Distinction between late Motions on General Warrants shown in the
Votes.--Dismissal of Officers.--Proceedings against Almon
deferred.--Mr. Grenville’s Resolutions.--Dr. Browne’s Pamphlet.
The next day Sir William Meredith, uneasy that Dr. Hay’s ridiculous
preface should, by being united to his question, pass for his, proposed
his difficulty to the House, the Speaker having been so impartial
as to delay the impression of the votes. Grenville confessed it was
hard, and yielded that a distinction should be made. Conway caught
artfully at this concession, acknowledged Grenville’s candour, owned
he had been too warm himself, but desired Ministers to observe what
difficulties were brought on gentlemen by such unparliamentary arts.
Grenville repented his concession, and Dyson, the Jesuit of the House,
endeavoured to explain it away; but Conway pinned them down to what had
been yielded, and the votes were so cooked as to ascribe the amendment
to the House, and distinguish it from Meredith’s original motion.
Not content with this atonement, the elder Onslow, two days afterwards,
on a motion for paving the streets, parodied Dr. Hay’s question,
but desired it might not be printed in the votes, as none of his
constituents would understand it.
We of the Opposition had another business on the anvil, as knotty
and full of difficulties as the question on General Warrants, and
on which it was as arduous to decide whether we should bring it
into Parliament or not. This was the complaint on the dismission of
officers for their parliamentary conduct. Lord John Cavendish had
pledged himself to move it; and it would not only revive the odium
against the Ministers on a topic of such popular sound, but the cruelty
exercised on General A’Court, deprived of his bread for a silent vote,
and the rigour shown to Conway, though so decent and conscientious,
had been particularly crying. Still there were both solid and private
objections. The all-puissance of the Court was sure of putting a
negative on the question; and thence officers would become still more
dependent when the Crown should be thus authorized to cashier them at
pleasure, by the approbation of Parliament. Charles Yorke and Charles
Townshend were afraid of a debate that would reduce them to quit their
allies before they had made their peace, or to oppose the Crown on so
favourite a branch of prerogative as that of holding a scourge over
its dependents. The Duke of Richmond, though he had promised, if the
question should be stirred, to take part for Conway, could not wish
for the occasion of differing with an Administration with whom, on
every other point, he was united; and the officers in general, though
they would have rejoiced to be emancipated from their dependence,
were as little desirous of seeing a topic agitated, which would have
obliged them to approve the practice, or exposed them to the resentment
of the Crown, with the certainty, at the same time, that a censure
of the practice could not be obtained by so weak an Opposition. Nor,
hurt as I was at the treatment of my friend, could I myself wish to
have the matter discussed in Parliament, where, by voting against the
measure of dismissing officers for their conduct in the House, I must
in fact have condemned my father, who had used the same severity,
though on far higher provocation, and against determined opponents.
Even Conway himself, aware that he should be deserted by his brethren,
the officers, was by no means eager for bringing on the question. In
this dilemma, Lord Temple advised Lord John to go to Hayes, and learn
of Mr. Pitt whether, if they should defer the motion, he should be for
it, when he should be able to come forth. This very advice indicated
that Lord Temple at that time knew not Mr. Pitt’s mind, and wished to
learn it for his own private reasons. Mr. Pitt’s answer then, and his
change on the same occasion afterwards, marked that at that hour he had
received no overtures from the Court, and that afterwards he probably
had, as will be seen. Lord John went to Hayes, and found Mr. Pitt in
bed with the gout. Pitt said he knew not when he should be able to
come to the House: if he could he should be warmly with the Opposition;
yet he feared too many negatives on that question would authorize the
Court to dismiss officers. He condemned the practice strongly; and said
whatever party or division of party might prevail hereafter, he hoped,
though he grew an infirm old man, and that all was over with him, that
they would do justice, not only to the persons dismissed, but to the
principle. He was sorry the question of the Warrants had been stirred
this year: had Opposition waited till a decision against them had been
pronounced in Westminster Hall, not an argument in their behalf would
have remained.--When Lord John returned with this answer, I begged him
to wait, and to give out that it was in compliment to Mr. Pitt, which
would do credit to our cause--and by delaying, I hoped to avoid the
question.
Almon,[57] an active and officious printer for the Opposition,
and attached to Lord Temple and Wilkes, having been prosecuted for
publishing the excellent letter on libels, appeared on February 6th, in
the King’s Bench, to show cause why an attachment against him should
not be issued. As Lord Mansfield would not openly appear in this
cause (he himself being severely treated in that pamphlet), as Judge
Denison[58] had resigned, and the new judge had not taken his seat,
Wilmot,[59] the remaining judge in that court, said, “It would be too
much for him to take upon himself.” The Attorney-General moved to have
Almon bound over to the next term. His counsel desired he might be
heard, or dismissed; but he was bound over. This suit was afterwards
dropped when Mr. Grenville found it convenient to have libels written
_against_ the Administration.
The same day Onslow moved for a call of the House for that day
fortnight, that the House might be full on the great questions of
Dismission of Officers, of Canada Bills, the Money due on the Manilla
Ransom, the Cider Tax, &c.; and it was agreed to.
Grenville then proposed his thirty-five resolutions[60] towards a
bill for laying duties on America, by _his memorable Stamp Act_. This
famous bill, little understood here at that time, was less attended
to. It removed the burthen of a tax to distant shoulders; and the most
momentous acts are seldom much discussed, when no immediate interest
occurs to oppose them. The colonies, in truth, were highly alarmed,
and had sent over representations so strong against being taxed here,
that it was not thought decent or safe to present their memorial to
Parliament. The chief colonies had long been increasing in power and
opulence; and wise men had not been wanting to foresee how difficult
it would become for so small an empire as Britain to contain them
within the necessary limits of dependence. Nor would that subjection
probably be maintained, but by garrisons and regular forces; the
charge of which, if borne by the colonies themselves, would leave to
England but a precarious power over them; or would be too weighty an
expense on the mother-country; and would even place a greater military
force in the hands of the Crown than would be consistent with the
freedom of this constitution; for of necessity the troops stationed in
America must be often changed, and brought back to Britain; or might
grow too intimately connected with the colonists; or might lose sight
of all obedience but to their own officers. Long had the colonies
been neglected, or overlooked. Sir Robert Walpole, whose maxim was,
_Quieta non movere_, had been content with seeing no troubles arise in
America. He had left that province to its proper minister, the Duke
of Newcastle, Secretary of State, who had a closet full of despatches
from that quarter unopened for a large number of years.[61] The Board
of Trade, whose department it was, had sunk into a perfect sinecure
for Members of Parliament; insomuch that Martin Bladen,[62] one of the
commissioners, applying himself to the duties of his office, it was
said with humour, that Bladen was _Trade_, and the other commissioners
the _Board_. Two events concurred to rouse both the Americans and the
English Government from this lethargy. The first was the conquest
of Canada, which, delivering the colonies from apprehensions of the
French, had thus early taught them to feel their own weight and
importance. The second was the power of the Crown being in the hands
of Grenville. It had been proposed to Sir Robert Walpole, to raise the
revenue by imposing taxes on America; but that Minister, who could
foresee beyond the benefit of the actual moment, declared it must be a
bolder man than himself who should venture on such an expedient. That
man was found in Grenville, who, great in daring, and little in views,
was charmed to have an untrodden field before him, of calculation and
experiment. The opposition of the Americans touched a third string
predominant in his nature,--an obstinacy of supporting his will and
his power. In the light of easing and improving an overburthened
country and revenue, he was not blameable in wishing it could be
accomplished. Nor, considering how great a debt had been incurred by
supporting the colonies in the last war, was it unreasonable to desire
that they should assist their mother in contributing to lighten a
burthen become almost too grievous to be supported. But to this single
object were all Grenville’s views and knowledge confined. His policy
by no means embraced impediments or consequences. To say that his plan
would be confined to the present assistance as then chalked out, was
what neither himself pretended, nor was it by any means adequate to
the mischiefs the attempt might produce. He himself termed it but an
experiment towards farther aid, and as such the Americans immediately
understood it. Little did he weigh the danger of a contest between the
mother-country and such distant, extensive, and now powerful subjects.
Less did he attend to the opportunity he threw into the hands of Spain
and France, of exciting a mutinous spirit in our colonies, and when
occasion should serve, of throwing assistance into them against their
parent. Least of all did he foresee the damage he would inflict on
trade, and how far the expected aid would be from compensating the
loss the British merchant would suffer by a quarrel with our outlying
brethren; but it was the fate of the times I am now describing,--I
mean during the administrations of Lord Bute and Grenville,--to stir
questions which, for the happiness of the whole, had better have slept
in oblivion. The Americans soon learned to enter upon and discuss
those problems of government, the benefits of which happy nations had
better enjoy than agitate; which, from the perversity of man, are never
universally assented to, and consequently cannot be moved without
mischief; and which wisdom will never recal from speculation into
dispute, but when the afflictive hand of power makes opposition to them
the only remedy left against tyranny and arbitrary will.
From this moment nothing was heard from America but questions on the
right of taxation, and whether the colonists had not carried with
them all the birthrights of English freemen: whether their assemblies
were not Parliaments, and whether any man could be taxed who was not
represented. Parallels were drawn between the Americans, Scotland, and
Ireland; and while all obedience was acknowledged[63] to the Crown,
the jurisdiction of the British Parliament came to be undervalued,
and set at nought. Every assumption of liberty that had been pleaded
here against our kings, was now set up against the jurisdiction of
England. The overflow of political writings in these islands had long
been transmitted for vent to America, and were now the basis of a new
paper war. Nor were there wanting in the chief provinces men of subtle
and liberal minds, who knew how to set their pretensions in the fairest
light. Still less was there a dearth of aspiring demagogues, who felt
how much consideration must attend real or affected patriotism. On both
sides of the ocean, there happily were found some men of that moderate
frame of mind, who, though commonly the last to attain credit in the
loud cry of faction, were successful in tempering the evil, though
censured at home, and but ill rewarded with the attention they merited
from America.
I have thus touched upon the outlines of this ill-omened dispute.
More must be said on it hereafter; yet shall I sparingly treat a
subject on which so many volumes have been written, and which at the
moment I write[64] seems calmed--I fear, not composed. New pretensions
erected, and the honour of old claims to be asserted, seldom moulder
away _pulveris exigui jactu_. These disputes, like all others on
government, date from the foresight always wanting in new institutions.
Men talk of patriarchal systems, and original compacts. Necessity
and accident formed all systems, and men were governed long before
they reasoned. Where ambition was in the govern_ed_, and wisdom and
humanity in the governors, the system proved gentle and moderate.
Where the contrary happened, power was earlier felt. When once formed,
succeeding men were ambitious to usurp government, not to correct it.
When it grew intolerable, it was patriotism to force it back to its
principles. At last, patriotism itself was found to be the shortest,
as it was the most plausible step to power: and the patriot becoming
the attorney for his countrymen, proved the only winner by the gain
of the cause. When the New World was discovered, it was parcelled out
as the property of the princes whose subjects made discoveries. The
expense of settling it, after driving out or butchering the natives,
would have been enormous: the hazard from such long voyages and new
climates, most unpromising. To tempt their old subjects to make the
experiment, it was necessary for the European sovereigns to offer
both great and specious encouragement. From Britain especially, where
the monarch was not absolute, he could not despatch large involuntary
embarkations. Grants of vast tracts of land were a shining bait; and,
as the fashion gained ground, lasting privileges were superadded.
Charters, clothed with the most flattering conditions, were liberally
bestowed; and as the Crown was the sole dispenser of those graces,
the King’s Ministers were little likely to insert any other dependence
as terms on which the boon was granted. Assemblies were instituted,
rather in imitation of Parliaments, than as subservient to that of the
maternal empire. Little in those faint outsets of new government was
it natural to foresee that one day or other it might come to be wished
that the line had been drawn with more precision. Thus (as I have said,
it has happened to governments in general) conclusions have been drawn
from premises which never existed. The Americans founded themselves
on charters greedily asked and carelessly granted; and though I would
be far from weakening written, or any established principles, it is
easy to see that, whatever the letter of such charters may be, or the
spirit on which they were bestowed, the Legislature could not intend
they should exempt the colonies from the jurisdiction of Parliament.
I have indeed no doubt but Elizabeth, James, and Charles would not
have been averse to establish their own authority over new provinces,
independently of Parliament: but the question on either hand was
certainly never in contemplation. Both policy and humanity, in this
great contest between Britain and her colonies, should rather use their
efforts to reconcile their interests, than to pronounce between them.
Parliament ought to have no ampler jurisdiction over the colonies, than
it has over the inhabitants of Britain; nor would that be sufficient
guarantee for the liberties of America, if Parliaments, vindicating
their authority by force, should be inclined to feel partiality against
those that had resisted its domination. Equal claim to indulgence and
lenity of treatment with other British subjects should be ascertained
to the colonies, if under the same jurisdiction. An unequal yoke,
from whatever cause imposed, whether under a King or a Parliament,
must be felt most by those most subjected to it. The colonists have
affected to be willing to contribute to the aid of the whole, provided
they may tax themselves,--a pretension liable to great difficulties:
for, though to avoid dependence on British Parliaments, they may at
present choose this flattering alternative, what security can there
be that their assemblies, thus erected into Parliaments, will remain
harmoniously ready at all times to share the burthen? Some have
demanded for the Americans a right of sending representatives to the
English Parliament,--a question, even if acceptable to them (which it
is thought it would not be), perhaps still more replete with danger. We
know tolerably well what a British Parliament can and cannot do: how
far it can be corrupted, how mischievous that corruption may be, and
how far the weight of the House of Commons can operate against the two
other parts of the Legislature: but who can tell what change in the
constitution might be effectuated by touching, by enlarging the actual
existence of that assembly? Add a great number of members; it may grow
cheap, or too preponderant in the scale. A large number of Americans
may clog, and clash with, every British operation. A small number may
be too potent, from the very extensive dependencies they must enjoy
in that part of the world. A member of each province would become its
viceroy: and when we see how prodigious is the influence of any popular
orator here, though under the eye of the Sovereign, what would be his
authority if a Pitt, or a Wilkes, were to return to America, clothed
with the mantle of disgust and patriotism?
These, therefore, are questions to be skinned over, if possible, by
moderate councils. On some disputes, to pronounce is to declare battle.
While undecided, men will weary themselves and others with literary
altercation. Determine the point, and the adversaries have recourse
to the _means_ of recovering the ground they have lost. It is the
kindest way of ruling men to govern them as they will be governed, not
as they ought to be governed. The peace and happiness and security of
society is the intention of laws, and ought to be of law-givers: and
to _reconcile_ is perhaps a more amiable virtue in a patriot than to
_reform_. It has not the same glaring appendages; but carries a more
internal comfort to the man that exerts it, as it is purchased with
fewer and lighter hardships to those in whose service it is employed.
When Grenville moved the resolutions, Colonel Barré was the first,
and almost the single man to oppose them, treating severely Charles
Townshend, who supported the motion.[65] Barré, Alderman Baker, and
a few more proposed to adjourn the consideration, but were defeated
by a majority of 245 against 49, after a debate that lasted till
nine o’clock. On the 15th, when the bill was brought in, Rose Fuller
presented a petition from Jamaica, desiring to be heard against it
by counsel. This Grenville, with heat and haughtiness, opposed, as
it was a petition against a money-bill. Conway pleaded for receiving
the petition, showing the distinction between this and taxes laid at
home, where the persons to be taxed have representatives with whom
they can entrust their interests, and who can object to any designed
burthens that may be too oppressive. Charles Yorke made a long speech
against receiving the petition; but it was in truth a set speech in
favour of the bill, and occasionally applied to the petition. The House
ill-relishing opposition to a tax which was not to fall on themselves,
the petition was rejected, and the bill easily passed. About the same
time a petition from the Cyder counties met with the same fate on a
division of 150 to 82.
So triumphant was the Administration that the very creatures of
Mr. Pitt were forward to chant their praises and stigmatize their
opponents. Besides a sermon against libels, preached on the 30th
of January by Dr. Lyttelton, Bishop of Carlisle, there was at this
time a servile tract against Faction, published by Dr. Browne, who,
a few years before, had written a thing, called _An Estimate_,
which, notwithstanding its pert and silly positions, had met with
unaccountable success. In that piece Mr. Pitt had been his hero. This
Browne, the ape of Pope, and who had written some poems, not without
merit, had afterwards produced two very indifferent tragedies;[66] and,
lastly, an absurd treatise on Music, which he pretended to apply to
the formation of a visionary Government. He ended his life deplorably
by his own hand in a fit of illness and madness, having been invited
to Russia to assist the Czarina in some of her ostentatious projects
on legislation, and being oppressed, either with imaginary glory, or
despondence of supporting his reputation.[67]
These panegyrics, or vindications, answered no better to the Ministers
than their severity. Williams, the re-printer of the North Briton,
being sentenced to the pillory, he went thither in a coach marked 45,
the number of the famous paper for which Wilkes suffered, and which
became his hieroglyphic with the mob, who near the pillory erected a
gallows, on which they hanged a boot with a Scotch bonnet. At the same
time 200_l._ was collected for Williams.