of state, and a favourite at court, jealous of the supremacy of Pelham, endeavoured to lead a party in the cabinet against him. But after being repeatedly repulsed, he declared that he could no longer subunit to be outvoted and overruled on every point. Then, addressing the Pelhams, he said, 'If you will take the government you may; if you cannot or will not, there must be some direction, and I will do it.' At length matters came to a crisis, when the king, who was inclined to side with Lord Granville, appealed to Lord Orford for advice and assistance. He advised the king to take part with the majority of his cabinet. Whereupon his Majesty intimated to the chancellor his resolution that Lord Granville should resign. These events speedily led to a reconstruction of the ministry, still under the presidency of Pelham, which was afterwards known as the Broadbottom' administration, because it comprised a grand coalition of all parties. This was the favourite phrase of the day. Writing to Sir H. Mann, Feb. 18, 1742, H. Walpole says: One now hears of nothing but the broad bottom; it is the reigning cant word, and means the taking all parties and people indifferently into the ministry.d This circumstance is in itself indicative of the absence of any fixed principles of public policy amongst the Coalitions. statesmen of this period; for coalitions are contrary to the very foundation principle of parliamentary government, which is a government by means of that party which is for the time being predominate. Coalitions are only justifiable under peculiar and exceptional circumstances, as for the purpose of carrying out some measure or undertaking of national concern, upon which men of all parties are agreed. The only examples afforded in later times of coalition ministries are those of Fox and North, in 1783, of the Portland Whigs' with 35. Bedford Corresp. v. 1, pp. 25- 168 n. See ante, vol. 1, p. 9. Also Life of Sir S. Romilly, v. 2, p. 127. f Mr. Pitt in 1794, of All the Talents' in 1806, of Canning, and afterwards of Goderich, in 1827, of Wellington in 1828, and of Lord Aberdeen's administration in 1852. Coalitions were attempted in November 1830, and in July 1834, but proved impracticable. In 1834 Lord Stanley refused to coalesce with his political opponent, Sir R. Peel, on the ground that 'the reputation of those who take part in public affairs is a matter of national importance and confidence in public men has been more shaken by coalitions than by all the other acts of personal misconduct taken together.' 8 tion. But in 1756, Pitt (afterwards Earl of Chatham) be- Pitt's adcame secretary of state. His commanding talents and ministra. decision of character made him at once the ruling spirit in the cabinet. At first, the Duke of Devonshire, and in the course of the year, his grace of Newcastle, presided at the Treasury, but the latter in returning to office was obliged to accede to Pitt's proposals, and to yield substantially the direction of public affairs into the great commoner's hands, while he continued to exercise the patronage appertaining to his rank as first minister of the crown. The events which ushered in this administration-perhaps the greatest and most glorious that England had yet known-are very curious, and reveal an extraordinary amount of intrigue and duplicity on all sides. George II. was not partial to Pitt, Newcastle was exceedingly jealous and afraid of him, Fox had been his formidable antagonist; and yet all of them were reluctantly compelled to agree to his assuming the reins of government, upon his own terms.' h It was pithily remarked by Dr. Johnson, that Walpole was a minister given by the king to the people, but Pitt was a minister given by the people to the king.i For an account of these ad- Ed. Rev. v. 46, pp. 248, 426, and ministrations, see ante, vol. 1, pp. 138- in relation to that of 1852, Ib. v. 97, 252. p. 264. • Peel's Memoirs, v. 2, p. 40. See Wellington Desp. 3rd S. v. 7, p. 240. For particulars of the evil results of the coalition in 1794, see Life of Earl of Minto, v. 2, pp. 384390. For arguments in defence of the Coalition Ministry in 1827, see VOL. II. Jesse, Life of Geo. III. v. 1, p. 123. Coxe's Mem. of Walpole, v. 4, pp. 146 162. 245. Mahon, Hist. of Eng. v. 5, p. M admini stration. Pitt's first George II. was the monarch referred to in both instances. As we have already seen, Walpole was originally appointed first minister by George I. through parliamentary influence. Upon the accession of George II. he was continued in office, contrary to general expectation, and to his own great surprise, through the interposition of Queen Caroline, who perceived that he was more fitted for the post than any of his competitors.' m Ere long, Pitt succeeded in winning the favour of the king, by his vigour and patriotism, and in maintaining a remarkable ascendency over the House of Commons. The effect of his energy and vigilance as an administrator was soon apparent in every department under his direction; for he was possessed of the happy talent of transfusing his own zeal into the souls of all those who were to have a share in carrying his projects into execution." Mr. Pitt's administration lasted for upwards of five years, and was most popular and successful at home and abroad. But after a time his colleagues, and especially the Duke of Newcastle, began to feel his yoke sit uneasily upon them, and to wince at the haughty and despotic conduct which he exhibited towards themselves as well as to his own subordinates in office. In 1760, George III. ascended the throne, and among the changes consequent upon his accession was the introduction of Lord Bute, the personal friend and adviser of the king, into the cabinet. Bute was no admirer of Pitt, and determined to oust him from office. By his personal influence and intrigue, he was soon enabled to accomplish his purpose. Pitt came down to the council with a project for an immediate declaration of war against * See ante, p. 157. ch. 32. • Donne, Corresp. Geo. III. v. 1, Coxe's Mem. of Walpole, v. 1, p. xlviii. Mahon, Hist. of Eng. v. 4, pp. 350, 359; v. 5, pp. 258, 271. Jesse, Life of George III. v. 1, pp. 77, 81. m 7b. v. 4, p. 279. n Parl. Hist. v. 19, p. 1227; and see Mahon, Hist. of Eng. v. 5, p. 249, Spain. But only one member of the cabinet went with him; the rest protested against what seemed to them a rash and unwarrantable step. Pitt was left in a minority; whereupon, declaring that he had been called to the ministry by the voice of the people, to whom he considered himself as accountable for his conduct, and that he would not remain in a situation which made him. responsible for measures he was no longer allowed to Pitt's reguide, he announced his intention of retiring from office. signation The president of the council, the veteran Earl Granville, expressed his regret at Pitt's determination; but added, 'I cannot say I am sorry for it, since he would otherwise have certainly compelled us to leave him. But if he be resolved to assume the right of advising his Majesty, and directing the operations of the war, to what purpose are we called to this council? When he talks of being responsible to the people, he talks the language of the House of Commons, and forgets that at this board he is only responsible to the king. However, though he may possibly have convinced himself of his infallibility, still it remains that we should be equally convinced before we can resign our understandings to his direction, or join with him in the measures he proposes.' After delivering his reasons in writing for adhering to the proposed course, Mr. Pitt, on October 6, 1761, resigned his seals of office into the hands of the king. George III. was sorry to part with him; but said that upon the point in question he agreed so much with the majority of his council, that if in this instance. they had sided with Mr. Pitt, it would have been difficult for his Majesty to bring himself to yield to their opinion." Upon the retirement of his powerful rival, Newcastle Newcastle hoped that he might become in fact what he had been ministry. for five years in name only-head of the government. P Mahon, Hist. of Eng. v. 4, p. 361. Donne, v. 1, pp. xlvi.-liii. ¶ Bedford, Corresp. v. 3, p. 48. Bute ministry. Grenville But he was doomed to be disappointed. His associates in office treated him with contempt, his subordinates with disrespect; his recommendations were disregarded by the king, and at last the crowning indignity was offered to him by the creation of seven new peers, without any previous consultation with him as first minister of the crown! Strange to say, he not only put up with this affront, but plaintively requested that his cousin, Thomas Pelham, might be added to the number. Bute, who had held the office of secretary of state, in conjunction with Mr. Pitt, took advantage of Newcastle's unpopularity, and of his own ascendency at court, to assume the upper hand in the cabinet. His friends and adherents were the stronger party; and so, at length, on May 26, 1762, the timorous and despised old Duke of Newcastle thought it best to withdraw from office." On the resignation of Newcastle, Lord Bute immediately got himself appointed first lord of the treasury. But his ministry was of very brief duration. He was unpopular in the country, and unable to control his own cabinet. Upon the plea that his health was suffering from the cares of state he retired to avoid an overthrow. Notwithstanding his withdrawal from public life, Bute is charged by contemporary writers with having, at least for several years, continued to exercise an unconstitutional influence over the king. But this accusation, so long confidently maintained, is now declared to have been unwarrantable.* George Grenville succeeded Bute as first lord of ministry. the treasury in 1763. His administration was chiefly remarkable for its bad qualities. Lord Macaulay is inclined to think that it was on the whole the worst Donne, v. 1, p. liv. Jesse, Geo. III. v. 1, pp. 120-122. Mahon, Hist. of Eng. v. 4, pp. 365, 386. Ib. p. 387. Donne, v. 1, p. lviii. * Ed. Rev. v. 126, pp. 14-17. Donne, p. lix. See ante, vol. 1, p. 115. |