Isle of Man Act.--King’s Illness.--Motion respecting _Ex-officio_
Informations.--Warburton.--Dismissal of Officers.--Newfoundland
and Virginia Petitions.
Among Grenville’s economic projects, one was to purchase from the Duke
of Athol the sovereignty of the Isle of Man, which was the harbour
and _entrepot_ of the smugglers between Great Britain and Ireland,
and who were secured by the jurisdiction of that Peer. As the Duke
was unwilling to part with his property, Grenville, well-founded in
his scheme, determined to force it from him by Act of Parliament, or
to oblige him to compound under that terror. A bill was accordingly
brought in for that purpose, and the Duke and Duchess[68] were heard
by their counsel. Mr. Grey Cooper,[69] who pleaded their cause, made
a most admired speech at the bar of the House, and the Scotch members
and the Opposition supported the Duke’s rights. At last the matter was
adjusted by purchase of the title of the Duke and Duchess, for which
the former received 70,000_l._, and her Grace 2000_l._ a year for life.
On the 20th the House was called over, as appointed; but, Mr. Pitt
not appearing, the magnificent threats of motions which our party had
thrown out, were again laid aside, and at last dropped, from various
reasons as will be mentioned, but particularly by the great event to
which the King suddenly falling ill gave birth.
Some time before his marriage the King’s face was full of pimples.
These had so entirely disappeared, that it was apprehended he had made
use of external remedies to repel them. It is certain that from that
time he frequently laboured with disorders on his breast, particularly
during the Queen’s first pregnancy. He was now again seized with a
cough and fever, for which he was repeatedly blooded four times, and
was apprehended to be in much danger.[70] So critical a situation
made men take notice that, to secrete him from all intercourse with
his Court, Lord Bute had placed the King at Buckingham House, a damp
unwholesome spot, and rendered more perilous by the neighbourhood
of two infectious hospitals. The vigour of his age and his sanguine
constitution seemed to require more exercise and air than he enjoyed in
that sauntering and domestic life. It was even said that Dr. Duncan[71]
advising his Majesty to have one of his palaces in the country fitted
up, and to live there for some time, Lord Bute harshly reprimanded
the physician, and asked him what he had to do to advise beyond his
line?--a question which reason could easily have answered, though awe
might not. After stating some intervening matters, I shall return to
this subject.
The Chevalier d’Eon having accused the Comte de Guerchy of a design
to have him assassinated, the grand jury found the bill against the
Ambassador. This new insult was not more perplexing to the Ambassador
than it was to the Ministers. The latter determined to remove the
verdict by a writ of _certiorari_ into the King’s Bench, and then to
issue another of _noli prosequi_. The affront, in the meantime, met
with no support, and was soon forgotten in the subsequent national
disputes.
On the 4th of March, Nicholson Calvert, seconded by Serjeant Hewet,
moved the House to take from the Attorney-General the power of
informations _ex-officio_--a blow intended to stigmatize Norton, as
well as to serve liberty. Mr. Conway having observed that those popular
questions only terminated in confirming the power that was abused,
had vainly laboured to prevent the motion. Grenville and the lawyers
opposed it; and denying that the power had been abused, urged that
there was no reason for taking it away. Charles Yorke spoke on the side
of the Court, and, after a short debate, the motion was rejected by 204
to 78.[72]
Bishop Warburton,[73] who thought the persecution he had suffered from
Wilkes and Churchill, his devotion to the Ministry, and his great
pre-eminence in learning over his brethren on the Bench, had entitled
him to one of the most considerable mitres, resented so much the
promotion of Terrick to the see of London, that, during the King’s
illness, in the King’s own chapel, he preached on neglected merit,
and, with the same modesty that shines through his writings, drew
pictures of himself and his rival under the distinctions of merit and
demerit.[74]
The City of London petitioning the House of Commons for more money for
the new bridge at Blackfriars, Lord Strange, Elliot, and Rigby opposed,
the latter saying rudely, that he did not know what obligations the
King had to the City. Grenville, with more prudence, countenanced the
petition and procured a gift of 7000_l._
Lord John Cavendish, impatient to fulfil his engagement, prevailed on
Lord Rockingham to go to Hayes, and know if Mr. Pitt would come to
town, or desired to have the motion on dismission of officers delayed
any longer. Mr. Pitt’s language was now exceedingly altered, though
he still highly condemned the dismission of Conway. The question, he
said, touched near upon prerogative. It ought to have been brought on
early in the session; was sorry to hear it had been reported that the
question had been postponed on his account: himself had never advised
to agitate it. Lord Rockingham even doubted, from his inexplicit
conversation, whether, if he should appear in the House, he might not
make the same declaration there--a new reason for alarming us that
were averse to the motion. Lord Temple inquired after the result of
the visit. Lord Rockingham declared himself less satisfied than ever
with Mr. Pitt. Lord Temple assured him they were as well disposed as
ever to the Opposition; but then dropped, that if the former designed
arrangement had taken place, he did not believe it would have held six
months. “Why?” said Lord Rockingham. “Because,” replied Lord Temple
remarkably, “I believe the Duke of Devonshire, and others of you, never
liked that the Treasury should be put into _my_ hands.”
The Budget was opened by Grenville on the 29th of March, an occasion
that generally produces applause to the Head of the Treasury, who must
possess more lights on that subject than other men; and those lights
strike the more forcibly, as the audience are little masters of such
intricate details; and as the monied men, who alone feel the force
or deficiency of the Minister’s arguments, are rarely endowed with
eloquence, or even elocution. Yet Grenville, who valued himself on
his knowledge of finance, and who, of all qualifications, wanted not
redundancy of words, spoke but languidly and unsatisfactorily, chiefly
pointing his very long speech against a pamphlet published by Hartley,
on the State of the Nation. Himself, he said, would never punish any
invectives _against himself_; yet he betrayed every symptom of soreness
and malice. In very few years afterwards he used the same means with
Hartley against the Administration; and, previous to a session of
Parliament,[75] published, or countenanced, an invidious State of the
Nation; but met with a far more severe and able return than he himself
had made to Hartley.
On the 1st of April, the King withdrew to Richmond for a week, but
returned unexpectedly on the 3rd and 4th to his levee and drawing-room.
This sudden appearance was at that time supposed calculated to prevent
any notion of his being ill; and consequently to avoid any proposal
for a Bill of Regency, in case he should fail. The Favourite, in
the meantime, began to give more open marks of his disgust to the
Ministers. A bill for regulating the poor, drawn by one Gilbert,[76] a
member, and steward to Lord Gower, had passed the Commons with slight
animadversion, and had been sent to the Lords. The Earl of Egmont
opposed it strenuously on the first and second reading, and with much
applause; yet it was then carried. When it came into the committee,
Lord Bute’s friends exerted themselves to throw it out; though, to
disguise his opposition, Lord Bute absented himself, and the Earl of
Northumberland voted for it; but as the Favourite’s creatures, the
Earls of Denbigh and Pomfret, as well as Lord Egmont, conducted the
party against the bill, the Bedford party were not the dupes of such
flimsy arts. Lord Mansfield faintly supported the bill; the Dukes of
York and Gloucester voted for it, yet the commitment was rejected by 58
to 44, Newcastle, Lord Temple, and the Opposition uniting against the
Bedfords. Lord Pomfret then moved to put off any farther consideration
of the bill for two months; but that measure seeming too violent after
it had passed one House, and had been twice approved in the other, it
was carried by 50 to 49, to resume it after the holidays; when the
Bedfords consented to drop it.[77]
April the 3rd,--Sturt[78] and John Pitt[79] presented to the Commons
a petition from several merchants complaining of encroachments by the
French at Newfoundland--another grievance that reflected on the late
peace. The Ministers had the assurance to oppose the reception of the
petition, but managed as awkwardly as indecently; and, at last, moved
to examine Commodore Palliser,[80] who commanded on the station in
question. Palliser was a vigorous officer and a sensible man, and had
been so much esteemed by Lord Anson, that Admiral Saunders, desiring to
have the assistance of Palliser, had offered to relinquish the use of
a 74-gun ship, if the Admiralty would send Palliser with him. General
Conway, Colonel Barré, and Lord George Sackville made severe remarks on
the conduct of the Ministers. Palliser was called for, but declaring he
was not prepared, the House allowed him time till the next day.
When he appeared again, he produced a letter he had sent to the French
Commodore, at St. Pierre, with remonstrances on their behaviour; and
proved that he had by no means connived at their innovations. They had
denied the justice of most of his complaints; but to some had returned
no answer. Admiral Saunders, who spoke then for the first time, and
with extreme unreadiness, justified one of our captains who had burned
some French boats, and said he would have done the same. Late at night
a sudden dispute arising whether Palliser should be asked his opinion
on an Act of Parliament relating to the fisheries, the Ministers, who
sought to evade farther examination, opposed the question being put to
him. Some warm men in the Opposition supporting that motion (though
the wisest did not concur with them), divided the House, to the great
joy of the Ministers, who rejected the question by 161 to 44: and
thence, at once, determined to stifle any farther inquiry, Rose Fuller
moving to adjourn the consideration for three months; and Nugent to
thank Palliser for his account of his own conduct, though there were
witnesses waiting to show it had not been irreproachable. So eager were
the pacific Ministers to justify France, and wink at her encroachments.
Mr. Garth, the same day, presented a petition from the agent for
Virginia against the New American Mutiny Bill, which ordered the
billeting of soldiers on private houses, as there were no inns in that
country; but this petition, too, the Ministers refused to hear. In
the debate, Grenville quoting the Scotch law, young Thomas Townshend
spoke well and warmly against making the Scotch law our precedent;
and the younger Onslow said, that three Scots were preferred for one
Englishman. Elliot spoke finely in answer; said he thought English and
Scots were the same; and that if himself had merit enough, he should
pretend to any English place. That partialities were always common; had
been shown to Sussex,[81] and ought to be to Buckinghamshire; and if
the men of the latter county[82] were the most worthy, he would support
them. The House then adjourned for the holidays, when Grenville,
finding the American merchants vehemently averse to his new bill for
billeting soldiers in that country, promised to drop it.