which it is impossible to justify. In 1778 he reappointed Warren Hastings governor-general of India, though he disapproved of many of his acts, and had unsuccessfully tried in 1776 to induce the court of proprietors to recall him. In 1779 Lord Weymouth and Lord Gower seceded from North's ministry. In a curious letter to the king with reference to the reasons of Lord Gower's resignation, North owns that he ‘holds in his heart, and has held for these three years, just the same opinion with Lord Gower’ (Mahon, History of England, vol. vi. Appendix, p. xxviii). In the session of 1779–80 North succeeded in granting free-trade to Ireland, a policy which had been previously thwarted by the jealousy of the English manufacturers. On 6 April 1780 North opposed Dunning's famous resolution against the influence of the crown, as being ‘an abstract proposition perfectly inconclusive and altogether unconsequential’ (Parl. Hist. xxi. 362–4). During the Gordon riots North's house in Downing Street was threatened by the mob, and only saved by the timely arrival of the troops (Wraxall, Hist. and Posth. Memoirs, i. 237–239). North is said to have received the news of Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown (19 Oct. 1781) ‘as he would have taken a ball in his breast, opening his arms, and exclaiming wildly “O God! it is all over!”’ (ib. ii. 138–139; but see the Cornwallis Correspondence, 1859, i. 129, n., where certain inaccuracies in Wraxall's story are pointed out). On 27 Feb. 1782 Conway's motion against the further prosecution of the American war was carried by 234 to 215 votes (Parl. Hist. xxii. 1064–85), and on 15 March following a vote of want of confidence in the government was only rejected by a majority of nine (ib. xxii. 1170–1211). North now determined to resign in spite of the king, and on 20 March announced his resignation in the House of Commons, before Lord Surrey was able to move a resolution for the dismissal of the ministry, of which he had previously given notice (ib. xxii. 1214–19). On resigning his posts of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, the king is said to have ‘parted with him rudely without thanking him, adding, “Remember, my lord, that it is you who desert me, not I you”’ (Walpole, Journal of the Reign of George III, ii. 521).
North's government was what he afterwards called a ‘government by departments.’ He himself was rather the agent than the responsible adviser of the king, who practically directed the policy of the ministry, even on the minutest points. North would never allow himself to be called prime minister, maintaining that ‘there was no such thing in the British constitution’ (Brougham, Historical Sketches, i. 392). He was nicknamed Lord-deputy North on account of his supposed connection with Bute (Chatham Correspondence, iii. 443), for which, however, there was no foundation (Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. App. p. 209). His earlier budgets gained him a considerable reputation, but his financial policy towards the close of his ministry became unpopular, owing in a great measure to the extravagant terms of the loan of 1781. During his term of office the national debt was more than doubled. As a financier he was lacking in originality, acting to a great extent on the principles of Adam Smith, but, ‘while accepting the suggestions for increased taxation, he omitted to couple with them that revision and simplification of the tariff and of the taxes which formed the main part of his adopted master's design’ (Buxton, Finance and Politics, 1888, i. 2).
In the debate on the address on 5 Dec. 1782 North, in allusion to Rodney's victory over De Grasse, told the ministry, ‘True, you have conquered; but you have conquered with Philip's troops’ (Parl. Hist. xxiii. 254). He still had a following of from 160 to 170 in the House of Commons (Buckingham, Court and Cabinets of George III, i. 158), and when Fox and Shelburne quarrelled, a coalition between one of them and North became necessary to carry on the government of the country. An alliance between North and Shelburne, which would have been the natural outcome of the situation, was frustrated by the hostility of Pitt and the over cautious hesitation of Dundas. North and Fox had never been personal enemies in spite of their political differences. North, moreover, was anxious to show that he was not a mere puppet in the king's hands, and was also desirous of avoiding a hostile inquiry into the American war. At length, through the efforts of his eldest son, George Augustus (see below), Lord Loughborough, John Townshend, William Adam [q. v.], and William Eden [q. v.], the coalition with Fox was effected (Lord John Russell, Memorials of Fox, ii. 20 et seq.; Auckland, Journals and Correspondence, 1861, i. 1 et seq.), and the combined followers of North and Fox defeated the ministry on 17 Feb. 1783 by 224 votes to 208 (Parl. Hist. xxii. 493), and again on the 21st by 207 votes to 190 (ib. xxii. 571). On the 24th Shelburne resigned. The king charged North ‘with treachery and ingratitude of the blackest nature’ (Buckingham, Court and Cabinets of George III, i. 303), and vainly endeavoured to detach him from Fox and to induce him once more to take the treasury. George was,
