the king's vengeance was directed against all who ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his office of Lord Chamberlain.' A few days afterwards the king, with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of privy councillors. For so great a severity the only precedents in the late reign were those of Lord Bath and Lord George Sackville; "the first,” says Walpole, "in open and virulent opposition; the second on his ignominious sentence after the battle of Minden."2 No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire, than he sought an audience of the king; and having stated that those "who had hitherto deservedly had the greatest weight in the country were now driven out of any share in the government, and marked out rather as objects of his Majesty's displeasure than of his favour," resigned his place in the household.3 A more general proscription of the Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton, and the Marquess of Rockingham having presumed, as peers of Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. The Duke of Devonshire, in order to share the fate of his friends and avoid the affront of dismissal, resigned the lieutenancy of his county.5 Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the 1 Walp. Mem., i. 201; Rockingham Mem., i. 135 (Letter of Duke of Newcastle to Lord Rockingham). 2 Walp. Mem., i. 203. 3 Letter to Duke of Cumberland; Rockingham Mem., i. 142. Rockingham Mem., i. 155. 5 Walp. Mem., i. 235; Rockingham Mem., i. 156. heads of the Whig party. All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of peace, were dismissed. Their humble friends and clients were also proscribed. Clerks were removed from public offices, and inferior officers from the customs, and excise, and other small appointments, for no other offence than that of having been appointed by their obnoxious patrons.1 While bribes were being lavished to purchase adhesion to the court policy, this severity was intended to discourage opposition. upon par ties. The preliminaries of peace were approved by Parlia- Its effect ment; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in the success of the court, exclaimed, "Now my son is king of England."2 But her exultation was premature. As yet there had been little more than a contention for power, between rival parties in the aristocracy; but these stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an organised opposition. Since the accession of the House of Hanover, this party had supported the Crown as ministers. It now became their office to assert the liberties of the people, and to resist the encroachments of prerogative. Thus the king's attempt to restore the personal influence of the Sovereign, which the Revolution had impaired, so far from strengthening the throne, advanced the popular cause, and gave it powerful leaders, whose interests had hitherto been enlisted on the side of the Crown. Claims of prerogative became the signal for the assertion of new rights and liberties, on the part of the people. The fall of the king's favoured minister was even more Sudden fall sudden than his rise. He shrank from the difficulties of 1 Walp. Mem., i. 233; Gren- 2 Walp. Mem., i. 233. ville Papers, i. 453; Rockingham, of Lord Bute. Mem., i. 152, 158. His continued influence with the king. ville nistry, 1763. mi his position, Nor did Lord Bute propose to relinquish his own power together with his office. He retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more securely the measures of the court 2; having previously negotiated the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and arranged with him the nomiThe Gren- nation of the cabinet.3 The ministry of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the king's personal views, and was expected to be under the control of himself and his favourite. And at first there can be little doubt that Mr. Grenville found himself the mere agent of the court. "The voice was Jacob's voice, but the hands were the hands of Esau. "The public looked still at Lord Bute through the curtain," said Lord Chesterfield, "which indeed was a very transparent one." But Mr. Grenville was by no means contented with the appearance of power. He was jealous of Lord Bute's superior influence, and 1 He was hissed and pelted at the opening of Parliament, 25th Nov., 1762, and his family were alarmed for his personal safety. 2 Mr. Grenville to Lord Egremont; Grenville Papers, ii. 85. 3 Grenville Papers, ii. 32, 33. Majesty's confidence complained to the king that his "3 The king finding his own scheme of government opposed, and disliking the uncongenial views and hard temper of his minister, resolved to dismiss him on the first convenient opportunity.2 Accordingly, on the death of Lord Egremont, he commissioned Lord Bute to open negotiations with Mr. Pitt, for the formation of a new administration. And now the king tasted the bitter fruits of his recent policy. He had proscribed the Whig leaders. He had determined "never upon any account to suffer those ministers of the late reign, who had attempted to fetter and enslave him, to come into his service, while he lived to hold the sceptre." Yet these were the very ministers whom Mr. Pitt proposed to restore to power; and stranger still, the premier in whom the king was asked to repose his confidence, was Earl Temple, who had recently aroused his bitter resentment. His Majesty was not likely so soon to retract his resolution, and refused these hateful terms: "My honour is concerned," he said, "and I must support it." 4 The Grenville ministry, however distasteful, was not so hard to bear as the restoration of the dreaded Whigs; and he was therefore obliged to retain it. Mr. Grenville now remonstrated more strongly than ever against the 1 Grenville Papers, ii. 84, 85, 89. 2 Ibid., ii. 83, 85. 3 Letter of Lord Bute to the Duke of Bedford, 2nd April, 1763; The king sends Lord Bute to Mr. Pitt. Active interest of the mea sures of government. influence of the favourite who had been employed to supplant him the king promised his confidence to the ministers, and Lord Bute retired from the court.1 Though George III. and Mr. Grenville differed as to the king in their relative powers, they were but too well agreed in their policy. Both were arbitrary in their views, impatient of opposition, and resolute in the exercise of authority. The chief claims of the Grenville ministry to distinction were its arbitrary proceedings against Wilkes, which the king encouraged and approved, and the first taxation of America, which he himself suggested. In the policy of proscription, which had disgraced the late administration, the king was even more forward than his ministers. Earl Temple's friendship for Wilkes was punished by the erasure of his name from the list of privy councillors, and by dismissal from the lord-lieutenancy of his county.3 General Conway, Colonel Barré, and Colonel A'Court were, for their votes in Parliament, deprived of their military commands 4, and Lord Shelburne of his office of aide-de-camp to his Majesty. His violation of the of Parlia ment. The privileges of Parliament were systematically privileges violated by the king. In order to guard against the arbitrary interference of the Crown in its proceedings, Parliament had established, for centuries, the constitutional doctrine that the king should not hear or give credit to reports of its debates, and that no member should suffer molestation for his speaking or reasoning.5 Yet, during the proceedings of the Commons against Wilkes, the king obtained from Mr. Grenville the most 1 Grenville Papers, ii. 106, 483, 2 Wraxall's Mem., ii. 111. 3 pers, ii. 55. 4 Chatham Correspondence,ii. 275; Walp. Mem., ii. 65. 5 Rot. Parl., iii. 456,611; 4 Hen. VIII. c. 8. |