are responsible to Parliament for every act of the crown in the conduct of public affairs. Henceforward (to use the words of May) a succession of Hanomonarchs arose, less capable than William, and of ministers gifted verian dywith extraordinary ability and force of character, who rapidly nasty. reduced to practice the theory of ministerial responsibility. Under the sovereigns of the House of Hanover, the government of the state was conducted throughout all its departments by ministers responsible to Parliament for every act of their administration, without whose advice no act could be done, who could be dismissed for incapacity or failure, and impeached for political crimes; and who resigned when their advice was disregarded by the crown or their policy disapproved by Parliament. With ministers thus responsible, the king could do no wrong.' The Stuarts had strained prerogative so far that it had twice snapped asunder in their hands. They had exercised it personally, and were held personally responsible for its exercise. One had paid the penalty with his head ; another with his crown; and their family had been proscribed for ever. But now, if the prerogative was strained, the ministers were condemned, and not the king. If the people cried out against the government, instead of a revolution there was merely a change of ministry. Instead of dangerous conflicts between the crown and the Parliament, there succeeded struggles between rival parties for parliamentary majorities; and the successful party wielded all the power of the state. Upon ministers, therefore, devolved the entire burthen of public affairs; they relieved the crown of its cares and perils, but, at the same time, they appropriated nearly all its authority. The king reigned, but his ministers governed.m vernment. Making use of their undoubted prerogative of select- Origin of ing their own ministers, it had been customary for the party go sovereigns of England, anterior to the Revolution, to choose men to fill the high offices of state upon personal grounds, without regard to their general agreement upon political questions. Party as well as parliamentary government originated with William III., who, in 1696, constructed his first parliamentary ministry upon an exclusively Whig basis. But the idea was unhappily abandoned by the king in his subsequent administrations, and it was not until the House of Hanover ascended the throne that ministers were, as a general rule, exclusively selected from amongst those who were of the same political creed, or who were willing to fight under the same political banner. Queen Anne was inclined to favour the Tories, and in 1710 she authorised the appointment of a decidedly Tory ministry : Influence upon the accession of George I., however, the Whig party obtained possession of the government, and continued for a long time to maintain the upper hand, compelling the king to sacrifice his personal inclinations in favour of their party leaders." of the great Whig families. George The reigns of the first three Georges were characterised by the strife of rival factions to obtain possession. of office, and to coerce the sovereign, by the united influence of the great families, to choose his ministers exclusively from amongst themselves. George I. and his successor succumbed to the necessity of conciliating the aristocracy, who by their wealth and territorial possessions had obtained supremacy in the councils of Parliament. But subjection to Whig control in any shape was peculiarly irksome to George III., who being naturally fond of power, determined when he became king to use his prerogative to the fullest possible extent. Accordingly, when he succeeded to the throne he immediately endeavoured to loosen the ties of party, and to break down the confederacy of the great Whig families. His desire was to undertake personally the chief administration of public affairs, to direct the policy of his ministers, and himself to distribute the patronage of the crown. He was ambitious not only to reign, but to govern. His will was strong and resolute, his courage high, and his talent for intrigue considerable. He came to the throne determined to exalt the kingly office; and throughout his long reign he never lost sight of that object.' The constant aim of n May, Const. Hist. v. 1, p. 7. 。 lb. v. 1, p. 10. • When the king was to be, in effect, his own minister. ministers not of his own choice were in office, he plotted against them and overthrew them; and when he had succeeded in establishing his friends in office, he enforced upon them the adoption of his own policy.' The king's tactics were frequently at variance with the principles of constitutional government, but credit is due to him for his conscientious and intelligent activity in the promotion of the public weal. That he was too fond of power for a constitutional monarch, none will now be found to deny; that he sometimes resorted to crafty expedients, unworthy of a king, even his admirers must admit. With a narrow understanding and obstinate prejudices, he was yet patriotic in his feelings, and laboured earnestly and honestly for the good government of his country. If he loved power, he did not shrink from its cares and toil. If he delighted in being the active ruler of his people, he devoted himself to affairs of state even more laboriously than his ministers. If he was jealous of the authority of the crown, he was not less jealous of the honour and greatness of his people. A just recognition of the personal merits of the king himself enables us to judge more freely of the constitutional tendency and results of his policy.'" 6 The foregoing description of George III. is taken from the first chapter of May's Constitutional History.' It vividly portrays the chief points in the character of that monarch, upon whom such various judgments have been passed. By some he is regarded as the model of a 'patriot king,' whilst others point him out as a bigoted, selfish monarch, obstinate, and wholly regardless of constitutional rights when opposed to his own policy or prejudices. But whatever opinion we may entertain of his personal character, we have no right to judge his proceedings by the strict rule of parliamentary VOL I. May, Const. Hist. pp. 13, 14. I The government, as it is now interpreted; for that system was still in its infancy when George III. was king, and the usages of the constitution in that day warranted a more direct and extended interference in the details of government by the occupant of the throne than would now be deemed justifiable or expedient. Further consideration, however, will be bestowed on this subject when treating of the office of sovereign in relation to parliamentary government. We must now proceed to notice certain particulars of the king's public conduct, which claim particular attention on account of their bearing upon the history and development of ministerial responsibility. George III., during at least the earlier part of his reign, was in the frequent habit of conferring secretly upon public affairs with noblemen and others who were not members of the Cabinet, but who were personally devoted to the king, and willing to aid him in carrying out his own peculiar views. His object in this was evidently to create a new party, faithful to himself, and dependent entirely upon his will. He succeeded; and the party came to be known as the king's men,' or the king's friends.' Instead of relying upon the advice of his responsible ministers, the king often took counsel with those whom Burke describes (in his Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents') with some oratorical exaggeration as his double' or interior cabinet.' His first speech to Parliament was not even submitted for the approval of his ministers, but was drawn up, by the king's command, by ex-Chancellor Hardwicke, who, when in office, had had much experience in the preparation of royal speeches, and in whose skill and judgment his Majesty had peculiar confidence. One important paragraph is known to have been written by the king himself, and the whole speech was forced upon the ministry, who consented very reluctantly to adopt it as 66 their own. This influence behind the throne" was denounced by all the leading statesmen of the day-by Mr. Grenville, Lord Chatham, the Marquis of Rockingham, the Duke of Bedford, and Mr. Burke. Occasionally denied, its existence was yet so notorious, and its agency so palpable, that historical writers of all parties, though taking different views of its character, have not failed to acknowledge it. The bitterness with which it was assailed at the time was due, in great measure, to political jealousies, and to the king's selection of his friends from an unpopular party; but on constitutional grounds it could not be defended." For at least five years after his accession to the throne it has been generally supposed that George III. was more or less guided by Lord Bute, whether in or out of office, as his chief adviser." After the retirement of Lord Bute from his secret counsels, his Majesty was still surrounded by a numerous party of friends, some of whom held office in the government or household, but who severally looked to the king for instructions instead of to the ministers.' 'But the greater part of the king's friends were independent members of Parliament, whom various motives had attracted to the personal support of the king. They formed a distinct party, but their principles and position were inconsistent with constitutional government. Their services to the king were not even confined to council or political intrigue, but were made use of so as to influence the deliberations of Parliament. The existence of this party, and their interference between the king and his responsible advisers, may be traced, with more or less distinctness, throughout the whole of this reign. By their means the king caballed against his ministers, p. 231. r Harris, Life of Hardwicke, v. 3, • Ib. pp. 22, 27, 30; Parl. Deb. v. 16, p. 9. See Ed. Rev. v. 126, p. 14; Greville Memoirs, v. 1, p. 84. I 2 |