date

[xxxvi. 146] 1822 July 16 Constitut
[xxxvi. 146]

1822 July 16

Constitut. Code Rationale

Supreme Operative

I Monarchy absolute

II. Monarchy Limited

III. Aristocracy.

IV. Monarcho-Aristocracy

But /Be this as it may/ the fact is - that whatsoever is done, it is with the Kings will that it is done: in each instance it may or may not have originated in the Kings will: but in whose will so ever it /what is proposed/ originated, if it be against the Kings will it is not done

The question here is - what in this respect is the general and habitual course of the government: Of the few exceptions, that by careful inquiry might perhaps be found, the effect will rather be to prove the rule than to disprove it. No Monarchy so absolute, but that exceptions in this or that instance might be found in it

Of the absoluteness of the Kings power, a conclusive proof is /was/ that which was brought /held up/ to view in a Commons House Debate in the Session of 1822 ? Motion by Mr Brougham: object of it, holding up to view what is called the influence of the Crown: that is to say the absoluteness of the King's power in respect of giving determination to the proceedings of the two sets of functionaries who in profession and form are sharers with him in the supreme operative. Proof this. The Prime Minister is the nominee and instrument When once a man has been decidedly located in the situation of Prime Minister, the Commons House a vast majority of it vote according to his will, after having but a few days before namely when he was not Minister but in opposition voted against it

? June 1822. Black Dwarf July 3 1822.
Similar Items
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 145] 1822 July 19 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 145]

    1822 July 19

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I. Monarch absolute

    II. Monarch Limited

    III. Aristocracy

    IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

    The simple truth of the matter is this. It is by force and intimidation that the conduct of the people at large is determined. It is by corruption /corruptive influence/ that the conduct of the majority in each of the two Houses of Parliament is determined: in the House of Commons in the first instance, and then in the House of Lords: the will of the Lords following of course that of the King and the Commons

    But the matter of corruption - on whose will does the application of it depend? On that of the Minister. And the Minister - on whose will does his continuance /existence/ in that situation depend? On the Kings.

    Let the King give to what man he will the disposal of the matter of corruptive influence, the will of that individual is sure to be confirmed /done/ by the majority in both Houses

    Events may happen - events which for a time may make the King see his /a/ convenience in substituting to a Minister more agreable to him a Minister less agreable to him. But in this temporary exception there is nothing that detracts from the truth, to all practical purposes, of the general rule. In this there is nothing more than what is every now and then happening in the most absolute governments, that of Turkey not excepted.
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 149] 1822 July 19 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 149]

    1822 July 19

    Constitut Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I

    II

    III

    IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

    By the will of the Minister, be he who he may so long as it is decided that he is to continue Minister have the wills of the majority in both Houses been at all times determined: and such will be the state of wills, so long as the Government remains in the form it wears at present. Why? because such is the state of interests - of interests and of the means of affording satisfaction to the correspondent desires
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 147] 1822 July 19.]
    Description: [xxxvi. 147]

    1822 July 19.

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I

    II

    III

    IV. Monarcho-Aristocracy

    Instances have happened in which the King has discarded a Prime Minister /Minister/ whom he had rather have kept, and appointed /placed/ a Prime Minister whom he had rather not have appointed. True: but the Prime Minister /Minister/ who was not agreable to him never for any considerable length of time has he been kept in Office (a)

    Ao 1806 Lord Grenville, Mr Fox and Mr Addington were in Office together. Lord Grenville and Mr Fox were more disagreable to the then King: Lord Grenville on one account; Mr Fox on another: Lord Grenville from his personal demeanour: Mr Fox from the too great popularity of the principles professed by him. Mr Addington was a man found to be agreable to a King, whosoever the King were. A favorable opportunity for getting rid of them was watched for, and found. Lord Grenville was dismissed: Mr Fox was dismissed. Mr Addington was retained It was the desire of Lord Grenville that the oppression under which the Catholics had so long been suffering should be removed; this was also the desire of Mr Fox. But the will of the King was opposite and inflexible. He refused to adopt the measure, and dismissed /rid himself of/ the authors.