date

[xxxvi. 148] 1822 July 19 Constitut
[xxxvi. 148]

1822 July 19

Constitut. Code Rationale

Supreme Operative

I. Monarch absolute

II. Monarch limited

III. Aristocracy

IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

In England ever since the accession of the first English born King after /since/ the Revolution viz. George the 3 there has been a party in opposition to the Minister of the Kings choice, and thereby to the King. The Ministry for the time being they could not /have never been able to/ attack without attacking in some part or other the system of abuse and sinister sacrifice, and thereby and so far serving the cause of the people. But in so far as they have so done they have been giving constant offence to the King which their more prosperous antagonists have been occupied in the doing of his will in so far as it has been done. In the very nature of the case /their situation/ they could not therefore do any thing against the King and his Minister without doing something for the people, and professing some principle by which a sort of continual warrant could be afforded for whatsoever they were doing. This principle however never could be the greatest happiness principle since by that if followed up with any consistency, the grand and universal and constant object of their wishes would be reduced to that which would be nothing in their eyes. Prevented then from being either Absolute Monarchists or Democrats they have been all along confined to a middle course by which they were determined to be Aristocrats. According to them the form of government must remain the same: for to their interest the preservation of it is not less necessary than to the interest of the men in power their antagonists. But the hands in which the power is must be different: they must be their hands: and when in their hands the form must be such as will keep it there: an Aristocracy of which they were /are/ Members must be not only formed /continued/: but strengthened: strengthened in such sort that to displace them shall be no longer in the King's power. Such accordingly was the object of the East India Bill brought in by Charles Fox in the course of the short reign to which this Bill put an end. The object of it was to transfer the Patronage of that government into their hands.
Similar Items
  • 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.
  • Title: [[xxxvi. 144] 1822 July 16 Constitut]
    Description: [xxxvi. 144]

    1822 July 16

    Constitut. Code Rationale

    Supreme Operative

    I Monarch absolute

    II Monarch Limited

    III Aristocracy

    IV Monarcho-Aristocracy

    1. Borough-mongers subject.

    2 Why spoken of as paramount.

    ?. In a limited say rather a mixt Monarchy, the Aristocracy are not in practice co-equal with but dependent on and instruments of the Monarchy.

    In England the Borough-mongers are under the King not the King under the Borough-mongers.

    The King (it has been said) is in a state of subjection to the Borough-mongers. The party by whom this notion is adopted is the party of the people: it is on every occasion assumed, and argued upon as a principle. In relation to it, two questions will here present themselves. 1. Is it correct?: 2. Correct or /If/ incorrect to what cause is the use made of it to be attributed /what is the cause of its currency?/

    Question 1. Is it correct /true/? Answer. It is not. /untrue./ That they /the two powers/ act not in constant union, thus far is true. But, on each occasion whatsoever be the course taken by the union, it is by the will of the King not by the will of any power that that course is determined: not by the will of any other power whatsoever be the situation of it, or by what name so ever denominated.

    By Borough-mongers are meant the aggregate of the several individuals by whom the seats in the Commons House are filled. The cause why this denomination is employed will be mentioned in its place.

    What is here assumed is - that the Lords House in its corporate capacity is in fact /practice/ in a state of subjection to the Commons House. Thus much is true, manifest and undisputed. ( Quere whether to state the proofs)

    What is also assumed is that in a very large proportion the occupiers of the seats in the Commons House are located by individuals who have seats in the Lords House. This also is manifest and undisputed.