matters of public policy. The position and privileges of cabinet ministers are, in fact, derived from their being sworn members of the Privy Council. It is true that by the usages of the constitution cabinet ministers are alone empowered to advise upon affairs of state, and that they alone are ordinarily held responsible to their sovereign and to Parliament for the government of the country. Yet it is quite conceivable that circumstances might arise which would render it expedient for the king, in the interests of the constitution itself, to seek for aid and counsel apart from his cabinet. Such an occasion, it may be urged, was found in the events which led to the dis

Dismissal of the Coalition ministry in 1783.

missal of the Coalition ministry of Fox and North in 1783. It will be remembered that the bill for the government of India, which had been drawn up by Mr. Fox, had been formally sanctioned by his Majesty, and passed triumphantly by the influence of the ministry through the House of Commons, before the true character of the measure was understood, either by the sovereign or by the country at large. The eyes of the king were opened to the real scope and tendency of the bill by exChancellor Thurlow, who availed himself of his privilege as a peer to obtain access to the king, and to advise him what course he should pursue at this juncture. As soon as the bill reached the Upper House, George III. authorized Lord Temple, one of his "friends," to oppose it, and even to use his name to defeat it in that chamber. Succeeding in this, the king then dismissed his ministers, and empowered Mr. Pitt to form a new administration. In taking office, Mr. Pitt, as he was constitutionally bound to do, justified to the country the removal of his predecessors, and assumed entire responsibility for the change.1 Thus the authority of the sovereign

1 See Stanhope's Life of Pitt, v. 1, pp. 153-155; Massey's George III. v. 3, p. 224. See also Ld. Campbell's account of these transactions, in his Lives of the Chanc. v. 5, p. 565. This sound constitutional lawyer does not hesitate to express his approval of the king's conduct in this emergency. [Notwithstanding Lord Campbell's authority, the course which George III. took on this occasion was irregular. It is the king's duty to act on the advice of his responsible ministers, and, so long as they retain office, to refrain from opposing, directly or indirectly, the measures which they introduce. In the present day, no monarch would even venture on parting with a ministry which retained the confidence of the House of Commons. The dismissal of the Melbourne ministry in 1834 was the last, and will probably remain the last, example of such an exercise of the prerogative.

was rescued from the meshes of political intrigue in which it had become involved; partly by the machinations of the ambitious men who had then the upper hand, and partly by reason of the king's own irregular acts; and the chariot of the state proceeded once more along the beaten tracks, duly subjected to constitutional control.

The position of Mr. Pitt, on accepting office, was one of peculiar difficulty. He had to contend almost Mr. Pitt's firs single-handed against an overwhelming majority administration. of the House of Commons, marshalled by Fox, North, Sheridan, and other able politicians, who were indefatigable in their endeavours to effect his overthrow. But he resolutely determined to maintain his ground as the king's minister, and to abstain from a dissolution of parliament, though this was repeatedly urged upon him by his Majesty, until he could be satisfied that there was a decided reaction in the country in his favour, indications of the commencement of which began to be speedily manifested. He therefore boldly continued the struggle from December 22 to March 24, notwithstanding reiterated votes of want of confidence and every hindrance (short of an actual refusing of the supplies) that the ingenuity of his opponents could devise.

The private letters of the king to Mr. Pitt, at this period, show us the light in which his Majesty regarded The king's the conduct of the House of Commons towards views of his ministry. the minister of his choice. Writing to Mr. Pitt shortly before the dissolution of parliament, the king says, "he [Mr. Pitt] will ever be able to reflect with satisfaction that, in having supported me, he has saved the constitution, the most perfect of human formation. And, on another occasion, the king refers to his own course as "calculated to prevent one branch of the legislature from annihilating the other two, and seizing also the executive power.' In fact, in Mr. Pitt, George III. found a minister after his own heart, of high ability, unswerving integrity, and firmness of purpose. Never

"2

But George III. went beyond this, in retaining in office a ministry whose measures he was thwarting. The fact that the country ultimately adopted the views of the sovereign should not blind the student to the true constitutional objections to the sovereign's conduct.—Editor.]

1 Tomline's Life of Pitt, v. I, p. 321.

2 Ib. p. 293.

theless, the king never surrendered, even to his favourite minister, the unrestricted exercise of the prerogative, but himself shaped the general policy of his government, and personally influenced the distribution of patronage, both in Church and State.1

Control of the army by ministers.

After the death of Mr. Pitt, in 1806, the king was obliged to Fox and Gren- accept an administration taken chiefly from the ville ministry. Whig party, in whom he had no confidence. The ministry of "All the Talents," under the presidency of Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, was forced, by political considerations, upon him. Before the arrangements were completed, a difficulty arose on a point of prerogative. During the negotiations, "Lord 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 supervision of ministers. The king at once contended 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 levying of the troops, their pay and clothing. Lord Grenville was startled at such a doctrine, which he conceived to be entirely unconstitutional, and to which he would have refused to submit. For some time it was believed that the pending 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 his Majesty's approbation." With this proviso the king assented to the ministerial claims; and thus the sole remaining branch of the public service, heretofore considered as to a certain extent exempted from such interference, was brought under ministerial control.2

Lord Grenville's ministry was of very brief duration. The death of Mr. Fox, which speedily followed that of his great May's Hist. v. 1, pp. 75, 85.

1

2 Ib. p. 87, quoting Ann. Reg. 1806, p. 26; Lewis, Admin. p. 287. [The inference that Mr. Todd draws here is hardly accurate. There can be no doubt that George III., for the first thirty years of his reign, claimed and exercised an irresponsible authority over the management and patronage of the army; and an arrangement, which settled that no changes should be introduced into its management without his Majesty's approbation, virtually conceded the claim which the king made.-Editor.]

rival, led to several changes in the cabinet, and the following year a difficulty occurred between the king and his ministry, which led to their dismissal.1

Quarrel between the

king and his

ministers.

The point at issue arose out of an attempt on the part of ministers to induce the king to agree to a Bill to remove certain disabilities under which Roman Catholics were lying. But the king resisted the proposal, and ministers withdrew their Bill. Whereupon the king demanded of them a pledge that they would not again propose any similar measure. This they refused to give, and were accordingly dismissed from office.2 This question will hereafter engage our attention, when the relations between a constitutional sovereign and his responsible advisers are discussed. Meanwhile it is worthy of remark, that May, in reviewing this transaction, condemns alike the conduct of ministers in their hasty and unauthorized minute, and the conduct of the king in endeavouring to exact a pledge from his cabinet that they would never again obtrude their advice upon him in regard to the Roman Catholic claims. He also distinctly asserts that the incoming ministers were responsible for the conduct of the king concerning the pledge, as though they had themselves advised it.R

The king's

From this time until the close of the reign of George III. no further question arose which affects the history Personal of ministerial responsibility. 66 own influence of George III. 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." The personal influence of the king was, indeed, very considerable throughout the whole of his reign, and was a great source of strength to such ministers as enjoyed his favour. It was, on the contrary,

1 Hans. D. March 26, 1807. 2 National Rev. v. 14, p. 388.

3 May, Const. Hist. v. 1, pp. 96, 97. [May's words are, "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." But this was not the view of the incoming ministers. Mr. Perceval declared that the king had acted without advice. -Editor.]

▲ Ib. p. 98.

VOL. I.

F

a continual cause of difficulty to ministers who were so unfortunate as to incur his disapprobation.1

In reviewing the history of this reign, we cannot fail to notice the ease with which the successive administraStrength of ministers in tions who held office were able to control the parliament. House of Commons, and to carry on the government in connection therewith. This was mainly attributable, no doubt, to the number of seats in that house which were virtually in the nomination of the crown, or in the hands of the leading aristocratic families, from amongst whom the members of the cabinet were, at that time, exclusively chosen. The great governing families of England have always been. divided in their political opinions. Had they

Influence of the great governing families.

been of one mind, their influence would have been irresistible. As it was, the Whigs and Tories were continually struggling for the mastery. Sometimes the heart of the nation would incline to favour the traditions of the monarchy, embodied in the Tory creed; again, the ideas of progress which were the battle-cry of the Whigs would be in the ascendant. George III., as we have seen, was strongly biassed on behalf of the Tory party; and no wonder: for the "great Tory peers and patrons of boroughs, who, by their influence in counties and their direct power of nomination, commanded the votes of a large section of the House of Commons, were willing, in general, to support any ministry which the king appointed, and to permit all the influence of the crown to be exercised in its favour, provided that their own personal wishes respecting the distribution of patronage received due attention. They contented themselves, as politicians, with a barter of power for patronage; they gave the former and received the latter. The great Whig lords, however, made a harder bargain with the crown. They insisted upon selecting the king's ministers before they consented to support them. They required that an administration should be formed of members of their own party, whose names should be proposed by their own leaders.” 2a

Between the oligarchies of the two great parties, says Sir G. C. Lewis, "there was this great difference that, whereas the

1 Sir G. C. Lewis, Adminis. of Gt. Brit. p. 420.

2 lb. p. 88; Fitzmaurice, Life of Ld. Shelburne, v. 3, pp. 223, 238, 501.