and are not read by him, unless there is a note in the box, specifying that the dispatch contains new matter, and requesting his attention to it. What, then, was more natural than that, seeing this dispatch and the clauses to be merely explanatory of those which he had already seen, and that there was no note inclosed, he should either run them carelessly over, or not look at them at all? The omission of an accompanying note proves more against the ministers than the want of any comment does against the king. Lord Grenville in his speech dwells much upon the length of time which elapsed between the notice of the separate bill, which was given in the House by Lord Howick the day of his first conversation with the king (the 4th), and the notification of the king's decided objection to it, which was not made till the following Wednesday (the 11th). The king, argues Lord Grenville, must have heard by the newspapers that the bill had been introduced; and is it not singular that a week should be suffered to elapse before he informs his ministers that they had mistaken his sentiments, and acted in opposition to his wishes? but, on the other hand, the king, being at Windsor, might not for some days hear of the debate in question; and as he only came to town on Wednesdays, and the second reading was not to come on till the next Thursday, he might naturally think that it would be time enough for him to put a stop to further proceedings when he next went to town, and that there was no necessity for inconvenient hurry.

But if ministers cannot be acquitted of some degree of insincerity in their transactions with the king previous to the explanation, neither can their subsequent conduct be in any way reconciled with the respect which they owed to their sovereign, or the constitutional principles by which it was their duty to have been guided. When, from deference to the king's opinions, they dropped the obnoxious

bill, there were but two lines of conduct which they could with propriety pursue. If they thought that the safety of Ireland was consistent with the king's ideas respecting the Catholics, they should have adopted those ideas without reserve; but if it appeared to them that nothing could permanently secure the tranquillity of the country but such an enlargement of the political privileges of that description of its inhabitants as it was contrary to the king's determination to grant, it was incumbent upon them to resign situations which they could no longer hold without compromising their own honor, or sacrificing the public advantage. But they viewed the matter in another light, and insisted upon retaining both their places and their opinions. They asserted that nothing but their strong conviction of the imperious necessity of adopting some measure to relieve the Catholics from the restrictions under which they labored would have induced them to propose the measure which they had framed for that purpose; and yet, though nothing had occurred to diminish that imperious necessity, they consented to withdraw their proposals and retain their places, thereby taking upon themselves all the responsibility of any of those fatal effects to the country which they prophesied would be the inevitable consequences of rejecting their advice. It is idle to contend that, by stating in Parliament the opinions on which they did not act, they exempted themselves from the responsibility which might result from the sovereign's disregard of those opinions, since ministers are and must be responsible for any policy, whether active or passive, that is adopted while they remain in power. If this were not so, an unprincipled minister might sanction and give effect to the most profligate policy by his acquiescence, and yet secure himself from punishment by saying that he had disapproved of it. The course, therefore, which till this instance

has invariably been pursued is, that so long as the king and his ministers think together, or the former is willing to give way to the latter, the administration goes on; that upon points not concerning the great interests of the country, the latter may even concede to the opinion of the former; but that whenever discussions arise between the sovereign and his Cabinet upon great and important questions, if a difference of opinion should unfortunately take place, and neither party succeed in convincing the other, the ministers are bound in honor to retire from their situations and give the king an opportunity of ascertaining whether he can find other servants who will enter more readily into his views. Should he succeed, and the new ministers begin to execute his ideas either by proposing or omitting to propose any particular measure, then those who went out may properly as individual members of Parliament oppose to their utmost what they resisted when in office. Should he fail in his search, then comes into operation one of those salutary checks which the practice of the Constitution has imposed on the royal prerogative, and he must necessarily abandon a line of conduct which he cannot find men of character and ability willing to pursue. The new ministerial arrangements were completed by the end of March, and were as follows:

First Lord of the Treasury. Duke of Portland .vice Lord Grenville.

Lord Mulgrave
Hon. Spencer Perceval

G. Canning

Home Department.
Lord Chancellor.
Lord Privy Seal.
President of the Council. . .
Pres. of the Board of Trade
Master-General of the Ord-

nance

Lord Castlereagh

"Mr. Grenville.
"L'd Henry Petty
"Lord Howick.

"Mr. Windham.
"Lord Spencer.
"Lord Erskine.

Lord Hawkesbury

Lord Eldon

BOOK II.

Now in Parliament, and speaks with credit in defense of the government in regard to the Copenhagen Expedition-Visits his Irish estates-Is offered the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, after the Canning and Castlereagh quarrel; refuses, and becomes Secretary at War-Becomes, on the dissolution, Member for Cambridge University—Makes a successful speech on bringing forward the estimates—Cites passages from the dispatches of Lord Wellington, then driving Massena out of PortugalDescribes a shooting-party in Essex-Correspondence with the Commander-in-Chief as to the position of Secretary at War.

I

HAVE stated that Lord Palmerston, after once more

failing at Cambridge, had been returned for Newport. There was not so much and such constant talking in the House of Commons then as there is now. People did not take up the morning's reports of the debates and again put them down, lost amid the wilderness of commonplace remarks of commonplace men on commonplace subjects, which, in the flattering way it has become the fashion to adopt in speaking of ourselves, we call business-like speaking, but which, in reality, is for the most part twaddle, and prevents or impedes the transaction of business.

The ordinary affairs of government, which after all have to be gone through as a matter of course, with little or much speech about them, were permitted to pass off quietly, without every member making a speech which no other member wanted to hear. Any great affair was debated in a great manner by the leading men. When a new member was animated by ambition, he made a trial