{GEORGE III. 1771–1773}
Re-opening of Parliament..... Proceedings against
Shoreham..... Resolutions respecting the Publication of
Debates..... Committal of the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver
to the Tower..... Contest between the City and
Legislature..... The question of the Middlesex Election.....
The question of the Dissolution of Parliament..... The
Session closed..... Release of the Lord Mayor and Alderman
Oliver..... Education of the Prince of Wales..... City
Petition to the King..... Disputes in the City..... Meeting
of Parliament..... Debates on Subscription to the Thirty-
nine Articles..... ecclesiastical _Nullum Tempus_ Bill.....
The case of Dr. Nowell..... Test and Corporation Acts.....
The Royal Marriage Act..... East India Affairs..... The
Session closed..... Fate of the Queen of Denmark..... Death
of the Princess Dowager of Wales..... Revolution in
Sweden..... Partition of Poland..... Investigation of the
Middlesex Election..... Changes in the Ministry..... The
Meeting of Parliament..... East India Affairs.
{A.D. 1771}
RE-OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.
When the commons assembled on the 22nd of January, Lord North announced
the happy termination of the dispute with Spain, and the intention
of government to lay the convention which had just been signed before
parliament. Lord Rochford imparted similar information to the lords:
in both houses the question gave rise to warm discussion. In the
lords the Duke of Manchester moved for all the information received by
government touching the designs of Spain upon Falkland Island, and
for all the papers passed during the negociations. Rochford moved an
amendment, limiting the inquiry to the subject of Falkland Island, and
Lord Sandwich moved another amendment, which the Duke of Richmond said
would so narrow the motion as to deprive the house of all necessary
information. These amendments were withdrawn, and the original motion
of the Duke of Manchester agreed to; but even this did not satisfy the
opposition. The Duke of Richmond next moved, in order to recommend this
ignominious affair to further censure, that all the memorials or
other papers which had passed between his majesty’s ministers and the
ministers of the King of France, relating to the seizure of Falkland
Island by the Spaniards, should be laid before the house. Rochford said
that he knew of no such papers, which assertion was questioned by the
Earl of Chatham, inasmuch as the interference of France in the matter
was a fact that could not be denied. The house, he said, ought never to
take the word of a minister, and that the refusal of this motion showed
that some transaction with France had passed, though perhaps not papers
or memorials. The motion was negatived; but the question gave rise to
still further discussion in both houses, of which little is known; as on
the great field-day in the lords, all strangers were rigidly excluded.
The Earl of Chatham moved on that day, that the following two questions
should be referred to the judges:—1. Whether, in law, the imperial
crown of the realm can hold any territories or possessions otherwise
than in sovereignty? 2. Whether the declaration or instrument for
restitution of Port Egmont, to be made by the Catholic king to his
majesty, under a reservation of a disputed right of sovereignty,
expressed in the very declaration or instrument stipulating such
restitution, can be accepted or carried into execution, without
derogating from the maxim of law touching the inherent and essential
dignity of the crown of Great Britain? This motion was negatived; and
subsequently the Duke of Newcastle moved for an address to the king,
in approbation of the convention, and of the wise and moderate measures
which had been employed to procure it; which was carried by a large
majority. So far as parliament was concerned, the question of Falkland
Island was, by this motion, set at rest; but out of doors it long
continued to be a matter of dispute. One party maintained that the
possession of Port Egmont was of the utmost importance to England, and
that by the secret article, which it was said existed in the convention,
implying that after all we were to give it up, the national honour had
been meanly sacrificed. The caustic Junius and other writers took this
side of the question. Another party, however, at the head of whom Dr.
Johnson may be reckoned, endeavoured to demonstrate that the whole group
was worth little or nothing, and that it would have been absurd to go to
war about them. Both parties adopted exaggerated language to prove their
propositions; but whether they were of any real value or not, it behoved
England, according to state maxims, to resent the conduct of Spain, in
treacherously falling upon her colony at Port Egmont in times of peace.
No argument, indeed, could justify such an invasion of the dignity of
England’s crown and the rights of her subjects. But one thing seems
certain arose from this affair; namely, that if the interests of the
country were sacrificed by this convention, private individuals, at
least, reaped great advantage therefrom. The sudden signing of it,
when war was well nigh pronounced by the prime minister, gave rise to
stockjobbing, and in the course of a few days large fortunes were made
in Change-alley. This formed one of the most weighty charges brought by
the opposition against ministers in the course of the debate. Colonel
Barré, indeed, directly accused them of being implicated in these
unworthy transactions. “A Frenchman,” said he, “being in your secrets,
has made nearly half a million of money by jobbing in your funds; and
some of the highest among yourselves have been deeply concerned in the
same scandalous traffic.” In the course of the session this led to a
bill for the more effectual prevention of stockjobbing; but though it
passed the commons, it does not appear to have obtained the notice of
the lords.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHOREHAM.
In consequence of a petition lodged against one Hugh Roberts, the
returning officer of Shoreham, the public were at this time startled by
strange disclosures of corruption in the elections for that borough.
A select committee was appointed, according to Grenville’s act, to
determine a contested election, in which a candidate who had only
thirty-seven votes had been declared duly elected, to the prejudice of a
rival who had more than double that number. It appeared from the inquiry
that the majority of the freeholders of this insignificant borough had
formed themselves into an association, called “The Christian Club,”
for the ostensible purpose of promoting the cause of piety and charity.
This, however, only served as a cloak for venality and corruption. These
associated “Christians,” sometimes performed a charitable act, in order
to accredit their professions, but the bulk of the money which they
received from their representatives found its way into their own
pockets;—and this was no trifling sum. The borough was offered at
elections to the highest bidder, and he who offered most was successful.
In order to escape detection, the members of this club were bound to
secrecy by solemn oaths, and by bonds with large penalties attached to
them; and negociations with candidates were carried on by means of a
select committee, who, under pretence of scruples of conscience, never
voted themselves, but having sold the borough and received the money,
directed the suffrages of the rest, and afterwards shared in the booty.
Their hypocrisy, however, was brought to light by one in their own camp.
At this election five candidates had offered themselves, and the secret
committee were sent to treat with the bidders. The best offers were made
by General Smith and Mr. Rumbold: the former offering £3000 in cash,
and to build six hundred tons of shipping at Shoreham; and the latter
offering £35 a man to all the freemen. The secret committee preferred
Rumbold, but Roberts, the returning officer, preferred the General, and
knowing that a large sum of money had been distributed among eighty-one
of the majority, he considered them disqualified, and omitted them in
his return. This formed the subject of the petition, and the facts being
proved, a bill was brought in and carried, by which eighty-one freemen
of Shoreham were disfranchised; and the Shoreham franchise was extended
to all the freeholders of the neighbouring district, called the Rape of
Bramber, who occupied tenements of the annual value of forty shillings.
At the same time Roberts was reprimanded at the bar of the house by the
speaker, for his assumption of illegal authority.
RESOLUTIONS RESPECTING THE PUBLICATION OF DEBATES.
Up to this period it had been held that to publish the debates of
either house of parliament was a breach of privilege. The editors
of periodicals had, indeed, endeavoured to evade the prohibition by
publishing mutilated and occasionally invented speeches of honourable
and noble lords, under fictitious names; but the people did not even
obtain this doubtful information till after the discussion was over,
and the matter in debate settled. The public, however, were now becoming
more enlightened, and withal more curious, and these garbled and stale
speeches did not satisfy them;—they longed for a full reporting
newspaper, and the printers were encouraged by the general feeling to
venture upon giving the proceedings in parliament from week to week, or
from day to day, as they occurred. They were the more induced to take
this step because the extent of the power of parliament to enforce this
question of privilege had never been accurately defined. The letters of
Junius, also, had a great effect in confirming them in their resolution:
accordingly, during the Middlesex elections and the debates on the
affairs of the Falkland Islands, the public were gratified with certain
and immediate intelligence of what their representatives were doing. But
this was not likely to be allowed by parliament without a struggle. The
members of both houses had been strenuous in their endeavours to
shut their doors in the face of the nation—to choke all attempts
at publicity, and to seclude themselves as rigorously as a jury, and
therefore the proprietors of these newly established papers, must have
expected, sooner or later, to be disturbed in their occupations. On
the 5th of February their anticipations were realized. Colonel George
Onslow, now one of the lords of the treasury, denounced the insolence
and wickedness of these proceedings, as tending to the destruction of
all things to be venerated in our constitution; and, on the 26th of
the same month, he moved:—“That it is an indignity to, and a breach of
privilege of this house, for any person to presume to give in written
or printed newspapers any account or minutes of debate, or other
proceedings of this house, or any part thereof; and that upon discovery
of the authors, printers, or publishers of any such written or printed
newspaper, this house will proceed against the offenders with the utmost
severity.” The motion was opposed by Alderman Trecothick, who wished
every man to hear what passed in the house; and by Burke, who in the
course of his speech declared, that so long as an interest existed out
of doors to examine the proceedings of parliament, so long would men
be found to do what these printers had already done. It was also argued
that the privilege enjoyed by constituents of knowing what is said and
done by their representatives, is founded on the true principles of
the constitution, and that falsehood and misrepresentation ought to be
punished in a different manner from that proposed, inasmuch as it
went to make the house of commons a secret tribunal. Onslow’s motion,
however, was carried, and two of the printers, Thompson and Wheble, were
ordered to attend at the bar of the house. This order was not noticed,
and the sergeant-at-arms was directed to take them into custody: they
were not to be found; and another printer, Evans, who was ordered on
the 1st of March to attend the house, treated the order with the same
contempt. Colonel Onslow then moved for an address to the king, to
issue a proclamation, offering a reward of fifty pounds for their
apprehension, which was agreed to; and subsequently he denounced six
more printers as guilty of the same enormities. Wheble was at length
taken by another printer, and carried before Alderman Wilkes,
who discharged him from custody, and made him enter into his own
recognisance to prosecute the man who captured him at the Old Bailey
sessions for false imprisonment or an illegal arrest. On the same day
Thompson was also carried before Alderman Oliver, who followed the
example of Wilkes, and discharged him. Four printers, out of the six
last denounced by Onslow, attended at the bar of the house; a fifth
[Woodfall] was already in custody in Newgate, by order of the house
of lords, and the sixth, named Millar, refused to obey the summons.
A messenger was sent to apprehend him, but Millar had a constable in
readiness, and he gave the messenger into custody, and he was carried to
Guildhall to answer for the assault. Wilkes, the sitting alderman, said
he had finished the business of the day, and would not enter upon the
case, and the messenger was then conveyed to the mansion-house. The lord
mayor being indisposed, he was kept there for three hours, but in the
evening, being attended by Wilkes and Oliver, he admitted the parties:
the deputy sergeant-at-arms being also present. The printer having
stated his complaint, the messenger was asked by what authority he
had presumed to commit the assault? He produced his warrant, and the
sergeant-at-arms then intimated that he was there by the speaker’s
order, not only to release the messenger, but to take Millar into
custody. The magistrates, however, represented that by the city charters
no caption could be made, east of Temple-bar, without the authority
of the lord mayor; and while they released Millar, they would have
committed the messenger to prison, had not bail been given for his
appearance to answer for the alleged assault.
COMMITTAL OF THE LORD MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OLIVER TO THE TOWER.
The above transactions were reported to the commons by the
sergeant-at-arms, and orders were issued for the lord mayor to attend in
his place, and his clerk to bring up the mansion-house minute-book, in
which the proceedings had been entered. Alderman Oliver was likewise
ordered to attend in his place, while Wilkes was directed to appear at
the bar of the house. The two members obeyed the summons, and boldly
justified their conduct; but though they were ably supported by many
members in the house, and though the public emphatically displayed their
approbation of their conduct, they were committed to the Tower. As for
Wilkes he defied the government, refusing to attend unless in his seat
as member for Middlesex. Three several times he was summoned to attend,
but he would not listen to it under any other conditions, and nothing
remained but compulsion, which the ministers were afraid of using. His
majesty, indeed, is expressly said to have asserted, that he would
have nothing to do with him, and he was left to act with impunity. This
confessed weakness brought the cabinet into utter contempt, for though
ministers resorted to the trick of adjournment with regard to his
non-appearance, all men saw that it was fear alone which prevented them
from taking him into custody. And that they had reason to fear there can
be no question, for had any attempt been made to compel his appearance,
it would have revived all the uproar of the election questions, and
brought him forward with tenfold powers of mischief, as the champion of
the mob: and, even as it was, ministers had brought themselves, by the
proceedings against the printers, into no very enviable position. Riots
and tumults in the avenues of the house were the order of the day, and
the life of Lord North was on one occasion brought into imminent danger.
On the day that the lord mayor was committed, indeed, the tumult was so
violent that the house was obliged to stop business for some hours, and
it was in vain that magistrates and constables endeavoured to restore
peace: it was only through the speeches of some of the more popular
members, who left the house on purpose to address them, that the minds
of the chafed multitude became tranquil. It was thought that Lord North
would now resign, and a report had been made to that effect, but he
declared that though he wished for retirement, he entertained no such
design; that nothing but the king or the mob, who were near destroying
him, could remove him; and that he was determined to weather out the
storm. He ungraciously charged the minority with hiring the mob to
destroy him; upon which Burke’s brother, William, indignantly exclaimed,
—“It is a falsehood, a most egregious falsehood; the minority are to
a man persons of honour, who scorn such a resource. Such a charge could
only emanate from a man hackneyed in indirect measures.”
CONTEST BETWEEN THE CITY AND LEGISLATURE.
Another occasion of contest between the city and legislature arose from
the introduction of a bill for enclosing and embanking a part of the
river Thames, adjoining to Durham-yard. The city considering that their
rights were about to be invaded were heard by counsel. They produced a
grant by Henry VII. of all the soil and bed of the river, from Staines
bridge to a spot near the Medway, and likewise a lease granted by them
of a nook of the river near Vauxhall, for which they had received rent
upwards of sixty years. On the part of the legislature, a charter of
Charles II. was produced, in which he had reserved the bed of the river,
by the acceptation of which, it was argued, that the city had forfeited
that granted by Henry VII. It was also contended that the charter of
Henry only extended to that part of the river which was within the
city, and the lease at Vauxhall was, therefore, an encroachment. These
arguments prevailed, the bill was passed, and a pile of buildings,
called the Adelphi, was erected on the site, and disposed of by lottery.
The disposal of them in this manner was to eke out the ways and
means, and this mode of procuring money called forth the indignant
denunciations of Mr. Burke and Colonel Barré, who stigmatized it as an
iniquitous project to bribe the servants of the public; a use to which
lotteries had been previously applied.
THE QUESTION OF THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.
The question of the Middlesex election was again brought forward in
the lords on the 30th of April, when; the Duke of Richmond moved for
expunging the resolution adopted on the subject. The Earl of Chatham
delivered a long speech on that occasion, which was forthwith published
in the Public Advertiser. The orator appears to have been unanswered,
but the motion was negatived.
THE QUESTION OF THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
On the 1st of May, the Earl of Chatham moved for an address to the king
to dissolve the present parliament at the end of the session, and
to call a new one with all convenient dispatch. The speech, which he
delivered in making this motion first drew a sad contrast between the
state of the country at the time it was uttered, and the condition
it was in only a few years before. He then descanted on the treaty of
Fontainbleau; the late convention with Spain; the occurrences in St.
George’s Fields, which he called “murders;” on the affairs of America;
and on the immense private debt contracted by the crown. “All these
circumstances,” he observed, “have justly alarmed the nation, and made
them attentive to the operations of parliament. Hence the publication of
the parliamentary debates. And where is the injury, if the members act
upon honest principles? For a public assembly to be afraid of having
their deliberations published is monstrous, and speaks for itself.
No mortal can construe such a procedure to their advantage; and the
practice of locking the doors is sufficient to open the eyes of the
blind;—they must see that all is not well within. Not satisfied,
however, with shutting the doors, the commons would overturn the liberty
of the press. The printers had spirit and resisted. The irritated
commons exalted their privilege above the laws of the land, and their
servants acted illegally in the execution of their illegal orders.
The magistrates of London undertook the cause of the printers, and the
protection of the laws and of the city’s franchises. The commons still
proceeded with the same outrageous violence;—they called upon the
magistrates to justify their conduct, and would not suffer them to
be heard by counsel. These men, who had allowed the prostituted electors
of Shoreham counsel to defend a bargain to sell their borough by
auction, would not grant the same indulgence to the lord mayor of
London, pleading for the laws of England, and the conscientious
discharge of his duty. Accordingly they committed him to the tower
for not violating his oath. The most sacred obligation of morality and
religion they voted criminal, when it happened to stand in competition
with their assumed privileges. Their next step was the act of a mob, and
not of a parliament; I mean the expunging of the recognisance entered at
Guildhall. We have heard of such violence committed by the French King;
and it seems much better calculated for the latitude of Paris than of
London. The people of this kingdom will never submit to such barefaced
tyranny. They must see that it is time to rouse, when their own
creatures dare to assume a power of stopping prosecutions by their vote,
and consequently of resolving the law of the land into their will and
pleasure. The imprudence, and indeed the absolute madness of these
measures, demonstrates not the result of that assembly’s calm, unbiassed
deliberations, but the dictates of weak uninformed ministers, influenced
by those who mislead their sovereign.” Chatham then told the ministers
that it was through their misconduct that Wilkes had become a person of
consequence in the state, and twitted them with acknowledging him to
be their lord and master, since while they had punished the chief
magistrate of the city, they were compelled to allow him to act with
impunity. On all these grounds, he said, it was that he moved for an
address to the throne for the dissolution of parliament; a step which
he considered might have the effect of restoring good humour and
tranquillity on the one hand, and good government on the other. At the
same time he expressed his doubts whether this would prove any thing
more than a temporary and partial remedy, as the influence of the crown
had become so enormous, that some stronger bulwark ought to be erected
for the defence of the constitution. He concluded by stating that the
act for septennial parliaments must be repealed, and by proclaiming
himself a convert to triennial parliaments. The motion was negatived
by seventy-two against twenty-three. In the house of commons,
Alderman Sawbridge made a direct motion for shortening the duration of
parliaments; a motion which, in spite of the large majorities against
him, he renewed every session till his death. Out or doors, at this
time, the question was very popular; the Rev. John Home, and Junius
advocating it as the surest road to political perfection, and as the
only means of preserving the substantial freedom of the constitution. It
is probable, however, that Chatham only advocated this measure for the
purpose of alarming ministers and increasing his popularity, for his
views of parliamentary reform were never definite: he never had a fixed
and settled purpose in the matter.
THE SESSION CLOSED.
This session ended on the eighth of May. In his speech from the throne,
the king congratulated the houses on those exertions which had averted
a war, and which enabled him to hope for the blessings of peace. He
alluded to disturbances and groundless suspicions at home, and exhorted
the members of both houses to use their best endeavours to repress
them. It is manifest that ministers had lost much reputation during the
session, but it seems clear that they were never firmer in their seats
than they were at its close. The defection of Mr. Grenville’s party
added greatly to their strength, while it as greatly weakened the
efforts of the opposition. In June the death of Lord Halifax made a
vacancy in the cabinet, which was occupied by the Earl of Suffolk, while
his place of lord privy seal was taken by the Duke of Grafton, whose
restoration caused a great stir in the political world, and called forth
the atrabilious rancour of Junius, who had prided himself on having
driven the noble duke from office.
RELEASE OF THE LORD MAYOR AND ALDERMAN OLIVER.
All honour was paid to these captives during their confinement in the
Tower. They were visited by nobles and members of the house of commons;
the sheriffs waited upon them to express their disapprobation of all the
proceedings against them; and at a meeting of the common-council the day
after their commitment, a vote of thanks was passed to such members of
the house of commons as had given them their support. The common-council
also agreed to pay any law expenses that might occur, and to defray all
the expenses of their tables while in confinement. On the 5th of
March, they were brought by _habeas corpus_ from the Tower, to Lord
Chief-Justice de Gray’s chambers, attended by a host of friends; but
after hearing Sergeant Glynn and Mr. Lee, he said that he could neither
bail nor discharge them. They were then taken to Lord Mansfield’s
chambers, who expressed the same sentiments; stating that he could
neither take bail nor discharge them while parliament was sitting. They
were, therefore, carried back to the Tower, where they remained till the
day the session closed, when they regained their liberty. In the
mean time the printers remained unscathed. They had, indeed, obtained
advantages almost equal to a victory, and there was little more to fear
from the publication of the speeches of members of parliament. In the
course of the debate Mr. Welbore Ellis moved that a secret committee
of twenty-one members should be chosen by ballot, “to examine into the
several facts and circumstances relative to the late obstructions to
the executions of the order of the house, and to consider what further
proceedings may be requisite to enforce a due obedience thereto.” This
was agreed to, and on the 30th of April the secret committee produced
their report. The document consisted of a tedious deduction of facts and
cases, which concluded with a recommendation to the house to consider
whether it might not yet be expedient that Millar should be taken
into custody by the sergeant-at-arms. Roars of laughter followed this
impotent conclusion, and Burke increased the merriment of the house, by
observing that the secret committee might be compared to an assembly of
mice, who came to a resolution that their old enemy the cat should be
tied up, to prevent her doing any further mischief, but forgot to say
how this was to be effected. Nothing, therefore, was done, and from
that period the parliamentary debates have been published without any
disguise or obstruction: a practice which is considered to be essential
to the effective working of the representative system, and one of the
best safeguards of the constitution, inasmuch as it brings the opinions
and acts of representatives under the notice of the lynx-eyed public,
who regard their rights and liberties with too severe a jealousy to
admit of their being invaded with impunity.
EDUCATION OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.
Before the rising of parliament there was much speculation afloat
concerning the appointment of a governor and preceptors for the king’s
eldest son, Prince George. It was said that the king was at length
“convinced of the error of his ways;” that is, he had become suspicious
of the Tories, and was inclined to favour the Whigs. When the
appointments were made, however, there was no display of any decided
Whig tendency at court. The Earl of Holderness was made the young
prince’s governor, and Lord Mansfield’s friend, Dr. Markham, Bishop
of Chester, and the Rev. Cyril Jackson, were appointed preceptor and
sub-preceptor. The plan of private education was severely censured at
the time, as too narrow for the future sovereign of a free country: and
it was argued that an education at one of the public schools would have
proved more beneficial to the mind of the royal pupil, and to his
future subjects. Lord Holderness, after a few years, resigned his trust,
complaining that a secret and dangerous influence existed which was
injurious to his authority. He was succeeded by Lord Bruce, who retained
his office only a few days, and the next governor was the Duke of
Montague, with Hurd, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, and the Rev. Mr.
Arnold, as preceptor and sub-preceptor. During his education, common
report spoke highly of the prince’s quickness of apprehension, retentive
memory, and general aptitude for acquiring the elegances of literature.
CITY PETITION TO THE KING.
During the recess, inflamed by the imprisonment of the lord mayor, the
harangues of Wilkes, and other circumstances, the city drew up another
strong petition and remonstrance. This petition, which was presented
by order of the lord chamberlain, without the procession of liverymen,
complained of the abitrary, illegal, and wicked proceedings of the
house of commons in imprisoning the city magistrates and members, and
in passing the Durham-yard Act: it concluded by praying the king to
dissolve parliament, and to dismiss his present despotic ministers from
his councils for ever His majesty replied, that he was always willing
to lend an ear to well-founded complaints, and expressed his concern
at seeing the citizens of London so misled and deluded as to renew a
request with which he had already declared he would not comply.
DISPUTES IN THE CITY.
At this time, Wilkes, not satisfied with the alderman’s gown, aspired
to be sheriff. In this he was supported by Farringdon ward, and by other
parts of the city, and the court taking alarm at the circumstance made
use of all its influence to prevent his election. Their efforts were
encouraged by dissensions among the city patriots, and by reports that
Wilkes had offended, the lord mayor and several of the aldermen, and
had involved himself in a quarrel with the Rev. John Home, one of the
principal leaders of the people. Aldermen Plumbe and Kirkman, were
opposed by the government party to Wilkes and Alderman Bull, and every
thing was done to secure their election. An awkward mistake, however,
frustrated all their endeavours. A letter was written by the celebrated
ministerial manager, Mr. John Robinson, to Mr. Benjamin Smith of
Cannon-street, informing him that Mr. Harley was to meet his ward in
the course of the day, to urge them to support Plumbe and Kirkman, and
entreating him to second the efforts of government by active exertions.
This letter was sent by a messenger, but by a mistake he carried it to
Mr. B. Smith, of Budge-row, who was friendly to the cause of Wilkes,
and he instantly published it, together with an affidavit as to its
authenticity: this had such an effect on the poll, that Wilkes and Bull
were elected. Alderman Oliver had been induced to offer himself, and
he was supported by the Rev. John Home. This led to a correspondence
between the Rev. orator and Junius, in the course of which the frailties
of Wilkes were laid before the public eye in all their deformity. Home
accused him of having commissioned Sir Thomas Walpole to procure a
pension of £1000 upon the Irish establishment; of having accepted a
clandestine pension from the Rockingham administration; of not having
commenced patriot until his wife’s fortune was consumed; and of various
other delinquencies committed both in England and France, which were
very derogatory to his moral character. These accusations, however,
came too late, and were, moreover, made in too bad a spirit to have any
immediate effect on his popularity:—this he had now the means in his
hands of increasing, and he turned his power to good account in this
particular. Together with his colleague, he declared that as long as
they were sheriffs, the military, which had been the custom, should not
be allowed to attend the execution of criminals; and they gratified the
people at the beginning of the session, by throwing open the doors and
galleries of the Old Bailey, and forbidding the doorkeepers to receive
money.
{A.D. 1772}
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament, contrary to usual custom did not meet till after the
Christmas holidays. It met on the 21st of January, when the king opened
it with a speech which afforded no subject for debate. Addresses were
passed in both houses without a division. On the same day Sir John
Mawbey obtained leave to bring in a bill for preventing “clandestine
outlawries,” of which nothing more is known. On the next day Alderman
Sawbridge gave notice of moving for leave during the session to bring
in a bill for shortening the duration of parliaments; and on the day
following there was a debate about the prevailing scarcity, and the
necessity of continuing the prohibition against the exportation of corn.
Sir William Meredith moved on the same day, that no bill or clause
of any bill should be permitted to pass the house, whereby capital
punishments were decreed, unless the same should previously be referred
to a committee of the whole house: a motion which passed unanimously,
and was made a standing order. The first debate of consequence in the
house took place on the 29th of January, when Mr. Buller informed the
house, in a committee of supply, that his majesty expected they would
vote a considerable augmentation to our naval force, as additional ships
were required in the Levant, where Russia was carrying on a maritime
war against Turkey; in the East Indies, where France began to manifest
hostility; and in Jamaica and the West Indies. He moved that 25,000 men
including 6664 marines should be maintained, and the motion was seconded
by Captain Harvey. The augmentation was opposed by several members as
too small if war was expected, and too large to be kept up in peace, and
hints were thrown out by the opposition that ministers or the lords of
the admiralty, either wanted more patronage at their disposal, or that
something was concealed that made this great armament necessary. Mr.
Buller’s motion, however, was carried without a division.
DEBATES ON SUBSCRIPTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
The important subject of subscription to the thirty-nine articles of
religion had long been discussed at public meetings, in the newspapers,
and in pamphlets and other works, and during this session, on the 6th of
February, a petition from about 240 of the clergy and many professors of
civil law and physic, was presented to parliament, praying relief from
subscription to these articles The document was thus worded:—“Your
petitioners apprehend themselves to have certain rights and privileges
which they hold of God alone, and of this kind is the exercise of their
own reason and judgment. They conceive they are also warranted by those
original principles of reformation from popery on which the church of
England is constituted, to judge, in searching the scriptures, each
man for himself, what may or may not be proved thereby. They find
themselves, however, in a great measure precluded the enjoyment of this
invaluable privilege, by the laws relative to subscription, whereby your
petitioners are required to acknowledge certain articles and confessions
of faith and doctrine, drawn up by fallible men, to be all and every
one of them agreeable to the said scriptures. Your petitioners therefore
pray that they may be relieved from such an imposition upon their
judgment, and be restored to their undoubted right as Protestants, of
interpreting scripture for themselves, without being bound by any human
explanations thereof—holy scripture alone being acknowledged certain
and sufficient for salvation.” This petition was presented by Sir
William Meredith, who said that he considered it as meriting the most
serious attention of the house, as the grievance which affects the minds
and consciences of men was more burtdensome than that which affects
their property. It was inconsistent, he observed; with the liberality
of the present age to oblige men to subscribe to the truth of articles
which they could not believe; and he urged that such injunctions tended
to establish, under religious authority, habits of prevarication and
irreligion; were productive of great licentiousness in the church; and
operated to the destruction of Christian charity. He affirmed that
the removal of these shackles would give a strength to the established
church which nothing could shake, and that no danger could arise from
such a reformation while the hierarchy existed. He concluded with
remarking that the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were quite enough
for the security of the church and state.
The champion of the church on this occasion was Sir Robert Newdigate,
member for the University of Oxford. Sir Robert considered the petition
as praying to overturn the church of England, which he argued was only
to be found in the thirty-nine articles and the Book of Common
Prayer. He accused those clergymen who had signed it with possessing
accomodating consciences; such consciences as had subverted the church
in the last century. As for the house of commons, he maintained that
it had no power to dispense with oaths, or to relieve those who had
subscribed. Nay, it could not, he said, even receive the petition, since
to comply with it would be a breach of the articles of union between
England and Scotland, and since the king is bound by oath never to admit
any alteration either in the liturgy or the articles. Mr. Hans Stanley,
Mr. Fitzmorris, and Mr. Jenkinson were all of opinion that the house
ought to show no countenance to such a petition, and other members
were either facetious at the expense of the tender consciences of the
dissenters, or furious against every section of that body. Mr. Charles
Fox spoke for the church as by law established, and said that he
considered that all the laws and statutes by which it had been guarded
were very necessary for its preservation: at the same time he deprecated
the practice of exacting subscription to the articles from mere boys.
Soame Jenyns said that at Cambridge no subscription was required except
upon taking a degree, when the parties might be supposed to have arrived
at an age when they might think for themselves. Other members opposed
the petition, on the ground that it would give a mortal wound to the
church, and through the church to the state, since they were so closely
united that if one perished the other must share its fate. It was also
argued that the church had long been and was still in danger; that the
parliament could not grant relief to the petitioners, it having no
power to release from oaths once taken; and that even the king could not
afford relief, he being bound by oath to preserve the church as by
law established. Burke, who opposed the opposition, took a more
comprehensive and enlightened view of the subject than most of the
preceding speakers. He remarked, “If the dissenters, as an honourable
gentleman has described them, have formerly risen from a ‘whining,
canting, snarling generation,’ to be a body dreadful and ruinous to our
establishments, let him call to mind the follies, the violences, the
outrages, and persecutions that conjured up, very blamably, but very
naturally, that same spirit ol retaliation. Let him recollect, along
with the injuries, the services which dissenters have done to our church
and to our state. If they have once destroyed, more than once they have
saved them.” Burke next observed that the church of England might alter
her laws without changing her identity. He said that she professed
no infallibility, and had always exercised the right of reforming her
doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies, instancing as examples the change
which she had made in the liturgy in the reign of Edward VI. and the
reduction of her articles from forty-two to thirty-nine. The act of
union, he maintained, had not rendered any further change possible.
At the same time he contended that there was no great occasion for the
change sought by the petitioners. “I will not enter,” he said, “into
the abstract merits of our articles and liturgy; perhaps there are some
things in them which one would wish had not been there; and they are not
without the marks and character of human frailty. But,” he added, “it
is not human frailty and imperfection, or even a considerable degree of
them, that becomes a ground for alteration; for by no alteration
will you get rid of those errors, however you may vary them.” He then
adverted to the inexpediency of these alterations, and the temper of the
times. “If,” said he, “you make this a season of religious alterations,
depend upon it you will soon find it a season of religious tumults and
wars.... These gentlemen complain of hardships. No considerable number
shows discontent; but in order to give satisfaction to any considerable
number of men, who come in so decent and constitutional a mode before
us, let us examine a little what that hardship is. They want to be
preferred clergymen of the church of England as by law established, but
their consciences will not suffer them to conform to the doctrines and
practices of that church; that is, they want to be teachers in a church
to which they do not belong; it is an odd sort of hardship. They want to
receive the emoluments appropriated for teaching one set of doctrines,
whilst they are teaching another. A church in any legal sense is only
a certain system of religious doctrines and practices, fixed and
ascertained by some law; by the difference of which laws different
churches, as different commonwealths, are made in various parts of
the world; and the establishment is a tax laid by the same sovereign
authority for payment of those who so teach and practise, For no
legislature was ever so absurd as to tax its people to support men, but
by some prescribed rule.” Burke then warned the house against making a
new door into the church for such gentlemen, as ten times their number
might be driven out of it, and as it would be inexpedient to displease
the clergy of England as a body, for the chance of obliging a few who
were, or wanted to be, beneficed clergymen, and who probably were not
agreed among themselves as to what required alteration. He concluded
by showing, from the different opinions of churches on the canon of
scripture itself, that men are as little likely to be unanimous on that
point as on any other. He remarked, “The Bible is a vast collection of
different treatises: a man who holds the divine authority of one may
consider the other as merely human. What is his canon? The Jewish? St.
Jerome’s? that of the thirty-nine articles? Luther’s? There are some
who reject the Canticles; others six of the Epistles; the Apocalypse has
even been suspected as heretical, and was doubted of for many ages, and
by many great men. As these narrow the canon, others have enlarged it,
by admitting St. Barnabas’s Epistles, the Apostolic Constitutions, to
say nothing of many other Gospels. Therefore to ascertain scripture you
must have one article more; and you must define what that scripture
is which you mean to teach. There are, I believe, very few who, when
scripture is to be ascertained, do not see the absolute necessity of
knowing what general doctrine a man draws from it, before he is sent
down authorised by the state to teach it as pure doctrine, and receive
a tenth of the produce of our lands. The scripture is not one summary of
doctrine regularly digested, in which a man cannot mistake his way; it
is a most venerable but multivarious collection of the records of divine
economy; a collection of an infinite variety of cosmogony, theology,
history, prophecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, allegory, legislation,
ethics, carried through different books by different authors at
different ages, for different ends and purposes. It is necessary to sort
out what is intended for example, what only as narrative, what to be
understood literally, what figuratively—where one precept is to be
controlled and modified by another—what is used directly and what only
as an argument _ad hominem_—what is temporary and what of perpetual
obligation—what appropriated to our state, and to one set of men, and
what the general duty of all Christians. If we do not get some security
for this, we not only permit, but we actually pay for, all the dangerous
fanaticism which can be produced to corrupt our people and to derange
the public worship of the country.” Lord North said that he hoped to
have seen nothing in the petition to prevent him from recommending that
it should be laid on the table. He, however, saw that it was repugnant
to the act of union, and that if such indulgences were allowed, there
would then be nothing to exclude a man from the church of England
but popery. Any innovations in the forms prescribed, he added, would
occasion such contentions in the nation, that neither poppy nor
mandragora could restore it to its former repose. Mr. Dunning replied,
and he argued that every good subject ought to be entitled to a chance
of obtaining posts of profit and honour. It was by no means a principle
of sound policy, he said, to narrow the means of access to emoluments.
As to the quiet of the nation being disturbed by innovation, he could
not see such could be the result from granting the prayer of the
petition. He added, if the repose of the nation partook at all of the
torpid state of insensibility which Lord North’s mandragora had diffused
through the house, the sooner it was broken the better; it was
an alarming symptom, which, instead of betokening health, was the
forerunner of destruction. The house divided at midnight, when the
petition was rejected by a large majority.
{GEORGE III. 1771–1773}
ECCLESIASTICAL NULLUM TEMPUS BILL.
Another debate in which the clergy were concerned arose from a motion
made by Mr. Henry Seymour, for leave to bring in a bill for securing
estates against dormant claims of the church. It was argued that as the
_nullum tempus_ of the crown had been conceded in favour of the people,
no reason existed why some limitation in this respect should not be set
to ecclesiastical power. On the other hand it was contended that the
power of reviving claims was necessary to protect the church from
encroachments; and that while in the case of the crown it was an
instrument in the hands of the strong to oppress the weak, in that of
the church, it was a defence of the weak against the strong. The motion
was rejected by 141 to 117.
THE CASE OF DR. NOWELL.
On the anniversary of the execution of King Charles, the 30th of
January, Dr. Nowell preached a sermon before the house of commons. The
speaker and four members only were present, and a motion of thanks and
for printing the sermon was carried as a matter of course. When the
sermon was printed, however, it was found to savour of the doctrines
of passive obedience and the divine right of kings, and to contain
principles in direct opposition to those which had placed the reigning
family on the throne. This brought down a storm on the head of the
preacher. Mr. Thomas Townshend moved that the sermon should be burned
by the common hangman; and another member moved that all future sermons
should be printed before the preachers received the thanks of the house.
These motions were not carried, but on the motion of the Honourable
Boyle Walsingham, it was voted that the thanks of the house to Dr.
Nowell should be erased. In the course of the debate severe strictures
were made upon the character of Charles I., and of that part of the
liturgy which describes him as a blessed martyr; and this seems to have
encouraged Mr. Montague soon afterwards to make a motion to repeal the
act for observing the 30th of January as a holiday, or a day of prayer
and fasting. Mr. Montague attacked the appointed form of prayer as
blasphemous, inasmuch as it contains a parallel between Charles I. and
our Saviour. But the motion was negatived by a majority of an 125 to 97.
TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.
During the debates on the anti-subscription petition, many members on
both sides of the house had acknowledged, that though it was just and
reasonable to require subscription from persons entering the established
church, it was nevertheless hard to demand it from dissenters and
schoolmasters. Later in the season Sir Henry Houghton made a motion to
relieve these from subscription, and from the operation of penal laws:
in other words, for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. This
was strongly opposed by the high church party, who argued that such an
exemption would open a road to heresy and infidelity, encourage schism,
and tend to the overthrow of the church of England. The bill, however,
was carried in the house of commons by a large majority; but it
was thrown out in the lords, where it encountered the most violent
opposition of the bench of bishops and the ministry.
THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.
In the year 1771, the Duke of Cumberland had contracted a private
marriage with Mrs. Horton, widow of Christopher Horton, Esq., a daughter
of Lord Irnham, and sister of Colonel Luttrell. It was also generally
believed, that his majesty’s other brother, the Duke of Gloucester, had
married the widow of the Earl of Waldegrave. This gave offence to
their majesties, who prided themselves on the antiquity of the House
of Brunswick, on the family of Guelph, and the “antique blood” of Este,
from which they were equally descended. The blood of princes, they
thought, would be contaminated by any admixture with less precious
blood, and especially with that which could not substantiate its claim
to pure nobility. Such blood, they imagined, could not be found in all
England, but the families out of which the royal dukes had chosen
their wives were especially deficient in aristocratic pretensions; the
Luttrells being an undistinguished stock of Irish Protestants, and the
Countess Dowager Waldegrave, the natural daughter of Sir Edward Walpole.
Under these circumstances, the royal dukes were forbidden the court, and
his majesty sent a message to both houses of parliament, importing that
he thought it would be wise and expedient to render effectual, by some
new provision, the right of the sovereign to approve all marriages in
the royal family. In consequence of this message, a bill was brought
into the house of lords, by which it was declared that no member of the
royal family, being under twenty-five years of age, should marry without
the king’s consent; and that after attaining that age, they were at
liberty, if the king refused his consent, to apply to the privy council,
by announcing the name of the person they wished to espouse, and if,
within a year, neither house of parliament should address the king
against it, then the marriage might be legally solemnised. The bill
further declared that all persons assisting in, or knowing of any
intention in any member of the royal family to marry without fulfilling
these ceremonies, and not disclosing it, incurred the penalties of a
premunire. The bill encountered a violent opposition in the house of
lords, but it was carried by a large majority, and then sent down to the
commons. In the commons it was opposed with still greater violence: it
being denounced by Burke and various speakers as cruel and oppressive,
and as being calculated to extend the dangerous power of ministers and
the limits of prerogative. The bill was, however, carried by a majority
of forty members. In the house of lords, nineteen peers entered a
long protest, declaring that if the bill passed into a law, it would,
nevertheless, be void. The excitement out of doors on the subject was
scarcely less violent than that within the house. It was said there,
that the bill should be entitled “an act for encouraging fornication
and adultery in the descendants of George, II.” As for the Duke of
Gloucester, in the course of the spring, he openly avowed his marriage
with the widow of the late Earl of Waldegrave, and both brothers
abstained from going to court for ten years, and lived as strangers to
his majesty.
EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.
During the month of February, Lord North had called the attention of
the house to the affairs of the East India Company, which were every day
increasing in importance, and involving greater interests. In March, Mr.
Sullivan, deputy chairman of the company, moved for leave to bring in a
bill for the better regulation of its officers and concerns in India.
The bill was brought in and read a second time, but it was then laid
aside. In the course of the debates upon it—many charges and defences
passed between certain members of the house and others that had acquired
vast fortunes in India, and these accusations led to a secret committee
of inquiry, which forthwith commenced its task: a task that was not
completed during this session.
THE SESSION CLOSED.
This session closed on the 10th of June, when the king expressed his
satisfaction at the temper and moderation displayed by the members
during their sitting, and thanked them for the additional security which
they had provided for the honour and welfare of his family: thanks which
chiefly referred to the royal marriage act. The supplies voted for this
year were £7,860,250; and the national debt amounted to £127,500,000.
In the course of the session, it may be remarked, that the ancient and
barbarous custom of _peine forte et dure_, by which felons refusing
to plead, were stretched on their backs and pressed to death by heavy
weights, was abolished by an act, which declared that all who acted thus
contumaciously were to be adjudged guilty of the crimes laid to their
charge. At the close of the session Lord North seemed firmly seated in
office, and this conviction brought over many waverers, and time-servers
to his side. Nevertheless, he was soon after doomed to lose the support
of one of the best of his debaters, in the person of Charles Fox, who
was suddenly converted to Whig principles, and who consequently resigned
the admiralty.
FATE OF THE QUEEN OF DENMARK.
Carolina Matilda, the king’s youngest sister, was married in her
sixteenth year to Christian VII., king of Denmark. This monarch was
addicted to licentious and degrading pleasures, and was a prince of
weak intellect, irritable and capricious, open to flattery, and easily
deceived by the crafty. Soon after his marriage he visited England,
France, and Germany, where he might, if he had possessed intellect,
have obtained such knowledge as would have made him a better man. He
returned, however, to his dominions the same character as when he left
it—vicious in his private life, and despotic in his rule. During his
travels he had been accompanied by a physician named Struensee, and
this man had acquired such an absolute ascendency over his mind, that
he obtained the supreme direction of affairs, with a title of nobility.
Struensee was endowed with considerable abilities, and was possessed of
a handsome person and engaging manners. He appears to have ingratiated
himself as much in the favour of the queen, as of the king, being
allowed to converse with her in very familiar terms. Apart from this,
however, there appears to have been no connection between the queen
and the favourite. But Matilda was watched by unfriendly eyes. Juliana
Maria, the queen-dowager, had from her first arrival taken a dislike
to her, and this aversion was increased when she saw that Matilda,
Struensee, and Brandt, a young nobleman, exercised complete authority
over the imbecile monarch, and directed the affairs of government at
their pleasure. The queen-dowager had numerous and powerful friends,
and these were likewise incensed at seeing Struensee at the head of the
government, and a strong party was formed against him; Juliana Maria
being at the head of the faction. The queen, also, was an object
of their malice from her supposed influence over the king, and her
encouragement of a man who thus lorded it over the old nobility. By
their intrigues they soon obtained an order from the king for her
removal from Copenhagen, and for the apprehension of Struensee and
Brandt: it being represented that they had plotted together and were
about to depose him. It was on the night of the 16th of January that the
faction put their conspiracy into execution. Struensee and Brandt were
suddenly seized, cast into prison, and after undergoing the greatest
indignities, were beheaded. At an early hour, also, the queen, who had
just retired to rest from a masked ball, received a written order to
remove instantly from Copenhagen. It was in vain that Matilda sought to
see her husband: she was dragged half naked into a carriage, and driven
to Cronborg castle, where she was immured with an English lady of her
suite, and her infant daughter, the princess Louisa, whom she was then
suckling. A project was set on foot to try her on a capital charge of
adultery, for the purpose of rendering her offspring illegitimate,
in order that Prince Frederic, son of the queen-dowager, might become
presumptive heir to the throne. A secret commission had, indeed, found
her guilty, and had pronounced a divorce, as a preparatory step to her
trial on a capital charge. Matilda, however, was the sister of one of
the greatest sovereigns of Europe, whose arm was to be dreaded, and the
Danish court was compelled to agree that she should quit the kingdom,
and live under the protection of his majesty of England. An English
squadron repaired to Cronborg to receive her, but she was not allowed
the consolation of bringing her infant daughter away with her. She was
conveyed to the vessel in an agony of despair, and she sat on the deck
with her eyes fixed on the walls of the castle where she had left her
only earthly solace, till the darkness of night concealed them from her
view. She was conveyed to the castle of Zell, in Hanover, where a cheap
little court was provided for her; the expenses being paid out of the
Hanoverian revenue, or out of the English privy purse. But her days of
light-heartedness were over: her heart was stricken with grief which
weighed her down. Portraits of her infant-son and daughter were
procured, and these she hung in her chamber, where she would frequently
talk to them, as though the images had been the originals—the shadows,
the substance. She did not, however, long survive her misfortunes. She
died at the age of twenty-four in the month of May 1775; less than three
years after her release from Cronborg. Yet after all the machinations of
the queen-dowager of Denmark, the son of the ill-fated queen afterwards
ascended the throne: being first associated with his father Christian
VII. as a sort of joint monarch. This, at least, proves that the king
himself was convinced of the innocence of his unhappy consort.
DEATH OF THE PRINCESS DOWAGER OF WALES.
Before her daughter was hurled from the throne of Denmark, her mother,
the Princess-dowager of Wales, was no more. She died suddenly on the
8th of February, in the fifty-fourth year of her age. Although she had
endured much popular clamour, the accusations of her enemies were
never satisfactorily substantiated. At all events she appears to have
possessed many good qualities. It tends greatly to her honour that she
gradually liquidated her husband’s debts out of her own private income.
REVOLUTION IN SWEDEN.
In the beginning of this year a sudden revolution took place at
Stockholm. About half a century before, the nobility of Sweden had
limited the prerogative of the crown, and had erected themselves into an
absolute and oppressive oligarchy. Since then the country had been split
into two factions, which were called the Hats and Caps. Encouraged by
this division, as well as by the venality of the aristocratical senate,
Gustavus III. resolved to erect the old monarchical despotism. His plans
were matured with extreme secrecy and precaution. The mass of the army
was gained over to his cause; the affections of the brave people of
Dalecarlia, who had established the dynasty of Gustavus Vasa, were
secured; and the services of the citizens and burgher-guard of the
capital were enlisted. All were ready, and the king, having assembled
the troops within the walls of Stockholm, under the pretext of providing
against an insurrection, then threw off the mask. He harangued
the troops; telling them that he was about to save the nation from
degradation and misery, to put an end to the insolence and venality
of the nobles, and to restore the crown to its ancient splendour. The
soldiers applauded; the senators were made prisoners; the obnoxious
members of the secret committee of the states fled for their lives; the
army, colleges, and citizens took the oath of allegiance in the absolute
form; and the revolution was achieved. It was achieved gloriously; for
not one drop of blood was shed. The states of the kingdom underwent
no change—the council only was overturned, and the factions of the
aristocracy, led on by family interests and supported by foreign
influence, repressed.
PARTITION OF POLAND.
Sweden was more fortunate than Poland. At this time that country
presented a melancholy aspect. It was torn by civil wars, harassed by
religious discord, and wasted by the famine and the plague. But these
were only the accessories to still greater misfortunes. Crippled by
them, Poland had no power of resisting the spoilers who were now casting
their eyes upon her as their prey. These spoilers were the rulers of
Russia, Prussia, and Austria, whose armies entered the country under
false pretences, in order to appropriate the fairest portion to
themselves. And what made the condition of that unhappy country the
more deplorable was, that she had not a single friend who could lend
a willing ear to her call for aid. Turkey was at this period almost
prostrate at the feet of Russia; Sweden and Denmark were engaged in
revolutions of their own; Choiseul no longer directed the affairs of
France, or was able to advocate war; and England was embarrassed by
domestic commotions and the violent remonstrances of her rebellious
colonies. It was in vain that the King of Poland published refutations
to the claims of the co-partitioners, and in vain that they made an
appeal to all the states that had ever guaranteed the integrity of the
country. Before the spirit of Europe could be roused, violent hands were
laid upon the kingdom, and the work was done. The three powers, indeed,
proceeded to the dismemberment of Poland, with no other check or
impediment than such as arose from their own clashing interests, where
each one strove to obtain as much as they could. But the agreement was
made marvellously quick. The treaty of partition was signed between the
spoliators on the 2nd of August, in 1772, and it was followed in the
month of September by declarations, manifestoes, and specifications
of the territories which each of he powers was to possess Austria and
Prussia claimed their portions as their rights; Russia represented that
she was entitled to hers for expenses incurred in keeping Poland in
order. All the powers agreed that it was to put an end to anarchy, and
the frequent troubles of Poland, that induced them to take this step;
and they asserted that it was their intention of placing the ancient
constitution of Poland and the national liberties upon a sure
foundation. But their assertions ill agreed with their actions: all the
world knew their motives, and that it was self alone which made them
take such deep interest in the affairs of Poland. Nay, their very
manifestoes declared their real designs. Cities, towns, provinces,
rivers, and Mountains were to be taken from her, and placed under their
own fostering care. But then it was stated by them, this was only done
out of mercy to the nation. Having limited their kingdom thus, they
promised that they would discharge the Poles from all other debts, dues,
and demands, and for ever respect the integrity of the remnant of their
dominions. Thus preaching peace, though war was in their hearts, the
three powers invited the Poles of all ranks and orders to put up their
swords, and to banish the spirit of discord and delusion, in order that
a diet legally assembled might co-operate with their imperial majesties
and the King of Prussia in re-establishing tranquillity, and at the same
time ratify, by public acts, the titles, pretensions, and claims of the
three powers; and the partition agreed upon and effected. The diet
met, and although for a long time they opposed the dismemberment of the
country, yet they were overcome by large presents and larger promises.
The king was more firm, but he was menaced with deposition, his family
with ruin, and his capital with pillage, and he signed the fatal
instrument. The territory taken and divided among them was almost the
third part of Poland, and it comprised some of the richest provinces in
the kingdom. Thus to Russia was assigned the greater part of Lithuania,
with all the vast country between the livers Dwina and Dneister; to
Prussia the whole of Pomeralia, part of Great Poland, the bishopric of
Warmia, and the palatinates of Marienberg and Culm, with the complete
command of the lower part of the Vistula; and to Austria the country
along the left bank of the Vistula, from Vielicza down to the confluence
of the river Viroz, the whole of the country called Red Russia, the
palatinate of Belz, and a portion of the province of Volhynia. But even
this did not satisfy the spoliators. The treaty was scarcely signed when
Frederick extended the limits of his acquisitions in the neighbourhood
of Thorn, and to the east of the Devenza, while Austria seized on
Casimir, part of the palatinate of Lublin, and some lands lying on the
right bank of the Bog. Were not these three powers actuated by a
spirit of revenge and envy, as well as by a spirit of cupidity, in this
spoliation of Poland? Prussia was formerly in a state of vassalage to
that country; Russia once saw its capital and throne possessed by
Poles; and Austria was indebted to a sovereign of this country for
the preservation of its metropolis, if not for its very existence.
Stanislaus could scarcely be persuaded that this dismemberment was
intended to be perpetual; and when he was convinced of it, he addressed
prayers and protests to France, Spain, and England, and to all the
powers of Europe. These prayers and protests were useless; and yet it
was the wisdom of the powers to vindicate his cause. Professor Heeren
remarks:—“What were the consequences to Poland, in comparison with
those which threatened the political system of Europe? The potentates
themselves had begun its subversion. Politicians flatter ed themselves,
indeed, and so did Frederick, that the balance of power would be upheld
in the north by the nearly equal division; so fearfully had the error
taken root, that this balance is to be sought in the material power of
the state, and not in preserving the maxims of international law. What
dismemberment could be illegal if this should be regarded as lawful? and
what state could be more interested in maintaining the law of nations
than Prussia—a state which was established by conquests piecemeal, and
brought together by compacts and treaties of peace?” The dismemberment
of Poland was in truth an outrage committed upon the law of nations.
And this outrage was rendered tenfold more iniquitous by the new
constitution imposed upon Poland. This constitution excluded all
reform; perpetuated the elective monarchy with the _liberum veto_, the
exorbitant privileges of the nobles, and every other inherent defect;
and contracted the regal power, by appointing a co-operative council,
and depriving the sovereign of more than half his patronage.
The delegates who had been appointed to adjust the claims of the
partitioning powers, and to settle this new constitution, long resisted
these regulations, but their consent was finally extorted by threats,
and a general diet was assembled which formally confirmed their
acts. All things, therefore, were put into a proper train for future
spoliation; nor did a long time elapse before another opportunity
occurred of making inroads into the law of nations, and dissolving those
ties which connect governing powers among themselves. The ambassadors of
the three powers, indeed, continued to dictate to the council in which
the executive power was vested, as they had done to the diet, and the
king was only king in name. Some there were in the nation who dared to
resist the spoliators, but they were soon compelled to leave the country
with no fortune but their swords. Some of these afterwards fought under
George Washington, in America, when the English colonies raised the
standard of independence.
INVESTIGATION OF THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.
During this year the dispute concerning the Middlesex election was
revived in a new mode of investigation. An action was brought by Mr.
Alderman Townshend against the collector of the land-tax for distraint
in default of payment, which was refused, on the plea that Middlesex
was not represented in parliament. Sergeant Glynn was retained for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Wallace was employed for the defendant—the former of
whom argued, that the county was not represented, and the latter of whom
contented himself with producing the act of parliament under which the
collector had acted. Lord Mansfield, in his charge to the jury, said,
that the sole question for them to consider was, whether at the present
time there was any legislative power in the county or not—if they
thought there was, they must find for the defendant. The jury thought
there was, and gave a verdict accordingly.
CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.
During the month of August several changes occurred in the ministry
which had a tendency to strengthen the administration. Lord Hillsborough
resigned his post of secretary for the colonies and first lord of trade;
the Earl of Harcourt succeeded Lord Townshend in Ireland, the latter
being appointed master-general of the ordnance; General Conway obtained
the government of Jersey, and was succeeded as lieutenant-general of
the ordnance by Sir Jeffery Amherst; and Lord Stormont was sent as
ambassador to Paris. Moreover, later in the year, Charles Fox, whose
services were of value to the ministers, and who was in want of
ministerial pay, again changed sides, and was made a lord of the
treasury; while Mr. Jenkinson was created vice-treasurer of Ireland.
THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament reassembled on the 26th of November. The speech of his
majesty contained no topic of importance, and the addresses of both
houses did little more than echo the speech. It was expected that some
allusion would have been made in it to the partition of Poland, but not
a word was said about that flagrant act, and the members who spoke on
the addresses were equally silent upon the subject. Mr. Burke appears
to have felt deeply concerning it, but he reserved his eloquence for a
future period.
EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.
On the first clay of the session hostile language was uttered by the
retainers of government in the commons against the East India Company,
and Lord North moved for a secret committee of thirteen to examine
certain points, independently of the committee appointed last session,
which was carried. In the course of seven days a report was made by
this secret committee, recommending a bill to prevent the company from
sending out certain supervisors whom it had selected to settle matters
in India. It was at once seen that such a bill was only a preparatory
measure for the interference of government in the administration of
India, and therefore it excited the warmest opposition of many members.
Several of the directors, sitting in parliament, declared that the
report was hurried, irregular, and unconstitutional; and Burke, who was
a holder of East India stock, maintained that the proposed bill would
be a violation of the company’s charter, and the law of the land. “If,”
said he, “we suffer this bill to pass we shall become the East India
Company; the treasury bench will be the buyers, and on this side we
shall be the sellers. The senate will become an auction-room, and the
speaker an auctioneer.” The recommendation of the secret committee was,
notwithstanding, adopted, and the bill was introduced.
During the progress of this bill, the East India directors petitioned
against it, representing it as subversive of those rights and privileges
which they held under their charter, which were purchased by their
predecessors for a valuable consideration, and were confirmed to them
by acts of parliament. The petition also complained of an erroneous
calculation of expenses made by the committee, and stated that those
of the commission would be defrayed by savings meditated, to the great
benefit of the creditors. The petitioners, moreover, suggested that
injurious consequences would arise from their being prohibited to
transact their own affairs, in the want of means to fulfil their
engagements with the public; claimed the benefit of the law; appealed
to the faith of the nation for their chartered rights; and prayed to be
heard by counsel. This latter prayer was granted, and it appeared from
evidence that government had received nearly £2,000,000 annually from
the company, while the company had received little more than six per
cent, on their capital. The evidence given at the bar also served to
establish the great delinquency of the company’s servants, and the need
that existed of their being subject to supervision. At the same time it
did not show that the company of itself was competent to redress these
abuses, and the question was, whether the incompetency of the company
warranted the interposition of parliament. Ministers acknowledged it to
be a stretch of authority, but they justified it on the plea of cogent
necessity—a necessity which took precedence of all other law. The
company’s battle was fought in the commons by Burke, whose speech on
this occasion attracted great attention. After observing that parliament
took the state of the company’s trade into consideration, in 1767 for
the maintenance of the public faith and public credit; for the
increase of its commerce and revenues, and for the security of
its stockholders—a bargain with which the eyes of the house were
dazzled—he thus descanted on the distress of the company and the
iniquity of the bill:—“The distress of the company,” said he, “arises
from the improvidence of administration and the short-sightedness of
parliament, in not forming for it a system of government suitable to its
form and constitution. Or am I mistaken? Were the directors left without
any effectual control over delinquent servants? Was the collection
of the revenue left without any check? Was the tyranny of a double
government, like our double cabinet, tolerated with a view of seeing
the concerns of the company become an absolute chaos of disorder, and
of giving to government a handle for seizing the territorial revenue?
I know that this was the original scheme of administration, and I
violently suspect that it never has been relinquished. If the ministry
have no sinister view, if they do not mean by this unconstitutional
step to extend the influence of the crown, they will now speak out,
and explicitly declare their intentions: their silence may be justly
construed into a confession of such a design, and they will thenceforth
be considered as the determined enemies of the liberty of their country.
God knows, that the places and pensions, and expectancies, furnished
by the British establishment, are too powerful for the small remains of
patriotism and public spirit that remain in our island. What then
will become of us, if Bengal, if the Ganges, pour in a new tide of
corruption? Should the evil genius of British liberty so ordain it, I
fear this house will be so far from removing the corruption of the East,
that it will be corrupted by it: I dread more from the infection of that
place than I hope from the virtue of this house. Was it not the sudden
plunder of the East that gave the final blow to the freedom of
Borne? What reason have we to expect a better fate? I conjure you, by
everything which man ought to hold sacred—I conjure you by the spirits
of your forefathers, who so nobly fought and bled for the cause for
which I now plead—I conjure you by what includes everything, by your
country, not to yield to the temptations which the East, in the hands
of the crown, holds out: not to sink into the gulf of corruption, and
to drag after you your posterity and your country. I obtest heaven and
earth, that in all places, and at all times, I have hitherto shoved by
the gilded hand of corruption, and endeavoured to stem the torrent which
threatens to overwhelm this land. On the whole, the bill is dangerous
in itself, as being the first step towards the total invasion of the
company’s territories in Bengal; and should we admit the motives which
lead to it to be good, yet such a step is dangerous as a precedent. I do
not, however, deny that the house has power to pass it, but you have
not the right. There is a perpetual confusion in gentlemen’s ideas
from inattention to this material distinction, from which, properly
considered, it will appear that this bill is contrary to the eternal
laws of right and wrong—laws that ought to bind all men, and, above all
men, legislative assemblies.” Notwithstanding Burke’s eloquence, the
bill was carried in the commons by an overwhelming majority, and it was
also carried through the lords with little or no opposition. The two
houses then adjourned for the Christmas recess.