chief magistrate, can have no conscience which is not in the trust of responsible subjects. When he delivers the seals of office 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."1 By Lord Harrowby the motion was represented as placing the House in the situation "of sitting in judg‐ ment upon the personal conduct of their sovereign." But perhaps the best position for the Crown was that assumed by the Earl of 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, beyond the reach of parliamentary investigation. Another view was that of Lord Sidmouth. Admitting that for every act of the executive government there must be a responsible adviser, he "contended that there were many functions of the sovereign which, though strictly legitimate, not only might, but must be performed without any such responsibility being attached to them, and which must, therefore, be considered as the personal acts of the king. Of these the constitution does not take cognisance." It was the object of this ingenious argument to absolve from responsibility both the king, who could do no wrong, and his present advisers, who, by accepting office, had become responsible for the measures by which their predecessors had been removed. This unconstitutional position was well exposed by the Earl of Lauderdale. Mr. Lyttleton's motion, 1807. The example of Lord Danby was felicitously cited both by the Earl of Lauderdale and Lord Holland in support of the constitutional principle that the king can have no separate responsibility. Lord Danby, having been impeached for offences committed as a minister, had produced a written authority from the king in his defence, but was yet held responsible for the execution of the king's commands: nay, the House of Commons voted his plea an aggravation of his offences, as exposing the king to public odium.1 This doctrine, in truth,-that for every act of the Crown some adviser must be responsible,-could not be denied; but the artifice of putting forth the king personally, and representing him as being on his trial at the bar, this repeated use of the king's name, was a tower of strength to the ministerial party.2 Lord Stafford's motion had been met by the previous question; but eventually the division was taken upon the adjournment of the House, which was carried by a majority of eighty-one; and thus the motion was superseded. The House did not adjourn until seven o'clock in the morning. But even now the question was not set at rest. On the 15th April, Mr. W. H. Lyttleton renewed the 15th April, discussion, in proposing 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 brought to a close, at half-past six in the morning, by the House resolving to pass to the orders of the day.1 As a question of policy, it had obviously been a false step, on the part of the ministers, to give expression to Impolicy of the cabinet minute. 1 Hansard's Debates, ix. 405, 414. 90. Hansard's Debates, ix. 422. 4 Ayes, 244; Noes, 198. Hansard's Debates, ix. 432–475. their reservations in the minute of the Cabinet. They had agreed to abandon the bill which had 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 themselves the same responsibility as if they had advised it. solution, April 1807. Meanwhile, though this was the first session of a new The disParliament, a speedy dissolution was 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 exercise of prerogative. In the Lords Commissioners' 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 "he at once demonstrates, in the most unequivocal manner, his own conscientious persuasion of the rectitude of those motives upon which he has acted, and affords 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 constitution." The recent exercise of prerogative is thus associated with the obligations of his coronation oath, so as to unite, in favour of the Meeting of Parliament. Amendments to address, 26th June, 1807. The three to the regency. 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, at that time, to command a majority for ministers; and their success was complete. On the meeting of the new Parliament, amendments to the address were proposed in both Houses, condemning the dissolution, as founded upon "groundless and injurious pretences," but were rejected by large majorities.1 The king's will had prevailed, and was not again years prior to be called in question. His own power, confided to the Tory ministers who were henceforth admitted to his councils, was supreme. Though there was still a party of the king's friends, his Majesty agreed too well with his ministers, in principles and policy, to require the aid of irresponsible advisers. But his 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.s 1 In the Lords by a majority of 93, and in the Commons by a majority of 195.-Hansard's Debates, ix. 557-658. 2 Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 469; Romilly's Life, ii. 220. See Chapter III. CHAP. II. INFLUENCE OF THE CROWN DURING THE REGENCY, THE REIGNS OF GEORGE IV., WILLIAM IV., AND HER MAJESTY, QUEEN VICTORIA. of the THE Prince Regent differed too much, in character and Character habits, from his royal father, to be inclined to exercise Prince the influence of the Crown, with the same activity. Regent. 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 him 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, by indolence and indifference, to leave more discretion 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. of his The very qualities, however, which disinclined the Influence prince to laborious activity, exposed him the more court. readily to the influence of his court. His father's will 1 See debate, 14th April, 1812, on vate Secretary to the Prince Regent. Col. M'Mahon's appointment as Pri- -Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., xxii, 332. |