CHAPTER III.

{GEORGE III. 1769—1771}

The Affairs of America..... Meeting of Parliament.....

Dissolution of the Grafton Cabinet..... Debates on the

Middlesex Election, &c. The Question of Controverted

Elections..... Debates on America..... Release of

Wilkes..... American Affairs..... Riots at Boston..... The

Prorogation of Parliament..... Remonstrance of Beckford to

the King..... Prosecution of Woodfall and Almon.....

Disputes respecting Falkland Islands..... Affairs of

America..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debate concerning

the Falkland Islands..... Parliamentary Proceedings on the

Law of Libel..... Quarrels between the Lords and

Commons..... Convention with Spain...... Changes in the

Ministry.

THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

It has been seen how the Americans were affected by the Declaratory

Bill, which accompanied the repeal of the Stamp Act. Had government been

wise, their disaffection would have taught its members to have devised

some conciliatory measures in order to prevent the threatened outbreak.

The conduct of the government, however, was the very reverse from

this. Instead of allaying the discontents of our colonists, ministers

increased them by resolving to enforce what they called the Mutiny

Act. This was carried hurriedly through the house at the close of the

session; and though the consequences of such a course must have been as

clear as daylight, yet ministers resolved to put it into execution. For

the Mutiny Act was, more properly speaking, an act for quartering and

better providing for the troops at the expense of the colonies. It gave

power to the military to billet themselves on private houses, as was

done in the war, and therefore was naturally offensive to the whole

of the American population, whether friendly or adverse to the English

government. It was calculated to make foes of friends, and to confirm

those who were already foes, in their opposition to the mother country.

The design of this measure, doubtless, was to overawe the colonists;

but the spirit of freedom had taken too deep root in America thus to be

overawed. Matters, in truth, grew worse and worse daily in that country.

The minds of the Americans had been chafed to such a degree by their

original grievances, and the measures which had been adopted to enforce

their quiescence, that they became every day more and more disaffected

toward the English government. How full fraught the country was with

rebellion became manifest on the arrival of the newly-formed American

board of commissioners, at Boston, to enforce the payment of the duties

recently imposed upon them, and to put an end to smuggling. In the

preamble to Charles Townshend’s Act, the colonists read, that these

duties were laid “for the better support of the government, and the

administration of the colonies;” and in the bill itself they found a

clause which seemed to empower the king, by sign manual, to establish

a general civil list in every province in North America, with salaries,

pensions, and everything that could be obnoxious to a free-thinking

people. This was instantly declared to be unnecessary, unjust, and

dangerous to the rights of Americans; while the establishment of a civil

list in America, independent of the assemblies, was pronounced illegal.

Measures were taken by the people of Boston for putting into effect the

non-importation agreements, which had been before suggested; the press

was employed to demonstrate the iniquity of the taxing acts; and the

assembly of Massachusets addressed a circular letter to all the other

colonies to invite them to combine in taking measures to defeat the

obnoxious act. Every assembly, except that of New Hampshire, adopted

the sentiments and the plan contained in the circular of the assembly

of Massachusets, and passed votes of thanks to the authors of it. How

effective it was in exciting opposition is manifest from the following

circumstance. Bernard, the governor of Massachusets, was instructed to

require the house of representatives to rescind the resolution which

gave birth to the letter, and to declare the king’s disapprobation of

it. But instead of rescinding the resolution, it received the emphatic

confirmation of the assembly. This reply was sent to the governor:—“If

the votes of this house are to be controlled by the direction of a

minister, we have left us but a vain semblance of liberty. We have now

only to inform you that this house have voted not to rescind, and that,

on a division on the question, there were ninety-two nays, and seventeen

yeas.”

The next day, Governor Bernard received positive instructions to

dissolve the assembly of Massachusets. But it was in vain that the arm

of power sought to quell the general disaffection: when employed it

had only the effect of making the colonists more resolute in their

opposition. Associations and committees were formed in most of the

provinces, and smuggling was carried on in the broad face of day. Some

months before, one Malcolm had fought with the custom-house officers,

and had landed sixty pipes of Madeira at Boston without paying duty.

In the month of June another cargo arrived at Boston, and when the

excise-officer stepped on board he was seized and confined below, while

the wine was sent on shore. The officer was afterwards liberated, and

on the following morning the skipper of the sloop entered four or five

pipes at the custom-house, declaring that this was the whole of his

cargo. Aware of the falsehood of this statement, the commissioners

ordered a comptroller to seize the sloop, and to fix the king’s broad

arrow upon her. This was the signal for a riot. A mob, headed by

Malcolm, beat and nearly killed several of the revenue officers, and the

commissioners themselves were compelled to seek safety in flight. The

sloop was, however, seized; the excise being assisted by the captain of

the Romney man-of-war, then lying at anchor off Boston. This was on

a Friday, and the two following days were comparatively quiet, but on

Monday an immense mob gathered in the streets at Boston, and placards

were stuck up, calling upon the “sons of liberty” to meet on the

following morning. At this meeting a committee was appointed to wait

upon the governor, to inquire why the sloop had been seized? This

committee pretended that it was an affront offered to the town of Boston

to act thus arbitrarily, since the sloop might have been left in safety

at the wharf. The committee affected likewise to disapprove of the riot,

and some few of the ringleaders were sought for and found, under the

pretence of bringing them to condign punishment. But the whole was a

farce. Malcolm, the smuggler, and others of a similar stamp, sate upon

the grand jury, and quashed all prosecution.

It was these proceedings which seem to have persuaded the ministers at

home to revive the obsolete statute of Henry VIII. Before the news

of these Boston riots, however, had arrived in England, ministers had

resolved to employ force. In a secret and confidential letter, Lord

Hillsborough had told General Gage that it was his majesty’s pleasure he

should send one regiment or more from Halifax to Boston, to be quartered

in that town, in order to assist the civil magistrates and the revenue

officers. This was on the 8th of June, and three days later Governor

Bernard was informed by his lordship that his majesty had directed

one regiment to be stationed at Boston, and had ordered a frigate, two

sloops, and two armed cutters to repair to and remain in the harbour of

that town for the above-mentioned purpose. It was not, however, till the

month of September that the people of Boston became fully aware of the

intention of government to send troops thither, and in the meantime they

had been busy in organizing resistance to the Mutiny Act. In the

month of August, the merchants and traders of Boston agreed upon a new

subscription paper, to this effect:—“We will not send for or import

from Great Britain, either upon our own account, or upon commission,

this fall, any other goods than what are already ordered for the fall

supply. We will not send for or import any kind of goods or merchandise

from Great Britain, &c., from the lat of January, 1769, to the 1st of

January, 1770; except salt, coals, fish-hooks and lines, hemp and duck,

bar-lead and shot, wool-cards and card wire. We will not purchase of

any factor or others any kind of goods imported from Great Britain, from

January, 1769, to January, 1770. We will not import on our own account,

or on commission, or purchase of any who shall import from any other

colony in America, from January, 1769, to January, 1770, any tea, paper,

glass, or any other goods commonly imported from Great Britain. We will

not, from and after the 1st of January, 1769, import into this province

any tea, paper, glass, or painters’ colours, until the act imposing

duties on those articles shall be absolutely repealed.” This paper was

generally subscribed by the merchants of Boston, and, soon after, the

merchants of Connecticut, New York, and Salem entered into similar

agreements.

In the month of September a committee waited upon Governor Bernard,

praying him to convene a general assembly. Then it was that they were

informed that a military force was coming; and that, consequently,

another assembly could not be convened till the governor had received

the commands of his majesty. The inhabitants of Boston now resolved,

at the peril of their lives and fortunes, to take all legal and

constitutional measures to defend the rights, liberties, privileges,

and immunities granted in their royal charter. They also agreed, that

a certain number of persons should be chosen to act for them as a

committee in convention, and to consult and advise with such as might be

sent from other towns in the province. Finally, they fixed a convention,

to be held in Faneuil-hall, on the 22nd of September, and voted that

all the inhabitants not provided with arms should be requested to obtain

some forthwith, as there was an apprehension in the minds of many of an

approaching war with France.

The convention met on the day appointed. It consisted of deputies from

eight districts and ninety-six towns, and its chief business was to

petition the governor, make sundry loyal professions, and express an

aversion to tumults and standing armies. Its deliberations were cut

short by the arrival of the troops, under Colonel Dalrymple, who

anchored in Nantasket Roads, near Boston. The governor requested the

town-council to provide quarters for these troops in Boston, but they

refused; stating, that by act of parliament all troops were to be

quartered in the barracks, and that it was illegal to bring them into

the town. Colonel Dalrymple led his soldiers to the common on the

outside of Boston, and the town-council was again requested to quarter

them in the town, which they again refused. He had two regiments under

his command, and one of these took possession of Faneuil-hall—the other

lay out on the cold common all night. On the evening of the next day,

however, the governor ordered the town or state-house to be opened to

the other regiment; and the soldiers took possession of every part of

it, except the great council-chamber. These proceedings excited deep

resentment, and when the governor and Colonel Dalrymple required the

council to provide barrack provisions, as regulated by the Mutiny

Act, the request was flatly refused. Still the inhabitants of Boston

repressed their vindictive feelings. Care was taken by them, however, to

make known their injuries, and the insults to which they were subjected

in every part of British America. The picture they drew was, doubtless,

exaggerated; but that they had grievances there can be no question. At

all events they found the sympathy they desired in the various states of

America. The Philadelphians, the Georgians, the Rhode-Islanders, and,

in short, all the other colonies and towns, with the single exception

of Portsmouth, the sole sea-port of New Hampshire, now followed their

example, as regards the non-importation of goods from Great Britain. The

very females of America partook of the general spirit of resistance; for

they entered into associations among themselves, proscribing the use

of tea. Some there were among the merchants who showed a reluctance to

comply with the terms of the agreement; but their houses were surrounded

by organised mobs, and they were compelled to give up trade rather

than risk the forfeiture of their property and lives by selling British

goods.

Thus encouraged, the Bostonians became more bold in their opposition to

government. The assembly being called together in May, 1769, a committee

from the house of representatives remonstrated with the governor,

complaining of an armament investing their city—of the military

guard—of cannon pointed at the door of their state-house—and

requesting him, as his majesty’s representative, to order the removal of

the ships and the troops. The answer they received was, that he had no

authority over his majesty’s ships, or over his troops, within the

town of Boston. A few days after the house declared that the use of a

military force in the execution of the laws was inconsistent with

the spirit of the constitution, and that they would not transact any

business while thus menaced by soldiers. In order to obviate this

objection to business, the governor adjourned the assembly to Cambridge,

a town separated from Boston by a narrow arm of the sea, but they were

not more disposed for business at Cambridge than at Boston. The only

vote passed by them was to this effect:—“That the establishment of a

standing army in this colony in time of peace is an invasion of natural

rights; that a standing army is not known as a part of the British

constitution; that sending an armed force into the colony, under a

pretence of assisting the civil authority, is highly dangerous to the

people, unprecedented, and unconstitutional.” When requested by

the governor to make provision for the troops, after an indignant

denunciation of the Mutiny Act, and observing, that of all the

new regulations, not excepting the Stamp Act, this was the most

unreasonable, they thus declared their resolution:—“Your excellency

must excuse us in this express declaration—that as we cannot

consistently with our honour and our interest, and much less with the

duty we owe to our constituents, so we never will make provision for the

purposes in your several messages mentioned.” Finding the assembly

thus refractory, the governor prorogued them, taking his leave in the

following terms:—“To his majesty, therefore, and if he pleases, to his

parliament, must be referred your invasion of the rights of the imperial

sovereignty: you need not be apprehensive of any misrepresentations, as

it is not in the power of your enemies, if you have any, to add to your

publications—they are plain and explicit and need no comment. It is my

duty, and I shall do it with regret, to transmit to the king true copies

of your proceedings: and that his majesty may have an opportunity to

signify his pleasure thereon before you meet again, I think it necessary

to prorogue this general court immediately, to the usual time of the

winter session.”

Before governor Bernard prorogued the assembly, his majesty had

requested his presence in England for the purpose of ascertaining the

real state of the province; at the same time testifying his approbation

of his conduct, and as a mark of his favour, creating him baronet. Sir

Francis left the colony on the 1st of August, and at his departure,

the powers of government devolved on lieutenant-governor Hutchinson, a

native of the province; a man of great abilities, but influenced in his

conduct by a grasping ambition, and an inordinate love of office and

aggrandisement. On his return, Sir Francis had no very favourable report

to make of his province. Notwithstanding every precaution had been

adopted, smuggling was still carried on to a very great extent. The

Bostonians had even adopted the practice of tarring and feathering

all informers, or all who attempted to assist the government: a brutal

operation, which was often attended with a violence that destroyed

life. Nor was smuggling carried on in the province of Boston alone.

Associations against British commerce were organized to such an extent,

that the exports to America were found to fall short of those in the

preceding year by £740,000, and the revenue derived from that country

was reduced from £701,000 to £30,000. In this the Americans were aided

by other countries, who sent them their manufactures in great abundance,

so that the narrow views of ministers not only destroyed the resources

of Great Britain, but tended to enrich its commercial and political

rivals. This greatly alarmed the English merchants, and Lord

Hillsborough thought proper to issue a circular letter to the colonies,

stating that his majesty’s ministers intended, during the next session,

to take off the duties upon glass, paper, and painters’ colours, they

having been enacted contrary to the true principles of commerce. No

mention, however, was made of the duty upon tea, and the Americans

looked upon this omission as having been purposely and invidiously

made, as a mark of the legislative supremacy of Great Britain. Nothing,

moreover, was said about repealing the odious clauses in the Mutiny

Act, and the colonists likewise complained that the circular spoke

of commercial expediency, and not of the right which they claimed of

imposing taxes upon the colonies by their own act alone In truth, if

this circular was intended to conciliate the inhabitants of British

America, it was a total failure. The universal mind was too much

irritated to be soothed by such an impotent palliative.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1770}

Although America was almost in a state of open rebellion, and England

itself, with Ireland, were rent with faction, yet the parliament did not

assemble till the 9th of January. This delay naturally excited surprise,

and this was still further heightened by the tenor of the king’s speech.

Taking no notice of the public discontents, though it feelingly lamented

the general distress, it chiefly adverted to a general distemper which

had broken out among the horned cattle, which the king gravely assured

the lords and commons, he had, by the advice of his privy-council,

endeavoured to check. And this was solemnly uttered when wits and

scoffers abounded on every hand—when Junius had his pen in his hand

full fraught with gall, and Wilkes was bandying about his bon-mots and

sarcasms. “While the whole kingdom,” says Junius, in a letter to the

Duke of Grafton, “was agitated with anxious expectation upon one great

point, you meanly evaded the question, and instead of the explicit

firmness of a king, gave us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier.”

Never was a speech from the throne more unfortunate, indeed, than this,

for though it slightly adverted to the disturbances in America, yet the

subject of the disease existing among horned cattle was its prominent

feature. It was no wonder, therefore, that it became the jest of the

whole nation. Newspapers, pamphlets, and periodicals teemed with biting

sarcasm on this most extraordinary circumstance. The king’s love of

farming was bitterly descanted upon, and he was represented as attending

to cows, stalls, dairies, and farms, while his people were misgoverned

and discontented, and his empire, like a ship in a furious storm, in

danger every minute of being dashed to pieces. In fine, to show the most

profound contempt of such a speech from the mouth of the monarch, at

such a season, the session was nicknamed “the horned cattle session.”

Before the opening of parliament, one day the Earl of Chatham stalked

into the drawing-room of St. James’s, and after the levee had some

private conversation with the king. What passed between them is unknown,

but Horace Walpole says, that his reception was most flattering, and the

king all condescension and goodness. It does not appear, however, that

the interview satisfied Chatham, for it by no means tended to soften his

opposition. When parliament met, indeed, he took his place in the house

of lords, vigorous and more eloquent than ever, and the administration

was doomed to feel his power, like that of a giant refreshed with wine.

The address, which was moved in the upper house by the Duke of Ancaster,

and seconded by Lord Dunmore, was as general and unmeaning as the

king’s speech. Chatham rose to reply, and after glancing at his age and

infirmities, he took a general review of measures since the year 1763.

There never was a period, he asserted, when the serious attention of the

house to public affairs was more imperatively demanded, and he boldly

maintained that it was the duty of their lordships to lay the true state

and condition of the country before his majesty. After indulging in a

quiet sneer at the care the council had bestowed upon horned cattle, he

remarked, that he was glad to hear that the king had reason to believe

the peace of the country would be preserved, since peace could never

be more desirable to a kingdom, than when it was torn to pieces by

divisions and distractions, as England was at the passing hour. He then

criticised the last treaty with France and Spain, asserting that England

had not obtained what she had a right to expect from the success of our

arms, and the feeble condition of our enemies. He also maintained, that

having deserted our ally the King of Prussia, we had left ourselves

without alliances on the continent, and, consequently, had been every

moment on the verge of a new war, during a seven years’ peace. This war,

he said, might be unavoidable, and must be unfavourable to England,

as the princes of the house of Bourbon, while we stood in an isolated

position, had become closely united among themselves, and had formed the

closest connexion with the powers of Europe. He, however, lamented still

more the unhappy acts which had severed the affections of the American

colonists from Great Britain; and the internal discontents of the

country. To these he earnestly called the attention of their lordships,

since their privileges, however transcendent and appropriate in

themselves, stood in fact on the people as a basis. The rights of the

highest and the meanest subject, he said, had the same foundation, the

security of the law, which was common to all. He maintained that the

liberty of the subject was invaded both at home and in the colonies, and

that the people who were loud in their complaints, would not be pacified

without a redress of their grievances. Liberty, he observed, was a

plant that deserved to be cherished; that he loved the tree himself, and

wished well to all its branches; that, like the vine in scripture,

it had spread from east to west, had embraced whole nations with

its branches, and sheltered them under its leaves. Concerning the

discontents of the colonists, he conceived that they arose from the

measures of government. These had driven them into excesses which could

not be justified, but for which, he, for one, was inclined to make some

allowance. As to their combinations, and their success in supplying

themselves with goods, this, he said, had alarmed him for the commercial

interests of the mother country, but he could not conceive in what sense

they could be deemed illegal, or how the house by any declaration could

remove the evil. Other remedies must be looked for, as the discontents

of two millions of people could only be removed by a removal of their

causes. Finally, on the subject of discontent in England, he attributed

it to the proceedings of the house of commons in the matter of Mr.

Wilkes, and he concluded by submitting the following amendment:—“That

after the words, ‘and which alone can render our deliberations

respectable and effectual,’ be inserted these words, ‘and for these

great and essential purposes, we will, with all convenient speed, take

into our most serious consideration the causes of the discontents which

prevail in so many parts of your majesty’s dominions, and particularly

the late proceedings of the house of commons, touching the incapacity

of John Wilkes, Esq., expelled by that house, to be elected a member to

serve in this present parliament, thereby refusing, by a resolution of

one branch of the legislature only, to the subject his common right,

and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a

representative.’”

This amendment was opposed by Lord Mansfield, he considering that it

was a gross attack on the privileges of the commons, and calculated to

create a quarrel between the two houses, or between the king and the

commons. A question, he said, relating to the seat of a member, could

only be determined by the house itself, whose judgment was final, and

must be received as the law of the land. The arguments which he used in

his speech to support his opinions were ably answered by Chatham. The

noble lord began his reply by extolling common sense above subtilty and

ingenious refinement. The constitution had been invaded, and he heard

with astonishment that invasion defended on principle. He denied that

the commons had a supreme jurisdiction, or that its decision must be

received as the law of the land; for why, he pertinently asked, were the

generous exertions of our ancestors made to secure and transmit to their

posterity a known law and a certain rule of living, if, instead of the

arbitrary power of a king, we must submit to that of a house of commons?

Tyranny was detestable in any shape, but especially when exercised by a

number of tyrants. But that, he triumphantly asserted, was not the fact

or the constitution of England, and he pointed out where the law of

parliament might be found by every honest man; namely, in Magna Charta,

in the statute-book, and in the Bill of Rights. The first principle of

the constitution is, he observed, that the subject shall not be governed

by the will of any man or body of men, but by the whole legislature, and

by certain laws to which he has given his assent: laws which were open

to him to examine, and not beyond his ability to understand. He then

denounced the late decision as destitute of every condition essential

to its legality, and as being unsupported by reason, precedent,

Magna Charta, or the Bill of Rights. Whether it be questioned by the

legislature, he continued, will depend on the resolution of the house;

but that it violates the constitution, no man who had listened to the

debate could deny. He then expressed his confidence in the wisdom and

constitutional authority of the house, and after praising the ancient

nobility as founders of the constitution, and invoking the house

to follow their brilliant example, he thus concluded:—“Those iron

barons—for so I may call them when compared with the silken barons of

modern days—were the guardians of the people; yet their virtues were

never engaged in a question of such importance as the present. A breach

has been made in the constitution—the battlements are dismantled—the

citadel is open to the first invader—the walls totter—the constitution

is not tenable. What remains, then, but for us to stand foremost in the

breach, to repair, or to perish in it?”

The lord chancellor Camden had declared, upon his patron’s resignation

of the privy-seal, that Chatham should still be his polar star, and that

he reluctantly consented “to hold on a little while longer with this

crippled administration.” The part which he took in this debate proved

him to be sincere in his declarations. The house was astonished to

hear, indeed, sentiments from his lips as strong as those delivered by

Chatham. “I accepted,” said he, “the great seal without conditions: I

meant not therefore to be trammelled by his majesty—I beg pardon—by

his ministers. But I have suffered myself to be so too long. For some

time I have beheld with silent indignation the arbitrary measures of

the minister. I have often drooped and hung down my head in council, and

disapproved by my looks those steps which I knew my avowed opposition

could not prevent. I will do so no longer, but will openly and boldly

speak my sentiments.” Lord Camden then agreed with his friend respecting

the incapacitating vote of the commons, and accused the ministry, by

implication, of having formed a conspiracy against the liberties of

the country. By their violent and tyrannical conduct, he said, they had

alienated the minds of the people from his majesty’s government—he had

almost said from his majesty’s person—and that in consequence a spirit

of discontent had spread itself into every nook of the kingdom, and was

daily increasing, so that it was to be feared, that, if some methods

were not devised to appease the clamours heard on every hand, the people

might in despair become their own avengers, and take the redress of

their grievances into their own hands. The address was negatived, and

Lord Pomfret then moved an adjournment for some days; chiefly, as

Lords Temple and Shelburne told the house in reply, for the purpose

of removing the untractable chancellor, Camden, from his seat in the

ministry. Lord Shelburne, however, expressed a conviction “that after

the dismissal of the present worthy chancellor the seals would go a

begging,” and that “there would not be found in the kingdom a wretch so

base and mean-spirited as to accept of them on the conditions on which

they must be offered.”

The address in the house of commons was moved by Sir George Osborne In

opposition, Mr. Dowdeswell moved for the insertion into the address

of words, intimating the necessity of inquiring into the causes of the

prevailing discontents in every part of his majesty’s dominions. The

debate on this motion was most violent, and lasted many hours. Colonel

Barré observed, “that a great part of the king’s subjects were alienated

from him; England was in opposition to its own representatives; in

Ireland the parliament was prorogued because it had supported the true

constitutional right of taxation; the colonies were in actual rebellion

on account of taxes confessedly imposed, not for gain, but as a mere

test of obedience; and, perhaps to crown the whole, France was on the

eve of a war with us.” The Marquis of Granby expressed his regret for

having, in the preceding session, voted with ministers on the question

of the disqualification of Mr. Wilkes, and wished the house would

re-examine their resolution. General Conway opposed the amendment; and

Lord North, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Charles James Fox took the same

side of the question, and the amendment was rejected by a majority of

254 to 138. Another warm debate arose on the morrow, on the question

of receiving the report of the address. Sir William Meredith said, that

thanking the king for his approbation of their conduct would imply

an approval of the vote respecting the Middlesex election. Sir George

Sackville accused the house of betraying the rights of the people; and

being threatened with the tower by General Conway, he was defended by

Sergeant Glynn and Mr. Burke, the latter of whom dared ministers to

punish Sir George, and told them that they were abhorred by the people.

Thus supported, Sackville repeated the charge, and he was followed by

Fox, who deprecated the licentious language introduced in the house.

Burke replied, but there was no division.

{GEORGE III. 1769—1771}

DISSOLUTION OF THE GRAFTON CABINET.

Before the declarations made by Lord-chancellor Camden in the house of

lords, his conduct had been so displeasing to his colleagues that he was

not consulted in any of their measures, and he had not even a voice in

the preparation of the king’s speech. When, therefore, he stood openly

forward as an opponent of the cabinet, it was not to be expected that

the seals would be long left in his possession. The opposition knew

this, and their only fear was that he would anticipate ministers by a

spontaneous resignation, and thereby free the ministers from the odium

which they would obtain from the public by his dismissal. Camden,

however, seems to have had no thoughts of taking such a step, and

the ministers had no alternative left but to remove him from office.

Accordingly he was dismissed, and Lord Shelburne’s prediction was

literally verified—the great seals went a begging. The Honourable

Charles Yorke, indeed, reluctantly accepted them, but before his patent

of peerage could be completed, he committed suicide, and the government

had to seek another chancellor. The seals were successively offered to

Sir Eardley Wilmot and Lord Mansfield, who would not accept them, and

nothing remained but to put them in commission, and to appoint a speaker

in the house of lords in the interim. This latter office was accepted by

Lord Mansfield, and some time after, Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe, one of

the barons of the exchequer; the Honourable Henry Bathurst, one of the

justices of the common pleas; and Sir Richard Aston, one of the justices

of the king’s bench, were appointed commissioners. But the embarrassment

of government did not end here. While business was suspended in the

house of lords by the want of a chancellor, it was also suspended in

the commons by the illness of the speaker, Sir John Cust. Moreover, the

removal of Lord Camden was followed by the resignation of his friend

Mr. Dunning, the solicitor-general; of the Marquess of Granby, as

master-general of the ordnance, and commander-in-chief of the forces; of

Mr. James Grenville, who held the office of one of the vice-treasurers

for Ireland; and of several noblemen who held offices in the household.

The greatest blow to the existence of the ministry seems to have been

the resignation of Granby—a blow which the king and the ministers

in vain sought to avert. Urged by some of the leading members of the

opposition, who as earnestly desired him to adopt this line of conduct,

as the king and his ministers entreated him not to resign, he gave up

everything except his regiment—the Blues. The ordnance was then offered

to General Conway, who refused to accept any of “Lord Granby’s spoils,”

and the fragment of the ministry still left in office had to brave the

storm of opposition as they best could.

After the adjournment which had taken place during these changes, on the

22nd of January, the Marquess of Rockingham moved in the house of

lords, that the house should, on the 24th, take into consideration the

lamentable state of the nation. In reply, the Duke of Grafton remarked,

that he did not intend to oppose this inquiry, and that he was ready at

any time to enter into the question. The Earl of Chatham then rose,

and in a long and eloquent speech, complained of a breach made in

the constitution. There was a capital mischief fixed at home, which

corrupted the very foundation of our political existence, and preyed

upon the very vitals of the state. “The constitution,” he exclaimed

vehemently, “has been grossly violated—the constitution at this moment

stands violated! Until that wound be healed, until the grievances be

redressed, it is in vain to recommend union to parliament—in vain to

promote concord among the people. If we mean seriously to unite the

nation within itself, we must convince them that their complaints are

regarded, that their injuries shall be redressed. On that foundation I

would take the lead in recommending peace and harmony to the people. On

any other I would never wish to see them united again. If the breach in

the constitution be effectually repaired, the people will of themselves

return to a state of tranquillity; if not, may discord prevail for

ever! I know to what point this doctrine and this language will appear

directed; but I feel the principles of an Englishman, and I utter them

without apprehension or reserve. The crisis is indeed alarming—so much

the more does it require a prudent relaxation on the part of government.

If the king’s servants will not permit a constitutional question to

be decided on according to the forms, and on the principles of the

constitution, it must then be decided in some other manner; and rather

than it should be given up—rather than the nation should surrender

their birthright to a despotic minister, I hope, my lords, old as I am,

I shall see the question brought to issue, and fairly tried between the

people and the government.” The Earl of Chatham next offered some severe

remarks on the surrender of Corsica, the augmentation of troops

in Ireland, the arrears of the civil list, the waste of the public

revenues, and the evils arising from the riches of Asia. “The importers

of foreign gold,” said he, “have forced their way into parliament by

such a torrent of private corruption, as no private hereditary fortune

could resist.” He then offered several suggestions on the propriety of

a reform in parliament—suggestions, he observed, not crude and

undigested, but ripe and well-considered, as the subject had long

occupied his attention. His scheme was, not that the rotten boroughs

should be disfranchised, though he considered them as the rotten part

of the constitution; nor that the unrepresented towns should be allowed

members, though he admitted that in them great part of the strength and

vigour of the constitution resided—but that each county should elect

three members instead of two, he considering that the knights of the

shires approached the nearest to the constitutional representation

of the country, because they represent the soil. At the same time, he

recommended that the city representatives should be augmented, and that

in increasing the number of representatives for the English counties,

the shires of Scotland should be allowed an equal privilege, in order to

prevent any jealousy which might arise from an apparent violation of the

union. In concluding his speech, he proclaimed his coalition with the

Marquess of Rockingham, whom, on a previous occasion he had overthrown

as an incapable statesman; justifying the union formed between them, on

the grounds that it was formed for the good of the country; or, in his

own words, “to save the state.”

It must be admitted that the scheme of parliamentary reform divulged by

the Earl of Chatham was by no means enlightened or impartial. In it no

allowance was to be made for the growing importance of the commercial

and manufacturing interests, the landed interests alone were consulted,

and the country gentlemen, who had never been celebrated for liberal

measures in their legislation, were to crowd the house of commons, and

to decide upon the affairs of the nation. The Earl of Chatham himself,

at a later period, seems to have doubted the efficacy of his plan of

reform, for he admitted that the knights of the shires or the country

members of the house of commons, “were not the most enlightened or

spirited part of the house.” All history, indeed, tends to prove that

such a plan of reform would have proved abortive, so far as regards

the liberty and well-being of the great body of the people, and the

perfecting of the theory of the English constitution, so far as to

make its political practice agree with its principles. There can be no

question, indeed, but that all other interests would have been secondary

to that of the agricultural in the consideration of a parliament thus

constituted; whereas the aim of an enlightened legislature should be

to secure the interests of every section of the community, whether

agricultural, commercial, or manufacturing.

The Earl of Chatham signified his intention of supporting the Marquess

of Rockingham on the 24th, when the great question mooted by him was to

be discussed. On that day, however, it was announced that he was too ill

to attend, and Rockingham also was distressed in mind by the melancholy

suicide of the Honourable Charles Yorke. Under these circumstances, he

moved the adjournment of the question to the 2nd of February, which was

granted by the house; but before that time the Duke of Grafton, harassed

by these commotions and scourged by the press, especially by the

writings of Junius, had resigned his office, and the king had committed

the charge of government to Lord North. At the same time, the state of

the health of Sir John Cust, having induced him to resign the speaker’s

chair, Sir Fletcher Norton was elected his successor. The Earl of

Halifax, moreover, was appointed privy seal in the room of Lord Bristol;

Mr. Wellbore Ellis was selected to be a vice-treasurer in Ireland;

Charles Fox was made a lord of the admiralty; and Mr. Thurlow was

created solicitor-general instead of Mr. Dunning. There were a few minor

substitutions and interchanges of offices, but these were the

principal; and Lord North’s ministry was, therefore, for the most part

a continuation of that of the Duke of Grafton. The Marquess of Gran by’s

places of the ordnance and commander-in-chief were left vacant for

the present, and the great seal was left in commission, with the

commissioners already named.

DEBATES ON THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION, ETC.

Lord North, with whose administration commences a momentous era in the

annals of Great Britain, was eldest son to the Earl of Guildford. In

private life he was one of the most amiable and worthy of men, and he

was a man of elegant acquirements. In public life, also, he was scarcely

less honoured. Brought up amidst official duties, and aiming constantly

at legislatorial distinction, he had acquired eminent skill in managing

a debate, while his good humour and equanimity of temper secured to him

a greater share of esteem and affection than was perhaps ever possessed

by any other minister. Yet his estimable qualities and his political

skill had not sufficient potency to disarm opposition. In the very

outset of his administration, indeed, the opposition made him feel

that he had not taken possession of a bed of roses; or, at least, roses

without thorns. The principal object of the late debates in the house

of lords was to procure a vote in favour of the Middlesex electors: with

the same end in view, Mr. Dowdeswell now moved another resolution in the

commons; namely, “That by the law of the land, and the law and usage of

parliament, no person eligible of common right can be incapacitated by a

resolution of the house, but by an express act of parliament only.” This

undeniable proposition placed ministers in a dilemma, for it was only

a prelude to others, and if they agreed to it and rejected those that

followed, they would seem to resist conclusions from premises they had

themselves conceded; while if they rejected it, it would appear as if

the house of commons was a capricious court; a court neither bound by

law nor by the usages of parliament. The debate on the question was one

of great violence; and in the course of it, Colonel Barre compared

the state to a vessel in a storm which had parted with her mainmast

(Grafton,) and was trying to sail under a jury-mast (North). The new

premier acknowledged that the storm was great, but asserted that the

ship was not compelled to hang out lights for pilots, as her own crew

were capable of conducting her safely into port. And so it proved. North

avoided the snare laid for him by moving as an amendment, “That the

judgment of the house on the Middlesex election is conformable to law

and the usage of parliament,” which was eventually carried by a large

majority.

On the 2nd of February, pursuant to notice, the Marquess of Rockingham

made a similar motion to that of Mr. Dowdeswell in the house of lords.

He moved, “That the house of commons, in the exercise of its judicature

in matters of elections, is bound to judge according to the law of the

land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which

is part thereof” This was opposed by Lord Sandwich on the ground of

improper interference with the lower house, which, if aggrieved, had the

means of redress in its own power. Lord Sandwich was answered by Lord

Chatham. In the course of his speech, Sandwich had alluded to the

expulsion of Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, and the great Lord Bacon, “for

certain crimes and misdemeanours,” from which he argued that the peers

now ought to take no more notice of the expulsion of Wilkes, than the

commons then had taken notice of the expulsion pronounced by their

lordships on the above-named noble offenders. To this point Chatham

replied: “Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case.

They affected only themselves: the rights of no constituent body were

affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes we complain of;

as an individual he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of

complaint, the great cause is, that the inherent rights and franchises

of the people are in this case invaded, trampled upon, annihilated. Lord

Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county or city: the rights of

no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their

expulsion!” In his speech, Chatham declaimed with great severity against

the gross dereliction of principle shown by the commons. They were,

indeed, he said, the proper protectors of their own rights and

privileges; but he lamented that they had, by their recent conduct,

forgotten those privileges, and had added to the long list of venality

from Esau to the present day. The vote of the commons which made Colonel

Luttrell representative for Middlesex, he maintained, was a gross

invasion of law and of the rights of election; a dangerous violation of

the constitution; a treacherous surrender of privileges; and a corrupt

sacrifice of honour. He added, that to gratify the resentment of certain

individuals, the laws had been despised and destroyed, and that

since the commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his majesty’s

ministers, and proved themselves corrupt, it was necessary for their

lordships to step forward and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the

justly incensed and intemperate rage of the people, and, on the other

to the criminal and malignant conduct of his majesty’s ministers:

their lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes

of liberty and prerogative. The house was excited, but the motion was

negatived by a large majority. On the ministerial side, the Earl of

Marchmont then moved, “That any resolution of the lords directly or

indirectly impeaching a judgment of the house of commons, in a matter

where their jurisdiction is competent final, and conclusive, would be a

violation of the constitutional right of the commons, tending to make

a breach between the two houses of parliament, and leading to general

confusion.” In his speech, the Earl lost his temper and his discretion,

imprudently hinting that if the opposition went one step further it

would be necessary to call in the aid of Foreign assistance. He was

called to order by the Duke of Richmond, and when he attempted to

explain, he found himself unable, and Lord Mansfield was compelled

to relieve him, by declaring as a lawyer and a statesman, that their

lordships had no right to interfere in any determination of the commons.

The Earl of Egmont pursued the same course, and declared that the people

were guilty of treason in offering such petitions as they had recently

offered to his majesty. The Earl of Chatham again rose, and after

thanking Lord Egmont in an ironical strain for his lenity in allowing

the petitioners to wear their heads, he defended the petitions as

praiseworthy and constitutional, and re-asserted that the house of

lords had a right to interfere, when either an invasion of the people’s

liberty was attempted, or an unconstitutional determination made. This

was in reply to the statement of Lord Mansfield, and he then praised the

abilities of that nobleman at the expense of his honour, honesty, and

patriotism. Chatham next complained of the ministerial motion, and

of the late hour—for it was midnight—at which it had been made.

He proposed an adjournment for two days. “If,” he exclaimed, “the

constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at

this dark hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only

felons and assassins are seeking for prey.” Ministers, however, seem to

have acted upon the well-known adage, that “delays are dangerous.” The

adjournment was rejected, and at two o’clock in the morning Marchmont’s

motion was carried. Protests were entered against both decisions, the

former being signed by forty-two, and the latter by forty peers.

Similar discussions led to similar results in the house of commons.

On the 5th of February a debate was there entered upon, in which the

opposition urged that the expulsion of Wilkes had been determined by

ministers in council, and a motion was also made to bring in a bill to

regulate and define the consequences of expulsion from the house; but

the ministers in each instance were victorious. The exertions of the

opposition, however, were warmly supported by a large majority of the

liverymen of London, who busied themselves in getting up memorials and

remonstrances, and hence they were nothing daunted by their repeated

defeats. Ministers were, indeed, attacked upon other points of their

policy besides the matter of Wilkes Thus, on the 2nd of March, Lord

Craven, acting with the opposition, moved an address to the throne,

beseeching his majesty forthwith to take proper steps for such an

increase of seamen in the royal navy as should effectually preserve the

honour and security of his; majesty’s kingdom and colonies. This was

made the medium of severe censures on the dismissal of able officers

for their votes in parliament, and also on the entire management of the

navy. Earl Chatham supported the motion, and condemned the conduct of

ministers in this particular branch of the national service, as base and

unworthy. In his speech he again adverted to his favourite topic;

that of the secret influence which was at work near the throne. This

influence he denounced as dangerous, base, unconstitutional, and wicked;

and maintained that it had occasioned all the unhappiness of the

nation, and created confusion in the government of the colonies. He then

asserted that this invisible influence was still working for evil, for

although the favourite (Bute) was gone to Turin, Mazarine absent was

Mazarine still; and his influence by means of agents was potent as ever.

Then, raising his voice, he exclaimed, “This country was sold at the

late peace! We were sold by the court of Turin to the court of France!”

Chatham then indirectly accused the king of insincerity and treachery

to himself, personally, during the time that he was minister; asserting

that after he had given his approbation to plans and measures one week,

he would let them vanish into air the next, and that all his promises

and assurances were broken through an in-invisible influence. The king

was defended by the Duke of Grafton, who hinted that the intellect

of Chatham was affected; but this only drew forth a repetition of the

accusation in stronger language. “I rise,” said he, “neither to deny

nor retract, nor to explain away the words I have spoken. As for his

majesty, I have always found him everything gracious and amiable in

the closet; so amiably condescending as to promise, in every repeated

audience, not only to forgive, but to supply the defects of health by

his cheerful support, and by the ready assistance of all his immediate

dependents. Instead of this, all the obstacles and difficulties which

attended every great and public measure did not arise from those out of

government: they were suggested, nourished, and supported by that

secret influence I have mentioned, and by the industry of those very

dependents; first by secret treachery, then by official influence, and

afterwards in public councils. A long train of these practices has

at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the

throne greater than the king himself.”

It seems clear that when the Earl of Chatham made these assertions, the

councils of the king were no longer biassed by the influence of the Earl

of Bute; but, notwithstanding, the charges made all the impressions on

the public mind which he could have desired. Some even declared that

they knew the secret agents that went between the absent lord, the

princess dowager and the king, and Mr. Dyson, Mr. Bradshaw, both

placemen and members of parliament, and subsequently, Mr. Jenkinson

(afterwards Baron Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool,) were expressly

named as the principal of the parasites. The popular credulity on this

subject appeared to receive confirmation from the conduct of the king

towards the “good citizens” of London. Four days after this debate in

the house of lords the common hall of the city took into consideration

a memorial complaining that a petition which had been presented to his

majesty by the citizens remained unanswered. This memorial, after the

lord mayor Beckford had delivered an exciting harangue, was adopted

by acclamation, and with three rounds of applause. At first the king

refused to hear this memorial; but he at length consented, and it was

carried up to St. James’s on the 14th of March by the lord mayor, and

more than two hundred common-councilmen, liverymen, and city officers.

It was read to the king as he sat upon his throne, and perhaps the ears

of royalty were never destined to hear stronger remonstrances than

this memorial contained. It told him that secret and evil counsellors,

combined with a corrupt parliament, robbed the people of their dearest

rights, and that they had done a deed more ruinous in its consequences

than the levying of ship-money by Charles I., or the dispensing power

assumed by James IL, and which deed must vitiate all the further

proceedings of the present parliament; it called God and man to witness

that the citizens would not be thus cheated of their liberties; and that

as they were gained by the stern virtues of their ancestors, so they

should be preserved by themselves; and it concluded by praying that the

king would dissolve the present parliament, and remove from him all

evil counsellors. With a clouded brow the king in reply pronounced the

contents of this memorial to be disrespectful to himself, injurious

to his parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the

constitution; and he asserted that he had ever made the law of the land

the rule of his conduct, that he esteemed it his chief glory to rule

over a free people, and that he had a right to expect from them a steady

and affectionate support. The city deputation withdrew, amidst the

manifest resentment of the courtiers, and the court instantly resolved

to bring the memorial before the notice of parliament. This was done on

the 19th of March, when it was moved by Sir Thomas Clavering, “That

to deny the legality of the present parliament, and to assert that the

proceedings thereof are not valid, is highly unwarrantable, and has a

manifest tendency to disturb the peace of the kingdom, by withdrawing

his majesty’s subjects from then-obedience to the laws of the realm.”

This motion was warmly opposed, but it was carried by a large majority,

and an address to the king was also agreed to in condemnation of the

city memorial, both by the lords and the commons. It is said that the

king graciously received this address, but that he thought the city

magistrates ought to have been proceeded against by parliament for their

conduct. On the other hand, the city and the people of Middlesex were

offended by the conduct of the opposition, and the smallness of

the minority that voted against the address, and they passed strong

resolutions, expressing their discontent. The blame was chiefly imputed

to the Rockingham party; and the Rev. Mr. Home—better known at a later

date by the name of Home Tooke—who had begun to rule the democracy at

the Mile-end and Brentford meetings, announced his intention of exposing

that party; but this was prevented chiefly through the influence of the

Earl of Chatham. Instead of this, indeed, the reverend orator employed

his talents in getting up a strong petition and remonstrance to the king

from the freeholders of Middlesex, and which was presented on the 31st

of March; the Earl of Chatham having previously thanked him for his able

exertions in the cause of freedom, and for abstaining from his proposed

attack on the Rockingham party.

THE QUESTION OF CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS, ETC.

Ever since the famous Aylesbury case, in 1704, the house of commons

had been sole judge of the qualification of electors, and of all other

matters regarding the election of their own members. All controverted

elections were tried before a committee of the whole house, the members

not being bound to impartiality, either by oath, promise, or pledge. On

the 2nd of April, Mr. George Grenville brought in a bill for regulating

the trial of controverted elections, which provided that, in every case,

the judicature should be transferred from the house to a sworn committee

of fifteen members, whereof thirteen were to be chosen by the contesting

claimants for the seat, out of a list of forty-five chosen by ballot

by the whole house, and the other two named by the contesting parties

themselves; one for each. The committee were to have full power to

examine witnesses, papers, and records, and their oath bound them to

a strict impartiality. This bill met with stern opposition from the

ministers, and at one stage it was moved by Mr. Welbore Ellis, that it

should be rejected, which was seconded by Mr. Charles Fox; but the

bill was eloquently defended by Burke, and it passed into a law. It was

carried up to the lords by Mr. Grenville on the 5th of April, where,

as Lord Mansfield had expressed his approbation of it, and promised its

support, no opposition was feared. It passed unanimously, and it seems

to have had a very beneficial effect on the legislature.

Previously to the passing of this act, a bill was proposed by Mr.

Dowdeswell to disqualify officers of the excise and customs from

voting at elections The mover stated, that both classes were under the

influence of the crown, and that the departments of the revenue were

becoming so numerous as to render that influence incompatible with a

free constitution. There was no attempt, however, to prove corruption,

and the motion was rejected, as unfair in its attempt to deprive

individuals of the rights of British subjects, on the mere presumption

of venality. An act at the same time was passed for altering the law

of privilege, so far as it extended to the effects and domestics of

the members of either house. In the house of lords this bill was warmly

supported by Lord Mansfield, and as warmly opposed by Lord Sandwich, who

argued, that it was an encroachment upon the privileges of the peers. An

inquiry into the accounts of the civil list, during the year 1769, was a

popular subject in both houses about the same time. The expenses having

greatly increased, it was inferred that the money was employed in the

corruption of electors. Ministers opposed this inquiry, arguing, that

as the civil list was solely the revenue of the crown, the crown had a

right to expend it as it pleased; and that if an additional grant had

been asked, then, and not till then, the expenditure might have been

investigated, for the purpose of ascertaining the necessity of the

grant, and how the money was spent. The motion was negatived, and other

attempts to interfere with the management of the king’s revenue met with

a similar fate.

The debate in the house of lords on this question is rendered remarkable

by the eloquent speech uttered by the Earl of Chatham. In the course of

this speech he asserted that the minister who was bold enough to spend

the money of the people before it was granted, though it might not

be used for the purpose of corrupting their representatives, deserved

death. He was reminded that he, too, when in office, had granted

pensions, to which he replied, “It is true, and here is a list of them:

you will find there the names of General Amherst, Sir Edward Hawke, and

several others of the same nature—they were given as rewards for real

services, and as encouragements to other gallant heroes. They were

honourably earned in a different sort of campaign than those at

Westminster; they were gained by actions full of danger to themselves,

of glory and of benefit to this nation—not by corrupt votes of baseness

and of destruction to their country. You will find no secret service

there; and you will find that, when the warrior was recompensed, the

member of parliament was left free. You will likewise find a pension

of £1,500 a year to Lord Camden. I recommended his lordship to be

chancellor; his public and private virtues were acknowledged by all;

they made his station more precarious. I could not reasonably expect

from him that he would quit the chief-justiceship of the common pleas,

which he held for life, and put himself in the power of those who were

not to be trusted, to be dismissed from the chancery perhaps the day

after his appointment. The public has not been deceived by his conduct.

My suspicions have been justified. His integrity has made him once more

a poor and private man; he was dismissed for the opinion he gave in

favour of the right of election in the people.” Here the noble orator

was interrupted by loud cries of “To the bar, to the bar,” and Lord

Marchmont moved that his words should be taken down. Chatham himself

seconded this motion: “My words,” he thundered forth in an indignant

tone, “My words remain unretracted, unexplained, and reaffirmed. I

desire to know whether I am condemned or acquitted, and whether I may

still presume to hold up my head as high as the noble lord who moved to

have my words taken down.” Chatham paused for a reply, and none being

given, he continued, “I will trust no sovereign in the world with the

means of purchasing the liberties of the people. When I had the honour

of being the confidential keeper of the king’s intention, he assured

me that he never intended to exceed the allowance which was made by

parliament, and therefore, my lords, at a time when there are no marks

of personal dissipation in the king—at a time when there are no marks

of any considerable sums having been expended to procure the secrets of

our enemies—that a request of an inquiry into the expenditure of the

civil list should be refused, is to me most extraordinary. Does the King

of England want to build a palace equal to his rank and dignity? Does he

want to encourage the polite and useful arts? Does he mean to reward

the hardy veteran who has defended his quarrel in many a rough campaign,

whose salary does not equal that of some of your servants? Or does he

mean, by drawing the purse-strings of his subjects, to spread corruption

through the people, to procure a parliament, like a packed jury, ready

to acquit his ministers at all adventures? I do not say, my lords,

that corruption lies here, or that corruption lies there; but if any

gentleman in England were to ask me whether I thought both houses of

parliament were bribed, I should laugh in his face and say, ‘Sir it is

not so.’” Chatham concluded by saying that an inquiry into the state and

expenditure of the civil list was proper, just, and expedient; and that

a refusal of it would elicit ridicule and exhibit folly. Nevertheless

the motion was negatived.

DEBATES ON AMERICA.

A petition was presented to parliament by the English merchants trading

with America, representing that, in consequence of the duties and taxes,

the discontents of the Americans, and their combinations to prevent the

importation of goods from England, their trade had gone to ruin; and

praying for the intervention of the legislature. In consequence of this,

a bill was proposed by Lord North, to repeal all the American taxes and

duties except tea. In proposing this repeal he censured the Revenue Act

only as an inexpedient or unproductive impost, and not as an illegal or

impolitic claim. The duty on tea, he said, was continued to maintain

the right of taxing the Americans, and it could not be supposed that an

impost of three pence per pound on an article from which one shilling

was deducted when exported to America, would offend the colonists,

unless they were determined upon a rebellion. Mr. Grenville, the parent

of the Stamp Act, argued that he had at least acted systematically, and

that in imposing the stamp duties he had reason to think that they would

be paid. The succeeding ministry, he said, had repealed that act, but

had reaffirmed the right of parliament to tax the colonies, by laying

duties upon unwise and anti-commercial principles: duties which were

far more odious to the colonies than his Stamp Act. His opinion was,

therefore, that the ministers must now give up, or stand by the whole.

A partial repeal, he added, will not do: the Americans would not rest

satisfied with any thing short of the renunciation by parliament of the

right to tax them in any way, either externally or internally. In this

General Pownall coincided, and he proposed as an amendment, that the

repeal should be extended to all articles, as the only way of quieting

the colonies. This amendment was supported by General Conway, Colonel

Barre, and Sir William Meredith, but it was rejected, and leave was

given to bring in North’s bill. A subsequent motion to repeal the duty

on tea was also lost, and the act passed according to North’s first

proposal.

RELEASE OF WILKES.

On the 12th of April, the term of Wilkes’s imprisonment having expired,

he was set at liberty. He was no sooner freed from confinement than

he recommenced his system of agitation. Everywhere he harangued on

his sufferings, and declared that he was ready to die in the cause of

liberty. He was considered a martyr by the populace, and in both houses

he had his friends. On the 1st of May, the Earl of Chatham, after

arranging his plan of attack with Temple, Rockingham, Shelburn,

and others, stood up in the house of lords and presented a bill for

reversing the adjudications of the house of commons, whereby John

Wilkes, Esq. had been adjudged incapable of being elected a member to

serve in this present parliament, and the freeholders of the county of

Middlesex, had been deprived of one of their legal representatives. In

descanting on this, Chatham declared that a violent outrage had been

committed against everything dear and sacred to Englishmen. He then made

some observations on the new state arithmetic by which Colonel Luttrel’s

296 votes had been held to be a greater number than Wilkes’s 1143! This,

he said, was flying in the face of all law and freedom: a robbery of the

liberty of freeholders; and making the birthrights of Englishmen a mere

farce. He then represented Colonel Luttrell as sitting in the lap of

John Wilkes, and the majority of the house as being turned into a state

engine. He added, in conclusion, “I am afraid this measure originated

too near the throne. I am sorry for it; but I hope his majesty will soon

open his eyes, and see it in all its deformity.” Lord Mansfield opposed

the Earl of Chatham. He contended that the house had no right to

interfere with the decisions of the commons; that those decisions were

legal; that in consequence of previous votes and sentences, Wilkes was

nobody in the eye of the law; and that, though the freeholders gave

their votes, it was for the house of commons to judge as to the point of

qualification. Lord Camden replied, that Lord Mansfield was delivering

unconstitutional doctrines, and that Wilkes had been expelled in

consequence of a secret influence which had said, “Mr. Wilkes shall not

sit.” He also asserted that the judgment of the commons on the Middlesex

election was a worse wound in the constitution than any of those

inflicted in the reign of Charles I., when the nation had no parliament;

and he expressed a hope that if this bill should be rejected, the good

sense and spirit of the people would persevere session after session,

till the judgment of parliament should be revoked. The bill was

rejected, and thirty-eight peers signed a protest.

When this bill was lost, the Earl of Chatham demanded that the house

should be summoned on the 4th, as he had a motion to make of great

importance relative to the king. On the day appointed, his lordship

moved, “That the advice inducing his majesty to give the answer to the

late address, remonstrance, and petition of the lord mayor, aldermen,

and livery of London, was of a most dangerous tendency, inasmuch as

thereby the exercise of the rights of the subject to petition the king

for redress of grievances, to complain of violations of the freedom

of election, to pray dissolution of parliament, and to point out

malpractices in administration, to urge the removal of evil ministers,

etc., had been indiscriminately checked with reprimand; and the

afflicted citizens of London had heard from the throne itself, that the

contents of their humble addresses could not but be considered by his

majesty as disrespectful, injurious, etc.” The noble lord said that an

answer so harsh as this exceeded all precedent in the history of this

country; that the very essence of the constitution not only permitted,

but required petitioning; and that the Stuarts themselves never dared to

prevent the practice. He then eulogized the lord mayor and the liverymen

of London, and in conclusion, pronounced Colonel Luttrell as a mere

nominee thrust in by the enemies of the law and constitution. The motion

was negatived by a large majority.

{GEORGE II. 1769–1771}

AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

On the 1st of May, the opposition in the house of commons called for

the correspondence of the American colonies, and subsequently Mr. Burke

moved eight resolutions relating to the troubles in those colonies, and

censuring the plan ministers were pursuing. The previous question was

carried against the first of these resolutions, the second, third, and

fourth were negatived, and the previous question was carried against the

remainder. Similar resolutions were moved in the house of lords by the

Duke of Richmond; but they were all negatived by a large majority. On

the 14th, however, nothing daunted, the Earl of Chatham coupled the

discontents of America with those in England and Ireland, and founded

a motion on them for an address to dissolve the parliament. He moved,

“That an humble address be presented to his majesty, most dutifully

and earnestly beseeching him, that in the dangerous state wherein

his kingdoms are involved, from the high dissatisfactions generally

prevailing at home, and from the most alarming disorders which have

unhappily manifested themselves in his American dominions, his majesty

will, in his great wisdom and necessary care, to prevent more fatal

mischiefs, be graciously pleased to take the recent and genuine sense of

his people, by dissolving this present parliament, and calling, with all

convenient dispatch, a new parliament.” In his speech he declared

that the house of commons had not the confidence of the people; and in

speaking of the mode of reforming that assembly, he said, “Instead of

depriving a county of its representatives, one or more members ought to

be added to its representation, in order to counterbalance the weight

of corrupt and venal boroughs.” The house, however, would not listen to

his arguments: a loud cry of “Question, question,” was raised, and

the motion was rudely negatived. But if Chatham was not listened to in

parliament, he was venerated for his recent opposition to the measures

of government by the people. On the same day, the common council of

London carried a vote of thanks to him, for the zeal he had exhibited in

support of their sacred privileges and the right of election; and also

for his declaration that he would use his best endeavours to restore the

house of commons to its purity, by shortening the duration of its term,

and introducing a more equal representation.

RIOTS AT BOSTON.

While both houses of parliament were carrying on a wordy war, matters

had assumed a more serious aspect in America. Committees had been

appointed in nearly all the principal sea-ports of the colonies, to

examine cargoes arriving from Great Britain, and to report to their

constituents how far the act of association was carried into effect,

or how far infringed Meetings of the association were regularly held

at Faneuil Hall, Boston, and votes of censure were passed upon all

who introduced or sold any of the prohibited goods. The names of such

offenders were, indeed, regularly published in the newspapers, with

comments appended to them, holding them up to the public as selfish

slaves and traitors. A few, however, it would appear, were permitted to

make a market, by selling the prohibited articles, which could only be

purchased from their shops; and this becoming notorious, one Theophius

Lillie, a tradesman at Boston, resolved to sell what was thus sold by

others. In order to point him out as one whose shop was to be shunned,

the mob placed a rude figure at his door, and a person named Richardson,

either a friend or a servant of Lillies, attempted to remove the

nuisance, and being defeated in his design by the mob, who pelted him

with stones, he took up a loaded gun and fired upon his assailants from

within doors. The shot killed a boy, who was forthwith recorded in

the newspapers as the first martyr in the cause of liberty. He was, in

truth, the first that was sacrificed, but the blow proceeded from the

hand of a persecuted American, and not from the hand of an Englishman.

It was not long, however, before the English were involved in quarrels

with the Americans, which resulted in the loss of life. The boldness of

the Bostonians seems daily to have increased after the above-mentioned

incident. It was in vain that merchants implored even to keep the goods

they had imported in store, as if bonded, until the duties in England

should be repealed: they were compelled to send them back to those

who had shipped them. At the same time, it was shrewdly suspected that

several of the Bostonian leaders still imported and sold goods largely;

or, at least, permitted goods to be imported in their vessels. The

people of New York, indeed, taxed the Bostonians with unfair and selfish

dealings, and renounced the non-importation agreement. This gave rise

to mutual recrimination between these two states: the New Yorkers called

the Bostonians pedlars, and the Bostonians said that the New Yorkers

were no patriots. At the same time, the Bostonians were fierce in their

hatred of the English government and its measures. If they acted with

duplicity in the matter of trade, they were at least consistent in

their denunciations against all connection with England. The soldiers

quartered in Boston were subject to constant insults from them, and were

continually interrupted in their duty. All classes conceived that as

they had not been called in by the civil magistrates of the place, that

their presence was illegal, and that every means employed to hasten

their departure, or make their stay uncomfortable was laudable. Hence,

no sentinel could stand in his place without being insulted; and it was

too much to expect from human nature, that the soldiers should suffer

continual insult without retorting upon theis adversaries. Some alleged

that Colonel Dalrymple and his officers should have kept their men

separate from the inhabitants; but this could not have been done, except

by keeping them prisoners in their quarters, and by discontinuing the

practice of mounting guard at the government offices. It was easy to

foresee, therefore, that sooner or later disastrous consequences would

ensue. And this was rendered more certain, because government had not

sent a sufficient number of troops to keep the populace of Boston in

awe. As soon as the arrival of troops at Boston was known at home,

General Pownal had pointed out the error, stating that if they intended

to govern the country by military force, they had not sent sufficient

troops; and that if they did not intend this, they had sent too many.

The people of Boston, he said, were set in array against the military;

that though the sword was not drawn, it was ready to leap from the

scabbard; and that though the word for action was not yet given,

mischief was on tip-toe, and the slightest circumstance would set it on

foot. These remarks were founded in truth. The Boston newspapers gave

insertion to a fictitious narrative of a defeat of a body of soldiers

by the people of New York, and to a series of fictions which represented

the English troops as a set of poltroons who would quail before the

sons of liberty. While these reflections were fresh in the minds of

the soldiers, one of them was involved in a quarrel, and was beaten by

several Bostonians, who were rope-makers belonging to the establishment

of Mr. John Gray. Incensed at the ill-treatment he had received,

twelve of his comrades returned with him to the spot and fell upon the

rope-makers, and compelled them to take refuge in flight. This served as

a prelude to a more serious conflict. Meetings were held by the mob, who

decided upon attacking the soldiers, and driving them out of Boston. The

day appointed for this was the 5th of March, and on the evening of that

day parties from all quarters assembled, armed with sticks and clubs,

and made an attack upon some of the troops in Dock-square. An officer

appeared, who ordered the men to their barracks, and they with

difficulty escaped thither. They were followed by the mob, who dared

them to come out; and their rage increasing, the mob began to tear up

the stalls of the market-place in Dock-square, and swore that they would

attack the main-guard. Some peaceable citizens exerted themselves to

allay their fury, and they had well nigh succeeded in persuading many

of them to retire, when a tall man in a red cloak and white wig appeared

among them, and incited them by a brief harangue to carry out their

design. His discourse was followed by shouts of “To the main guard! To

the main guard! We will destroy the soldiers!” The mob then separated

into three divisions, each of which took separate roads. One of these

divisions in their route passed by the Custom-house, and a boy pointing

to the sentinel on duty there, asserted that he was the man who had

knocked him down. A loud cry was instantly raised to kill him, and the

sentinel loaded his gun by way of intimidating them. Nothing daunted,

however, they first pelted him with every thing that came to hand, and

then, seeing his reluctance to fire, closed upon him, and compelled him

to retreat to the door of the Custom-house. He sought admittance, but

those within were afraid of opening the door, and the sentinel then

shouted for assistance to the main guard which was within hearing. A

corporal and six privates were sent by Captain Preston to his rescue,

while he followed at a short distance. Their guns were unloaded; but

as they advanced, they found the mob increasing, and were pelted so

pitilessly by them on every hand, and so grossly insulted by opprobrious

language, that they loaded them and fixed on their bayonets. Still they

were reluctant to fire; and when the mob pressed in upon them, they

merely used their weapons to keep them off. At length a certain mulatto

named Crispus Attucks, with others dressed like sailors, gave three

cheers, hemmed in the soldiers, and struck at their muskets with clubs,

exclaiming to those behind, “Come forward, they dare not fire; let

us kill them, etc.” Attucks aimed a blow at Captain Preston, who was

begging the rioters to desist, and keeping his men quiet, and in doing

so he not only hit the Captain on his arm, but struck down one of the

men’s muskets, and then seized his bayonet. Some persons behind Captain

Preston now urged the soldiers to fire, and the private whose musket had

been knocked out of his hand having recovered it, fired at the mulatto,

who fell mortally wounded. The other soldiers now successively fired off

their pieces, and three persons were killed, while others were wounded

more or less dangerously. The mob retreated, but they recollected in

an adjoining street, with dreadful yells, and the drums beat to arms. It

seemed as if a combat of the fiercest kind was about to take place; but

certain persons who had been gliding about the mob, urging them on to

acts of violence, now thought proper to persuade them to retire. The

storm was hushed for that night; but early in the morning the mob again

collected in large numbers. At the same time, the lieutenant-governor

held a council, and the magistrates and chief citizens met in full

assembly, and chose a committee. The committee soon waited upon the

governor and council, and declared that nothing could restore peace

to the town but the immediate removal of the troops. Colonel Dalrymple

proposed that the 29th regiment, whose men had been engaged in the

riot, should remove to Castle William, and that the 14th regiment

should remain. This was reported to the assembly; but another deputation

demanded the total and immediate removal of all the troops, as the only

means of tranquillizing the town. The governor was told that he must not

think the demand proceeded from a set of vagabonds, for that people

of the best character were determined, that if the troops were not

voluntarily removed, they should be expelled by force. A force of

ten thousand men, it was stated, were at their beck, and these were

determined to destroy the troops if not removed, albeit it might be

called rebellion. The governor first flatly refused to accede to this

demand; he then wavered in his determination, and finally he agreeded

to divide the responsibility of removing them with Colonel Dalrymple

and the members of the council, and the troops were ordered to march to

Castle William. Thus successful the Bostonians grew more bold in their

opposition to the English government. The newspapers represented the

affair of the 5th of March as a deliberate murder on the part of the

troops, and nothing was neglected to exasperate the public mind and

perpetuate the memory of “the bloody and inhuman massacre.” Yet when

Captain Preston and his men were put upon their trials, American judges

and a jury from among the citizens of Boston, were compelled to admit

that they had acted only in self-defence. Their verdict was, that

Captain Preston and six of the solders were not guilty, and that two,

Montgomery, who shot Crispus Attucks, and Killroy, who was proved to

have shot another man, were not guilty of murder but of manslaughter

only. These two prayed the benefit of clergy, which was allowed, and

each being burnt in the hand in open court, they were discharged like

their comrades. In the course of the trial, Judge Lynde declared that

the affair turned out to the disgrace of every person concerned against

Captain Preston, and to the shame of the people of Boston in general.

THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

News of the disturbances in Boston arrived before the close of this

session; but hopes being entertained that the late bill would have the

effect of conciliating the Americans, it was deemed proper to abstain

from any investigation, lest it should relight the torch of discord. The

session terminated on the 19th of May.

REMONSTRANCE OF BECKFORD TO THE KING.

The answer which the king had given to the good citizens of London at

the presentation of their recent memorial had given them great umbrage,

and on the 23rd of May, the lord mayor and some aldermen, with a

numerous train, went again to St. James’s with another petition,

complaining of this answer. The address stated that it was, as well as

the general acts of government, “against the clearest principles of

the constitution, and the result of insidious attempts made by evil

counsellors, to perplex, confound and shake the rights of the people.”

It concluded with a renewed demand for the dissolution of parliament,

and the removal of the present ministers. The king replied that it was

his duty to express dissatisfaction at their last address, and that his

sentiments on the subject were still the same. It was anticipated that

the deputation would not be very graciously received, and that the king

would not retract his former sentiments. Hence a remonstrance had been

prepared in the shape of a reply, and to the astonishment of the court,

Beckford, instead of retiring with the usual etiquette from the royal

presence, approached the throne, and thus addressed the king: “Most

gracious sovereign, will your majesty be pleased so far to condescend,

as to permit the mayor of your loyal city of London to declare in your

royal presence, in behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare

apprehension of your majesty’s displeasure would at all times affect

their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them

with inexpressible anxiety and with the deepest affliction. Permit me to

assure your majesty, that your majesty has not in all your dominions any

subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more ready to sacrifice their

lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of

your crown. We do therefore, with the greatest humility and submission,

most earnestly supplicate your majesty that you will not dismiss us

from your presence, without expressing a more favourable opinion of your

faithful citizens, and without some comfort, or at least some prospect

of redress.” Had the remonstrance stopped here, Beckford might have

obtained the smiles of the king; but he continued: “Permit me, sire, to

observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by

false insinuations and suggestions to alienate your majesty’s affections

from your loyal subjects in general, and from the city of London in

particular, is an enemy to your majesty’s person and family; a violator

of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy constitution, as it was

established at the glorious Revolution.” Beckford prayed for a reply,

but none being given, the deputation withdrew. The king appears, indeed,

to have been too angry to reply with courtesy, for he immediately issued

orders, through the medium of the lord chamberlain, that lord mayors

should in future confine themselves to delivering their papers, and not

presume to make speeches. But if Beckford did not please the king, he

gained great credit with the people for his conduct. The Earl of Chatham

warmly applauded him for asserting the rights of the city with weight

and spirit. On the other hand, the king increased his unpopularity by

his conduct towards the deputation. The common council were so incensed,

that they demurred about voting an address of congratulation on the

birth of the Princess Elizabeth, which happened about this time. Wilkes

in particular, who was made an alderman even while in the King’s Bench,

and who now wore the civic gown, opposed such an address, and when the

good feelings of the citizens prevailed over their anger, and they voted

an address, he did what he could to render it unpopular. The address,

however, was presented in the usual form, and his majesty observed in

reply, “that the city of London, entertaining such loyal sentiments,

might always feel assured of his protection.” A few days after this

Beckford died, and the city voted that he should be honoured with a

statue in Guildhall, and that the speech he had delivered to the king

should be engraved on the pedestal. His death was considered a serious

blow to the opposition, as no one could be found possessing the weight

which he derived from his wealth and munificence, or who could supply

his ardour and fearlessness.

PROSECUTION OF WOODFALL AND ALMON.

Almost every act which the government now committed tended only to

excite the public clamour and indignation. During this summer it

involved itself in new troubles, and exposed itself to fiercer attacks,

by prosecuting the printers and publishers of Junius’s Letters. In the

month of June Woodfall was tried for printing in his newspaper, the

“Public Advertiser,” one of these letters, which was addressed to his

majesty, and was considered a scandalous libel; and Almon was tried for

selling a re-publication of it in the “London Museum.” Almon was found

guilty of publishing, and was sentenced to pay a fine of ten marks, and

find security for his good behaviour for two years. Woodfall was found

“guilty of printing and publishing only” and in his case, the defendant

moved to stay the entering of judgment on the verdict, while the

attorney-general moved for a rule on the defendant, to show cause why

the verdict should not be entered according to the legal import of the

words. The attorney-general’s motion was attended to first; and when the

matter came to be argued in the court of King’s Bench, Lord Mansfield,

before whom both cases had been tried, went regularly through the whole

evidence, as well as his own charge to the jury. After recapitulating

the defence on the trial, his lordship remarked: “I directed the jury,

that if they believed the innuendoes, as to persons and things, to have

been properly filled up in the information, and to be the true meaning

of the paper, and if they gave credit to the witnesses, they must find

the defendant guilty. If the jury were obliged to determine whether the

paper was in law a libel or not, or to judge whether it was criminal,

or to what degree; or if they were to require proofs of a criminal

intention—then this direction was wrong. I told them, as I have always

told them before, that whether a libel or not, was a mere question of

law arising out of the record, and that all the epithets inserted in the

information were formal inferences of law. A general verdict of the

jury finds only what the law implies from the fact, for that is scarcely

possible to be produced: the law implies from the act of publication,

a criminal intent.” After some further remarks of minor importance his

lordship continued: “The motion of the attorney-general divides itself

into two parts; first, to fill up the finding of the jury with the usual

words of reference, so as to connect the verdict with the information:

the omission of these words, we are of opinion, is a technical mistake

of the clerk, and may be now supplied. The second head of the argument

is to omit the word ‘only’ in the entry of the verdict: this we are all

of opinion cannot be done. The word ‘only’ must stand in the verdict; if

this word was omitted, the verdict would then be, ‘guilty of printing

and publishing,’ which is a general verdict of guilty; for there is no

other charge in the information but printing and publishing, and that

alone the jury had to inquire. We are all of opinion, that my direction

to the jury is right and according to law; the positions contained in

it never were doubted; it never has been, nor is it now complained of in

this court. There clearly can be no judgment of acquittal, because the

fact found by the jury is the only question they had to try; the single

doubt that remains, is concerning the meaning of the word ‘only.’” The

court considering that the word “only” had been used in an ambiguous

sense, ordered Woodfall a new trial on that ground; but when it came on,

the attorney-general remarked that he had not the original newspaper by

which he could prove the publication Thus terminated the second trial:

the want of this was fatal to the cause.

DISPUTES RESPECTING FALKLAND ISLANDS.

During the summer and autumn of the present year the attention of

government was absorbed by a subject, which at one time threatened a new

war with France and Spain—this was the affair of the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands are situate in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, off the

extremity of the South American continent, and the eastern entrance to

the Straits of Magellan. They consist of two larger islands called East

and West Falkland, and a great number of isles and islets. By right,

they certainly belonged to England. The discovery of them was made by

Captain Hawkins in the reign of Elizabeth, who called them “Hawkins’

Maiden Islands,” and they were afterwards visited by Strong in 1689,

who gave them their present name. Subsequently they were visited by the

French, who in 1764 formed a settlement at Berkeley Sound, an excellent

harbour on West Falkland. In the next year, Commodore Byron formed a

counter settlement at Port Egmont on East Falkland. The Spaniards, who

had neglected these islands and their resources, now took the alarm, and

demanded their evacuation both from France and England, as territories

belonging to them both by right of papal bulls, and degrees of latitude

and longitude. The French abandoned their settlement, but the English

refused to accede to the demand. Spain, dreading the power of England,

was for the time compelled to give up the claim; but at length, in 1769,

the domestic distractions of Great Britain, her ready acquiescence in

the transfer of Corsica to France, and the encouragement of the

French minister Choiseul, emboldened the Spanish court to revive its

pretensions to these islands. An armament, consisting of several ships

of war, provided with apparatus for a siege, sailed from Buenos Ayres,

and in the month of June suddenly appeared off Port Egmont. The British

commandant, Captain Farmer, knowing that the place could not sustain a

siege, after a few shots, submitted to terms of capitulation. Contrary

to all the rules of war, however, the Spanish commodore, in order to

prevent the intelligence from arriving in England on an early day, or

from being first related by English lips, enjoined Captain Farmer not to

sail without his permission, and to ensure compliance, he even unshipped

the rudder of his vessel, and kept it on shore for three weeks. This

was an insult to the British flag not to be endured. As soon as

the proceedings were known in England, all ranks were inflamed with

resentment, and eagerly desired that the national honour, thus grossly

violated should be avenged. Lord North prepared for the worst, by

putting ships in commission ready for war. It was thought expedient,

however, to avert war, if possible, by negociations, and Spain was

ultimately induced to disavow the enterprise of the governor of Buenos

Ayres, and to restore the island. At the same time it was either

stipulated or understood, that the settlement should at a future period

be abandoned by the English: an arrangement which, as will be seen,

formed a subject of complaint in parliament against the ministry.

AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

When the news arrived of the repeal of the taxes by the British

parliament, the people of Boston were by no means thankful for that act.

The retention of the duty on tea, it was said, did away with all

its merits, as it proved the unalterable resolution of asserting the

disputed right. As, however, they could not hope to keep up the whole

of the non-importation agreement, it was resolved, in a meeting of

merchants, to import every thing but tea. This resolve was also entered

into by the Philadelphian merchants, and great efforts were made by the

leaders of the movement, to induce the people to adhere strictly to

this agreement, until the tea duty should be repealed. But most of

the provinces were not desirous of persevering in the quarrel, and

consequently renewed their commercial intercourse with the mother

country: orders came over to England, indeed, to such an extent, that

our exports to the colonies in this and the following year exceeded

in amount what they had ever been before. Still the progress of a

revolution was not impeded. There were many zealots in America, who

could not rest satisfied while a connexion subsisted between England

and her colonies, and who were still busied in sowing the seeds of

discontent. Some such zealots existed in every colony, but it was in New

England and in Virginia that that they were chiefly to be found. In the

great southern province they were headed by Patrick Henry and Thomas

Jefferson, and by their means the popular party in Virginia were led to

deplore the massacre at Boston, and to uphold that city as a new Sparta

and the seat of liberty. The assembly of Virginia, in a petition

or remonstrance to his majesty, ventured to express their strong

dissatisfaction at Lord North’s imperfect Repeal Act, and their deep

affliction at seeing that the pretension of the mother country to the

right of taxing the colonies was persevered in by the retention of duty

upon tea. They also criticised the conduct of Lord Bottetourt, their

governor, and represented that no alliance was to be placed upon the

goodwill or moderation of those who managed the affairs of the mother

country. All the houses of assembly, now reopened, were, in truth,

scarcely less difficult to manage than they had been the year before,

and in almost every instance they were prorogued by the governors. In

the assembly of Massachusets, especially, there were great commotions,

arising partly from communications received from England, which

represented that the state and conduct of the colony was likely to be

submitted to the consideration of parliament in the present session, and

partly from the dismissal of the provincial forces from Castle William,

and the establishment of the royal troops in that fortress. It was

suspected that measures were in train to reduce the province to a state

of utter dependence on Great Britain, and they proceeded to prepare

instructions for their agent in London, in order to prevent the blow.

But before they proceeded to business the house made another attempt to

obtain a removal of the seat of government to Boston; and having failed

in this, they made a strong protest against their conduct being drawn

into a precedent. Soon after this Mr. Hutchinson was appointed governor

of the province; but the subject of the assembly’s removal afforded

matter of dispute in the remonstrances of the house at the opening of

every session.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The king opened parliament on the 13th of November. The prominent part

of his speech related to the Falkland Islands, a question that was still

in abeyance. His majesty informed the lords and commons, that by an act

of the governor of Buenos Ayres, in seizing one of his possessions by

force, the honour of the crown and the rights of the people were deeply

affected; and he called on them for advice and assistance. The addresses

of both houses approved of the steps taken by his majesty, and

assured him of their effectual support: to this end, supplies for the

augmentation of the army and navy were cheerfully voted,—and in order

to defray any extraordinary expenses, the land-tax was increased from

three to four shillings in the pound.

DEBATE CONCERNING THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

In the debate on the address, Lord North had said, that as the Spanish

ambassador had thrown the responsibility upon the Governor of Buenos

Ayres, it was proper that his Spanish majesty should be allowed time

to disavow these proceedings. He had also endeavoured to show that the

Falkland Islands were of little value to anybody, and not of sufficient

importance to justify a war if it could be avoided. These sentiments ill

accorded with the views of some in the lower house, in which they were

uttered, and several, as Dowdeswell, Barré, Burke, Sir William Meredith,

and Sir Charles Saunders, blamed the minister for putting forward the

Governor of Buenos Ayres, instead of complaining of his master, the

King of Spain; who must, they contended, have previously authorised his

expedition against Port Egmont. Similar opinions appear to have been

entertained in the house of lords, although the address passed there

without any show of dissatisfaction. On the 20th of November, however,

the Duke of Richmond gave notice that he would make a motion on the

22nd, on which day, therefore, the house was summoned. That day arrived,

Richmond moved for an address, praying that the king would order that

all papers received by the ministry between the 12th of September, 1769,

and the 12th of September, 1770, touching hostilities commenced, or

designed to be commenced, by the crown of Spain, or any of his officers,

should be laid before parliament. In urging this demand, the duke said,

that the affairs of the Falkland Islands was only one among many acts of

aggression, and he asserted that while we were in want of seamen, three

thousand, captured in trading ships by the Guarda-Costas, under pretence

of smuggling, were rotting in Spanish prisons, or pining away in

hopeless slavery in South America. The motion was opposed by Lords

Weymouth and Hillsborough, who contended that the production of the

papers called for, would embarrass a negociations now in good train that

the Spanish government was entitled to respect and delicate management;

and that the ministers were not wanting either in vigilance or vigour.

The Duke of Richmond was supported by the Earl of Chatham, who, in a

long and eloquent speech, showed the necessity of firmness on the part

of the British cabinet;—accused the Spaniards of want of faith, and of

being as mean and crafty as they are proud and insolent; and predicted

that if ministers patched up an accommodation for the present, they

would still have a Spanish war in six months. He concluded by charging

the ministers with having destroyed all content and unanimity at home

by a series of oppressive and unconstitutional measures; and with having

delivered up the nation, defenceless, to a foreign enemy. He added this

warning:—“Let me warn them of their danger. If they are forced into a

war, they stand it at the hazard of their heads; if, by an ignominious

compromise, they should stain the honour of the crown, or sacrifice the

rights of the people, let them look to the consequences, and consider

whether they will be able to walk the streets in safety.”—The Duke of

Manchester, the Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl of Shelburne, and

Lord Lyttleton also supported the Duke of Richmond’s motion, but it was

nevertheless negatived by a large majority. On the same day, also, a

similar motion was made and negatived in the house of commons; moreover,

a few days later the Earl of Chatham moved that Captain Hunt, who had

driven off a Spanish schooner from Port Egmont, before the armament

arrived, should be ordered to attend the house; and when this was

negatived, he moved an address to his majesty, praying that the house

might be acquainted at what time reparation was first demanded from

Spain, which likewise received a negation.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAW OF LIBEL.

The sentiments promulgated by Lord Mansfield on the law of libel, in

the case of Woodfall, had created much discussion among the legal

profession, and had met with much obloquy among the people. They were

represented as an attempt to infringe the rights and powers of juries,

and to reduce their verdicts to a mere echo of the opinions of judges,

inasmuch as they were merely to inquire into the fact of printing and

publishing, and not allowed to judge whether the matter in question was

a libel or not On the 28th of November, Lord Chatham denounced this mode

of directing juries from the bench, but Lord Mansfield justified it, and

laid it down as an axiom, “that a libel, or not a libel, was a matter

of law to be decided by the bench, and the question to be left to the

jury was only the fact of printing and publishing.” Mansfield demanded

a call of the house for the 10th of December, and when that day arrived,

he laid on the table a paper, drawn up with great care and precision,

containing the unanimous opinion of the court of king’s bench in

Woodfall’s case, in order that their lordships might, read or copy it as

they pleased. Lord Camden inquired whether this paper was intended to be

entered on the journals, and submitted to debate. Mansfield replied it

was merely intended for the information of members, and he then suddenly

moved an adjournment and quitted the house. On the next day, Camden

considering the paper as a challenge to himself, endeavoured to provoke

a discussion, by addressing six queries to the chief-justice, but Lord

Mansfield declared that he would not answer interrogations, and the

matter dropped.

In the house of commons, the power of filing _ex-officio_ informations

by the attorney-general in cases like Almon’s, elicited the praises of

Burke, on Junius as a writer, in these terms:—“How comes this Junius

to have broken through the cobwebs of the law, and to have ranged

uncontrolled, unpunished through the land? The myrmidons of the court

have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will not spend

their time upon me, or upon you, when the mighty boar of the forest,

that has broke through all their toils, is before them. But what will

all their efforts avail? No sooner has he wounded one than he strikes

down another dead at his feet. For my own part, when I saw his attack

upon the king, I own my blood ran cold. Not that he has not asserted

many bold truths: yes, sir, there are in that composition many bold

truths, by which a wise prince might profit. It was the rancour and

venom with which I was struck. But while I expected from this daring

flight his final ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and

coming down souse upon both houses of parliament;—not content with

carrying away our royal eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against

a rock, he has laid you prostrate, and kings, lords, and commons, thus

become but the sport of his fury.” Soon after this Sergeant Glynn moved

for a committee to inquire “into the constitutional power and duty

of juries.” His motion was opposed by Fox, and supported by Dunning,

Wedderbume, Burke, and others. Fox opposed it because it was said that

“the people complained of the perversion of law,” and he laid himself

open to the following severe remarks from the lips of Burke:—“That

there should be found, he said, gentlemen who would annihilate the

people, and acknowledge no other voice than that of this house, is

to me, not at all surprising, because the conduct of the most violent

sticklers for this doctrine has not deserved much applause or favour

from them; but that they should have renounced reason and common sense

so far as to maintain that the majority of this assembly is the only

organ by which their sentiments can be expressed, is, to me, truly

surprising. For where, in the name of wonder, should the house acquire

the necessary knowledge or intelligence? Is it by turning these musty

old volumes, or by rummaging these gaudy boxes which lie on your table?

No! they contain none of these mysteries. How then are they to be

explored? Is there any virtue or inspiration in these benches or

cushions, by which they are to be communicated, or does the echo of

these walls whisper the secret in your ears? No! but the echo of every

other wall, the murmur of every stream, aye! the hoots and hisses of

every street in the nation, ring it in your ears, and deafen you with

their din. The people have a voice of their own, and it must, it will

be, sooner or later heard: and I, as in duty bound, will always

exert every nerve and every power of which I am master, to hasten the

completion of so desirable an event.” The motion was negatived.

QUARRELS BETWEEN THE LORDS AND COMMONS.

Ministers were still pressed by the opposition concerning the lingering

negociations with Spain, and the incompleteness of their preparations

for war. In the house of lords, the Duke of Manchester descanted in

strong terms on the defenceless condition of Gibraltar, Minorca, and

Jamaica. In the midst of his harangue Lord Gower desired that the house

might be cleared of all persons except those who had a right to sit

there. When motions like this, he said, were brought on by surprise, no

one should be allowed to hear the debate except peers, inasmuch as in a

crowded house, emissaries from the court of Spain and other powers might

be present. He added that there was another reason why the house should

be cleared. Persons, he said, had been admitted who took note of what

was said, for he had in his pocket a paper which contained a speech

recently made by a noble lord! This, he asserted, was contrary to a

standing order, which standing order, No. 112, was produced and read.

The Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Chatham warmly opposed such a step,

but their voices were drowned by shouts of “Clear the house! Clear the

house!” The Earl of Chatham, with eighteen peers, indignantly left the

house, and the party who remained then insisted that all the members

of the house of commons present should be turned out _sans cérémonie_!

These members represented that they were there in the discharge of

their duty, for that they were there attending with a bill. The bill was

demanded, and they had no sooner delivered it, than they were hooted

out of the house. A strong protest was made against these proceedings by

members of both houses;—and on the same day, Mr. George Onslow moved in

the lower house that it should be cleared—“peers and all.” This motion

was made merely from pique at the treatment of the commons by the lords,

and not with a view of encouraging the notion that debates ought to be

open, reported, and published. A better motion was made by Mr. Dunning,

who moved for a committee “to inspect the journals of the house of lords

of that day, as to what proceedings and resolutions were therein, with

relation to the not permitting any persons to be present in any part of

the said house during the sitting thereof.” This motion was negatived;

but no vote passed either in the house of lords or that of the commons

could remove the stain which the ministers had brought upon their

characters by these tumultuous proceedings, or allay the desire which

the people entertained for the publication of parliamentary debates; and

the opposition did what they could to render their conduct more odious

than it really was The Earl of Chatham recommended that search should

be made by the commons in the journals, and that a conference should be

demanded with the lords. Acting upon this advice, Lord George Germaine

moved in the house of commons for such a conference, but though he was

ably supported by Lord George Cavendish, Burke, Dunning, and Barré, all

of whom dealt in humour as well as argument, the motion was negatived.

Lord Germaine then moved that the speaker should write to such eldest

sons and heirs apparent of peers, king’s sergeants, and masters in

chancery, as were members, and to the attorney and solicitor-general,

and request them to be in their places every day at two o’clock, to

assist in carrying bills to the house of lords; but the only result

of this motion was a duel between the mover and Governor Johnstone, in

Hyde-park, in consequence of some remarks which the latter had made in

the course of the debate.

CONVENTION WITH SPAIN.

As the sincerity of the Spanish government was doubted by the ministry

before Christmas, it was deemed advisable to adjourn parliament to the

latter end of January, in order to afford time for the development of

circumstances, and to enable the cabinet to decide upon peace or war.

Ministers seem, indeed, to have learned of late that the plan of paying

deference to the Spanish court was not founded in wisdom, and they

changed their policy. On the 21st of December a messenger was despatched

to Spain to recall our ambassador, and to intimate to the English

merchants and commanders of ships, that it would probably be expedient

for them to leave that country. This conduct alarmed the Spanish court,

but it is probable that the King of Spain would have decided upon war,

had not his views been disappointed in another quarter. He had invited

the King of France to co-operate with him, and the Duc de Choiseul, his

minister, was favourable to the cause of Spain, but during the month

of December Choiseul was disgraced and exiled, through the influence of

Madame du Barry, the king’s mistress, and he was succeeded by the Duke

d’Aiguillon, who advocated peace. This had the effect of bringing the

negociations to a close: Louis XV. wrote to the Spanish monarch with his

own hand, that he would not have war, and instructions were immediately

sent to London to Prince Masserano, the Spanish envoy, to accept the

propositions offered by the British Cabinet.

CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

During the Christmas recess, ministers were employed in gaining converts

from the ranks of the opposition, and in making arrangements to complete

and strengthen the administration. Lord Weymouth having resigned the

seals of secretary of state, they were given to Lord Sandwich, who was

succeeded in his office of postmaster-general by the Honourable H. F.

Thynne. Mr. Wedderburne, the pet of Chatham and the city, abandoned his

friends, and became solicitor-general to the queen; while Thurlow was

made attorney-general in the place of Mr. de Grey, who was created

chief-justice of the common pleas. A chancellor was now also found in

the person of the Hon. Henry Bathurst, who took the title of Baron

Apsley. Lord Sandwich held the seals of secretary of state but for a few

days. Having expressed a wish to be transferred to the admiralty, he was

placed at the head of that board, instead of Sir Edward Hawke, and Lord

Halifax succeeded him as secretary of state, giving up the privy seal

to the Earl of Suffolk; Lord Rochford was removed to the southern

department. Mr. Grenville had recently paid the great debt of

nature, or he would have probably again come into office, but several

of his friends were introduced into the ministry, by which it gained a

considerable accession of talent.