rds and without equivocation, those general and substantial
interests which members have sworn to prefer; of acquitting themselves
honorably to their constituents, to their friends, to their own minds,
and to that public whose trustees they were, and for whom they acted."
He avowed his conviction that rumor in this instance spoke truth, and,
affirming that "the responsibility of ministers is the only pledge and
security the people of England possesses against the infinite abuses so
natural to the exercise of royal powers," argued that, if "this great
bulwark of the constitution were once removed, the people would become
in every respect the slaves and property of despotism. This must be the
necessary consequence of secret influence." He argued that the sole
distinction between an absolute and a limited monarchy was that the
sovereign in one is a despot, and may do as he pleases, but that in the
other he is himself subjected to the laws, and consequently is not at
liberty to advise with any one in public affairs who is not responsible
for that advice, and that the constitution has clearly directed his
negative to operate under the same wise restrictions. Mr. Baker's
resolution was carried by a large majority; but, as we have seen, did
not deter the King from dismissing the ministry.

The conduct of George III. in this transaction has been discussed by
writers of both parties with such candor that the Tory historian, Lord
Stanhope, while evidently desirous to defend it by implication, passes a
slight censure on it in the phrase that "the course pursued by the King
was most unusual, and most extreme, and most undesirable to establish as
a precedent;"[89] while, on the other hand, so rigid a Whig as Lord
Campbell urges in his favor "that if it be ever excusable in a King of
England to cabal against his ministers, George III. may well be defended
for the course he now took, for they had been forced upon him by a
factious intrigue, and public opinion was decidedly in his favor."[90]
But to those who regard not the excuse which previous provocation may be
conceived in some degree to furnish to human infirmity, but only the
strict theory and principle of the constitution on which the doctrine of
the responsibility of the ministers and the consequent irresponsibility
of the sovereign rests, Lord Campbell's conditional justification for
the communication made through Lord Temple will hardly appear
admissible. We cannot be sure how