He wrote to Lord Weymouth " to desire his support against his new tyrants;" and "told the Lord Advocate that sooner than yield he would go to Hanover, and had even prevailed upon the queen to consent." From this resolution he was probably dissuaded by the rough counsels of Lord Thurlow. "Your Majesty may go," said he; "nothing is more easy; but you may not find it so easy to return, when your Majesty becomes tired of staying there." It was not until the country had been for seventeen days without a government, that the king agreed to Lord North's scheme of a coalition ministry. But further difficulties were raised; and at length the House of Commons interposed. After 23rd several debates,-in one of which Mr. Fox accused the 1783. king's secret friends of breaking off the negotiation,— the House addressed his Majesty to form "an adminis tration entitled to the confidence of his people." The address was graciously answered; but still no ministry was formed. Again the king pressed Mr. Pitt to be- 24th come his premier, who again firmly and finally refused.2 At length, after an extraordinary interval of thirty-seven Coalition days, from the 24th February to the 2nd April, the coalition ministry was completed, under the Duke of Portland." Such are the vicissitudes of political life, that Lord North, who for years had been the compliant and obsequious minister of the king, was now forcing his way into office, in alliance with Mr. Fox, the king's 1 Fox Mem., ii. 42 (Horace Walpole). 2 Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 150; Letter to the King, 25th March, 1783; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. App. ii.; Wraxall's Mem., iii. 337, 353, 374, &c. 3 The king availed himself of his freedom from ministerial re- March, March. ministry, 1783. Efforts of the coali tion to retrain the fluence. king's in The king's opposition isters. most dreaded opponent, and lately his own. While the king was yet holding them at bay, the new friends were concerting measures for restraining his future influence. As no one had submitted to that influence so readily as Lord North, we cannot intrude into their secret conferences without a smile. Mr. Fox insisted that the king should not be suffered to be his own minister, to which Lord North replied: "If you mean there should not be a government by departments, I agree with you. I think it a very bad system. There should be one man, or a cabinet, to govern the whole, and direct every measure. Government by departments was not brought in by me. I found it so, and had not the vigour and resolution to put an end to it. The king ought to be treated with all sort of respect and attention: but the appearance of power is all that a king of this country can have. Though the government in my time was a government by departments, the whole was done by the ministers, except in a few instances." But whatever were the views of ministers regarding to his min- the king's future authority, he himself had no intention of submitting to them. He did not attempt to disguise his repugnance to the ministry which had been forced upon him; but, avowing that he yielded to compulsion, gave them to understand that they need expect no support from him, and that he would not create any British peers upon their recommendation. He told Lord Temple “that to such a ministry he never would give his confidence, and that he would take the first moment for dismissing them." The coalition had not found favour in the country; and no pains were spared, by the king's friends, to increase its unpopularity. Meanwhile the Fox Mem., ii. 38. III, i. 302; Wraxall's Mem., iii. 2 Court and Cabinets of George 378, iv. 490. king watched all the proceedings of his ministers with jealousy, thwarted them whenever he could, criticised their policy, and openly assumed an attitude of opposition. Thus, writing to Mr. Fox, who, as secretary of state, was negotiating the peace, in August, 1783, he said: "I cannot say that I am so surprised at France not putting the last strokes to the definitive treaty, as soon as we may wish, as our having totally disarmed, in addition to the extreme anxiety shown for peace, during the whole period that has ensued, since the end of February, 1782, certainly makes her feel that she can have no reason to apprehend any evil from so slighting a proceeding." 2 Mr. Fox's India Bill, 1783. An opportunity soon arose for more active hostility. Mr. Fox's India Bill had been brought into the House of Commons; and, in spite of the most strenuous opposition, was being rapidly passed by large majorities. It was denounced as unconstitutional, and as an invasion of the prerogatives of the crown: but no means had been found to stay its progress. The king now concerted with his friends a bold and unscrupulous plan for defeating the bill, and overthrowing his ministers. Instead of requiring the withdrawal or amendment of the bill,-as he was entitled to do,his name was to be used, and an active canvass under- Use of the king's taken by his authority, against the measure of his own name ministers. Though this plan was agreed upon eight against it. days before the bill reached the House of Lords, it was cautiously concealed. To arrest the progress of the bill in the Commons was hopeless; and the interference of the crown, in that House, would have excited dangerous resentment. The blow was therefore to be struck in the other House, where it would have greater weight, and 1 See Wraxall's Mem., iv. 527. 2 Fox Mem., ii. 141. be attended with less danger.1 Lord Temple,-who had suggested this plan, in concert with Lord Thurlow, and to whom its execution was entrusted, having had an audience with his Majesty, declared himself authorised to protest against the bill in the king's name. And in order to leave no doubt as to his commission, the following words were written upon a card :— "His Majesty allows Earl Temple to say, that whoever voted for the India Bill, was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as an enemy; and if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use whatever words he might deem stronger, and more to the purpose." 2 With these credentials, Lord Temple proceeded to canvass the peers,-with what success was soon apparent. On the first reading, supported by Lord Thurlow and the Duke of Richmond, he gave the signal of attack. The peers assumed a threatening attitude,3 and on the 15th December, placed the ministers in a minority, on a question of adjournment. Little secrecy or reserve was maintained by the king's friends, who took care to proclaim his Majesty's wishes. The use made of the king's name was noticed by the Duke of Portland, the Duke of Richmond, and Earl Fitzwilliam; and was not denied by Lord Temple.* Mr. Fitzpatrick, writing to Lord Ossory, on the 15th December, said: "the proxies of the king's friends are arrived against the bill. The public is full of alarm 1 Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289; Wraxall's Mem., iv. 557, et seq. 589; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 146. Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289; Fox Mem., ii. 253; Lord John Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 40. 3 Many of them withdrew their proxies from the ministers a few hours before the meeting of the House.-Parl. Hist., xxiv. 211. 4 15th Dec., 1783; Parl. Hist., xxiv. 151-160; Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 222; Rose Corr., i. 47; Lord John Russell's Life of Fox, i. 41; Auckland Corr., i. 67; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 146-151. and astonishment at the treachery, as well as the imprudence, of this unconstitutional interference. Nobody guesses what will be the consequences of a conduct that is generally compared to that of Charles I., in 1641." 1 Before the success of the court measures was com- Declara tion of the use of the name. 17th Dec., 1783. plete, the Commons endeavoured to arrest them. On Commons the 17th December, Mr. Baker, after denouncing against the secret advice to the crown, against its responsible king's ministers, and the use of the king's name, moved a resolution, "that it is now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion, or pretended opinion, of his Majesty, upon any bill, or other proceeding, depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, derogatory to the honour of the crown,— a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the constitution." 2 In vain did Mr. Pitt contend that the House could not deal with rumours, and that the hereditary councillors of the crown had always a right to give advice to their sovereign. Mr. Fox replied in a masterly speech, full of constitutional arguments, and eloquent with indignant remonstrances.3 The resolution was voted by a majority of seventy-three; and the House resolved to go into committee on the state of the nation, on the following Monday. But this was not enough. It was evident that the king had determined upon a change of ministers; and lest he should 1 Fox Mem., ii. 220. 2 Com. Journ., xxxix. 842; Parl. Ilist., xxiv. 199. 3 Mr. Fox cited the words reported to have been used by Lord Temple, and challenged a contradiction; upon which Mr. W. Grenville said, he was authorised by his noble relative to say that he had |