According to the version which is given in the accounts hitherto published of these transactions, it was not till the 11th of December, two days after the Bills had been read a first time in the Lords, that His Majesty was apprised of the real character of the measure as it affected his prerogative; and it was then, and not till then, His Majesty determined to resist it. This statement goes to the effect—that on the 11th of December, between the first and second reading, Earl Temple had a conference with the King, in the course of which he fully explained to His Majesty the nature and tendency of a measure which His Majesty had up to that time approved; that he showed His Majesty that he had been "duped" and "deceived," and that His Majesty's indignation at this discovery was excited to such a height as to induce him to authorise the Earl Temple to oppose the Bills in his name. In order to leave no doubt on this point, and to give it all possible force and authenticity, a card was written, setting forth, "That His Majesty allowed Earl Temple to say, that whoever voted for the India Bill was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as an enemy; and if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use whatever words he might deem stronger and more to the purpose."
This unusual and rather undignified proceeding admits of no other justification than the urgency and exigency of the occasion; and the best thing that can be said of it is, that it answered the end for which it was designed, although the notoriety which was given to it (and without which it would have been of no avail) produced a fierce resolution in the Commons, carried by an immense majority, declaring that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to report any opinion or pretended opinion of the King upon any proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of members. It did influence the votes of members very extensively, nevertheless, several proxies which had been entrusted to Ministers having been withdrawn in consequence of the royal interference.
It would appear from this statement, that up to the 11th of December, His Majesty had approved of the India Bills; and that on that day, for the first time, Lord Temple drew His Majesty's attention to the tendency of the measure. Upon the face of the proceedings themselves, such a version of the transaction is so incredible as to excite surprise at its adoption by contemporary historians. A very little reflection must have discovered the impossibility of His Majesty remaining in ignorance of the spirit, aim, and purport of a scheme which had been under discussion for three weeks in the Commons, and had been sifted, explored, and denounced by Pitt, Jenkinson, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Grenville, and others. Nor is it to be believed that, with so strong a motive operating in the minds of His Majesty's personal friends as that which was furnished by the well-known desire of His Majesty to seize upon the first opportunity to make a breach with the Cabinet, Lord Temple and those who acted with him would have suffered His Majesty to continue in the ignorance ascribed to him—assuming, which it is unreasonable to assume, that His Majesty really was ignorant of the scope and design of a ministerial proposal which had called up remonstrances and protests from all parts of the kingdom.
It is scarcely necessary to say that Lord Temple did not wait until the Bills had reached the House of Lords, to submit to the King his opinion of them; and that he had all throughout earnestly impressed upon His Majesty the objectionable spirit of those clauses that infringed the royal prerogative. This was, indeed, the only vulnerable point upon which His Majesty's direct interference could be properly invoked. The difficulty that had hitherto stood in the way was as to the manner in which the interposition of the King's authority could be brought to bear constitutionally on the measure, during its progress through Parliament. Ministers had an ascertained and decisive majority in the Commons, and Lord Temple seems to have felt that it would have been unwise in His Majesty to have interfered at that stage of the proceedings, when his interference was likely to have failed of the desired effect. The last resource was in the Peers. To have implicated the King's name in the opposition to the measure, while it yet was in the hands of the Commons, would have fatally compromised His Majesty's position; and for that excellent reason, Lord Temple reserved the declaration of His Majesty's opinion for that arena where it was most likely to exercise a practical influence. The moment chosen was just before the debate on the principle of the Bills. Had His Majesty been advised to preserve his neutrality pending the discussion in the Lords, the probability was, that the measure would have passed that House, and that he would have been ultimately reduced to the necessity of refusing his assent to it; an extremity from which he was delivered by the prompt and novel course recommended by Lord Temple.
Amongst the Grenville papers there is the rough draught of a memorandum, which reveals to us not only the suggestions upon which the King acted in this emergency, but the no less important fact that the line of action was submitted to His Majesty eight days before the Bills had passed the Commons. It is evident from the tone of this memorandum, that the subject matter of it had previously occupied much anxious consideration, that the determination to resist the Bills in some shape was already adopted, and that nothing remained to be settled but the modus operandi. It will be seen, that in this memorandum the difficulties attending the royal interference at different stages of the measure are fully designated, and that the mode of proceeding finally adopted by His Majesty is distinctly pointed out. The opening line, and the note at the foot, are in the hand-writing of Lord Temple; the body of the memorandum is in a different and not very legible hand.
Dec. 1st, 1783.
To begin with stating to His Majesty our sentiments upon the extent of the Bill, viz.:
We profess to wish to know whether this Bill appear to His Majesty in this light: a plan to take more than half the royal power, and by that means disable [the King] for the rest of the reign. There is nothing else in it which ought to call for this interposition.
Whether any means can be thought of, short of changing his Ministers, to avoid this evil.
The refusing the Bill, if it passes the Houses, is a violent means. The changing his Ministers after the last vote of the Commons, in a less degree might be liable to the same sort of construction.