which he instantly affixed the sign-manual.h Lord Eldon often declared that he thought his old master George III. had more wisdom than all his ministers conjointly; and that he could not remember having taken to him any state-paper of importance which he did not alter, nor one which he did not alter for the better. This peculiar sagacity he attributed not so much to the natural qualities of the king as to his immense opportunities of gaining knowledge by an experience in state affairs, which was far greater than that of the oldest of his ministers.i George IV. had not the weight of personal charac- George IV. ter that belonged to his father. Naturally of an indolent disposition, he was called to the throne too late in life to become thoroughly acquainted with the duties of his office, or to care for burthening himself with the details of government. He was unpopular with the nation, having alienated from himself their respect and good will by his conduct as a prince. He was indifferent to the exercise of political power, except when his own feelings or interests were concerned, when he could be as imperative as his father. He strenuously opposed the recognition of the independence of the Spanish South American provinces, and also the granting of Roman Catholic emancipation in Great Britain, but was compelled to acquiesce in the policy of his cabinet upon these questions. Otherwise, he seldom differed in opinion with his responsible advisers, and was content, for the most part, to leave the functions of administration in their hands. 'It may, therefore, be said, that from the beginning of his regency in 1811 to the close of his reign in 1830, the regal influence was limited to the strict exercise of the prerogative. George IV. had no personal influence instead of his popularity supporting the ministry, the difficulty was for the ministry to support his unpopularity, and to uphold GeorgeIV. the respect for the crown when it encircled the head of such a sovereign.' k Constable of the Tower. m In 1826, the dignified office of Constable of the Tower, which 'is reserved for the king's exclusive disposal,' was unexpectedly conferred by his Majesty upon the Duke of Wellington. Upon a vacancy occurring in the office of adjutant-general, the king wrote to the prime minister notifying his intention to appoint his private secretary, Sir Herbert Taylor, to the post. Taking offence at a speech of Denman's at the queen's trial, the king persistently refused, for several years, to confer upon that eminent lawyer the rank of king's counsel; until at length, through the perseverance of the Duke of Wellington (then premier) in 1828, the king consented to grant him this dignity. The duke remarked that gaining this point was the toughest job he had had in his life." But though he yielded, the king afterwards declared that no consideration would ever induce him to admit Mr. Denman into his presence.° George IV. was obliged to be more amenable to constitutional usage than his father, in the matter of appointments to office. In 1821, he undertook to promise a vacant canonry of Windsor to a young and inexperienced clergyman. Lord Liverpool (the prime minister) respectfully, but firmly, informed the king that he could not reconcile it with his 'public duty 'and 'official responsibility,' 'to conform to his Majesty's wishes,' in this instance. The king was very angry. But the minister would not yield. He declared that in this, as in all similar cases, any 'expectation which might have been personally held out by the sovereign was subject to the responsibility of his minister; and that it must be a sufficient answer on such an occasion that the appointment had been obstructed in a quarter which could not, by the laws of the country, be passed by.' P A curious account of the disagreement between George IV. and his ministers in the matter of Queen Caroline has been already given in a former chapter. On this occasion, likewise, the king was reluctantly obliged to yield his personal wishes to the exigencies of his position, and to permit his ministers to conduct that painful and embarrassing affair according to their own convictions of that which it might be feasible to ask the Parliament to sanction. But a circumstance occurred in 1811, which shows that the king could stand upon his prerogative when he thought proper. The see of Oxford became vacant, and Mr. Perceval, the prime minister, waited upon his royal master, with a recommendation that the bishopric should be conferred upon Dean Legge. The prince peremptorily refused, t On IV. William IV. was an amiable monarch, of an honest William and truthful disposition, but deficient in strength of character. His letters to Earl Grey, his prime minister, 'supply abundant evidence of the conscientious industry with which he must have laboured to make himself master of the public questions of the day, so as to be able efficiently to perform in this respect his duty as a sovereign.' He ascended the throne at an advanced period of life, and found himself unable to cope successfully with the embarrassing questions which arose during his short but eventful reign. Averse to parliamentary reform, and fearful of its consequences, he nevertheless gave a reluctant consent to the great experiment. But ere long his mind underwent a reaction; he withdrew his confidence from the statesmen by whom that measure had been accomplished, and attempted to form a Tory government. But the endeavour proved abortive. He learnt to his chagrin that the preponderance of power was now so firmly established in the House of Commons, that the mere prerogative and influence of the crown were insufficient to effect a change of administration, unless seconded by the voice of that assembly, or by the unequivocal expression of popular opinion." 172. Buckingham, Regency, v. 1, p. Haydn, Book of Dignities, p. 363. Earl Grey, Corresp. with William IV. v. 1, pref. pp. viii. xiv. And see his Majesty's Memoir, addressed to Sir R. Peel in 1835, of his conduct and principles from the period of his u See ante, p. 194; Bagehot, Eng. William IV. Two instances may be cited wherein William IV. took upon himself to interfere personally in political affairs without previous consultation with his ministers: once in 1832, when, in the interest of ministers themselves, and in furtherance of their public policy, he caused a circular letter to be addressed by his private secretary to the Opposition peers, urging upon them to cease from any further resistance to the Reform Bill, so as to permit the passing of that measure in the House of Lords without the necessity for creating a new batch of peers in order to carry the Bill-a stretch of the prerogative to which his Majesty had been induced by his ministers to consent, if necessary. This letter was circulated by the personal command of the king, and was undoubtedly an irregular interference with the freedom of Parliament. Again, in 1834, his Majesty gave public expression to his alarm for the safety of the Established Church in Ireland, in a remarkable reply to an address from the prelates and clergy of Ireland, which he delivered without first communicating with his responsible advisers.w This speech is said to have been delivered extempore, and to have been quite unpremeditated; but Maley, in his Recollections of this reign (v. 2, p. 133), gives reasons for the belief that it was written for the king by some secret adviser. But these were exceptional cases, arising out of the prevalence of political excitement, both at home and abroad, during the period in question, and by which the king himself was carried away to the commission of acts which were irregular and indefensible, however they may be excused by a consideration of the integrity of purpose and solicitude for the public welfare by which they were dictated. Upon the resignation of Sir R. Peel's short-lived. administration, the king reluctantly accepted another Whig ministry, presided over by Lord Melbourne. But though he did not always disguise his disinclinations towards them, and sometimes strenuously opposed their measures, yet we have the assurance alike of Whig and Tory statesmen that His Majesty uniformly acted with scrupulous fidelity towards his advisers, whatever might be their political bias; and in the two Houses of Parliament, after the king's decease, the leading politicians, without respect to party, vied with one another in See ante, p. 192. Ann. Reg. 1834, p. 43. * See Lord Broughton's Recollections, in Ed. Rev. v. 133, pp. 317-324. Torrens, Life of Melbourne, v. 2, c. v. Peel's Mem. v. 2, p. 16. Earl Grey, Corresp. v. 1, pp. vii. ix. bearing testimony to his exemplary conduct as a constitutional sovereign." The following instances of the independent exercise of judgment by William IV., in matters of prerogative, have come under our notice. He refused to confer a peerage upon Admiral Sir J. Saumarez, notwithstanding the urgent and reiterated recommendations of the premier (Earl Grey) but finally consented upon learning the acute distress which the disappointment occasioned to this old and deserving officer. He peremptorily declined to give the royal assent in person to the Reform Bill, though strongly urged to do so by his ministers. When a member of the administration waited upon the king to recommend that Captain Marryat might receive the royal licence to wear an order which had been conferred on him by the king of the French, his Majesty declined to comply with the request; assigning, as the ground of his refusal, his disapprobation of a book, on the impressment of seamen, which had been written by Marryat.c Victoria. Since the accession of our present queen, the per- Queen sonal predilections of the sovereign in respect to an existing administration have never been brought into public view. While she has abated nothing of the legitimate influence and authority of the crown wherever it could be constitutionally exercised, her Majesty has scrupulously and unreservedly bestowed her entire confidence upon every ministry in turn with which public policy, or the preference of Parliament, has surrounded the throne." It is well known,' says a recent political writer, that her Majesty has habitually taken an active interest in every matter with which it behoves a constitutional sovereign of this country to be concerned; in many instances her opinion and her will have left their impression on our policy.' For example, in the year 1861, at the suggestion of the late Prince Knight, Hist. Eng. v. 8, p. 377. Earl Grey, Corresp. v. 1, pp. 339, 350. b Ib. v. 2, pp. 462-467. Memoir of Marryat, prefixed to Bohn's ed. of his 'Pirate.' See Stockmar's Mem. v. 2, pp. 52-55. Ld. John Russell, Hans. D). |