Majesty has expressed of mixing as little as possible in the large changes proposed, which go to the reduction of Ministerial influence in Parliament. Whoever was to explain these details to the House of Commons can easily put them on paper for your Majesty's consideration, and your Majesty may refer them afterwards to the Cabinet.
"I proposed to dwell in the House of Lords on the large line of Public Expenditure already taken up by the Commissioners, as the object worthy attention in an economical point of view, and that the proposed reduction of Ministerial influence arising from the Civil List must make the struggle within and without doors, who should contribute most to your Majesty's dignity, comfort, and splendour. I am very sorry on many accounts, that the line of the Message in the House of Commons was so much departed from, as to make it impossible for any person to take the line I proposed without hazarding a public breach.
"I have the honour to be with most respectful attachment
"Your Majesty's dutiful Subject
"and devoted Servant
Still further differences of opinion arose between Shelburne and Fox when the Contractors Bill reached the House of Lords. An amendment was moved and carried by Lord Ashburton, after a strong speech in favour of the Bill by Shelburne, excepting from its operation contractors selling nothing but the growth, product, or manufacture of their own estates. When however the Bill was returned to the House of Commons, the amendment was objected to with great vehemence by Fox and rejected.[1] The question of Parliamentary Reform next ranged the two sections of the Ministerial supporters in opposition to one another. On the 7th of May, Mr. Pitt brought forward a motion on the question. It was thrown out by a majority of twenty through a combination of
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xxii. 1356-1377 and xxiii. 74.
