agree with his lordship in condemning the refusal by the ministry to take any notice of the petition, on the ground that the Congress was a self-constituted body, with no claim to authority or recognition, and one which had already sanctioned the taking up arms against the King.-
[Footnote 53: It is probable, however, that the greater part of the Hanoverian soldiers were Protestants.]
[Footnote 54: Lord Campbell, who, in his 'Life of Lord Bathurst,' asserts that the legality of the measure turns upon the just construction of the Act of Settlement, adduces Thurlow's language on this subject as 'a proof that he considered that he had the privilege which has been practised by other Attorney-generals and Chancellors too, in debate, of laying down for law what best suited his purpose at the moment.' It does not seem quite certain that the noble and learned biographer has not more than once in these biographies allowed himself a similar license in the description of questions of party politics.]
[Footnote 55: In the debates on the subject it was stated that the number of Hanoverians quartered in the two fortresses was nineteen hundred, and the number of British troops left in them was two thousand. Moreover, as has been already remarked, though Lord Shelburne spoke of arming Roman Catholics, it is probable that the Hanoverians were mostly Protestants.]
[Footnote 56: The Preliminary or Provisional Articles, as they were called, of which the Definitive Treaty was but a copy, were signed at Paris, November 30, 1782, during Lord Shelburne's administration. But the Definitive Treaty was not signed till the 3d of September of the following year, under the Coalition Ministry, which was turned out a few weeks afterward.]
[Footnote 57: We shall see in a subsequent chapter that even in this reign of George III. Pitt laid down the true principles of our legislation for the colonies in his bill for the better government of Canada.]
[Footnote 58: An admirably reasoned passage on the influence of the crown, especially in the reigns of the two first Hanoverian Kings, will be found in Hallam, 'Constitutional History,' c. xvi., vol. iii., p. 392, ed. 1832.]
[Footnote 59: The 'Parliamentary History' shows that he had brought forward the same motion before 1780; since Lord Nugent, who replied to him, said 'the same motion had been made for some years past, and had been silently decided on.' From which it seems that it was never discussed at any length till May 8, 1780.]
[Footnote 60: On the division the numbers were: for the motion, 90; against it, 182.]
[Footnote 61: The division in 1782 was: 161 to 141; in 1783, 293 to 149.]
[Footnote 62: How systematic and open bribery was at this time is shown by an account of Sheridan's expenses at Stafford in 1784, of which the first item is-248 burgesses, paid L5 5s. each, L1302.-Moore's
[Footnote 63: 'Life of Pitt,' i., 359.]
[Footnote 64: Lord North was a Knight of the Garter, the only commoner, except Sir R. Walpole, who received that distinction in the last century, and the latest, with the exception of Lord Castlereagh. on whom it has been conferred.]
[Footnote 65: 233 to 315.]
[Footnote 66: It is perhaps worth pointing out, as a specimen of the practical manner in which parliamentary business was transacted at that time, that this great debate-in which (the House being in committee) Mr. Dunning himself spoke three times, and Lord North, Mr. T. Pitt, Mr. Fox, the Speaker (Sir F. Norton), the Attorney-general, General Conway, Governor Pownall, the Lord-advocate, and several other members took part-was concluded by twelve o'clock.]
[Footnote 67: February 8, 1780, on Lord Shelburne's motion for an inquiry into the public expenditure.-
[Footnote 68: 101 to 55.]
[Footnote 69: 'Constitutional History,' iii., 43.]
[Footnote 70: His language is said to have been that 'there was at all events one Magistrate in the kingdom who would do his duty.'-Lord Stanhope,
[Footnote 71: 'Lives of the Lord Chancellors,' c. clxvii.]
[Footnote 72: Lord Stanhope's 'History of England,' vii, 56.]
CHAPTER IV. Changes of Administration.-The Coalition Ministry.-The Establishment of the Prince of Wales.-Fox's India Bill.-The King Defeats it by the Agency of Lord Temple.-The Ministry is Dismissed, and Succeeded by Mr. Pitt's Administration.-Opposition to the New Ministry in the House of Commons.-Merits of the Contest between the Old and the New Ministry.-Power of Pitt.-Pitt's India Bill.-Bill for the Government of Canada.- The Marriage of the Prince of Wales to Mrs. Fitzherbert.-The King becomes Deranged.-Proposal of a Regency.- Opinions of Various Writers on the Course adopted.-Spread of Revolutionary Societies and Opinions.-Bills for the Repression of Sedition and Treason.-The Alien Act.-The Traitorous Correspondence Act.-Treason and Sedition Bills.-Failure of some Prosecutions under them.
The occurrences of the next year brought the question of the influence of the crown into greater prominence. Lord Rockingham's administration, unfortunately, came to a premature termination by his death at the beginning of July. With a strange arrogance, Fox claimed the right of dictating the choice of his successor to the King, making his pretensions the more unwarrantable by the character of the person whom he desired to nominate, the Duke of Portland, who, though a man of vast property and considerable borough influence, was destitute of ability of any kind, and had not even any of that official experience which in some situations may at times compensate or conceal the want of talent.[73] The King preferred Lord Shelburne, a statesman whose capacity was confessedly of a very high order, who had more than once been Secretary of State,[74] and who had been recognized as the leader of what was sometimes called the Chatham section of the Whigs, ever since the death of the great Earl. Indeed, if George III. had been guided by his own wishes and judgment alone, he would have placed him at the Treasury, in preference to Lord Rockingham, three months before. But, during the last three months, jealousies had arisen between him and Fox, his colleague in office, who charged him with concealing from him the knowledge of various circumstances, the communication of which he had a right to require. It was more certain that on one or two points connected with the negotiations with the United States there had been divisions between them, and that the majority of the cabinet had agreed with Lord Shelburne. Lord Shelburne, therefore, became Prime-minister,[75] and Fox, with some of his friends, resigned; Fox indemnifying himself by a violent philippic against 'those men who were now to direct the counsels of the country,' and whom he proceeded to describe as 'men whom neither promises could bind nor principles of honor could secure; who would abandon fifty principles for the sake of power, and forget fifty promises when they were no longer necessary to their ends; who, he had no doubt, to secure themselves in the power which they had by the labor of others obtained, would strive to strengthen it by any means which corruption could procure.'[76]
Fox at once went into what even those most disposed to cherish his memory admit to have been a factious opposition. He caballed with the very men to whom he had hitherto been most vehemently opposed for the sole object of expelling Lord Shelburne from office. And when, at the beginning of the session of 1783, the merits of the preliminary articles of peace which had been provisionally concluded with the United States came under discussion, though the peers approved of them, in the House of Commons he defeated the ministers in two separate divisions, [77] and thus rendered their retention of office impossible. He had gained this victory by uniting with Lord North and a portion of the Tory party whom, ever since his dismissal from office in 1774, he had been unwearied in denouncing, threatening Lord North himself with impeachment. And he now used it to compel the King to intrust the chief office in the government to the very man whom his Majesty had refused to employ in such an office six months before.
The transactions of the next twelve months exhibit in a striking light more than one part of the practical working of our monarchical and parliamentary constitution, not only in its correspondence with, but, what is more important to notice, in its occasional partial deviations from, strict theory. The theory has sometimes been expressed in the formula, 'The King reigns, but does not govern.' But, like many another terse apophthegm, it conveys an idea which requires some modification before it can be regarded as an entirely correct representation of the fact; and the King himself, especially if endowed with fair capacity and force of character, imbued with earnest convictions, and animated by a genuine zeal for the honor and welfare of his kingdom, will be likely to dwell more on the possible modifications than on the rigid theory. Even those who insist most on the letter of the theory will not deny that, if the King has not actual power, he has at least great influence; and the line between authority and influence is hard to draw. One of George the Third's earliest ministers had explained to his Majesty that the
