his honour. No indifference to public life, no disgust with the labours which it imposes, no personal mortifications, no deference to private feeling, could sanction a public man in withdrawing on light grounds from the post in which the confidence of his Sovereign had placed him." Acting upon the views he thus expressed, Sir Robert Peel, who had, in his absence and against his better judgment, been by the special act of the King called to office, maintained for some time a hopeless contest; and relinquished it then, and not until then, when it became apparent that his efforts were fruitless, and that a continuance of his administration would only involve both his Royal master and the country in further embarrassment. The precedent of 1835 proves indeed that ministers are bound to give way to an adverse House of Commons, even though no direct vote of censure or want of confidence has been passed against them; but it also proves something more. It shows that a public man, when his Sovereign calls upon him to take office, is not at liberty on any other than public grounds to refuse the call; and that when such a person has accepted the duty, he is bound to continue at his post as long as he has any reason to think that his services are useful. If he can carry on the Queen's Government with advantage to her and without discredit to himself, he is to remain; when he finds that from whatever cause he can no longer do so, it is time for him to retire.

§ 2. There seem to be three sets of circumstances in which the relation of the King to his ministers has been such that their continuance in office could not be Impediments arising from expected. These circumstances may be deduced the King. from the very nature of the ministerial relation. It is the duty of the ministry to advise the King upon the exercise of his various prerogatives, and to carry into effect

the policy which, in accordance with their advice, he has determined to adopt. Ministers, then, ought to be free to offer any advice that the circumstances of the time may in their judgment require. They may reasonably expect that, in all matters at least of national importance, the advice which they tender shall be followed. They are also entitled, while they remain the recognized chief servants of X the Crown, to receive in the performance of their duty the full confidence of their Royal master. We have accordingly in our modern political history examples where on the failure of each of these conditions ministers have felt themselves unable to continue in the service of the Crown.

Ministers are bound by their oaths as privy councillors and by the manifest duty of their office to give the King true counsel to the best of their judgment. It would, therefore, be inconsistent with their oath and duty if they were bound not to give on any particular subject, whatever might be the exigency of the peril, such advice as they considered best suited to the nature of the case. Such a pledge George the Third, more mindful of the supposed obligation of his own oath than of that of other men,* desired on more than one occasion to obtain from his ministers. During the American war His Majesty declared† that he expected to receive from any new administration which he might form a specific promise in writing that they would in no circumstances consent to the dismemberment of the empire. In 1807 he required from Lord Grenville's ministry a similar pledge that they would never propose to him any measures connected with Catholic Emancipation. Lord Grenville and his colleagues refused to make any such engagement; and their Government was accordingly dissolved. The subject was discussed in both Houses of

* See Court and Cabinets of Geo. III., iv. 143.

+ May's Const. Hist., i. 42.

(50)

Parliament; and, although Parliament refused to enter upon an inquiry in which the personal conduct of the King was involved, it was agreed on all sides, and ultimately, as it seems, even by the King, that ministers ought not to be required to give any pledges to abstain from advice of any

sort.

The first occasion on which a ministry resigned because the King declined to adopt its advice was the resignation · of Mr. Pitt in 1801. Some measure of relief to the Roman Catholics formed a part of Mr. Pitt's scheme of Irish policy; and he and his colleagues were pledged to the Irish Catholics to support some such measure. On this subject, however, the King was inflexible. He positively refused his consent to the introduction of the proposed measure; and upon this refusal Mr. Pitt and several of his principal colleagues tendered their resignation. Nearly thirty years afterwards the same subject had almost proved fatal to a third administration. When the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, in 1829, had become satisfied that the time had arrived at which the concession of the Roman Catholic claims could no longer be delayed, they proposed to King George the Fourth the introduction of the Roman Catholic Relief Act. The King refused his consent. The ministers tendered their resignation; and underwent in token of its acceptance the Royal kiss of peace. On further consideration, however, His Majesty desired them to withdraw their resignation, and consented to the introduction of the measure, to which in due course he gave his Royal assent.

It might be supposed that when the King accepted any persons as his recognized advisers, and consented to adopt any policy which they had proposed, he should give them

Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 119. See, as to the King, R. P. Ward's Memoirs, i. 256.

in the execution of that policy all the assistance which the lawful authority of the Crown could afford. But, as we have already seen, former princes did not always take this view of their duty. When George the Second found that he was obliged to accept the united administration of the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pitt, he reluctantly released from the impracticable task his faithful adherent Lord Waldegrave, upon whom he had imposed the unwelcome duty of attempting to carry on the government. The parting interview of the King and his favourite servant was of the tenderest character. After many assurances of his devotion, Lord Waldegrave comforted the desponding monarch by pledging himself to be ready on all proper occasions to oppose His Majesty's ministers and His Majesty's son.* It is needless to repeat how the King's friends in the reign of George the Third never voted with the King's ministers, merely as such. George Grenville in his bitterness of spirit declared† that he would never again hold power at the will of a set of janizaries who were at any moment ready on the word of command to tighten the bowstring round his neck. In the Regency Lord Grenville showed a strong reluctance to take office, from a rooted distrust of the sincerity of the Regent, and the conviction that with the son, as with the father, a strong Court influence would be actively exercised to undermine him. The last occasion on which a difficulty of the kind was apprehended, or at least led to any practical consequence, was the bedchamber question of 1839. Probably that case may be regarded as the final acknowledgment of constitutional principles. It was certainly somewhat hard to insist upon the inclusion among political functionaries.

* Lord Waldegrave's Memoirs, 137.

+ Bedford Correspondence, iii. 28.

See Court and Cabinets of Geo. III., iv. 426; Mem. of Reg., i. 224.

of a young Queen's favourite companions. It was, however, right to show in the fullest and most complete manner that Her Majesty, although she made no secret of her personal wishes, gave to the ministers whom she appointed her unreserved confidence; and that no distinction now existed between the official will of the Crown and its secret inclination. Although on that particular occasion the former ministers were enabled to continue the government, the point in dispute was two years afterwards silently conceded; and all Her Majesty's ministers have been unanimous in attesting the thorough good faith and fair treatment that in their dealings with this Royal lady they have invariably experienced.

the Lords.

§ 3. There are few instances of the resignation of a ministry in consequence of any impediment presented by the action of the House of Lords. The Impediments arising from explanation of this fact is found in that relation of our double-chambered system which in a previous chapter I attempted to indicate. Ministers have, in the case of a hostile vote in the House of Lords, the opportunity of obtaining a contrary vote in the House of Commons; and although the Lords may always reject a ministerial bill, it is seldom that the proposed legislative change is so important as to require such an extreme course as resignation. On one memorable occasion, indeed, ministers did resign on a defeat in the Lords of a bill on which they had staked their official existence. Lord Grey and his colleagues were prepared to resign on the loss of the second Reform Bill in 1831.* But both the wish of the King, and a vote of confidence carried by a large majority in the House of Commons, induced them to

*Roebuck, Hist. of the Whig Ministry, ii. 217.