made to 
 the county franchise.' 
 
 The representation of the country had now been 
 reconstructed on a wider basis. Large poetical 
 classes had been admitted to the franchise ; 
 and the House of Commons represented 
 more freely the interests and political sentiments 
 of the people. The reformed Parliament was, un- 
 questionably, more liberal and progxessive in its 
 policy than the Parliaments of old ; more vigorous 
 and active ; more susceptible to the' influence of 
 public opinion ; and more secure in the confidence 
 of the people. But in its constitution grave de- 
 fects still remained to be considered. 
 
 Prominent among the e\'il3 of the electoral 
 system which have been noticed, was that -^j^^^ 
 of bribery at elections. For the correc- jl";*^* 
 tion of tliis evil the reform acts made no 
 direct provision. Having increased the number of 
 electors, the legislature trusted to their inde- 
 pendence and public spirit in the exercise of the 
 franchise ; and to the existing laws against bribery. 
 But bribery is the scandal of free institutions in a 
 rich country ; and it was too soon evident, that as 
 more votes had been created, more votes were to be 
 sold. It was not in nomination boroughs, or in 
 boroughs sold in gross, that bribery had flourished ; 
 b>it it had been the vice of places where a small 
 
 ' 13 & 1 J Vict. ?. GO. 
 
432 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 body of electors, — exercising the same privilege as 
 proprietors, — sold the seats which, by their indi- 
 vidual votes, they had the power of conferring. 
 
 The reform act had suppressed the very boroughs 
 which had been free from bribery : it had preserved 
 boroughs, and classes of voters, familiarised with 
 corrupt practices ; and had created new boroughs, 
 exposed to the same temptations. Its tendency, 
 therefore, — unless corrected by moral influences, — 
 was to increase rather than diminish corruption, in 
 the smaller boroughs. And this scandal, — which 
 had first arisen out of the fjrowin"- wealth of the 
 country, — was now encouraged by accumulations of 
 property, more vast than in any previous period in 
 our history. If the riches of the nabobs had once 
 proved a source of electoral corruption,— what 
 temptations have since been offered to voters, by 
 the giant fortunes of our age ? Cotton, coal, and 
 iron, — the steam-engine, and the railway, — have 
 called into existence thousands of men, more 
 wealthy than the merchant princes of the olden 
 time. The riches of Australia alone, may now vie 
 with the ancient wealth of the Indies. Men en- 
 riclied from these sources have generally been active 
 and public spirited, — engaged in enterprises which 
 parliamentary influence could promote ; ambitious 
 of distinction, — and entitled to appeal to the inter- 
 ests and sympathies of electors. Such candidates 
 as these, if they have failed to command votes by 
 their public claims, have had the means of buying 
 them ; and their notorious wealth lias excited the 
 cujiidity of electors. This great addition to the 
 
Bribery since the Reform Act. 433 
 
 opulent classes of society, has m\iltiplied the means 
 of bribery ; and the extension of the franchise 
 enlarged the field over which it has been spread. 
 Nor was the operation of these causes sufficiently 
 coimteracted by such an enlargement of borough 
 constituencies, as would have placed them beyond 
 the reach of undue solicitation. 
 
 So far the moral and social evils of bribery mav 
 have been encouraged ; but its political results 
 have been less material. Formerly a large propor- 
 tion of the members of the House of Commons 
 owed their seats to corruption, in one form or 
 another: since 1832, no more than an insignificant 
 fraction of the entire body have been so tainted 
 Once the counterpoise of free representation was 
 wanting : now it prevails over the baser elements 
 of the constitution. Nor does the political conduct 
 of members chosen by the aid of bribery, appear to 
 have been gravely affected by the original vice of 
 their election. Eighty years ago, their votes would 
 have been secured by the king, or his nainisters : 
 now they belong indiscriminately to all parties. 
 Too rich to seek office and emolument, — even were 
 such prizes attainable, — and rarely aspiring to 
 honours, — they are not found corruptly supporting 
 the government of tlie day ; but range themselves 
 on either side, according to their political views, 
 and fairly enter upon the duties of public life. 
 
 The exposure of corrupt practices since 1832, has 
 been discreditably frequent ; but the worst ^js't^i. 
 examples have been presented by boroughs }J^°nchjS^ 
 of evil reputation, which the reform act had spared. 
 
 VOL. I. F F 
 
434 
 
 House of Commojis. 
 
 Sudbury bad long been foremost in open and un- 
 blushing comiption ; * -which being continued after 
 the reform act, was conclusively punished by the 
 disfranchisement of the borough.^ St. Albans, not 
 less corrupt, was, a few years later, wholly disfran- 
 chised.' Corrupt practices were exposed at Warwick,^ 
 at Stafford,^ and at Ipswich.^ In corporate towns, 
 freemen had been the class of voters most tainted 
 by bribery ; and their electoral rights having been 
 respected by the reform act, they continued to abuse 
 them. At Yarmouth their demoralisation was so 
 general, that they were disfranchised, as a body, by 
 act of parliament.'' But bribery was by no means 
 confined to freemen. The \0l. householders, created 
 by the reform act, were too often found unworthy of 
 their new franchise. Misled by bad examples, and 
 generally encouraged by the smallness of the elec- 
 toral body, they yielded to the corrupt influences 
 by which their political virtue was assailed. In 
 numerous cases these constituencies, — when their 
 offence was not sufficiently grave to justify a per- 
 manent disfranchisement, — were punished in a less 
 degree, by the suspension of the writs.^ 
 
 Meanwhile, Parliament was devising means for 
 iieasures morc general exposure and correction 
 
 prevention ^v^ch. disgraccful practices. It was not 
 ut Bnbery. enougi, that writs had been suspended, and 
 the worst constituencies disfranchised : it was neces- 
 sary for the credit of the House of Commons, and 
 
 ' See supra, p. 337. ' 7 & 8 Vict. c. 63. ' 15 & 16 Viet. c.9. 
 
 * Rep. of Committee, 1833, 295. » Ibid., No. 537. 
 
 ' Ihid., 1835, No. 286. ' 1 1 & 12 Viot. c. 24. 
 
 • Warwick, Carricklergus, Hertford, Stafford, Ipswich, &c. 
 
Bribery since the Reform Act. 435 
 
 of the new electoral system, that gross abuses of 
 the franchise should be more eflfectually restrained. 
 
 The first measiu-e introduced with this object, 
 was that of Lord John Eussell in 18-41. ^ 
 
 Bribery Act, 
 
 .Many members who had won their seats by 
 bribery, escaped detection, under cover of the rules 
 of evidence, then followed by election committees. 
 These committees had, — not unnaturally, — required 
 a preliminaiy proof that persons alleged to have 
 committed bribery, were agents of the sitting mem- 
 ber or candidate. Until such agency had been 
 established, they declined to investigate general 
 cliarges of bribery, which unless committed by au- 
 thorised agents would not affect the election. When 
 this evidence was wanting, — as it often was,— all 
 the charges of bribery at once fell to the ground ; 
 the member retained his seat, and the corrupt elec- 
 tors escaped exposure. To obviate this cause of 
 failure, the act of 1841,'— inverting the order of 
 proceeding, — required committees to receive evi- 
 donce generally upon the charges of bribery, without 
 prior investigation of agency; and thus proofs or 
 implications of agency were elicited from the general 
 evidence. And even where agency was not esta- 
 blished, every act of bribery, by whomsoever com- 
 mitted, was disclosed by witnesses, and reported to 
 the House. 
 
 While this measure facilitated the exposure of 
 bribery, it often pressed with undue severity upon 
 the sitting member. Inferences rather than proofs 
 of agency having been accepted, members havft 
 
 ' 4 and 6 Vict. c. 57. 
 FF 2 
 
436 House of Commons. 
 
 forfeited their seats for the acts of unauthorised 
 agents, without any evidence of their own knowledge 
 or consent. In the administration of this law, com- 
 mittees, — so far from desiring to screen delinquents, 
 — erred rather on the side of severity. Tlie investi- 
 gation of corrupt practices was also, incidentally, 
 facilitated by the amendment of the law of evidence, 
 which permits the personal examination of sitting 
 members and candidates.' 
 
 The act of 1841 was followed by another, in the 
 Bribery next year,'^ which provided for the prosecu- 
 and i852. tion of investigations into bribery, after an 
 election committee had closed its inquiries, or where 
 charges of bribery had been withdrawn. But this 
 measure not having proved effectual, another act 
 was passed in 1852,' providing for the most searching 
 inquiries into corrupt practices, by commissioners 
 appointed by the crown, on the address of the two 
 Houses of Parliament. In the exposm-e of bribery, 
 — and the punishment of its own members when 
 concerned in it, — Parliament has shown no want of 
 earnestness : but in the repression of the olTence 
 itself, and the punishment of corrupt electors, its 
 measures were less felicitous. The disclosures of 
 commissions were, too often, barren of results. At 
 Canterbury one hundred and fifty-five electors had 
 been bribed at one election, and seventy-nine 
 at another : at Maldon, seventy-six electors had 
 received bribes: at Barnstaple, two hundred and 
 fifty-five : at Cambridge, one hundred and eleven ; 
 
 ' Lord Denman's Act; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99. 
 
 ' 0 & 6 Vict. c. 102. ' 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57. 
 
Bribery sitice the Re/onn Act. 437 
 
 and atKingston-upon-HuU no less than eight hundred 
 and forty-seven. At the latter place, 26,606Z. had been 
 spent in three elections. In 1854, bills were brought 
 in for the prevention of bribery in those places, 
 and the disfranchisement of the electors who had 
 been proved to be corrupt.' But under the act which 
 authorised these inquiries, voters giving eWdence 
 were entitled to claim an indemnity; and it was 
 now successfully contended that they were protected 
 from disfranchisement, as one of the penalties of 
 their oflFence. These bills were accordingly with- 
 drawn.* Again in 1858, a commission ha\ang re- 
 ported that one hundred and eighty-three freemen 
 of Galway had received bribes, a bill was introduced 
 for the disfranchisement of the freemen of that 
 borough ; but for the same reasons, it also mis- 
 carried.' 
 
 In 1860, there were strange disclosures affecting 
 the ancient city of Gloucester. This place Gloucester 
 
 . election, 
 
 had been long familiar with corruption, isis. 
 In 1816, a single candidate had spent 27,500^. at an 
 election; in 1818, another candidate had spent 
 1 6,000i. ; and now it appeared that at the last elec- 
 tion in 1859, two himdred and fifty electors had 
 been bribed, and eighty-one persons had been guilty 
 of corrupting them.* 
 
 Up to this time, the places which had been distin- 
 guished by such malpractices, had returned wakeficid 
 members to Parliament prior to 1832 : but 1^^"°"' 
 in 18G0, the perplexing discovery was made, that 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxxxi. 1018. • Pnd., cxxxiii. 1064. 
 ' Riid., cxlix. 378, &c. ' * Rep. of CommiiibioDerB, ISOO. 
 
438 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 bribery had also extensively prevailed in the populous 
 and thriving borough of Wakefield, — the creation 
 of the reform act. Eighty-six electors had been 
 bribed ; and such was the zeal of the canvassers, that 
 no less than ninety-eight persons had been concerned 
 in bribing them.' 
 
 The -writs for Gloucester and Wakefield were sus- 
 pended, as a modified punishment of these corrupt 
 l^laces : but the House of Commons was as much at 
 fault as ever, in providing any permanent correction 
 of the evils which had been discovered. 
 
 In 1 854, a more general and comprehensive mea- 
 corrupt sure was devised, for the prevention of 
 
 Practices 
 
 Act, 1854. corrupt practices at elections.^ It re- 
 strained candidates from paying any election ex- 
 penses, except through their authorised agents, and 
 the election auditor ; and provided for the publica- 
 tion of accounts of all such expenses. It was hoped 
 that these securities would encourage, and perhaps 
 enforce, a more legal expenditure ; but they failed 
 TO receive much credit for advancing the cause of 
 purity. 
 
 This temporary act was continued from time to 
 Bribery time, and in 1858 was amended. The 
 1S-.8. Tra- legality of travelling expenses to voters 
 penses. liad loug been a matter of doubt, — having 
 received discordant constructions from different com- 
 mittees. The payment of such expenses might be a 
 covert form of bribery ; or it might be a reasonable 
 accommodation to voters, in the proper exercise of 
 their franchise. This doubt had not been settled by 
 
 ' Ktp. of Commissioners, 18G0. * 17 & 18 Viet. c. 102. 
 
Bribery since the Reform Act. 459 
 
 the act of 1854 ; but it had been adjudged in a com t 
 of law,' that the payment of travelling expenses was 
 not bribery, if paid hona fide to indemnify a voter 
 for the expenses he had inciured in travelling to the 
 poll, — and not as a corrupt inducement to vote. 
 The act of 1858, following the principle of this 
 judgment, — but adding a further security for its 
 observance, — permitted the candidate, or his agent 
 appointed in writing, to provide conveyance for 
 voters to the poll ; but prohibited the payment of 
 any money to voters themselves, for that purpose.' 
 But it was objected at the time, — and the same 
 objection has since been repeated, — that the legalis- 
 ing of travelling expenses, even in this guarded 
 manner, tends to increase the expenses of elections ; 
 and this debatable question will probably receive 
 further consideration from the legislature. 
 
 It was the policy of these acts to define clearly 
 the expenses which a candidate may law- p^j^^y 
 fully incur, and to ensure publicity to his con^^^Itog 
 accounts. So far their provisions afforded 
 i security to the candidate who was resolved to 
 resist the payment of illegal expenses ; and an 
 embarrassment, at least, to those who were prepared 
 to violate the law. That they were not effectual in 
 the restraint of bribery, the subsecjuent disclosures 
 of election committees, and commissions sufficiently 
 attest. Though large constituencies, in some in- 
 stances, proved themselves accessible to corruption, 
 bribery prevailed most extensively in the smaller 
 
 ' Cooper V. Slade ; 6 E. and 15., 447 : Ropt-rs on Elections, 334. 
 » 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87 ; further amended iu 1863. 
 
440 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 boroughs. Hence it appeared that some remedy 
 might be sought iu the enlargement of electoral 
 bodies, and the extension of the area of voting. To 
 repress so grave an evil, more effectual measures 
 were again devised : ' but they may still be ex- 
 pected to fail, until bribery shall be unmistakably 
 condemned by public opinion. The law had treated 
 duelling as murder, yet the penalty of death was 
 imable to repress it; but when society discoun- 
 tenanced that time-honoured custom, it was sud- 
 denly abandoned. Voters may always be found to 
 receive bribes, if offered : but candidates belong to 
 a class whom the influence of society may restrain 
 from committing an offence, condemned alike by 
 the law, and by public opinion. 
 
 Other questions affecting the constitution of Par- 
 liament, and the exercise of the elective franchise, 
 have been discussed at various times, as well before 
 as since the reform act, of 1832, and here demand a 
 passing notice. 
 
 To shorten the duration of Parliaments, has been 
 Duration ouc of the chaugcs most frequently urged. 
 
 Prior to 1694, a Parliament once elected, 
 unless dissolved by the crown, continued in being 
 until the demise of the reigning king. One of the 
 Parliaments of Charles II. had sat for eighteen 
 years. By the Triennial Act* every Parliament, 
 unless sooner dissolved, came to a natural end iu 
 The Sept- three years. On the accession of George I. 
 Act'." this period was extended to teven years, by 
 
 ' In 1867-8, after the period comprised in this history, a wide 
 pxtension of the suffi-Mge was conceded, and anotht act was passed 
 fur rt'iji'i'ssiim; (■iirriipt (jrai'ticos at elections. 
 
 = 6 Will, and Miiry, c. 2. 
 
Duration of Parliament. 441 
 
 tlie well-known Septennial Act.' Tliis act, though 
 supported on the ground of general expediency, was 
 passed at a time of political danger ; — when the 
 country had scarcely recovered from the rebellion of 
 1715, and the Jacobite adherents of the Pretender 
 were still an object of apprehension to the govern- 
 ment,* 
 
 In the reign of George II. attempts were made to 
 repeal the septennial act and early in the next 
 reign. Alderman Sawbridge submitted motions, year 
 after year, until his death, for shortening the dura- 
 tion of Parliaments. In 1771 Lord Cliatham ' witn 
 the most deliberate and solemn conviction declared 
 himself a convert to triennial Parliaments.'* The 
 question afterwards became associated with plans of 
 parliamentary reform. It formed part of the scheme 
 proposed by the 'Friends of the People' in 1792. 
 At that period, and again in 1797, it was advocated 
 by Mr. Grey, in connection with an improved repre- 
 sentation, as one of the means of increasinu- the 
 responsibility of Parliament to the people."" The 
 advocates of a measure for shortening the duration 
 of Parliaments, were not then agreed as to the 
 proper limit to be substituted : whether one, three, 
 or five ycars.^ But annual Parliaments have 
 generally been embraced in schemes of radical 
 reform. 
 
 In times more recent, the repeal of the Septennial 
 
 ' 1 Gpo. I. c. 38. 
 
 ' Piu-l. IIi»t., vii. 311; Boyers Politiciil State of Great Britain, xi. 
 428: PrcaniMc of Act. 
 
 » In 17.'M and 17li. « Purl. Hist., xvii. 223. 
 
 " Ibid., xxxiii. G50. • liockinghuni Mem., ii. 396. 
 
442 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 Act — as a distinct question of public policy — 
 lias often been faii-ly and temperately discussed in 
 Parliament. In 1817, Mr. Brougbam gave notice 
 of a motion on tbe subject ; but did not bring it 
 forward. In 1818, Sir Eobert Heron moved for 
 leave to bring in a bill, and was supported by Sir 
 Samuel Eomilly aud ]Mr. Brougbam ; but tbe pro- 
 posal met witb little favour or attention.* The 
 subject was not revived until after tbe passing of 
 the reform act. It was then argued with much 
 ability by Mr. Tennyson, in 1833, 1834, and 1837 ; 
 and on each occasion met with the support of con- 
 siderable minorities.'^ On the last occasion, the 
 motion was defeated by a majority of nine only.' It 
 did not, however, receive the support of any of the 
 leading statesmen, who had recently carried parlia- 
 mentary reform. That measiure had greatly in- 
 creased the responsibility of the House of Commons 
 to the people ; and its authors were satisfied that no 
 further change was then required in the constitution 
 of Parliament. In 1843, ]\Ir. Shannan Crawfurd 
 I'evived the question ; but met with scant encourage- 
 ment.'' Lastly, in 1849, Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt 
 obtained leave to bring in a bill, by a majority of 
 five.'' But notwitlistauding this unexpected success, 
 the question, if discussed elsewhere as a matter of 
 theoretical speculation, has since ceased to occupy 
 the attention of Parliament. 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xx.xviii. 802. 
 
 2 Ihid., 3rd Ser., six. 1107; HM., xxiii. 1036; Ibid., xxxviii. 680. 
 » Aves, 87 ; Nops, 96. 
 
 * Hims. Deb., 3rd Sir., Ixix. 490. 
 
 • Ayos, 46 ; Noes, 41. Ihid., cv. 848. 
 
Duration of Parliament. 
 
 443 
 
 The repeal of the septennial act has been re- 
 peatedly advocated on the ground that the ArgTiments 
 Parliament of George I. had abused its the Sept. 
 trust, in prolonging its own existence ; and Act. 
 tliat, even admitting the overruling necessity of the 
 occasion, — the measure should at least have been 
 temporary. To this it has been answered, that if 
 any wrong was done, it was committed against the 
 people of that day, to wliom no reparation can now 
 be made. But to contend that there was any breach 
 of trust, is to limit the authority of Parliament, 
 within bounds not recognised by the constitution. 
 Parliament has not a limited authority, — expressly 
 delegated to it : but has absolute power to make or 
 repeal any law ; and every one of its acts is again 
 open to revision. Without a prior dissolution of 
 Parliament, the Unions of Scotland and Ireland were 
 effected, at an interval of nearly a century, — mea- 
 sures involving the extinction of the Parliaments of 
 those countries, and a fundamental change in that 
 of England, much greater than the septennial act 
 had made. That act could liave been repealed at 
 any time, if Parliament hud deemed it advisable ; 
 and no other ground than that of expediency, can 
 now be reasonably urged, for shortening the duration 
 of Parliaments. 
 
 The main ground, however, on which this change 
 has been rested, is the propriety of rendering the 
 representatives of the people more frequently ac- 
 countable to their constituents. The shorter the 
 period for which authority is entrusted to them, — • 
 the more guarded woiikl they be in its exercise, and 
 
444 
 
 Hotise of Commons. 
 
 the more amenable to public opinion. It is said 
 that a Parliament cannot be trusted, if independent 
 of the people, and exposed to the influence of 
 ministers, £)r seven years. And again, the circum- 
 stances of the country are likely to be changed 
 during so prolonged a period ; and the conduct of 
 members, approved at first, may afterwards be 
 condemned. 
 
 On the other side it has been argued, that in 
 practice no Parliament is permitted to con- 
 tinue longer than six years ; and that fre- 
 quent dissolutions have reduced Parliaments, at 
 several periods, to an average duration of three, or 
 four years.' If Parliaments were elected for three 
 years only, they would often be reduced by various 
 contingencies, to annual Parliaments. They are 
 already elected often enough to make them respon- 
 sible to their constituents ; and more frequent elec- 
 tions would unduly foment political excitement, and 
 increase the expenses of elections, which are already 
 a just ground of complaint. 
 
 Of late years, the popularity of this question has 
 declined, — not so much on accoimt of any theoreti- 
 cal preference for septennial Parliaments, as from a 
 conviction that the House of Commons has become 
 accountable to the people, and prompt in responding 
 to their reasonable desires. 
 
 ' Sir Sanioel P - "- sM'^'d in 1818, that ont of eleren Parlia 
 m^nf s of Geo. IT I Listed six years. Hans. Deb., Ist Srr.. 
 
 802. B- ■ .Is present a diffif rent result. Fromthu 
 
 accession of Will IV., in 1830. to 186") — a p*>riod of thirty yoars— 
 therf were no less than ten Parliaments, showing an arerage dura- 
 tion of three jears only. 
 
Vote by Ballot 
 
 445 
 
 The ' 'ballot ' Tvas another question repeatedly de- 
 bated in Parliament, and a popular topic vote 
 at the hustings, at public meetings, and in 
 the newspaper press. No sooner bad the reform act 
 passed, than complaints were made that the elective 
 franchise, so recently enlarged, could not be freely 
 exercised. It was said that the landlords in counties, 
 and wealthy customers in towns, coerced the free will 
 of the electors, and forced them to vote against their 
 opinions and consciences. As a protection against 
 such practices, the necessity of secret voting was 
 contended for. To give the franchise, without the 
 means of exercising it, was declared to be a mockery. 
 
 It was not for the first time that the influence 
 now complained of, had been exerted over electors. 
 It had formerly been recognised as one of the natural 
 rights of property. It was known that a few land- 
 owners could nominate the county members. They 
 conducted the freeholders to the poll, as naturally as 
 a Highland chieftain led forth his clan to the foray. 
 But now a new electoral policy had been commenced. 
 The people at large had been enfranchised ; and new 
 classes of electors called into existence. The political 
 ties which had bound the electors to the landlords 
 were loosened ; and the latter, being deprived of 
 their absolute ascendency, endeavoiured to sustain it 
 by other means. The leaseholders enfranchised by 
 the reform act, being the most dependent, were the 
 very class peculiarly needing protection. The ballot 
 had been called by Cicero the silent asscrtor of free- 
 dom, — tabella, vindex tcCcita lihertatia ; and it was 
 now proposed, in order to ensure freedom of election. 
 
446 House of Commons. 
 
 The ballot has been sought mainly for the pro- 
 tection of voters from intimidation and undue in- 
 fluence ; but it has also been recommended as a 
 safeguard against bribery. It has been resisted by 
 arguments too various to be briefly reviewed. The 
 strongest, perhaps, is that every political function 
 being publicly and responsibly exercised, and every 
 debate and vote in Parliament published for the in- 
 formation of the people, — electors can scarcely claim 
 an exemption from that law of publicity, to which 
 their rulers and representatives are subject. Why 
 are they alone, to be irresponsible? Apart from 
 theory, its practical efficacy has also been denied. 
 It has been said that if intimidation were intended, 
 means would be taken to discover the votes of elec- 
 tors, in spite of all the machinery of the ballot. Nor 
 would bribery be prevented, as a candidate would 
 secure fulfilment of corrupt promises, by making his 
 pajrment for votes contingent upon his success at 
 the poll. 
 
 The advocates of the ballot, perhaps, exaggerated 
 the advantages of their favoured scheme, while its 
 opponents magnified its evils and its dangers. It 
 was a measure upon which sincere reformers were 
 honestly divided. At times, it made progress in the 
 number and influence of its supporters. Yet such 
 were its vicissitudes, that it was long difficult for a 
 political obsers'er to divine, whether it would be 
 suddenly adopted, — in the crisis of some party 
 struggle, — or be laid aside as a theory for the dis- 
 putation of pamphleteers, and debating societies. 
 
 In 1833, Mr. Grote took possession of the ques- 
 
Vote by Ballot. 
 
 447 
 
 tion of tlie ballot and from that time until 1839, 
 he continued to advocate the cause, in a series of 
 temperate and philosophical speeches, — as creditable 
 to his political wisdom, as to his learning and abi- 
 lity. He argued in the calm and earnest spirit of 
 the theoretical statesman ; not with the fierce temper 
 of the democrat. His honest' labours greatly advanced 
 the popularity of the cause, and improved its par- 
 liamentary position. In 1833, he formd but one 
 hxmdred and six supporters in 1839, he had two 
 hundred and sixteen.-^ Mr. Grote having retired 
 from Parliament, the question was not allowed to 
 be forgotten. In 1842, ^Mr. Ward adopted it and 
 from 1848, ^Mr. Henry Berkeley made it his own.' 
 With ample stores of fact and anecdote, and with 
 varied resources of humour, he continued to ru-se 
 on the question, year after year ; but with failing 
 support. 
 
 In 1848, his motion was carried by a majority of 
 five.* In 1849, it was defeated by a majority of 
 fifty-one : in 1852, by a majority of one hundred 
 and two; and in 1860, by a majority of one hun- 
 dred and seven. Such reaction of opinion, upon a 
 popular measure, appeared to be more significant of 
 ultimate failure, than a steady position, without 
 progress indeed, yet without reverses. The revival 
 
 ' The R.idicals first aflvocated vote by ballot, about 1817, as part 
 of th>-ir sclierno of reform ; Edinh. Jlev., June 1818, p. 199. 
 
 - HaDS. Deb., 3rd Ser., xvii. 608— Ayes, 106 ; Noes, 211 ; Ibitl., 
 xxv'ni. 369; Ibid., xxxiv. 781; Ibid., xixvii. 7; Ibid. (1838), xL 
 113. 
 
 ' P-iJ.. xlviii. 442— Ayes, 216; Noes, 333. 
 
 « J''id., Ixir. 348. » Ibid., c 1225. 
 
 • A>es, 86 ; Noes, 81. 
 
44^ House of Comnw7is. 
 
 of the question, under more favourable auspices, was 
 reserved for a later period, and new political con- 
 ditions.' 
 
 Since tlie reform act, the qualification laws, — which 
 Qnaiification diflfereut forms had existed for one hun- 
 dred and fifty years, — have passed away. It 
 was ostensibly to correct the e%'ils of bribery at elec- 
 tions, that property in land was first proposed as a 
 qualification for a member of Parliament. The 
 corruption of boroughs being mainly due to the 
 intrusion of rich commercial men, without local 
 connection, the natural jealousy of the landowners 
 suggested this restraint upon their rivals. In 1696, 
 the first measure to establish a qualification in land, 
 was received with so much favotir, that it passed 
 both Houses ; but the king, leaning rather to the 
 commercial interests, withheld his assent. In the 
 following year, a similar bill was passed by the 
 Commons, but rejected by the Lords, who had now 
 begun to think that a small landed qualification 
 would increase the influence of the squires, but 
 diminish the authority of the great nobles, who 
 filled the smaller boroughs with members of their 
 own families, and dependents. 
 
 The policy of excluding all but the proprietors of 
 land, from the right of sitting in the House of Com- 
 mons, was at length adopted in the reign of Queen 
 Anne,' and was maintained until 1838. In that 
 year this exclusive principle was surrendered ; and a 
 new qualification substituted, of the same amount, 
 
 • See also Supplementary Chapter. 
 » 9 Anne, c. 5; 33 G©.-> "ll. c 15. 
 
Qualification Acts. 
 
 449 
 
 either in real or personal property, or in both com- 
 bined.' In 1858, the law of property qualification 
 was abandoned altogether.^ In its original form, it 
 had been invidious and unj iist ; and, from its begin- 
 ning to its end, it had been systematically evaded. 
 It would probably not have sm-vived so long the 
 jealousies from which it had spnmg, had it not been 
 invested with undue importance, by radical reformers. 
 But when the repeal of this insignificant law was 
 proclaimed as one of the five points of the ' Charter, 
 it is not surprising that more moderate politicians 
 should have regarded it as one of the safeguards of 
 the constitution. 
 
 After the passing of the reform act, of 1832, 
 various minor amendments were made in YvxeeA- 
 tlie electoral laws. The registration of ei'Sfons 
 electors was improved and simjilitied,^ unproved, 
 the number of polKng-places was increased,^ and 
 the polling reduced, in counties as well as in 
 boroughs, to a single day.^ Even the Universities, 
 which had retained their fifteen days of polling, 
 were glad to accept five days, in 1853. 
 
 Promptitude in election proceedings was further 
 ensured by the change of some ancient customs. 
 The prescriptive period of forty days between the 
 summons of a new Parliament and its meetin", — - 
 enlarged by custom to fifty days since the imiou with 
 Scotland, — having become an anomaly in an age of 
 railways and telegraphs, was reduced to thirty-five.' 
 
 ' 1 & 2 Vict. c. 48. * 21 & 22 Vict. c. 26. 
 
 ' G & 7 Vi, t. e. 15. « 6 & 7 WiU. IV. c. 102. 
 
 ' 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 36 ; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 15. 
 * I!y Lord Brougham s KsA, 1802 ; 15 Vict. c. 23. 
 VOL. I. O G 
 
450 
 
 House of Commons. 
 
 Another ancient custom also gave way to a more 
 simple procedure ; the writs for an election are 
 addressed direct to the several retiu'ning officers, 
 instead of passing through the sheriff of the county.' 
 
 A more general revision of the representative 
 Later mea- systcm, as Settled by the reform acts of 
 
 sures of 
 
 reform. 1832, was also the aim of several adminis- 
 trations, and Parliaments. For some years, there 
 had been a natural reluctance to disturb the settle- 
 ment which those important measures had recently 
 effected. The old "Whig party had regarded it 
 as a constitutional charter, and contended for its 
 ' finality.' But their advanced Liberal supporters, 
 — after many discussions in Parliament, and much 
 agitation and ' pressure from without,' — at length 
 prevailed over the more cautious policy of their 
 leaders ; and a promise was given, in 1851, that the 
 consideration of the representative system should, 
 at a fitting opportunity, be resumed.^ 
 
 In fulfilment of this promise, Lord John Russell, 
 Reform — twenty years after the settlement of 
 1852. 1832, — proposed its further revision. That 
 measure had not proposed to redistribute the fran- 
 chise, in precise correspondence with the population 
 of different parts of the country. Not founded upon 
 theoretical views of equal representation, it had not 
 assumed to frame a new constitution ; but had pro- 
 vided a remedy for the worst evils of a faulty and 
 corrupt electoral system. It had I'escucd the repre- 
 
 ' 16 & 17 Vict. c. 78. 
 
 ' Speech of Lord John Russell, 20th Feb. 1851 ; Hane. Dob, 
 Zt*\ Stir., cxiv. 863. See also Speech 20th June, 1848 : Ibid., xcii. 
 
Later Measm-cs of Reform. 45 r 
 
 sentation from a small oligarchy of peers and land- 
 owners ; and had rested it in the hands of the middle 
 classes. But it had spared many boroughs, which 
 were perhaps too small to exercise their suffi:age inde- 
 pendently : it had overlooked the claims of some con- 
 siderable places ; and had not embraced the working 
 classes within its scheme of enfranchisement. Lord 
 John Russell now sought to correct these partial 
 defects, which time had disclosed in the original 
 measure. 
 
 He proposed that every existing borough, having 
 less than five hundred electors, should be associated 
 with adjacent places, in the right of returning 
 members ; and that Birkenhead and Biunley should 
 be enfranchised. In twenty years there had been a 
 vast increase of population, wealth, and industry, 
 throughout the country. The spread of education 
 and political enlightenment had been rapid : a more 
 instructed generation had grown up ; and a marked 
 improvement had arisen, in the social condition of 
 the working classes. It was, therefore, thought right 
 and safe to lower the franchise so far as to embrace 
 classes not hitherto included, and particularly the 
 most skilled artisans, — men who had given proof of 
 their intelligence and good conduct, by large earn- 
 ings, and a high position among their fellow work- 
 men. With this view, it was proposed to extend the 
 boioiigh franchise to the occupiers of houses of 5l- 
 rated value ; and the county franchise to teuants-at- 
 will rated at 20/., and copyho'ders and leaseholders 
 rated at 5/. It was abo intended to create a new 
 franchise, arising out of the annual payment of 408. 
 o G 2 
 
452 
 
 House of Co7nmons. 
 
 in direct taxes to the state. Lord John EusselFs 
 administration soon afterwards resigned ; and this 
 measure was withdrawn before the second reading.' 
 
 In 1854, Lord John Russell, as a member of Lord 
 Reform Aberdeen's government, proposed another 
 
 BiU of * ,.11 
 
 1854. measure, more comprehensive than tb*^ 
 last. It comprised the disfranchisement of nine- 
 teen small boroughs, returning twenty-nine members ; 
 the deprivation of thirty-three other boroughs of one 
 of their members ; and the redistribution of the 
 vacant seats, sixty-six in number,'^ amongst the 
 counties and larger boroughs, the Inns of Coiut, and 
 the University of London. It proposed to reduce 
 the franchise in counties to lOL ; and in boroughs to 
 the municipal rating franchise of Ql. Several new 
 franchises were also to be added, in order to modify 
 the hard uniformity of the household franchise. A 
 salary of 100?. a year : an income of lOL from divi- 
 dends : the payment of 40s. in dii ect taxes : a degree 
 at any of the universities ; and 50?. in a savings 
 bank, were accounted sufficient securities for the 
 proper exercise of the su£fi"age. In the distribution 
 of seats, a novel principle was to be established, with 
 a view to ensure the representation of minorities. 
 Some counties and other large places were to return 
 three members each ; but no elector would be entitled 
 to vote for more than two candidates out of three. 
 This theory of representation, — though very ably 
 advocated by some speculative writers,^ — found little 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxix, 2.)2, 971 : Bill, No. 48, of 1832. 
 
 " Including; the vacant seats of Sudbury and St. Albans. 
 
 ' Minorities and Majorities ; their relalivo Eigiits, by James Gar^h 
 
Later Measures of Reform. 460 
 
 favour in Parliament, at that time, with men accus- 
 tomed to determine every disputed question among 
 themselves, by the votes of the majority. The con- 
 sideration of this measure was postponed, by the 
 outbreak of the war with Eussia.' 
 
 The next measure of parliamentary reform was 
 proposed in 1859, by the government of the ,j^g jj^jona 
 Earl of Derby. That statesman, — having ^''^"'^ i*-^^- 
 been one of the most eloquent, spirited, and cou- 
 rageous of Earl Grey's colleagues in 1832, — was now 
 the leader of the great Conservative party, which 
 had opposed the first reform act. But his party, 
 deferring to the judgment of Parliament, had since 
 honoiurably acquiesced in that settlement. Mean- 
 while, the revision of that measure had been thrice 
 recommended from the throne ; and three successive 
 administrations had been pledged to undertake the 
 task. Some scheme of reform had thus become a 
 political necessity. The measure agreed upon by 
 ministers, and the principles upon which it was 
 founded, were ably explained by i\[r. Disraeli. It 
 was not sought to reconstruct the representation of 
 the country, solely on the basis of population and 
 property : but having reference to those material 
 elements, as well as to the representation of various 
 interests, and classes of the community, — this mea- 
 sure comprehended some considerable changes. It 
 was not proposed wholly to disfranchise any bo- 
 rough : but one member was to be taken from fifteen 
 
 Marshall, 1853; Rlinb. Rer., July 1851, Art. vii. ; aud more liittljr 
 liiire on the Klpclion of Kcprcsonlatives, 18-')9. 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rJ Sur., cxxx. 491 ; Ibid., cxxxi. 277. 
 
454 Hotise of Commojis. 
 
 boroughs, having a population under six thousand. 
 Eight of the vacant seats were assigned to the great 
 county populations of Yorkshire, South Lancashire, 
 and Middlesex ; and seven to new boroughs, which 
 according to this scheme, would complete the repre- 
 sentation of the several interests of the country. 
 
 The two prexious measures of Lord John Eussell 
 had contemplated a reduction of the borough fran- 
 chise. Xo such reduccion was now proposed : but 
 the franchise in covmties was assimilated to that in 
 boroughs. Hitherto the borough franchise had been 
 foimded upon occupation ; and the coimty franchise 
 generally upon property. This distinction it was 
 now proposed to abolish ; and to substitute an identity 
 of franchise between the county and the town. The 
 40s. freeholders resident in towns, would be trans- 
 ferred from the constituency of the county, to that 
 of the town. Several new franchises were also to 
 be created, similar to those proposed in 1854, but 
 more comprehensive. Men possessed of lOL a year 
 arising from dividends : 60Z. in a savings bank ; or 
 a pension of 20Z. a year, — equal to 8s. a week: 
 graduates of all universities : ministers of religion 
 of every denomination : members of the legal pro- 
 fession in all its branches : registei-ed medical prac- 
 titioners : and schoolmasters holding a certificate 
 from the Privy Council, were to be: entitled to vote, 
 wherever they were resident. And facilities for 
 exercising the franchise were to be afforded by means 
 of voting papers.' 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., clii. 966. 
 
Later Measures of Reform, 455 
 
 This scheme encountered objections from two dif- 
 ferent quarters. Two influential members oyections 
 of the government, — ^Nlr. Walpole and ^Ir. ^^^^ 
 Henley, — alarmed by the proposed identity ™'^>"^- 
 of franchise, in counties and boroughs, resigned 
 their seats in the cabinet.' The opposition, partly 
 taking up the same ground, were unwilling to de- 
 prive the 40s. freeholders resident in boroughs, of 
 their county votes ; and insisted upon the lowering 
 of the borough suffrage. The government, weakened 
 by these resignations, had now to meet a formidable 
 amendment, moved by Lord John Eussell on the 
 second reading of the bill, which expressed the views 
 of the opposition. The identity of franchise was 
 objected to by Mr. AValpole and Mr, Henley, on 
 account of the supposed danger of drawing one broad 
 line between the represented, and the unrepresented 
 classes. Lord John Russell concurred in this objec- 
 tion, believing that such a principle would eventually 
 lead to electoral districts. He also opposed the bill 
 on two other grounds : first, that the 40s. freeholders, 
 being the most liberal element in the county con- 
 stituencies, ought not to be disfranchised ; and 
 secondly, that their admission to the borough fran- 
 chise would encourage the manufacture of faggot 
 votes, — like the old burgage-tenure, which had been 
 the means of extending the influence of patrons. 
 He objected to the continuance of the 10^. house- 
 hold suflfrage in boroughs, on the ground tliat con- 
 siderable classes of people, worthy to be entrusted 
 with votes, had sprung up since that franchise had 
 ' Ilans. Deb., 3rd Ser., dii. 1058. 
 
House of Commons. 
 
 been established. After seven nights' debate, the 
 amendment was carried by a majority of thirty-nine.' 
 Upon the issue raised by this decision, the govern- 
 ment determined to dissolve Parliament, and appeal 
 to the people.'^ On the assembling of a new Parlia- 
 ment, ministers having failed to secure a majority 
 at the elections, were at once driven from office by 
 an amendment to the address, declaring that they had 
 not the confidence of the House of Commons.^ 
 
 And now the question of reform was resumed, once 
 jieforni more, by Lord John Russell, on behalf of 
 Biuof]86o. Lord Palmerston's administration. On the 
 1st March 1860, he introduced a bill, in accordance 
 with the spirit of the amendment by which he had 
 destroyed the measure of the previous year : but 
 differing materially from the bills of 1852 and 1854. 
 Like the scheme of Lord Derby's government, it 
 spared all the smaller boroughs. None were to be 
 disfranchised : but it deprived twenty-five boroughs, 
 with a population under seven thousand, of one of 
 their members. This disfranchisement fell far short 
 of that proposed in 1854 ; and it was avowed that if 
 any more places had been condemned, their repre- 
 sentatives, combining with the Conservative opposi- 
 tion, would have succeeded in defeating the bill. If 
 such was now the difficulty of contending with these 
 personal and local interests, what must have been 
 the difficulties of Mr. Pitt in 1784, and of Lord Grey 
 in 1832 ? One minister vainly attempted to buy off 
 his opponents : the other overcame them by strong 
 
 ' Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cliii. 389-1157. 
 
 ' llAd., 1301. ' IhkL, cliv. 98-297. 
 
Later Measttres of Reform. 
 
 457 
 
 popular support. The first expedient was now 
 wholly out of the question: the latter source of 
 strensi:h was wanting. 
 
 Fifteen of the vacant seats were distributed 
 amongst the counties ; and ten given to the larger 
 cities, and some new boroughs. The oOt. occupation 
 franchise in counties, was reduced to a lOL hond fide 
 holding. The 10^. borough franchise was lowered 
 to 6^., avowedly for the purpose of comprehending 
 many of the working classes. It was calculated that 
 the new franchise would add two hundred thousand 
 electors to the cities and boroughs. Xone of the 
 varied franchises, which had formed part of the bills 
 of 1854 and 1859, were again proposed. Sneered 
 at as ' fancy franchises,' and distrusted as the means 
 of creating fictitious votes, they were now abandoned ; 
 and the more rude, but tangible tests of good citizen- 
 ship inflexibly maintained.' 
 
 This bill was defeated, neither by adverse majori- 
 ties, nor by changes in the government : Bin lost by 
 
 delays and 
 
 out by delays, and the pressme of other incuncrence. 
 important measures. It was not until the 3rd of 
 May, — after six adjourned debates, — that it was 
 read a second time, without a division. Discussions 
 were renewed on going into committee ; and at 
 length, on the 11th June, the bill was withdra\vn.' 
 Bills to amend the representation in Scotland and 
 Ireland, which had been hopelessly awaiting discus- 
 sion, had already been abandoned.' 
 
 ' Hans. Deb.. 3nl Sir., clvi. 2050. 
 * Pml.. clix. 22G. 
 » lOid., clix. 1 13.' 
 
Hoicsc of Commons. 
 
 Such obstacles as these, — however harassing and iii- 
 obstacics convenient, — would have been easily over- 
 mentary" come, if the government had been cordially 
 refoi-m. supported by their own party in the House 
 of Commons, and by popular acclamations. But 
 within the walls of the House, parliamentary reform 
 was received with coldness, — if not with ill-disguised 
 repugnance, — even by its professed supporters ; and 
 throughout the country, there prevailed the most 
 profound indifference. The cause which had once 
 aroused enthusiasm, now languished from general 
 neglect. The press was silent or discom-aging : 
 petitions were not forthcoming : public meetings 
 were not assembled : the people were unmoved. 
 Whence this indifference ? Why so marked a change 
 of popular feeling, in less than thirty years ? It was 
 generally believed that the settlement of 1832 had 
 secured the great object of representation, — good 
 government. Wise and beneficent measures had 
 been passed: enlightened public opinion had been 
 satisfied. The representation was theoretically in- 
 complete : but Parliament had been brought into 
 harmony with the interests and sympathies of the 
 people. It had nearly approached Mr. Burke's 
 standard, according to whom, 'The virtue, spirit, 
 and essence of a House of Commons, consists in its 
 being the express image of the feelings of a nation.'' 
 The best results of reform had been realised : the 
 country was prosperous and contented. It has ever 
 been the genius of the English people to love free- 
 dom : they are aroused by injustice: they resent a 
 public or private wi'ong ; but tliey are rarely moved 
 
 ' Burke's Works, ii. 288 (Prpsont Discontpnts). 
 
Later Measures of Reform. 
 
 459 
 
 by theoretical grievances. Living under a settled 
 form of government, they have cared little for model 
 constitutions ; and united in the bonds of a highly 
 civilised society, they have never favoured demo- 
 cracy. Again, since 1832, political power had been 
 vested mainly in the middle classes ; and the em- 
 ployers of labom-, being masters of the representation, 
 were unwilling to share their power with the work- 
 ing classes, by whom they were outnumbered. Hence 
 the inertness of existing constituencies. They en- 
 joyed exclusive political privileges ; and desired to 
 maintain them. 
 
 One other cause must not be omitted. While 
 these moderate measures of reform were being pro- 
 posed by successive governments, other schemes 
 had been discussed elsewhere, — designed to extend 
 largely the influence of numbers, — and conceived 
 and advocated in the spirit of democracy. Such 
 proposals increased the indisposition of moderate 
 reformers, and of the classes already enfranchised, to 
 fonvard an extension of the suffrage. At the same 
 time, the advocates of more comprehensive schemes 
 of reform, — while they coldly accepted measures 
 falling far short of their own, — were not unwilling 
 that they should be postponed to some period more 
 promising for the adoption of their advanced princi- 
 ples. And thus, with the tacit acquiescence of all 
 parties, the question of parliamentary reform was 
 again suffered to sleep for awhile.' 
 
 ' Soe Supplcmeiitiiry Chiiiifcr. 
 
 ILNU OF THE FIRST VOLUME. 
 
FRWTED BT 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE AXD CO., SEW-STREET SQUARE 
 LONDON