Proceed Commons on the change of ministry, 1807. only desired them to withdraw this part of the minute, but demanded from them a written declaration that they would never, under any circumstances, propose to him further concessions to the Catholics, or even offer him advice upon the subject. To such a pledge it was impossible for constitutional ministers to submit. They were responsible for all public measures, and for the good government of the country; and yet, having abandoned a measure which they had already proposed, they were now called upon to fetter their future discretion, and to bind themselves irrevocably to a policy which they thought dangerous to the peace of Ireland. The king could scarcely have expected such submission. ministers refused the pledge, and the king proceeded to form a new administration under Mr. Perceval. He had regarded this contest with his ministers as "a struggle for his throne;" saying, "he must be the Protestant king of a Protestant country, or no king." 2 The In the Commons, the dismissal of the Government on ings in the these grounds, and the constitutional dangers involved in such an exercise of the prerogative, did not pass without animadversion. On the 9th April, Mr. Brand moved a resolution, "That it is contrary to the first duties of the confidential servants of the Crown to restrain themselves by any pledge, expressed or implied, from offering to the king any advice which the course of circumstances may render necessary for the welfare and security of the empire." In the debate it was argued, that as the king was not responsible by law, if the ministers should also claim to be absolved from responsibility, by reason of pledges given to the king, of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 463; Lord 1 Hans. Deb., ix. 243; Lord Sid mouth's Life, ii. 464; Rose's Correspondence, ii. 328–331. 2 Twiss's Life of Lord Eldon, ii. 34. there would be no security for the people against the evils of bad government. Had the ministers agreed to such a pledge, they would have violated their oaths as privycouncillors, and the king would have become absolute. To what dangers would the country be exposed if ministers might bind themselves to give such advice only as should be agreeable to the sovereign?1 Nor did the conduct of secret advisers escape notice, who had counteracted the measures of the public and responsible advisers of the Crown.2 On the other side it was contended that the stipulation proposed by the ministers, of being at liberty to support in debate a measure which they had withdrawn,—and of which the king disapproved,-was unconstitutional, as tending to place the king in direct opposition to the Parliament,—an evil which was ordinarily avoided by the ministers refraining from supporting any measure to which the king might hereafter have to give his veto. The late ministers were even charged with having, in the explanation of the causes of their retirement, arraigned their sovereign at the bar of Parliament.3 Mr. Perceval denied that the king had conferred with any secret advisers until after the ministers were dismissed; and said that, in requiring the pledge, he had acted without any advice whatever. The ministers, he declared, had brought upon themselves the pledge proposed by the king, which would never have been suggested, had they not desired to impose conditions upon his Majesty. Sir Samuel Romilly went so far as to maintain that if ministers had subscribed such a pledge, they would have been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. 1 See also Chapter XII. on Civil and Religious Liberty. 2 Mr. Plunkett, Hans. Deb.,ix.312. 3 General Craufurd, Hans. Deb., With ix. 299; Mr. Perceval, b., 316; Mr. Bathurst, ib., 331; Mr. Canning, ib., 342. 4 Hans. Deb., ix. 327. regard to Mr. Perceval's statement, that the king had acted without advice, Sir Samuel said, that there could be no exercise of prerogative in which the king was without some adviser. He might seek the counsels of any man, however objectionable; but that man would be responsible for the advice given, and for the acts of the Crown. There was no constitutional doctrine more important than this, for the protection of the Crown. "History had unfolded the evils of a contrary principle having prevailed." It was also well observed by Mr. Whitbread, that the avowal of ministers that the king had acted without advice, amounted to a declaration on their part, that they disowned the responsibility of the act complained of, and left his Majesty to bear the blame of it himself, without that protection which the constitution had provided: but that from this responsibility they could not escape; for by accepting office, they had assumed the responsibility which they had shown so much anxiety to avoid. But Lord Howick denied that the king had acted without advice, and asserted that there had been secret advisers, who had taken pains to poison the royal mind. On the Saturday before the pledge had been required, Lord Eldon had an audience; and both Lord Eldon and Lord Hawkesbury were consulted by the king, before measures were taken for forming a new administration. They were, therefore, the king's responsible advisers. In answer to these allegations, Mr. Canning stated that Lord Eldon's visit to Windsor had taken place on Saturday se'nnight, preceding the change of ministry; that it had reference to a matter of extreme delicacy, unconnected with these events, and that before 1 Hansard's Debates, ix. 339. he went, Lord Eldon had explained to Lord Grenville the object of his visit, and promised to mention no other subject to his Majesty. He added, that the Duke of Portland, Mr. Perceval, and himself, had endeavoured to prevent the separation between the late ministers. and the king, by amicable explanations. Mr. Canning concluded by saying, that the ministers were" determined to stand by their sovereign, even though circumstances should occur in which they may find it their duty to appeal to the country."2 In answer to this threat, Lord Henry Petty said that a great constitutional wrong had been done, and that no such intimidation would induce the House to refrain from expressing their sense of it. This motion had been met by one for reading the other orders of the day, and the latter was carried by a majority of thirty-two.3 The Opposition were so little prepared for this result, that, during the division, Lord Howick addressed the members in the lobby, and said that being nearly certain of a majority, they must follow up their success with "an address to the throne, to meet the threat which had been thrown out that evening,―a threat unexampled in the annals of Parliament." The House adjourned at half-past six in the morning. 1 Lord Eldon himself expressly denied having had any communication with the king on the Catholic Question, or the ministers.-Twiss's Life, ii. 36—38. 2 Hans. Deb., ix. 346. According to Sir S. Romilly, Mr. Canning said, "he had made up his mind, when the Catholic Bill was first mentioned, to vote for it if the king was for it, and against it if the king was against it. Every art was used to interest persons for the king; his age was repeatedly men tioned, his pious scruples, his regard for his coronation oath, which some members did not scruple to say would have been violated if the bill had passed."-Romilly's Life, ii. 194. 3 Ayes, 258; Noes, 226. 4A majority of twenty was expected.-Romilly's Life, ii. 195. 5 Hans. Deb., ix. 348. It was intended to follow up this motion, if carried, by resolutions expressing want of confidence in the ministers. -Romilly's Life, ii. 194. Proceed Lords. On the 13th April, a discussion was raised in the ings in the House of Lords upon a motion to the same effect, proposed by the Marquess of Stafford. The most remarkable speech was that of Lord Erskine, who had already expressed his opinions on the subject, to the king himself. Not being himself, on account of religious scruples, favourable to the Catholic claims, he yet ridiculed the argument that the king had been restrained by his coronation oath, from assenting to the late measure. He had assented to the Act of 1793, which admitted Catholic majors and colonels to the army, without perjury;-how then could his oath be violated by the admission of staff-officers? On the question of the pledge he asked, "Is it consistent with the laws and customs of the realm that the king shall make a rule for his own conduct, which his councillors shall not break in upon, to disturb with their advice?" If it were, "the king, instead of submitting to be advised by his councillors, might give the rule himself as to what he will be advised in, until those who are solemnly sworn to give full and impartial counsel, and who are responsible to the public for their conduct as his advisers, might be penned up in a corner of their duties and jurisdiction, and the state might go to ruin." Again, as to the personal responsibility of the king, he laid it down that "the king can perform no act of government himself, and no man ought to be received within the walls of this House, to declare that any act of Government has proceeded from the private will and determination, or conscience of the king. The king, as 1 It embraced all the words of Mr. Brand's motion, but prefixed a preamble. 2 Romilly's Life, ii. 188. |