against the repeal of the Stamp Act, others, let it be borne in mind, voted with the ministry. Let it be remembered, too, how short a time had elapsed since many of the very persons, whom the king was now expected to influence or dismiss, had recorded their votes in favour of taxing America, and consequently how great would have been the injustice of calling upon them, at a moment's notice in order to meet the requirements of a feeble ministry to stultify their former line of conduct, and to act in direct opposition to their moral convictions. These persons, in fact, had a right to the same forbearance which Lord Rockingham had notoriously extended to one of his own colleagues, Lord Barrington, who, on accepting the post of secretary at war, appears to have made it a sine quâ non that he should be permitted to vote against the ministry, both on the question of the Stamp Act and of general

warrants.

Moreover, with what conscience, it may be asked, could the present ministers have "pressed" the king to dismiss his servants at their beck? They of all persons, as Walpole pertinently remarked to his friend Conway, had complained the most bitterly of such summary dismissals. The outcry which they had formerly raised against the king and Grenville, on account of the removal of Conway from his employments, had been loud and vehement; yet Conway, be it remembered,

had been dismissed for weightier reasons,' whereas the persons whom the king was called upon by his present ministers to discard had voted against them but on one question, and that question one of consistency and conscience.

On another point, the conduct of the ministers seems to have been contradictory. We have seen how fierce, at the outset of their administration, had been their denunciation of Bute; yet no sooner did they find themselves in need of his aid and countenance, than there is reason to believe that they caused application to be made to the king to solicit the earl's support in Parliament. He knew nothing, said the king, of what Lord Bute was doing, and must decline sending for him.

The real fact, as has been already represented, would seem to have been, that if the king showed any bias, either on one side or the other, it was not in opposition to, but in behalf of, his ministers. His allusion to Lord Talbot's opinions certainly seems to imply that he had attempted to influence that nobleman; and again he writes to Lord Rockingham, "I have received your resolution of standing firmly by the fate of the American question, which will certainly direct my language to the

'It has been adduced as a peculiar hardship, in the case of General Conway's dismissal, that "he gave but one vote " against ministers on the question of general warrants, having voted with them on every other motion against Wilkes.

chancellor." Indeed, so powerful was the influence of the Crown at this period, that had the king, either openly or clandestinely, acted a hostile part against his ministers, the Repeal Bill, we cannot but think, would never have passed the House of Commons, and much less the House of Lords.

It has been laid down by Junius as a constitutional doctrine, that the personal authority of the sovereign should never be interposed in public affairs. Unhappily, this wholesome axiom was lost sight of, alike by ministers and by the opposition, who, on this question, seem to have been severally and equally to blame on account of the undue use which they made of the king's name, for the purpose of influencing votes in Parliament. By the opposition, it was bruited about that the sovereign was personally and warmly opposed to the repeal of the Stamp Act; while, on the opposite side, the friends of the administration made no scruple of asserting that the king had extended to the measure his cordial and unqualified approval. This improper and unconstitutional state of things could scarcely, for any length of time, be kept from the royal ear, and consequently no sooner was the offended monarch apprised of the liberty which had been taken with his name, than he took an opportunity of Lord Strange being alone with him in the royal closet, to question him as to the extent to which he considered the impertinence

had been carried. The double circumstance of Lord Strange being a friend of Grenville, and an advocate of the Stamp Act, may possibly have prejudiced his answer. "Not only," he said, “had a report been successfully propagated that his Majesty personally desired a repeal of the Stamp Act, but it had been mainly the occasion of the advantage which ministers had hitherto obtained in Parliament. It was then that the king explained to Lord Strange his private views on the subject of repeal views which we have already attempted to explain, and which he had neither endeavoured to conceal from his ministers, on the one hand, nor to force upon them, on the other. He was for retaining the act, he said; but with such modifications as Parliament might think proper to adopt. As Lord Strange took care to repeat this conversation to all whom he chanced to meet with, it was naturally the occasion of much commotion in political quarters. On quitting the closet, "Lord Strange," writes Grenville, "told everybody he met, of the discourse his Majesty had held to him, which was in direct contradiction to what had been propagated for the last two days by ministers." Before night it was circulated, in all the fashionable clubs and coffee-houses in London, that the king had expressed himself opposed to the Repeal Bill, the result of which was, that Lord Rockingham, alarmed at the ill effect which such a report might produce in Parliament, wrote

directly to Lord Strange requesting him to meet him at the king's levee at St James's, where, after some warm words had passed between them, they entered the royal closet together. Lord Strange was the first to speak. Repeating the words

which the king had addressed to him, he inquired respectfully whether he had rightly understood his Majesty, to which the king answered in the affirmative. Lord Rockingham then drew forth a written document, and inquired of his Majesty whether, on such a day, he had not determined in favour of repeal? "My lord," said the king, "this is but half." Then, taking out a pencil, he wrote at the bottom of the paper, which he took from Lord Rockingham's hands, words to the following effect: "The question asked me by my ministers was, whether I was for enforcing the act by the sword, or for the repeal? Of these two extremes I was for the repeal; but most certainly preferred modification to either."

'The king's conduct, according to the Quarterly Review," was alike frank and dignified: he avowed what he had said to Lord Strange, rebuked Lord Rockingham for telling but half the story, and boldly, and, we dare say, somewhat indignantly, wrote so as to admit of no misrepresentation, on Lord Rockingham's paper, the important qualification of his opinion, which Lord Rockingham had suppressed. Which was the double-dealer?" According to Walpole, the king intimated to his servants, that "they were at liberty to vote against him and keep their places, which was, in effect, ordering them to oppose his ministers." Had this been the case, it could scarcely fail to have been notorious in all

L