Volume I Part 26 (2/2)

This unusual and rather undignified proceeding admits of no other justification than the urgency and exigency of the occasion; and the best thing that can be said of it is, that it answered the end for which it was designed, although the notoriety which was given to it (and without which it would have been of no avail) produced a fierce resolution in the Commons, carried by an immense majority, declaring that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to report any opinion or pretended opinion of the King upon any proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of members. It did influence the votes of members very extensively, nevertheless, several proxies which had been entrusted to Ministers having been withdrawn in consequence of the royal interference.

It would appear from this statement, that up to the 11th of December, His Majesty had approved of the India Bills; and that on that day, for the first time, Lord Temple drew His Majesty's attention to the tendency of the measure. Upon the face of the proceedings themselves, such a version of the transaction is so incredible as to excite surprise at its adoption by contemporary historians. A very little reflection must have discovered the impossibility of His Majesty remaining in ignorance of the spirit, aim, and purport of a scheme which had been under discussion for three weeks in the Commons, and had been sifted, explored, and denounced by Pitt, Jenkinson, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Grenville, and others. Nor is it to be believed that, with so strong a motive operating in the minds of His Majesty's personal friends as that which was furnished by the well-known desire of His Majesty to seize upon the first opportunity to make a breach with the Cabinet, Lord Temple and those who acted with him would have suffered His Majesty to continue in the ignorance ascribed to him--a.s.suming, which it is unreasonable to a.s.sume, that His Majesty really was ignorant of the scope and design of a ministerial proposal which had called up remonstrances and protests from all parts of the kingdom.

It is scarcely necessary to say that Lord Temple did not wait until the Bills had reached the House of Lords, to submit to the King his opinion of them; and that he had all throughout earnestly impressed upon His Majesty the objectionable spirit of those clauses that infringed the royal prerogative. This was, indeed, the only vulnerable point upon which His Majesty's direct interference could be properly invoked. The difficulty that had hitherto stood in the way was as to the manner in which the interposition of the King's authority could be brought to bear const.i.tutionally on the measure, during its progress through Parliament.

Ministers had an ascertained and decisive majority in the Commons, and Lord Temple seems to have felt that it would have been unwise in His Majesty to have interfered at that stage of the proceedings, when his interference was likely to have failed of the desired effect. The last resource was in the Peers. To have implicated the King's name in the opposition to the measure, while it yet was in the hands of the Commons, would have fatally compromised His Majesty's position; and for that excellent reason, Lord Temple reserved the declaration of His Majesty's opinion for that arena where it was most likely to exercise a practical influence. The moment chosen was just before the debate on the principle of the Bills. Had His Majesty been advised to preserve his neutrality pending the discussion in the Lords, the probability was, that the measure would have pa.s.sed that House, and that he would have been ultimately reduced to the necessity of refusing his a.s.sent to it; an extremity from which he was delivered by the prompt and novel course recommended by Lord Temple.

Amongst the Grenville papers there is the rough draught of a memorandum, which reveals to us not only the suggestions upon which the King acted in this emergency, but the no less important fact that the line of action was submitted to His Majesty eight days before the Bills had pa.s.sed the Commons. It is evident from the tone of this memorandum, that the subject matter of it had previously occupied much anxious consideration, that the determination to resist the Bills in some shape was already adopted, and that nothing remained to be settled but the _modus operandi_. It will be seen, that in this memorandum the difficulties attending the royal interference at different stages of the measure are fully designated, and that the mode of proceeding finally adopted by His Majesty is distinctly pointed out. The opening line, and the note at the foot, are in the hand-writing of Lord Temple; the body of the memorandum is in a different and not very legible hand.

Dec. 1st, 1783.

To begin with stating to His Majesty our sentiments upon the extent of the Bill, viz.:

We profess to wish to know whether this Bill appear to His Majesty in this light: a plan to take more than half the royal power, and by that means disable [the King] for the rest of the reign. There is nothing else in it which ought to call for this interposition.

Whether any means can be thought of, short of changing his Ministers, to avoid this evil.

The refusing the Bill, if it pa.s.ses the Houses, is a violent means. The changing his Ministers after the last vote of the Commons, in a less degree might be liable to the same sort of construction.

An easier way of changing his Government would be by taking some opportunity of doing it, when, in the progress of it, it shall have received more discountenance than hitherto.

This must be expected to happen in the Lords in a greater degree than can be hoped for in the Commons.

But a sufficient degree of it may not occur in the Lords if those whose duty to His Majesty would excite them to appear are not acquainted with his wishes, and that in a manner which would make it impossible to pretend a doubt of it, in case they were so disposed.

By these means the discountenance might be hoped to raise difficulties so high as to throw it [out], and leave His Majesty at perfect liberty to choose whether he will change them or not.

This is the situation which it is wished His Majesty should find himself in.

Delivered by Lord Thurlow, Dec. 1st, 1783.

Nugent Temple.

The sequel is matter of history. On the 17th of December, the India Bills were rejected, in the House of Peers, by a majority of 95 to 76.

On the 18th, at midnight, a message was transmitted from the King to Lord North and Mr. Fox, commanding them to deliver up their seals of office; and, in order to mark emphatically the royal displeasure, they were desired to send in their seals by the Under-Secretaries, as a personal interview with them would be ”disagreeable” to His Majesty. The next day the rest of the Ministry were dismissed, and the letters conveying their dismissal were signed by Lord Temple.

The circ.u.mstances under which this sudden change in the councils of the Sovereign took place, produced considerable alarm in the Commons, by whose support alone--in opposition to the feelings of the King, and the voice of the public--the late Ministry had been sustained in office. An apprehension prevailed amongst the members that the new Cabinet would advise a dissolution, and an Address to the King was accordingly pa.s.sed on the 22nd, praying His Majesty not to adopt that measure; but Mr.

Pitt, to whom the responsibility of constructing an Administration had been confided in the meanwhile, entertained no such project, having resolved to trust in the first instance to his strength out of doors; and His Majesty's answer to the address explicitly a.s.sured the Commons, accordingly, that he had no intention of exercising his prerogative either to prorogue or dissolve Parliament.

For three days Lord Temple held the Seals, to facilitate Mr. Pitt's negotiations; and shortly afterwards the new Government was announced, with Mr. Pitt at its head, Lord Howe at the Admiralty, Lord Thurlow as Lord Chancellor, and the Marquis of Carmarthen and Lord Sydney in the Foreign and Home Departments. The Duke of Rutland, who for a short time held the office of Lord Privy Seal (in which he was succeeded by Lord Gower), was sent to Ireland to succeed Lord Northington early in the ensuing year.

Up to this time, notwithstanding the signal services he had rendered to the Sovereign throughout a period marked by the most extraordinary contest in our annals between the Crown and a dominant party in the Commons, Lord Temple had waited in vain for that acknowledgment of his conduct in Ireland to which he felt himself ent.i.tled. The position of the King during the conflict that had been forced upon him with his Ministers was, doubtless, no less embarra.s.sing than painful; but now that Mr. Pitt had succeeded to office, Lord Temple expected full justice would be done to him. That he did not receive it, however, and that his proud and sensitive temper resented the neglect, will be evident from the following letter, which closes the correspondence for the year.

LORD TEMPLE TO MR. PITT.

<script>