Irksome Position of the Ministers.--Debate on Five Resolutions on
American Affairs.--The Ministers triumph on the first Resolution.--
Continuation of the Debate.--Pitt’s eccentric Conduct.--Mr.
Grenville moves an Address to the King, to enforce the Laws.--
Opposed strenuously by Pitt.--Violent Scene in the House.--Double
Dealing of George III.--Warm Debate on the Production of Papers.
The situation of the Ministers became every day more irksome and
precarious. On the last day of January they carried a question by so
small a majority, that, according to Parliamentary divination, it
had all the aspect of an overthrow. Mr. Wedderburne had presented a
Scotch petition, and moved to have it heard on that day month. The
Ministers, disinclined to it, proposed to defer it for six weeks, and
prevailed but by 148 against 139;[237] the Grooms of the Bedchamber,
Lord Strange, Chancellor of the Duchy, Lord Mount Stewart,[238] Dyson,
and even Lord George Sackville,[239] so recently preferred by the
Ministers, being in the minority, and Charles Townshend declining to
vote. To shake the credit of the Ministers, at least to humble them by
promoting a vigorous Opposition to their measures, Lord Bute’s agents
affectedly sought the company of the discontented chiefs, and hung out
to them hopes of Lord Bute’s support. His greatest dread was union
against him; his constant and repeated practice, to break and divide
all parties and connections. In the crisis of which I am speaking, he
was particularly anxious to prevent the junction of Mr. Pitt and the
Ministers. The latter, notwithstanding so many unpromising appearances,
and having nothing to fear but the loss of their places if firm, of
their characters if they temporized, maintained their ground, and
On February the 3rd Mr. Secretary Conway, in consequence of the papers
that had been delivered and read in the Committee, proposed to vote
five resolutions, which, he said, the world would expect in consequence
of the notices laid before Parliament. A friend to the Americans he
professed himself; but begged not to be understood to pledge himself
for future measures, nor even for the repeal of the Stamp Act; yet
could he but feel for that country, to whose miseries nothing was
wanting but a scene of blood, and whose language was the language of
despair? He thought them to blame; but he thought them pardonable. “The
other day,” said he, “all had been peace and harmony in that country.
All order of things had been reversed since the Stamp Act. The late
Acts of Parliament had been so many repeated blows on those people.
Look at other countries; they never bear fresh taxes. There was even
then uneasinesses in the Colonies of our enemies. The richest provinces
had been thrown away by the imposition of new taxes. He would mention
the grievances of America historically, as the Sugar Act, and the
swarms of cutters to interrupt the Spanish dollar trade. This Act was
false in its principles, and dangerous in its policy. Himself should
never be for internal taxes, and would sooner cut off his hand, than
sign an order for sending out force to maintain them.” He then read the
following resolutions:--
First.--That Great Britain had, hath, and ought to have full right and
power to bind the Americans in all cases whatsoever.
Second.--That tumults have been carried on.
Third.--That the votes of the assemblies are illegal.
Fourth.--Humbly to address his Majesty to bring the authors of riots to
condign punishment.
Fifth.--To address, that the sufferers by riots be compensated.
He added, that he looked on the right of taxation as a point of law;
Parliament might take it up. If he was to be called to account for
his letters, he repeated it again, he would do anything but exert
military force. Whenever the blow should come, he would stand on his
defence, and meet it like a man, with all the firmness of justice, and
indifference of innocence.
Stanley spoke for supporting the dignity of the Constitution, and
quoted Mr. Legge for having had views of raising assistance from
America; which country, he had thought, ought to maintain its own army.
Charles Yorke said, if it was impossible to carry the Stamp Act into
execution, it was better to repeal it; the House might make free with
its own work. Yet he talked much of the omnipotence of Parliament, and
said, “Lord Coke had declared he did not know how to set bounds to its
power. Our right was entire, supported by forms of precedents, and the
language of the Constitution. The moment one part of the Legislature
was given up, no friend would trust you, no enemy would fear you.”
This trimming speech was ridiculed by Beckford. He saw, he said, no
infallibility in an Act of Parliament: the learned gentleman had quoted
nothing fairly; lawyers never did. He would prophecy, that the moment
the Stamp Act should be repealed, it would be like the quarrels of
lovers, the renewal of love. Nugent said, the subjects who went from
this country, had carried with them their privileges, but had left
their duty behind. Dr. Blackstone, an able writer, but an indifferent
speaker, declared, _Tory_ as he was, that Parliament had no right to
impose internal taxes. Hussey pleaded for the Colonies, and urged that
internal taxes had never been carried so far as by the Stamp Act. The
House ought to have said, “Pay, or we will tax you.” To this hardship
had been added that of taking away their trials by juries. He advised
to exercise legislation with justice and humanity; and concluded,
that Parliament ought to consider less the acts of the Americans,
than their own. Wedderburne was as warm for sticking to fundamentals,
as Hussey had been temperate. Burke, allowing the right of taxation,
and that their own charters were against the Americans, was yet for
temporizing, according to the variation of circumstances, the neglect
of which had brought Ministers into disgrace. Principles should be
subordinate to Government. The Stamp Act, on account of the dignity of
the mischief it had produced, required the discussion of a particular
debate. Lord Frederick Campbell objected to distinctions between theory
and practice, which, he said, had brought on the Revolution. If the
Americans carried with them their liberty, how came it that the King in
Council had a right to tax them? Colonel Barré talked of the Americans
as worse treated than French or Spanish provinces. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer said, that the Parliament’s power of taking away their
charters gave it a right of taxation; but to repeal the Act would be a
safer way.
George Grenville, who had reserved all his fire for Conway, attacked
him with the utmost animosity. The Americans had been blameable, but
were pardonable according to the Secretary of State. For his part, he
did not think rebellion pardonable. He had never advised to resist
taxes; had never advised people to stand to their tackle and resist.
Was there not an order under the gentleman’s own hand, in papers on the
table, to send a military force? and yet, forsooth, he would sooner cut
off that hand! His insinuation was void of truth; there were no cutters
sent to the West Indies; no such orders to cruize on the Spanish trade.
He had proposed, and now called on the House to fix a day for inquiring
into that affair. For shame! let it not be repeated any more. First let
the business be done, and then let it be known by whose fault affairs
had been brought to the present crisis.
Mr. Pitt made another oration on general liberty, and in favour of
the Colonies, but not various enough from the former to demand being
particularized. Sir Fletcher Norton answered him with equal warmth--and
then burst out such a confutation of the lies Mr. Grenville had been
venting, that it was wonderful how even _his_ pallid features could
quench the blush of shame. Conway acquainted the House that he had two
letters in his hand, one from Sir William Burnaby,[240] acquainting
him that the Spanish trade could not go on under the present
regulations; and he offered to read them to the House, or give them
to Mr. Grenville himself. “I may be _mistaken_,” said Conway; “but he
shall not say I _misrepresent_.” Grenville still repeated that there
were no such orders given to regulate that trade. Admiral Keppel said,
he could take upon himself to affirm that that trade had suffered;
and Huske undertook to prove to the House, that orders had been given
by the Treasury under Mr. Grenville’s Administration, relative to the
restrictions laid on the Spanish trade: and Mr. Grenville had no more
to say. At near three in the morning the question was put, and the
first resolution was carried without a division, Mr. Pitt’s, and four
or five voices only, dissenting: the rest of the propositions were
adjourned to another day.[241]
In the House of Lords the Opposition ran the Ministers nearer, and even
carried one or two questions by majorities of four and five. Lord Bute
himself, almost acting patriotism, said, Nothing should oblige him to
be for the King’s wish if he did not approve the measures of the King’s
Ministers. In the House of Commons the sittings were long, repeated,
and full of warmth; but the Ministers, supported by the popularity of
the measure, and by the ascendant of Pitt, (which never appeared more
conspicuously, though eccentric,) pursued their point, and weak as
they were from the treachery of the Court, from their own inexperience,
and from deficiency of great talents, were able to weather the various
storms that concurred, and concurred only, for their destruction.[242]
On the 5th the House went again on the resolutions. To the second
Dyson proposed to add, _whereby the execution of an Act of the last
session of Parliament has in such provinces been defeated_. This was
opposed, particularly by Mr. Pitt, though he said his support could be
of little _efficacy_ to American liberty, standing as he did almost
naked in that House, like a primæval parent, naked, because innocent;
naked, because not ashamed. Elliot declared for moderating rather than
for repealing the Act, and Grenville himself agreed that it might be
altered; on which Burke triumphed and taunted him: and Pitt, to whom
Grenville had made compliments, declaring that there he would make
his stand, the amendment was withdrawn. The third resolution passed
without contradiction. The fourth, Conway himself offered to give
up, as too severe; and Pitt, with encomiums on his constitutional
lenity, encouraging him to depart from it, it was withdrawn. The
fifth occasioned more debate. Nugent proposed to correct the words,
_recommend to governors to recompense the sufferers_, and to
substitute the word _require_; and the Master of the Rolls declaring
the whole resolution illegal, as the House could not recommend in cases
of money, that motion, too, was given up. Grenville proposed others
for compensation, protection, and indemnification to the officers of
the revenue, &c. Pitt went away, after highly praising the Ministers,
protesting how desirous he was of agreeing with them, and assuring
them that, as far as he could support them, they might depend on his
support. Grenville’s motions carried on the debate for two hours more;
when both sides, fearing to divide, and Elliot moderating, Grenville
was, with much difficulty, persuaded to suffer the amendment of his
motions. Those questions and alterations may be found in the journals;
nor do I pretend to great accuracy in words of that sort: the sense and
substance I mean to give, the forms may be collected by historians, or
corrected by critics. It is the business of the former, the existence
of the latter, to be nice in minutiæ.[243]
On the 7th of February the Opposition determined to try their strength.
Mr. Conway acquainted the Committee that though the voluminous
quantity of his correspondences prevented his being able as yet to lay
them before the House; still that they deserved the most important
consideration, as representing the deplorable state of that unfortunate
country, America, where all was anarchy and confusion--without courts,
without laws, without justice; and yet he had not heard a breath of
disloyalty,--it was the countenance of despair. They looked upon their
trade and liberty as gone; and yet he thought it his duty to acquaint
the House that one of his correspondents was of opinion that the Stamp
Act might still be carried into execution.
Mr. Grenville, untouched and unmoved by so calamitous a picture, moved
to address the King to give orders for enforcing the laws, and for
carrying all Acts of the English Parliament into execution. Charles
Townshend, making a merit of not having declared his opinion on the
repeal, approved the Address, and yet disliked the latter words, which
could be interpreted to be levelled at nothing but the Stamp Act.
This was much extended by Burke; faintly taken up by Yorke; and the
motion supported on the other side by Jenkinson and Norton. Mr. Pitt,
who arrived under extreme pain, argued against the proposed Address
with unusual strength of argument, and demonstrated the absurdity of
enforcing an Act which in a very few days was likely to be repealed.
He encouraged a division rather than the admission of such an Address.
Such a question, followed by such a majority as he foresaw would
be against the Address, would show the weakness of the wisdom, and
the weakness of the numbers of those who proposed and approved it.
Supposing orders should be sent out immediately, in consequence of such
an Address, to enforce the Act, the scene that would ensue would make
the Committee shudder; what could follow but bloodshed, and military
execution in support of a law, which perhaps might be repealed in a
week’s time, and our Governors abroad might go on enforcing it after it
was repealed? When he was Secretary of State, the fleet lay wind-bound
in the Channel for nine or eleven weeks--what would be the consequence
of such an event now? He pressed Grenville to withdraw his motion; and
then, excusing himself on his illness, went away.
Grenville, as obdurate as the winds of which Pitt had talked, and
who, having checked a glorious war, seemed to promise himself other
triumphs over his countrymen, expatiated on the haughtiness of Pitt,
and denounced curses on the Ministers that should sacrifice the
sovereignty of Britain over her Colonies. Conway retorted on the
inhumanity of Grenville, and that sort of intrepidity that menaced two
millions of people, who were not in a situation to revenge themselves;
and by apt allusion to Grenville’s remorseless despotism, told him
that Count d’Ocyras,[244] the most intrepid Minister that ever was,
had yet rescinded the duties in the Brazils. In confirmation of Mr.
Pitt’s arguments, he told the House the packet would depart in two
days; was it advisable to let it carry this precipitate, and perhaps
useless Address to America? useless, if the Stamp Act was repealed,
as he avowed he hoped it would be. Nugent argued on the danger of
giving way; on the spirit of resistance this would infuse into the
Irish; and on the contempt with which France would treat our demands,
if we knew not how to govern our own subjects. The resolutions of the
House, unenforced, would, he said, be holding a harlequin’s sword over
the heads of the Colonists. Lord Granby declared for, and Sir George
Saville against, the Address. Beckford was bitter on Grenville; and
Norton so abusive on Yorke, that Sir Alexander Gilmour told him, in
his own famous phrase, that he could have kept company with nothing
but _drunken porters_. Colonel Onslow with more good humour, said, he
looked upon the altercation between the two learned gentleman (Yorke
and Norton) as a race for the Chancellorship. Much personal heat,
however, ensued, and put an end to the debate, when the motion for
leaving the Chair, which had been proposed by Yorke, was carried (and
the Address consequently rejected) by 274 to 134; the very majority
being greater than the whole amount of the Opposition; though Lord
Bute’s friends and all the Scotch and the Tories, and Lord Granby,
and near a dozen of the King’s own servants, voted in the minority.
It was matter of ridicule, that in the lists given out by Lord
Sandwich, _their_ faction had been estimated at 130; and Lord Bute’s
tools had vaunted that he could command fourscore or ninety votes.
The astonishment and mortification of Grenville and the Bedfords were
unequalled. They had quarrelled with and defied the Favourite when they
were in power; and were now seeking and courting his support, when he
seemed to have lost his power almost as much as they had.
The Ministers, however triumphant, were with reason disgusted at the
notorious treachery of the Court; and remonstrated to the King on
the behaviour of his servants. Evasions and professions were all the
replies; but no alteration of conduct in consequence. On the contrary,
within two days after the last division in the House of Commons, a
scene broke forth that exhibited a duplicity, at once so artful, and
yet so impolitic, so narrow-minded in its views, and so dangerous in
its tendency, that the warmest partizans of royalty, of the Princess,
and of the Favourite, will never be able to efface the stain. What
crooked counsels, and how insincere the mind, which could infuse or
imbibe such lessons!
Lord Strange, one of the placemen who opposed the repeal of the Stamp
Act, having occasion to go into the King on some affair of his office,
the Duchy of Lancaster, the King said, he heard it was reported in the
world, that he (the King) was for the repeal of that Act. Lord Strange
replied, that idea did not only prevail, but that his Majesty’s
Ministers did all that lay in their power to encourage that belief,
and that their great majority had been entirely owing to their having
made use of his Majesty’s name. The King desired Lord Strange to
contradict that report, assuring him it was not founded. Lord Strange
no sooner left the closet than he made full use of the authority he had
received, and trumpeted all over the town the conversation he had had
with the King. So extraordinary a tale soon reached the ear of Lord
Rockingham, who immediately asked Lord Strange if it was true what
the King was reported to have said to him? The other confirmed it. On
that, Lord Rockingham desired the other to meet him at Court, when they
both went into the closet together. Lord Strange began, and repeated
the King’s words; and asked if he had been mistaken? The King said,
“No.” Lord Rockingham then pulled out a paper, and begged to know, if
on such a day (which was minuted down on the paper) his Majesty had
not determined for the repeal? Lord Rockingham then stopped. The King
replied, “My Lord, this is but half;” and taking out a pencil, wrote
on the bottom of Lord Rockingham’s paper words to this effect: “The
question asked me by my Ministers, was, whether I was for enforcing the
Act by the sword, or for the repeal? Of the two extremes I was for the
repeal; but most certainly preferred modification to either.”
It is not necessary to remark on this story. The King had evidently
consented to the repeal, and then disavowed his Ministers, after
suffering them to proceed half-way in their plan, unless it is an
excuse that he secretly fomented opposition to them all the time.
His middle way of modification, tallying exactly with what had been
proposed in the House of Commons by Elliot and Jenkinson, proved
that, notwithstanding all his Majesty’s and Lord Bute’s own solemn
professions, the latter was really Minister still; and that no favour
could be obtained but by paying court to him. In such circumstances is
it wonderful that the nation fell into disgrace and confusion, or that
the Crown itself suffered such humiliations? A King to humour a timid
yet overbearing Favourite, encouraging opposition to his own Ministers!
What a picture of weakness!
On the 17th happened another very warm debate, occasioned by Mr.
Dowdeswell’s moving to discharge the order for printing the American
papers, the Speaker having declared that it was impossible to omit
proper names and preserve the sense. The Opposition called this
_inconsistency_, and threw all the ridicule they could on the
Ministers, for what they termed variation and unsettled conduct.
Wedderburne, in particular, a very fluent, acute, and bitter speaker,
imputed these changes to the orders of Mr. Pitt. “The oracle has
appeared, the oracle has spoken,” said he; “those gentlemen have
prostrated themselves before it; but I tremble to think what will
become of them for their inconsistencies. How will they expiate their
crime? how atone for it? I would advise them to make pilgrimages to
Hayes. Perhaps he may require human sacrifices.” Beckford and Conway
reproached him for not having ventured to attack Mr. Pitt when he was
present. Rigby turned his artillery on Conway, who had dropped that he
had been forced into his present situation. “I have heard,” said Rigby,
“of a _médecin malgré lui_, never of a Minister _malgré lui_; nor am I
apt to think that people who do not like their situations, exert all
their abilities--they do not do their best: I dare say the honourable
gentleman does not do his best. I look upon timidity in a Minister to
be as bad as cowardice in a General.” Lord George Sackville said, “May
we ever have such a Minister _malgré lui_, who is ready to serve his
country and rescue the dignity of the Sovereign from being insulted!”
Conway, roused by the brutality of Rigby, yet too apt to bear public
abuse with phlegmatic patience, both from conscious intrepidity, and
from knowing that such public jarrings are always hindered from coming
to private decision, replied with uncommon ability and applause.
“The gentleman had talked,” he said, “of timidity in a Minister and
cowardice in a General;--as to timidity on the present measure, the
House would judge whether his conduct had been timid. Cowardice he was
sure the honourable gentleman did not mean to apply to him;” said
he, “I know him too well; he would scarcely have taken an improper
occasion to call me coward; I have a better opinion of his courage than
that comes to. The other gentleman, who had talked of the oracle, had
better have said that on the last debate--but why had he said it at
all? Was it not known that those gentlemen had courted and idolized the
idol, and had been rejected?” The debate was at length closed by Mr.
Vane,[245] who told a story of Sir Robert Walpole and Mr. Pulteney,
in the Administration of the former. Mr. Pulteney had made a motion
for papers, and Sir Robert granted them; but immediately went to Mr.
Pulteney and told him that what he had done would be the occasion of
many persons losing their lives, besides the mischief he would entail
on future Ministers. Mr. Pulteney was struck, and withdrew his motion.
In like manner the order for printing was now set aside without a
division.