stry; the great seal was put in commission, and Mansfield, who
remained in the cabinet, took the speakership of the house of lords.
Conway retired from the cabinet. Thurlow, a strong advocate of
prerogative, coarse, blunt, yet insincere, became solicitor-general, and
the other vacant places were filled. Yet these changes mark an important
epoch. During Grafton's administration the king became master of the
government, but was forced to employ unsatisfactory instruments for the
exercise of his power. Though differences of opinion still arose in the
cabinet, the ministry gained in solidarity and strength by the loss of
its dissentient members. Above all, George at last found a first
minister after his own heart. North had ability, tact, knowledge, and an
unfailing good temper; he was well educated and of high moral character.
Though ungainly in appearance and with no oratorical talent, he was
witty and formidable in debate. In intellect he was the king's superior,
but he allowed George's prejudices to override his convictions. He would
never be called prime minister. George was his own prime minister, and
he merely his manager and representative. His submission to the king at
the cost of his duty to the country did not proceed from selfish
motives; it was the result partly of personal attachment and partly of
the action of the stronger upon the weaker will. George repaid his
devotion by giving him his full confidence and constant support. North
was lazy, yet this defect added strength to the combination of king and
minister. Behind the scenes George was active and anxious, while in
parliament the weapons of indignation and sarcasm with which North was
assailed failed to pierce the impenetrable wall of his amiable
insouciance. The king's policy was triumphant. The combination between
the obedient responsible minister and the imperious irresponsible king
lasted for twelve years, during which George ruled as well as reigned.

Again, the point we have reached marks an epoch, because the rise of
modern radicalism has with fair reason been traced to the struggle over
the Middlesex election in 1769, though in accepting this judgment we
must not forget that the radicalism of 1819 was affected by events of
later dates. In 1769, however, as in 1819, the representatives of the
people were opposed to the will of the people. Where was sovereignty to
reside? In the nation as represented in parliament, or in the nation
external to it? Wh