him to defeat, and almost to disgrace. On the other hand, the King, by giving his confidence to Earl Temple, while he gave his apparent countenance to his Ministers, left the broad path of the Constitution and joined in an intrigue to undermine his ostensible servants.

Such was the fatal consequence of a departure from that plain and open way of dealing which the example of Lord Rockingham had recommended.

Two days after the vote of the House of Lords, Mr. 1 Baker moved in the House of Commons, "That it is now

necessary to declare, that to report any opinion, or pretended opinion of his Majesty upon any bill or other proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, derogatory to the honour of the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the Constitution of this country." This motion gave Mr. Pitt an opportunity of blaming the Ministers for their base attachment to their offices, when, upon their own statement of the case, it was clear they had lost their power, and no longer possessed the confidence of the Sovereign. It must be owned that Mr. Fox's position at this moment was an untenable one. No one denied that the rumour in question had been spread, and that the name of Lord Temple had been connected with it. The Ministers had by virtue of their offices access to their Sovereign. If Lord Temple had used his name without his authority, Mr. Fox could at once, by a denial on authority, have destroyed the rumour and its author. If, on the contrary, the King himself was the source of the report, how could Mr. Fox, I the servant of the Crown, concur in a vote which became,

in that case, a censure upon his Sovereign? Everything

shows, therefore, that, before taking part in the debate of the 17th of December, Mr. Fox should have tendered his ' resignation.

"I remember a saying," he stated, " of an able statesman, whom, though I differed with him in many things, I have ever acknowledged to be possessed of many eminent and useful qualities. The sentence I allude to I have always admired for its boldness and propriety. It was uttered by the late George Grenville in experiencing a similar treachery; and would to God the same independent and manly sentiments had been inherited by all who bear the name! 'I will never again,' said he, 'be at the head of a string of Janissaries, who are always ready to strangle or despatch me on the least signal.'

Now, whose was the similar treachery? To whom was it imputed? To whom but the King, whose Minister Mr. Fox still was, when he uttered this reproach?

This circumstance apart, the complaints of Mr. Fox were natural and manly. "It is not in the human mind," he said, "to put forth the least vigour under the impression of uncertainty. While all my best-meant and best-concerted plans are still under the control of a villainous whisper, and the most valuable consequences, which I flattered myself must have resulted from my honest and indefatigable industry, are thus defeated by secret influence, it is impossible to continue in office any longer, either with honour to myself or success to the public. The moment I bring forward a measure adequate to the exigency of the State, and stake my reputation, or indeed whatever is most dear and interesting in life, on its merit and utility, instead of enjoying the triumphs of having acted fairly and unequivocally, all my labours, all my vigilance, all my expectations,

so natural to every generous and manly exertion, are insidiously and at once whispered away by rumours, which, whether founded or not, are capable of doing irreparable mischief, and have their full effect before it is possible to contradict or disprove them."

The motion was carried by 153 to 80. But on this very day the India Bill was rejected by the House of Lords by 95 to 76. At midnight Mr. Fox and Lord North received orders by a messenger to deliver up the Seals of their offices, and send them by the Under-Secretaries to the King, as a personal interview would be disagreeable to him. Thus ended for a long period the ministerial life of Mr. Fox. He did not again receive the Seals till January, 1806, when his health was declining and the seeds of a fatal disease had been laid in his constitution.

The India Bill, which was the immediate cause of Mr. Fox's dismissal, was far from being the dangerous measure it was represented. So far as India was concerned, it was a violent but effectual remedy for a malignant disease. So far as the British Constitution was concerned, it would have been more prudent to have named Commissioners unconnected with party. But the power of Mr. Fox's Commissioners would have been as a small taper compared to the rays of royal favour and the broad beams of ministerial patronage. Nor is there any reason to believe that, during the four years to which their power was limited, Lord Fitzwilliam and his colleagues would have exercised an influence greater than that which Commissioners of Excise and Customs appointed by one Ministry apply during the sway of a succeeding administration,

CHAPTER XIX.

STRUGGLE AGAINST MR. PITT-DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

ON Thursday night, the 18th of December, Mr. Fox was dismissed from office. On the following day (the 19th), Mr. Pitt was made First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Upon the same day the House of Commons met. At three o'clock Lord North entered the House and took his seat on the Opposition Bench. Mr. Fox, who soon followed, finding Mr. Dundas on the same bench, jocularly took him by the arm, saying, "What business have you on this?-go over to the Treasury Bench." This incident raising a laugh, in which both parties heartily joined, was a good-humoured prelude to one of the most violent party contests of modern times.

Mr. Arden then moved a new writ for Appleby, in the room of William Pitt, appointed First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. So little were the Opposition prepared for what was to follow, that this motion was received with laughter, and the utmost confidence and cheerfulness prevailed among the party expelled from office.

Mr. Baker having proposed that the House should adjourn till Monday, Mr. Dundas moved, as an amendment, that the House should meet on the Saturday-the following

day. This he did on the ground that the Land Tax Bill would speedily expire. But Mr. Fox said that as the Land Tax Bill would not expire before the 5th of January, and it was now only the 19th of December, it was idle to suppose that the delay of two days would prevent its passing. He moreover assured the House that neither he nor his friends had any intention to obstruct the progress of a bill necessary for the maintenance of public credit.

The House having met on the 22nd, the Land Tax Bill was accordingly read a third time. Mr. William Grenville on the same day announced the resignation of Earl Temple, in whose hands the seals of Secretary of State had been placed on the dismissal of the Coalition Ministry. Mr. Fox intimated that as there was no evidence of the interference of Earl Temple, he had no intention of bringing any charge against him. Yet the House had voted, only a few days before, "that to report any opinion, or pretended opinion, of his Majesty upon any bill or other proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, derogatory to the honour of the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the Constitution of this country."

It seems strange that so much smoke should be followed by no fire, and that no inquiry should be instituted either by a Select Committee or otherwise, in order to ascertain who had committed a crime and misdemeanour, said to be subversive of the Constitution of the country. This seems the more strange when it is considered that Earl Temple was generally named as the author of the report in question, which was said to have influenced many members of the House of Lords, some of them holding office in the King's