{GEORGE III. 1765–1769}
The Meeting of Parliament..... Debates on Colonial
Taxation..... Instability of the Cabinet..... Attempts to
form a new Administration..... Opposition to the Stamp
Duties in America..... Embarrassment of Ministers and
Meeting of Parliament..... Sentiments of the Americans on
the Declaratory Act..... The Dissolution of the
Rockingham Cabinet..... Decline of Lord Chatham’s
Popularity..... Meeting of Parliament..... East India
Question..... American Taxation..... Changes in the
Ministry..... Proceedings in America..... Domestic Troubles
and Commotions..... The Return of Wilkes, &c.
Resignation of Lord Chatham..... The Affairs of Wilkes.....
Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on Wilkes, &c.
Debates on America..... East India Affairs..... Prorogation
of Parliament, &c. Discontents in England and Ireland.
{1765}
THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament assembled on the 10th of January, 1765. The leading topics of
the king’s speech referred to continental events, from which he augured
the continuation of peace. In allusion to American taxation and American
discontents, he recommended the carrying out of Grenville’s measures,
and the enforcing obedience in the colonies. He remarked:—“The
experience I have had of your former conduct makes me rely on your
wisdom and firmness, in promoting that obedience to the laws, and
respect to the legislative authority of this kingdom, which is
essentially necessary for the safety of the whole, and in establishing
such regulations as may best connect and strengthen every part of my
dominions for their mutual benefit and support.” In this speech, also,
his majesty announced the approaching marriage of his youngest sister,
the Princess Caroline, with the Prince Royal of Denmark: a union which
was ultimately attended with tragical consequences.
Early in this session complaints were made by the opposition that the
court of Spain had not paid the Manilla ransom, which gave rise to
an angry debate; the ministers warmly defending the conduct of the
Spaniards in this particular. An attempt was also again made by the
opposition to procure a resolution against the illegality of general
warrants, but decision on this point was eluded, and the previous
question carried. Another motion, to restrain the attorney-general in
his power of filing informations _ex officio_, which was made by the
opposition, was likewise negatived by a ministerial majority. But these
were only so many preludes to a storm which took place on the subject of
colonial taxation.
DEBATES ON COLONIAL TAXATION.
It has been seen that the measure of laying a duty on stamps had been
postponed, in order to give the colonists time to propose any other
mode of taxation in lieu of it more agreeable to their own feelings. The
agents of America, however, all replied that they were instructed not
only to oppose the stamp-tax, but every other bill which assumed as a
principle the right of taxing the colonies. They urged in reply to
the statement, that it was reasonable for America to contribute her
proportion toward the general expenses of the empire; that, “America had
never been backward in obeying the constitutional requisitions of the
crown, and contributing liberally, in her own assemblies, towards
the expenses of wars, in which, conjointly with England, she had
been engaged; that in the course of the last memorable contest, her
patriotism had been so conspicuous, that large sums had been repeatedly
voted, as an indemnification to the colonists for exertions allowed
to be far beyond their means and resources; and that the proper
compensation to Britain for the expense of rearing and protecting her
colonies was the monopoly of their trade, the absolute direction and
regulation of which was universally acknowledged to be inherent in the
British legislature.”
In all ages of the world sovereign states have assumed to themselves the
right of taxing their dependant colonies for the general good. A glance
at ancient history, however, is sufficient to prove that there is danger
in the expedient. By colonial taxation Athens involved herself in many
dangerous wars, which proved highly prejudicial to her interests, and
which reads a powerful lesson to modern states and kingdoms on this
subject. The British king and British cabinet, however, had, like the
Athenians, to learn a lesson from experience, and not from the pages
of history. Conceiving that they had gone too far to recede, they were
resolutely determined not to yield their claim of right. The memorials
were not even allowed to be read in the house, for the British
legislature, with few exceptions, considered the right which they
questioned to be indisputable. Fifty-five resolutions of the committee
of ways and means, relating to this branch of the revenue, were agreed
to by the commons, and they were afterwards incorporated into an act
for laying nearly the same stamp-duties on the American colonies as were
payable at the time in England. The debate on this subject was generally
languid, but on Townshend venturing to assert, that the Americans were
“children planted by our care and nourished by our indulgence,” Colonel
Barre, who had served beyond the Atlantic, and knew both the country and
people well, exclaimed vehemently, “They planted by your care! No! your
oppression planted them in America—they fled from your tyranny to
a then uncultivated and inhospitable wilderness, exposed to all the
hardships to which human nature is liable. They nourished by your
indulgence! No! they grew by your neglect of them; your care of them
was displayed, as soon as you began to take care about them, in sending
persons to rule them who were the deputies of deputies of ministers—men
whose behaviour on many occasions has caused the blood of those sons
of liberty to recoil within them—men who have been promoted to the
highest seats of justice in that country, in order to escape being
brought to the bar of justice in their own. I have been conversant with
the Americans, and I know them to be loyal indeed, but a people jealous
of their liberties, and who will vindicate them if ever they should be
violated; and let my prediction of this day be remembered, that the same
spirit of freedom which actuated that people at first will accompany
them still.” The prediction of Colonel Barre was treated as emanating
from his loss of the regiment which he had commanded in America; and
the bill passed both houses without any difficulty, and it received the
royal assent by commission on the 22nd of March. It passed from a lack
of knowledge of American affairs; from an indifference to the interests
of the colonists; and from sheer cupidity. The profits which we had
derived from commerce with the Americans, and which were the ostensible
object proposed in planting the colonies, were not sufficient: if we
could obtain it, we must share in their profits likewise. But this was
a question which time only could solve; a riddle, which events must
explain.
INSTABILITY OF THE CABINET.
Ministers seemed to have carried matters with a high hand in parliament
during the previous debates, but there were nevertheless causes at work
which tended to weaken and dissolve their administration. The Americans
had already put their threats into execution concerning their abstinence
from the use of British goods, and this created great alarm among
shipowners, merchants, manufacturers, artizans, and labourers. The
complaints of the two latter classes of the community were increased
by a scarcity of bread, and the high price of provisions, which were
ascribed to the mal-administration of the ministers. These popular
discontents, however, might have been disregarded, had not Grenville
given offence to a royal personage, whose resentment would have ensured
the downfall of even a much greater and more popular man than the prime
minister.
About a week after he had given his assent to the American Stamp Act,
it was reported that his majesty was seriously ill, and it would appear
that his illness was a slight attack of that fearful malady which thrice
afflicted him during his long reign, and incapacitated him for his
kingly duties. This time his malady was transient; but, taking warning
by it, he acquainted his ministers that he was anxious for a Regency
Bill, and told them the particulars of his intention. The sketch of such
a bill was drawn up by Fox, now Lord Holland, which left the regent
to be named by the king, and which, among other members of the royal
family, omitted the name of the queen. The queen’s name was subsequently
added, but no mention was made of the Princess-dowager of Wales. The
king himself proposed that he should be invested with power, from time
to time, by instruments under his sign manual, to appoint either the
queen or any other person of the royal family, usually residing in Great
Britain, to be guardian of his succession and regent of the kingdom,
until his successor should have attained his eighteenth year. A bill to
this effect was carried in the upper house, but in the commons a motion
was made requiring the king to name those persons whom he would intrust
with so important a charge. This motion was negatived, and a question
was then raised as to the construction of the words “any other member
of the royal family,” and the answer given was, that they meant
“the descendants of George the Second.” This interpretation would have
excluded the princess-dowager from all share in the public councils, and
therefore an amendment was moved at the next reading to insert her
name next to that of the queen. This amendment was carried by a large
majority; but it was foreseen that the king would resent the insult put
upon his mother in both houses, and would attempt to rid himself of Mr.
Grenville and Lord Halifax, who had omitted to insert her name in the
bill at the very outset of the proceedings.
On the 15th of May, the king went in person to give his assent to
this bill. On that occasion a mob of silk-weavers and others, from
Spitalfields, went to St. James’s Palace with black flags and other
symptoms of mourning and distress, to present a petition, complaining
that they were reduced to a state of starvation by the importation of
French silks. Both houses of parliament were surrounded by them, where
they insulted various members, and even terrified the lords into an
adjournment. In the evening they attacked Bedford-house, and began to
pull down the walls, declaring that the duke had been bribed to make the
treaty of Fontainbleau, and that it had brought poverty and all other
curses into England. The riot act was read, and the mob dispersed, but
the streets were crowded with soldiers for some days for fear of an
outbreak. Reports were also spread of mutinies among the sailors at
Portsmouth, insurrections among the Norwich weavers, and riots in Essex
and Lancashire. The cabinet and country alike seemed to be fast going
to pieces; whence his majesty, combined with the insult offered to his
mother, resolved to make some attempt to form a new administration,
hoping thereby to effect a change in the aspect of public affairs.
ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION.
In a letter written to the Earl of Hertford, when the yells of the
populace of London were ringing in his ears, Mr. Burke writes:—“The
Regency Bill has shown such want of capacity in the ministers, such an
inattention to the honour of the crown, if not such a design against it;
such imposition and surprise upon the king, and such a misrepresentation
of the disposition of parliament to the sovereign, that there is no
doubt a fixed resolution to get rid of them all—unless perhaps of
Grenville—but principally of the Duke of Bedford; so that you will have
much more reason to be surprised to find the ministry standing by the
end of next week, than to hear of their entire removal. Nothing but an
intractable temper in your friend Pitt can prevent a most admirable
and lasting system from being put together, and this crisis will show
whether pride or patriotism be predominant in his character: for you may
be assured he has it now in his power to come into the service of his
country upon any plan of politics he may choose to dictate, with great
and honourable terms to himself and to every friend he has in the world,
and with such a strength of power as will be equal to everything but
absolute despotism over the king and kingdom. A few days will show
whether he will take this part, or that of continuing on his back at
Hayes, talking fustian, excluded from all ministerial, and incapable
of all parliamentary service: for his gout is worse than ever, but his
pride may disable him more than his gout.”
At the very time Burke wrote thus, negociations were in progress with
Pitt. For when ministers went to the king on the 16th of May, to receive
his commands for his speech at the end of the session, he had given them
to understand that he would only have it prorogued, since he intended
to make a change in the administration. In consequence of this
determination, his majesty sent his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland,
to Hayes, in Kent, to treat with Pitt. The final reply of Pitt to the
offers is said to have been, “that he was ready to go to St. James’s
provided he might carry with him the constitution.” A total change of
men, measures, and counsels was involved in this reply; but the king had
some “friends” whom he wished to retain in their official situations,
and such a sweeping change could not be conceded. The Duke of Cumberland
continued his endeavours to form a ministry for a day or two, but no
one, possessing any merit, would undertake office when it was known
that Pitt had refused, and the king was compelled to retain his old
ministers. This was a mortifying circumstance in itself, but it was
rendered doubly so by the insolent behaviour of some of the members of
the cabinet. When he desired to know the conditions of their continuance
in office, they peremptorily demanded a royal promise of never
consulting the Earl of Bute; the instant dismissal of Mr. Mackenzie, his
lordship’s brother, from his high offices in Scotland; the deprivation
of the paymastership of the forces, held by Lord Holland, which should
be given to a member of the House of Commons; the nomination of Lord
Granby to be head of the army; and the discretionary power of nominating
to the government of Ireland whoever they pleased. The king expressed
his anger and astonishment at these hard terms, and bade them return at
ten o’clock at night for his answer. A partial compliance, however, was
necessary, and before the appointed hour he sent them word by the lord
chancellor that he would not bind himself by a promise never to consult
Bute, though he acquiesced in the propriety of not letting him interfere
in the councils of the state; that he consented to displace Mr.
Mackenzie from his office, as well as Lord Holland; but that he
absolutely refused the article about Lord Granby. Ministers now took
time to consider, but they were too fond of office to retire without
being actually compelled. On the following morning they gave up the
point of Lord Granby, and contented themselves with the promise of
not permitting Bute to interfere. They were, therefore, to continue in
office; and Charles Townshend was made paymaster of the forces, while
Lord Weymouth was appointed to the government in Ireland. But the king
considered that he was dishonoured, and that he was held in thraldom
by his ministers, whence he soon made fresh efforts to deliver himself.
Again he negociated with Pitt, and again negociations with him fell to
the ground. Pitt could not engage without Lord Temple, and Temple, when
sent for, raised objections which rendered the whole scheme abortive.
But the king was resolute in his determination to free himself from the
chains by which his ministers had enthralled him. Early in July, he
once more applied to his uncle, who undertook to treat with the Duke
of Newcastle, whose parliamentary weight was nearly a counterpoise to
Pitt’s oratory and popularity. Newcastle joined Cumberland in addressing
himself to the more moderate section of the opposition, and at length
a new ministry was formed. The Marquis of Rockingham became head of the
treasury; General Conway became one of the secretaries of state, and was
intrusted with the House of Commons; the Duke of Grafton was the other
secretary of state; Mr. Dowdeswell was the chancellor of the exchequer;
the Earl of Hertford was made lord-lieutenant of Ireland, instead of
Lord Weymouth; the president’s chair, vacated by the Duke of Bedford,
was given to Lord Winchelsea; and the Duke of Newcastle contented
himself with the privy seal. The celebrated Edmund Burke was engaged as
private secretary by Lord Rockingham, and now, for the first time, had
a seat in parliament. There seemed a reasonable hope that this ministry
would obtain strength and durability, but it wanted Pitt for its
supporter; and it was weakened in October by the death of the Duke of
Cumberland. This blow was more severely felt, because there was a want
of union in the members of this cabinet from the first, and where
there is no union there can be no real strength. Moreover, the Earl
of Rockingham, though one of the most honest, honourable, and
well-intentioned men in existence at that period, lacked the ability
for collecting the scattered energies of party, and forming them into a
system, whence it was soon found that his cabinet was unpopular; and, at
no distant period of time, it was compelled to give place to another. In
the whole course of its existence, indeed, it exhibited the lack of that
vitality which could alone make it memorable and enduring.
{GEORGE III 1765–1769.}
OPPOSITION TO THE STAMP DUTIES IN AMERICA.
The fatal effects of Grenville’s Stamp Act were soon made manifest—the
storm which the anticipation of it had raised, grew into a perfect
hurricane as soon as it was known in America that it was consummated.
Throughout the whole country a disposition existed to resist to the
death, rather than submit. The episcopalian and aristocratic colonists
of Virginia, alike with the presbyterian and democratic colonists of New
England, denounced the measure in the strongest language, and displayed
strong feelings of dislike to it. Nay, the Assembly of Virginia, which
hitherto had been pre-eminent in loyalty, was now the first to set an
example of disobedience. The House of Assembly there was shaken by
the eloquence of Patrick Henry, who took the lead in the debate. In
a resolution which he brought forward against the Stamp Act, Henry
exclaimed—“Cæsar had his Brutus; Charles I. his Oliver Cromwell; and
George III.”—the orator at this point was interrupted by a voice crying
“treason!” and, pausing for a moment, he added, “and George III. may
profit by that example. If that be treason, make the most of it.” When
tranquillity was restored, the assembly voted a series of resolutions,
declaring that the first settlers in Virginia had brought with them all
the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the people of England; that
they possessed the exclusive right of taxing themselves in their own
representative assemblies, which right had been constantly recognised by
the king and parliament of Great Britain; and that every attempt to
vest such a power in any other person or persons was illegal,
unconstitutional, and unjust, and had a tendency to destroy both
British and American independence. This had a great effect on the other
colonies, and the house of representatives of Boston suggested that a
congress should be held at New York, whither each province should send
deputies to concert measures for averting the grievance of the Stamp
Act. Nine out of thirteen of the colonies sent their delegates to this
congress, and fourteen strong resolutions were passed condemnatory of
the bill; and three petitions were concocted—one to the king, another
to the lords, and a third to the commons. From the decorous manner
adopted in its proceedings little alarm was excited, but by it an
important point was gained to the Americans—a closer connexion
was established by the meeting among the leading men of the various
colonies; and thus a way was prepared for a more general and extensive
combination should it be required by circumstances.
It was not in the assemblies alone that resistance to the Stamp Act was
manifested. Ominous proceedings were adopted by the public. As soon as
the news of it arrived in America, at Boston the colours of the shipping
were hoisted half-mast high, and the bells were rung muffled; at New
York the act was printed with a skull and cross bones, and hawked about
the streets by the title of “England’s Folly, and America’s Ruin;” while
at Philadelphia the people spiked the very guns on the ramparts.
The public irritation daily increased, and when at length the stamps
arrived, it was found impossible either to put them into circulation,
or to preserve them from destruction. The distributors were even forced
publicly to renounce, on oath, all concern with them; and riots broke
out in Boston, and several other cities, at which the public authorities
were compelled to connive. Law-agents generally resolved to forego the
practice of their profession rather than use stamps, and all stamped
mercantile or custom-house papers were seized as the ships came into
port, and publicly committed to the flames. By the 1st of November, the
time when the act came into operation, not a sheet of stamped paper was
to be found; and, therefore, all business which could not be legally
carried on without it, was brought to a stand—the courts of justice
were closed, and the ports shut up.
These measures were followed by others far more injurious to the
interests of Great Britain. Merchants entered into solemn engagements
not to order any more goods from England; to recall the orders already
given, if not fulfilled by the 1st of January, 1766; and not to dispose
of any goods sent to them on commission after that date, unless the
Stamp Act, and even the Sugar and Paper-money Acts were repealed.
Measures were also taken to render the importation of British
manufactures unnecessary. A society for the promotion of arts and
commerce was instituted at New York, and markets opened for the sale of
home-made goods, which soon poured into them from every quarter. Linens,
woollens, paper-hangings, coarse kind of iron-ware, and various other
articles of domestic life were approved by the society, and eagerly
purchased by the public. People of the highest fashion even preferred
wearing home-spun, or old clothes, rather than purchase articles which
could conduce to the welfare of Britain; and lest the new manufactories
should fail from want of materials, many entered into an engagement to
abstain from the flesh of the lamb. All classes were animated by the
spirit of resistance to their mother-country, and resolutions began to
be circulated of stopping exports as well as imports, and of preventing
the tobacco of Virginia and South Carolina from finding its way into the
British markets. The flame even spread to the West Indian plantations;
for in the islands of St. Christopher and Nevis, all stamps were
committed to the flames, and the distributors compelled to resign
office. Here was evidently work for the British Cabinet during the next
session of parliament, and we proceed to show how they acted.
EMBARRASSMENT OF MINISTERS AND MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
During the recess, ministers, who were divided in opinion and thwarted
by the king, could do nothing. It would not appear, indeed, that the
subject was considered of such vital importance as to demand instant
attention and extraordinary exertions. Parliament met on the 17th of
December, but it was only to be prorogued for the Christmas holidays,
and the king merely mentioned in his speech, that something had occurred
in America which would demand the attention of the legislature. In the
meantime a meeting was held at Rockingham-house, for the purpose of
arranging measures against the opening of the session, and particularly
with respect to America. Yet no vigorous measures were resolved on, and
all which they did decide upon was merely the terms in which the king’s
speech should be comprised when parliament reassembled.
{A.D. 1766}
Parliament reassembled on the 14th of January, when his majesty spoke
more at length on the subject of the American colonies, and said that
the papers were ordered to be laid before them. The subject was pointed
out to the members as the principal object of their deliberation, and it
was left to their wisdom, in full confidence the judgment and moderation
of the two houses would conciliate the colonists without compromising
the rights of the British legislature. Everything had been done, his
majesty said, by the governors, and the commanders of the forces in
America, for the suppression of riot and tumult, and the effectual
support of lawful authority—they had failed, and the rest was left to
them.
His majesty’s speech was followed by the presentation of the petitions
from America, and of numerous petitions from the great manufacturing
towns of the kingdom, which set forth the present ruin of all classes,
with the prospective derangement of the national finances; all which
seemed to declare that the time was arrived when effectual measures
should be taken for their redemption. Then succeeded the debate. It was
opened in the commons by Mr. Nugent, who condemned the opposition made
by the colonists, to what he deemed a reasonable and easy tax, yet
expressed his willingness to abandon it, provided they would solicit its
repeal as a boon, and acknowledge the right of the British legislature
to impose it: with him “a peppercorn as an acknowledgment of a right was
of more value than millions without such a concession.” Burke followed;
but nothing more is known of his first speech in parliament than that he
astonished the house by the force and fancy of his eloquence, and that
he gained by it the golden opinion of Pitt. That more experienced
orator next spoke, and his sentiments were more to the purpose. After
condemning the daring measures adopted by the late administration, and
blaming the indecision and tardy efforts of their successors, against
whom, as men, he had nothing to allege, as they were men of fair
characters, and such as he rejoiced to see in his majesty’s service,
bowing with grace and dignity to them, he observed—“Pardon me,
gentlemen, but confidence is a plant of slow growth in an aged bosom;
youth is the season of credulity. By comparing events with each other,
and reasoning from effects to causes, methinks I plainly discover an
overruling influence. I have had the honour to serve the crown, and if I
could have submitted to influence, I might have continued to serve, but
I would not be responsible for others. I have no local attachments:
it is indifferent to me whether a man was rocked in his cradle on this
side, or the other side of the Tweed. I sought for merit wherever it was
to be found. It is my boast that I was the first minister who looked for
it, and found it in the mountains of the north. I called it forth, and
drew into your service a hardy and intrepid race of men!—men who, when
left to your jealousy, became a prey to the artifices of your enemies,
and had gone nigh to overturn the state in the war before the last.
These men, in the last war, were brought to combat on your side; they
served with fidelity as they fought with valour, and conquered for you
in every part of the world. Detested be the national reflections against
them!—they are unjust, groundless, illiberal, unmanly. When I ceased
to serve his majesty as a minister, it was not the country of the man by
which I was moved; but the man of that country wanted wisdom, and held
principles incompatible with freedom.”
The great orator proceeded to observe, that when the resolution of
taxing America was first taken he was ill in bed, and if he could have
been brought to the floor of that house, he would have given his firm
testimony against the measure. He then expressed a hope that the members
of the British legislature would not consider it a point of honour, or
themselves bound to persevere in carrying out what they had begun.
His opinion was, that Great Britain had no right to lay a tax on the
American colonies; but at the same time he uttered this seemingly
contradictory opinion—that her authority over them was sovereign in
all cases of legislation. He said—“The colonists are subjects of this
kingdom, equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural advantages
of mankind, and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen: equally bound by
its laws, and equally participating in its free constitution. Taxation
is no part of the legislative power. Taxes are the voluntary gift and
grant of the commons alone. In legislation, the three estates of the
realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the
crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law.
The gift and grant is of the commons alone.” Having shown in what way
the great bulk of the land had passed into the hands of the commons, he
remarked—“When, therefore, in this house, we give and grant, we give
and grant what is our own. But in an American tax what do we do?
We, your majesty’s commons of Great Britain, give and grant to your
majesty—what? our own property?—No; we give and grant the property
of your majesty’s commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. The
distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to
liberty. The crown, the peers, are equally legislative powers with the
commons. If taxation be a part of simple legislation, the crown and the
peers have rights to taxation as well as yourselves—rights which they
will claim, which they will exercise, whenever the principle can be
supported by power.” Pitt then proceeded to combat the arguments
of those who asserted that America was represented in the British
parliament. “I would fain know,” said he, “by whom an American is
represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any
county in this kingdom? Or will you tell him that he is represented
by any representative of a borough—a borough which perhaps its own
representatives never saw? This is what is called the rotten part of the
constitution. It cannot last a century: if it does not drop, it must be
amputated.” Pitt concluded by reasserting, that the commons of America,
represented in their assemblies, had ever been in possession of the
constitutional right of granting their own money; and this kingdom had
ever been in the possession of the rights of binding the colonies by her
laws, and by her regulations and restrictions in trade, navigation,
and manufactures, and in fact in everything, except taking money out of
their pockets without their free and full consent.
The house was awed by Pitt’s oratory, and, for some time, no one rose to
reply. General Conway at length broke the silence by frankly declaring
that his sentiments were generally conformable to those of Pitt; and by
excusing ministers for their tardy notice of the subject, on the grounds
that the first news of the troubles were vague and imperfect. In denying
the continued ascendency of Bute, however, the general spoke with great
warmth, utterly disclaiming it for himself, and, as far as he could
discern, for all the members of the cabinet. Grenville, who followed,
did not treat Pitt with such urbanity. He defended himself and his
measures with great warmth and ability, and boldly declared that the
seditious spirit of the colonies owed its birth to the factions in the
house of commons, and that gentlemen were careless of the consequences
of what they uttered, provided it answered the purposes of opposition.
As he ceased speaking, several members rose together; but Pitt was among
them, and a loud cry was made for him, so that the rest gave way, and
left him to answer the attack. Taking no notice of the denial which
Conway gave to his charge concerning Bute’s holding paramount influence
in the cabinet, which denial he could not with justice gainsay, he
confined his remarks to Grenville’s arguments and grave charge. Since,
he said, that member had gone into the justice, policy, and expediency
of the Stamp Act, he would follow him through the whole field, and
combat all his arguments. He bitterly complained that Grenville should
have designated the liberty of speech in that house as a crime; but
declared that the imputation should not prevent him from uttering his
sentiments upon the subject. He then proceeded thus:—“The gentleman
tells us America is obstinate—America is almost in open rebellion. I
rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to
all the feelings of liberty as voluntary to submit to be slaves, would
have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.” Pitt then said,
that in all our wants of money, no minister, since the revolution,
had ever thought of taxing the American colonies; that he had, when in
office, refused to burn his fingers with an American Stamp Act; and he
recapitulated his arguments to prove that legislation and taxation were
two different things, and that while we had a right to regulate the
trade of the colonists, we could not legally or justly impose taxes upon
them. He then asserted, that the profits to Great Britain from the trade
of the colonies were two millions a year, and that this was the sum
which carried England triumphantly through the last war, and the price
America paid us for protection. “And shall,” he asked, “a miserable
financier come with a boast, that he can fetch a peppercorn into the
exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation?” He added—“I am
convinced the whole commercial system of America may be altered to
advantage: you have prohibited where you ought to have encouraged,
and you have encouraged where you ought to have prohibited: improper
restraints have been laid on the Continent in favour of the islands. Let
the acts of parliament, in consequence of treaties, remain; but let not
an English minister become a custom-house officer for Spain or for any
foreign power. Much is wrong; much may be amended for the general
good of the whole. The gentleman must not wonder that he was not
contradicted, when, as a minister, he asserted the right of parliament
to tax America. I know not how it is, but there is a modesty in this
house which does not choose to contradict a minister—even your chair,
sir, looks towards St. James’s. I wish gentlemen would think better of
this modesty; if they do not, perhaps the collective body may begin to
abate of its respect for the representative. A great deal has been said
without doors of the power, the strength of America—it is a topic that
ought to be cautiously meddled with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom,
the force of this country can crush America to atoms; but on this
ground, on the Stamp Act, when so many here will think it a crying
injustice, I am one who will lift up my hands against it;—in such a
cause your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall
like a strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the state, and
pull down the constitution along with her.” Pitt, then deprecating
the conduct of those who judged the Americans with an eye of severity,
said—“I acknowledge they have not acted in all things with prudence
and temper; they have been wronged; they have been driven to madness
by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned?
Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will
undertake for America that she will follow the example. There are
two lines in a ballad of Prior, on a man’s behaviour to his wife,
so applicable to you and your colonies, that I cannot help repeating
them:—
‘Be to her faults a little blind;
Be to her virtues very kind.’”
Pitt concluded by proposing that the Stamp Act should be repealed,
absolutely, totally, and immediately; but at the same time he advised,
that the repeal should be accompanied by the strongest declaration of
the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies, in everything
that relates to trade and manufactures—in fact, in everything except
taking their money out of their pockets without their consent.
This speech of Mr. Pitt had a potent effect upon the administration and
the country at large. Nearly all the ministers coincided in his views,
and petitions, which poured into the house from all parts against the
stamp act, and which had been imperiously rejected by the late cabinet,
were received with all due deference. Burke made two speeches against
it, which were commended by Pitt, and filled the town with wonder. So
great was the change in public opinion upon the subject, that a bill was
brought in by the ministers for the repeal of the act, which bill was
passed by a great majority. It was accompanied by a declaratory bill,
setting forth the supreme right, sovereignty, &c. of Great Britain over
her colonies in all other matters of legislation, and reprobating the
tumultuous proceedings of the colonists. The repeal act was sent up
to the lords, where it encountered a violent opposition, but it passed
toward the end of March, when it received the reluctant consent of the
crown. Sixty-one peers entered a strong protest against its non-taxing
principle, and it was observed that in both houses the members belonging
to the royal household voted with the opposition: a strong proof of his
majesty’s feeling upon this subject.
It was asserted by some that ministers were “bullied” into the repeal
of the stamp act by Pitt. This was manifestly unjust, both to the
great orator and the ministers themselves. In this session they showed
themselves equally ready to redress grievances at home as in America.
Thus they proposed and carried a repeal of the obnoxious cider-tax,
laying on a different duty, and the mode of collecting it; they passed
an act for restraining the importation of foreign silks; and they
abolished the old duties on houses and windows, and settled the rates
with greater equity toward the middle and lower classes of society. They
also appeased the general apprehension of a scarcity of bread, by
orders to prevent the exportation of corn, and by enforcing the old laws
against monopoly, forestalling, and regrating. Moreover, they passed a
bill for opening free ports in the islands of Dominica and Jamaica; made
several new and important regulations in the commercial system of the
colonies; and took off some burdensome restrictions. Finally, they
promoted the extension of trade in general by a commercial treaty with
Russia, and they obtained from France a liquidation of those bills which
had been left unsettled since the cession of Canada.
Still, though the legislative acts of this administration were of great
importance to the country, and were calculated to insure popularity,
its doom was sealed. By a large portion of the community, the members of
which it was composed were considered as intruders, who kept Pitt out
of office, and they had lost the confidence of the king by the repeal
of the Stamp Act. The resentment of the king was also excited by their
omitting to procure a supply of money for his younger brothers. Sensible
of their weakness, the Duke of Grafton resigned office, and the seals
which he resigned were given to the Duke of Richmond. When he resigned
he declared that he had no fault to find with his colleague’s, except
that they wanted strength, and that his opinion was, Mr. Pitt alone
could give vigour and solidity to any administration in the present
state of affairs. Under him, his grace said, he was “willing to serve
in any capacity, not merely as a general officer, but as a pioneer:
under him he would take up a spade or a mattock.” Such was the situation
in which the ministers found themselves at the close of this session,
which was prorogued early in June.
SENTIMENTS OF THE AMERICANS ON THE DECLARATORY ACT.
The manner in which the repeal of the Stamp Act was received in America
seemed to justify the measure. Although accompanied with the Declaratory
Act, it was welcomed by many persons among the higher classes, of honest
and upright mind, with great satisfaction. Washington declared that
those who were instrumental in procuring the repeal were entitled to the
thanks of all well-wishers to Great Britain and her colonies. There
were fierce republican spirits, however, in New England, who viewed the
Declaratory Act in the same light which they had viewed the Stamp Act;
and as soon as the first burst of joy had subsided, this was made the
subject of their declamation, and a stimulus to popular excitement.
Public writers were employed to prevent a return of harmony between
Great Britain and her colonies, and though addresses of thanks were
voted by the assemblies to the king, this was but an evanescent show
of gratitude. The same temper was found especially to prevail in the
assembly of Massachusets against the Declaratory Act, as had been
displayed against the Stamp Act, and the spirit of resistance soon
spread to the other colonies. The right of legislative authority assumed
by Great Britain over her colonies was loudly questioned, and bills were
passed in the assemblies independently of the British parliament, and
in defiance of our declared sovereign legislative right. One breach was
therefore healed by the repeal of the Stamp Act, but another was opened
by the scarcely less obnoxious act with which it was accompanied. A tree
of liberty had been planted, and there was a universal disposition
to preserve its leaves and its fruits from the touch of kingly and
sovereign power.
THE DISSOLUTION OF THE ROCKINGHAM CABINET.
The seeds of the dissolution of the ministry, as before shown, were
thickly scattered, and it was easy to foresee that the event was at
no great distance. Its fall, however, might have been retarded for a
little space, had it not been for the intrigues of the chancellor, Henry
Earl of Northington. In order to discredit the cabinet, that nobleman
started numerous difficulties on some legal points that were submitted
to his judgment, and set on foot several intrigues, which accelerated
its downfall. The first token of his defection appeared in the strong
dissatisfaction which he exhibited on account of the commercial treaty
with Russia, and it was soon after made more fully manifest in a meeting
of ministers on the subject of the government of Canada. There appears
to have been no good ground for his opposition, but Northington panted
for retirement, and longed to serve his ancient friend Pitt; whence it
pleased him to denounce a report drawn up and submitted to the council
on this subject as theoretical, visionary, and unworthy of practical
statesmen. The meeting broke up without coming to any conclusion, and
before another could be convened, Northington demanded an audience of
the king; resigned under the pretence that the present ministry was
unable to carry on the government; and recommended that his majesty
should call Pitt into his councils. In consequence of this,
Pitt received the personal commands of his majesty to form a new
administration, offering him a _carte blanche_ for its formation.
Hitherto Pitt had manifested great patriotism, having served his
country, apparently, for the love of it alone. That he was ambitious,
however, he now proved. In reply to his majesty’s commands he spoke of
his infirmities, and—although he was only fifty-eight years old—of his
great age. Under these circumstances he proposed taking to himself not
the premiership, with the direction of the house of commons, but the
office of privy-seal, which implied his exaltation to the peerage. The
king and the country alike stared with astonishment at this proposition,
but his views were not thwarted, and he proceeded to form his own
cabinet. Negociations failed with Lord Temple, the Marquess of
Rockingham, Lord Gower, Mr. Dowdeswell, and Lord Scarborough. In
the midst of them, however, Pitt received an autograph note from
his majesty, announcing his creation as Earl of Chatham, and thus
stimulated, he proceeded in his task. On the 2nd of August the members
of the new cabinet were formally announced in the Gazette. Pitt, as
Earl of Chatham, took the office of privy-seal; Lord Camden was made
chancellor; the Earl of Shelburne was appointed one of the secretaries
of state; General Conway continued in office as the other; the Duke of
Grafton was made first lord of the treasury; Charles Townshend became
chancellor of the exchequer; Sir Charles Saunders succeeded to the
admiralty; and the Earl of Hillsborough was nominated first lord of
trade. Several changes were also made in the subordinate places of the
treasury and the admiralty boards, and the strange medley, which soon
became more mixed and various, has been thus described by Burke:—“He
[Lord Chatham] made an administration so chequered and speckled; he
put together a piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsically
dovetailed; a cabinet so variously inlaid; such a piece of diversified
mosaic; such a tesselated pavement without cement; here a bit of black
stone, and there a bit of white; patriots and courtiers; king’s friends
and republicans; Whigs and Tories; treacherous friends and open enemies;
that it was indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch,
and unsure to stand on. The colleagues whom he had assorted at the same
boards stared at each other, and were obliged to ask, Sir, your name?
Sir, you have the advantage of me. Mr. Such-a-one, I beg a thousand
pardons. I venture to say it did so happen, that persons had a single
office divided between them, who had never spoken to each other in their
lives, until they found themselves, they knew not how, pigging together,
heads and points, in the same truckle bed.”
DECLINE OF LORD CHATHAM’S POPULARITY.
Lord Chesterfield characterised the exaltation of Pitt to an earldom as
“a fall up stairs”—a fall which hurt him so much, that he would never
be able to stand upright again. By his acceptance of a coronet, in
truth, he greatly diminished his popularity. Burke undermined his
influence in the city by two clever publications: in the first of these
he gave an account of the late short administration, and in the second
he gave a humorous and ironical reply to it, in which the disingenuous
conduct of their successors was ably exposed. The wit of Chesterfield
ably seconded the pen of Burke; and the Earl of Chatham soon found that
though he was dignified by the king, he had shorn himself of all his
honours in the sight of the people. The influence which the Earl of Bute
was supposed to have had over him tended still more to blight his fair
fame. He was taunted with being a willing agent of men whom he did not
esteem, and his acceptance of a peerage was a never-failing source of
invective. Moreover, in his negociations with his brother-in-law, Lord
Temple, he had quarrelled with that nobleman, and all its disparaging
circumstances were freely discussed to his lasting disadvantage.. A
shower of pamphlets appealed against him, and the city of London,
where his influence had recently reigned paramount, mortified him, by
declining repeated proposals of presenting him with an address on his
appointment. Men saw in him no longer the unblemished patriot, but
looked upon him as a cringing slave to royalty for place and power. In
their displeasure they may have judged too harshly, but it is certain,
as Lord Chesterfield observed, that he was no longer Mr. Pitt in any
respect, but _only_ the Earl of Chatham. The charms of his eloquence
were lost for ever, for when the people can place no confidence in their
rulers, the finest oratory is but an empty sound.
It happened unfortunately for the Earl of Chatham’s popularity, that
owing to a deficiency in the harvest of last year great scarcity
prevailed, and as distress existed on the continent. The people, always
disposed to look upon the dark side of the picture, apprehended that
the country would be involved in all the horrors of famine. The price
of provisions greatly increased, and in consequence tumultuous riots
occurred in various parts of the kingdom, in which many lives were lost.
Some of the rioters were captured, and special commissions were sent
into the country to try them, and, in many instances, they were brought
to condign punishment. A proclamation was issued for enforcing the law
against forestallers and regraters, but as the price of all articles
rose, and the city of London made a representation to the throne
respecting large orders for wheat which had been received from the
continent, another was issued prohibiting its exportation. At the same
time an embargo was laid by royal authority on all outward-bound vessels
laden with corn.
It was not in England alone that the waning influence of the Earl of
Chatham became manifest. One of his first diplomatic attempts was to
establish a powerful northern confederacy, principally between England,
Prussia, and Russia, in order to counterbalance the formidable alliance
framed by the Bourbons in their family compact. The king of Prussia,
however, was averse to the formation of any new and stricter connexions
with England, as well on account of the usage he had met with during the
late war, as of the unsettled state of the government of Great Britain
since the peace. “Till he saw,” he said, “more stability in our
administration, he did not choose to draw his connexions with us
closer,” and the negociations was therefore dropped.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
The session was opened on the 11th of November, and the principal
topic of the king’s speech was the scarcity of corn; and measures were
recommended, if necessary, for allaying or remedying the evil. The
address was opposed in both houses, and in the commons four amendments
were moved, but the government in every instance had a majority. On the
subject of the embargo, however, and the delay of assembling parliament
when the country was in such critical circumstances, ministers had a
harder battle to fight. It was thought right to pass a bill of indemnity
in favour of those who had acted in obedience to the council with
respect to the embargo, and when this bill was brought in by a member
of the cabinet, a remark was made, that although it provided for the
security of the inferior officers, who had acted under the proclamation,
it passed over those who advised the measure. This gave rise to much
altercation and debate, especially among the lords, where the Earl of
Chatham, Lord Camden, and others, who had long been the advocates of
popular rights, vindicated the present exercise of royal prerogative,
not on the plea of necessity but of right: arguing that a dispensing
power was inherent in the crown, which might be exerted during the
recess of parliament, but which expired whenever parliament reassembled.
Camden asserted that Junius Brutus would not have hesitated to entrust
such a power even to a Nero, and that it was at most but “a forty
day’s tyranny.” The Earl of Chatham was a more powerful advocate of the
measure. He vindicated the issuing of the embargo by legal authority
during the recess of parliament as an act of power justifiable on the
ground of necessity, and he read a paragraph from Locke on Government,
to show that his views were borne out by that great friend of liberty,
that constitutional philosopher, and that liberal statesman. The
sentiments of the ministers, however, were strongly opposed by Lords
Temple, Lyttleton, and Mansfield, the latter of whom, though he had once
been spell-bound by court influence, “rode the great horse Liberty with
much applause.” The Earl of Chatham replied, but the constitutional
principles which his opposers laid down could not be answered with
success, for although parliament passed the act of indemnity, yet the
opposition lords so enlightened the public mind upon the subject, that
the cry was instantly raised that the present ministers had sold their
consciences to the court, and were in a league to extend the prerogative
beyond the precedent of the worst periods in English history. The
ferment was greatly increased by Mr. Beckford’s declaring in the house
of commons, that the crown had in all cases of necessity a power to
dispense with laws: an assertion which retraction, explanation, and
contradiction from the same lips, could not efface from the public mind.
When the bill passed it was in an amended state: the amendment including
the advisers, as well as the officers, who had acted under the orders
of council in enforcing the embargo. But even this, which implied an
acknowledgment of error, was not sufficient to satisfy the public mind,
for the clamour still continued against the ministers. The Earl of
Chatham was also embarrassed by other circumstances, and in order to
strengthen his hands, he was compelled to forego his determination,
and to overlook his declaration, that he would never again have any
connexion with the old Duke of Newcastle. The duke had a party which
would be important to so weak a cabinet, and in order to gratify him,
Lord Edgecumbe was ungraciously dismissed from his office of treasurer
of the household, to make room for Sir John Shelley, a near relation
of his grace. But the remedy was as bad as the disease. Indignant at the
treatment which their colleague had received, Lord Resborough, the Duke
of Portland, the Earl of Scarborough, Lord Monson, Sir Charles Saunders,
first lord of the admiralty, Admiral Keppel, and Sir William Meredith,
all sent in their resignation, and they, with their adherents, ranged
themselves on the side of the opposition. These numerous secessions
compelled Chatham to negociate more explicitly, not only with
Newcastle’s party, but with that also which was headed by the Duke of
Bedford. The place of first lord of the admiralty was offered to
Lord Gower, who took a journey to Woburn, for the express purpose of
consulting his grace upon the subject. But negociations with the Bedford
party concluded with its total alienation from the administration, nor
were those who accepted office thoroughly conciliated. These were Sir
Edward Hawke, who was made first lord of the admiralty, and Sir Percy
Brett and Mr. Jenkinson, who filled the other seats of the board; while
Lords Hillsborough and Le Despenser were appointed joint postmasters.
The ministry, as thus patched up, was more anomalous than ever, and
Chatham aware of this, and seeing that his popularity was daily more and
more declining, became a prey to grief, disappointment, and vexation.
At times he sank into the lowest state of despondency, and left his
incapable colleagues, to make their own arrangements and adopt their
own measures. But they could not act efficiently without him. Burke
says:—“Having put so much the larger part of his enemies and opposers
into power, the confusion was such that his own principles could not
possibly have any effect, or influence, in the conduct of others. If
ever he fell into a fit of the gout, or if any other cause withdrew
him from public cares, principles directly the contrary were sure to
predominate. When he had executed his plan, he had not an inch of ground
to stand upon. When he had accomplished his scheme of administration,
he was no longer a minister. When his face was hid but for a moment, his
whole system was on a wide sea without chart or compass.” Yet Chatham,
just before the recess, put a bold front upon his affairs in the house.
He proclaimed a war against party cabals, and asserted that his great
point was to destroy faction, and that he could face and dare the
greatest and proudest connexions. But this was an Herculean task which
neither Chatham nor any other minister has yet been able to accomplish.
Faction is an hydraheaded monster, which no man can destroy, either by
the charms of his eloquence or the terror of his countenance.
{A.D. 1767}
Chatham found that the warfare was an unequal one, and that he had not
sufficient strength to withstand the power of his enemies. Hence, at the
end of December, when all the appointments were made, he retired to his
estate of Burton Pynset, which had been recently left him, where he took
up his abode, doing nothing for the state, and yet taking the salary
attached to his office. Parliament reassembled after the recess without
him, his friends in the cabinet wondering at, and the king himself
lamenting, his absence. Yet the ministers attempted to work without him.
The chancellor of the exchequer proposed that the land-tax should be
continued at four shillings in the pound, stating that the proceeds of
such a tax would enable him to bring about the most brilliant operation
of finance recorded in the annals of Great Britain. This was a new
measure, for hitherto it had been the practice at the return of peace to
take off any addition that had been made to the land-tax in time of war.
Hence when Townshend proposed it in committee he was laughed at by the
country members, who contended for its reduction to three, or even
two, shillings in the pound. Townshend had nobody by him to second his
assertions, or give him powerful support; and when Mr. Grenville moved
that the land-tax should be reduced to three shillings, his motion
was carried by a majority of eighteen. It was said that the country
gentlemen in effecting this reduction, “had bribed themselves with a
shilling in the pound of their own land-tax,” but as this was the first
money-bill in which any cabinet had been successfully opposed since
the Revolution, it was rightly viewed as a symptom of weakness in the
administration: yet Townshend retained his office.
{GEORGE III. 1765–1769}
EAST INDIA QUESTION.
The great question discussed in parliament during this session related
to the East Indies. At this period the East India Company held “the
gorgeous East in fee.” The merchant princes of Leadenhall-street, who
commenced their career with a strip of sea-coast on the outermost limits
of Hindostan, had now acquired principalities and kingdoms, and had even
made themselves masters of the vast inheritance of Aurungzebe. Fortunate
as the Argonauts, they found and possessed themselves of the “golden
fleece,” which had been the object of their search. Enormous fortunes
were made with a rapidity hitherto unknown, and they were gathered into
the laps of even the most obscure adventurers. The fables of the ring
and the lamp were more than realised, and the fountain from whence these
riches ran appeared to flow from an inexhaustible source. Men had only
to go and stand by its brink, and if avarice could be satisfied, they
might soon return home with not only sufficient wealth to maintain
them in opulence and splendour, but with some to spare for the poor and
needy.