{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}
Demonstration of Public Spirit in England..... Meeting of
Parliament..... Committee for taking the State of the Nation
into Consideration..... Burke’s Motion relative to the
Employment of Indians..... Committee of Evidence in the
House of Lords..... Lord North’s Conciliatory Bills.....
Intimation of the French Treaty with America.....
Investigation of the State of the Navy..... Motion for
excluding Contractors from Parliament..... Revision of the
Trade of Ireland..... Bill for the Relief of the Roman
Catholics..... Lord Chatham’s last Appearance in the House
of Lords..... Death of Lord Chatham, and posthumous
Honours to his Memory..... The Duke of Richmond’s Motion
resumed..... The Session closed..... Proceedings in
France..... Naval Operations in the British Channel.....
Disgraceful Infraction of the Convention of Saratoga.....
Lafayette’s Expedition to Canada..... Unfortunate Action
under Lafayette..... Sir Henry Clinton takes the Command of
the British Troops..... Arrival of the Commissioners in
America with the Conciliatory Bills..... Evacuation of
Philadelphia by the British, &c. Disgrace of General
Lee..... Unsuccessful Attack, by the Americans and French,
on Rhode Island..... Operations of the British Army.....
Attack of the Savages on the Settlement of Wyoming, &c.
Arrival of the French Envoy at Philadelphia.....
Movements of the British and French Fleets..... Capture of
Dominica by the French..... Capture of St. Lucie by the
British..... Re-capture of the Islands of St. Pierre and
Miquelon..... French Plans regarding Canada counteracted by
Washington..... Capture of Savannah by the British.....
Meeting of Parliament..... Affair respecting Admiral Keppel
and Sir Hugh Falliser.
DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SPIRIT IN ENGLAND.
During the recess, the government party and the opposition were equally
zealous in securing the public opinion, and, consequently, the success
of its future schemes. The intelligence of Burgoyne’s defeat seems to
have had a momentary effect on the minds of the people, which favoured
the views of opposition, but while a few politicians declaimed on the
necessity of ending a ruinous war by recognising the independence of the
United States, and others advised a cessation of arms and conciliation,
the vast majority of the nation soon burned with ardour to blot out the
recollection of Burgoyne’s disgrace, by deeds of arms, and by reducing
the colonies to their original subjection to the mother country. Not
only did public meetings of corporate bodies, towns, and counties,
display their attachment to the cause of the crown by addresses, but
some cities and towns as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh,
raised each a regiment of 1000 men at their own expense. Private
subscriptions were opened, large sums were given, and 15,000 soldiers
were raised in England, Scotland, and Wales, without any cost or charge
to government. Many of the maritime towns, also, armed ships to cruise
in the Channel, where American privateers and Frenchmen with American
colours were now becoming numerous. On the other hand, the opposition
party represented that the American prisoners of war were treated with
great cruelty in British prisons, and subscriptions were set on foot for
their relief. Complaints had been made in the house of lords concerning
the sufferings of the American prisoners, and the subject was
investigated; but though it was found that their allowance in some
instances had been slender, and that in others their keepers had treated
them with severity, it could not be shown that this arose from any want
of care on the part of government. Everything, however, was tried which
could be tried by the opposition, in order to fix an indelible stigma of
infamy on the members of Lord North’s administration.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
The animus of opposition was exhibited in an unequivocal manner on the
reassembling of parliament. On the 22nd of January, Sir Phillip Jennings
Clarke moved for an account of the number of troops raised by private
subscription, with the names of the commanding-officers. In the
debate which followed this motion, ministers were accused of having
incorporated 15,000 troops without consent of parliament,
and represented their conduct in accepting their aid as most
unconstitutional and inimical to the liberties of the country. Lord
North, who agreed to the motion, in reply, argued that these spontaneous
exertions proved that the people felt the insults and injuries offered
to their king and country; and, also, that the country was not in that
impoverished state which a jealous and impatient faction had asserted
it was. Still the opposition hoped to obtain a vote of censure. In the
house of lords the Earl of Abingdon moved that the twelve judges should
be consulted as to the legality of raising troops without the authority
of parliament. This motion was not pressed to a division; but, on the
4th of February, the same noble lord made another motion more specific,
in order to cast blame upon government. He moved for a resolution that
the grant of money in private aids or benevolences, without the sanction
of parliament, for the purpose of raising armies, was against the spirit
of the constitution and the letter of the law; and that, to obtain money
by subscription was not only unconstitutional and illegal, but a
direct infringement of the rights, and a breach of the privileges of
parliament. This motion, after a warm debate, was negatived by ninety
to thirty. On the same day in the commons, some money being demanded for
the uniforms of these new troops, a still warmer discussion arose upon
the subject. The new levies were treated with much discourtesy by the
opposition; the two Scotch regiments, especially, being designated
vile mercenaries, and willing tools of despotism. The opposition also
maintained that such a practice of raising troops was contrary to
the oath of coronation, and that all who subscribed were abettors of
perjury. Lord North justified himself by precedents: he showed that
independent regiments had been raised in 1745, and again in 1759, when
Chatham was minister. On the latter occasion, he said, that Chatham
had publicly and solemnly thanked those who raised such troops for the
honour and service of their country. Yet, “that great oracle with a
short memory,” on the very night on which Lord North reminded the lower
house of this notable fact, declaimed in the upper house in support of
the Earl of Abingdon’s motion against the practice Later in the session
Wilkes renewed this subject, but the motion which he made relative to it
was negatived by seventy-two against forty.
COMMITTEE FOR TAKING THE STATE OF THE NATION INTO CONSIDERATION.
On the 2nd of February, on the order of the day being read, for the
house to resolve itself into a committee to take the state of the nation
into consideration, Fox moved that no more troops should be sent out of
the kingdom. On the same day, the Duke of Richmond, also, made a similar
motion in the house of lords. In both houses the opposition represented
that war with France and Spain was inevitable; and that our means of
defence were not sufficient in the whole to meet the contingency; and,
therefore, it was not prudent to protract an impracticable contest.
No answer was made in the commons, but in the lords the motion and the
arguments adduced in support of it were denounced as amounting to a
public acknowledgment of our inability to prosecute war; as inviting
the house of Bourbon to attempt an invasion; and as attacking the
prerogative of the crown to raise, direct, and employ the military force
of the kingdom. The motions were rejected in the lords by ninety-one
against thirty-four; and in the commons by two hundred and ninety-five
against one hundred and sixty-five.
BURKE’S MOTION RELATIVE TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF INDIANS.
On the 6th of February, Burke introdued a motion for papers relative
to the employment of Indians in America, from 1774 to 1778. On this
occasion he made a speech three hours in length, during the whole of
which time the attention of the house was fixed on the orator. This
speech, however, which is represented as being one of the most splendid
efforts of his oratory, is very inadequately reported. From it,
notwithstanding, it may be gathered that he drew a striking and ghastly
picture of Indian warfare, and of the horrors committed by these savage
auxiliaries. It had a greater effect upon the house than Chatham’s
denunciations of the practice of employing the Indian tribes in our
army, arising from the fact that the orator handled the subject with
clean hands. Colonel Barré, excited by it, declared that if it were
printed and published he would nail it on every church-door by the side
of the king’s proclamation for a general fast; and Governor Johnson said
it was fortunate for Lord North and Germaine that the galleries had been
cleared before the speech was uttered, as the indignation and enthusiasm
of strangers might have excited the people to lay violent hands upon
them on their return home. The secret of the excitement occasioned by
the speech seems chiefly to have consisted in the fact that it abounded
in touching stories and pathetic episodes. Burke especially elaborated
the affecting fate of Miss Mac Crea, who was strongly attached to the
royal cause, and who, being on her way to marry an officer in Burgoyne’s
army, was barbarously murdered by two Indian chiefs sent for her
protection. The two chiefs having disputed which of them should be her
principal guard and obtain a larger reward, he, from whose hands she
was snatched, raised his tomahawk, and in a fit of rage cleft her head
asunder. Such stories as these, founded in fact, were well calculated to
produce excitement, especially as the murderer was left unscathed. Burke
argued that these savage allies were too powerful, or their services
too highly valued to run the risk of offending them; but it would rather
appear that pardon was extended to the offender through an agreement
with his tribe and the British general to abstain in future from
indulging in such wanton cruelties, which Burgoyne considered of more
importance than to take revenge on a wretch who scarcely knew that what
he did was a sin either in the sight of God or man. Such stories as
these, however, told upon the feelings of the house, and insured
Burke strong-support. Governor Pownall, in taking the same side of the
question, declared that there was not so unfair, so hellish an engine
of war as savages mingled with civilized troops; and he recommended that
terms should be proposed to congress whereby the two countries should
mutually agree to break off all alliance with the Indians, and treat
them as enemies whenever they should commit any act of hostility against
a white person, American or European. He would answer for it, he said,
that congress would embrace and execute such terms with good faith; and
he suggested that the overture might occasion the happiest effects
in producing mutual kind offices, and leading ultimately to a perfect
reconciliation. He finally offered to go in person, without any pay
or reward, and make the proposal to congress; asserting that he would
answer with his life for the success of the negociation. But this noble
proposal of Governor Pownall and Mr. Burke’s motion were alike rejected
by a ministerial majority.
COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ETC.
On the same day that Burke made this motion in the commons, the lords
in committee on the state of the nation were employed in examining
witnesses to prove the ruinous consequences of the maritime war.
Merchants were called as witnesses by the opposition peers, who proved
that they had sustained heavy losses from the war; while, on the other
hand, government were provided with other merchants, who showed that
new sources of commerce had been opened since the commencement of
hostilities; and, that considerable captures had been made. The Duke of
Richmond opposed the arguments derived from the testimony of government
witnesses. The prizes taken and distributed to British seamen, he said,
so far from being a balance in our favour, added to our loss; for if we
had not been at war with America, the value of all these cargoes in
the circuitous course of trade, must have centred in Great Britain.
The propositions were disposed of by the previous question, and other
motions made by the Duke of Richmond for ascertaining the number of
troops sent to America, as well as the expenses incurred by the war,
though they occasioned long and warm debates, were equally unsuccessful.
A similar motion was made in the commons by Fox, on the 11th of
February, but it was evaded by a motion for leave to report progress. It
was, perhaps, judicious in ministers to resist the production of papers
called for by the opposition, for in almost every instance it would
have let the enemy into dangerous secrets: secrets which they would have
turned to their own advantage.
LORD NORTHS CONCILIATORY BILLS.
It is a singular fact that while Lord North sternly advocated war, he
was at this time so adverse to a continuation of the contest that he
had expressed a wish to the king to resign office. This appears from a
letter addressed to him by his majesty on the 31st of January, in which,
after appealing to Lord North’s personal affection for him, he writes:
—“You must remember that before the recess I strongly advised you not
to bind yourself to bring forward any plan for restoring tranquillity to
America; not from any absurd ideas of unconditional submission, which my
mind never harboured; but from foreseeing that whatever can be proposed
will be liable, not to bring America back to her attachment, but to
dissatisfy this country, which so cheerfully and handsomely carries
on the contest, and has a right to have the struggle continued, till
convinced that it is vain. Perhaps this is the minute when you ought
to be least in a hurry to produce a plan, from the probability of a
declaration of war from France.” It is evident from this letter that
Lord North had proposed some plan of conciliation which did not meet
with the monarch’s views; and it seems clear, also, that his lordship,
in expressing a wish to retire, had urged the impossibility of obtaining
unconditional submission, which he erroneously thought was the only
ground on which his majesty would listen to terms of peace. But
though it was the king’s opinion on the last day of January that no
conciliatory measures should be adopted or proposed out of deference
to the views of the people, yet his opinion soon changed. On the 9th of
February, when a war with France had become inevitable, he wrote to his
minister again, urging him not to “delay to bring in his proposition,”
before “the veil was drawn off by the court of France.” Lord North lost
no time in complying with this his majesty’s command. On the 17th of
February, he brought in two bills tending to reconciliation with the
colonists: one was expressly designed to remove all apprehension from
their minds concerning taxation by the British parliament, whilst it
repealed the act imposing a duty on tea; and the other enabled his
majesty to appoint commissioners to consult and agree on means of
quieting the disorders subsisting in certain colonies, plantations,
and provinces of North America. In introducing these bills, Lord North
asserted that he had been uniformly disposed to pacific arrangements;
that he had tried conciliatory measures before the sword was unsheathed,
and would gladly try them again; that he had conceived his former
propositions were equitable, and still thought so, though they had been
misrepresented both at home and in America; that he never expected
to derive any considerable revenue from the colonies; that he had
originated none of the American taxes; that he found such as existed
when, unfortunately for his own peace of mind, he came into office; and
that, as for the act enabling the East India Company to send out teas
with the drawback of the entire duty, which led to the Boston riots,
it was a relief rather than oppression, since it actually gave the
colonists their teas at a cheaper rate than before. Lord North then
explained the principles of his two bills. The first, he said,
was intended to quiet the minds of the Americans on the subject of
taxation—to dispel all fears that parliament would ever tax them again,
by a distinct renunciation of the right itself. The second bill, he
remarked, would give the royal commissioners far more ample powers than
those formerly entrusted to Lord Howe and his brother. They would
be authorized to treat with congress as if it were a legal body, and
competent by its acts and negociations to bind all the colonies;
they would be empowered to treat with the conventions or provincial
assemblies, or colonial congresses, and with individuals in their actual
civil capacities or military commands, without any cavil as to allowing
them and addressing them by the rank they held under congress: and
they would have the power of suspending hostilities, intermitting the
operation of laws, granting pardons, rewards, and immunities,
restoring charters and constitutions, and nominating governors,
judges, magistrates, &c., till the king’s pleasure should be known.
The stumblingblock of independence was removed very skilfully by Lord
North. This act declared that should the Americans make this claim at
the outset of the treaty, they would not be required to renounce it
until it was ratified by the British legislature. The commissioners were
to be instructed to negociate for a reasonable and moderate contribution
toward the common defence of the empire when reunited, but they were
not to insist even on this slight contribution as indispensable. In
conclusion, Lord North contended that these concessions ought not to be
deemed the results of defeat or weakness, since they were substantially
the same as he should offer in the hour of victory. The events of the
war, he frankly acknowledged, had not corresponded to his expectation,
but he denied that there was any truth in the representations of
a factious opposition. But for faction, England was as fertile in
resources as ever: she was in circumstances to prosecute war, raise
new armies, and to increase her navy, so as to be enabled to meet her
accumulated foes.
Burke says that on hearing these proposals the whole house was
overclouded with astonishment, dejection, and fear. This may be
exaggeration, but it is certain that the ample concessions proposed by
the minister—concessions far outstripping those which had been brought
forward by Mr. Burke and Lord Chatham, and which were opposed by
government—were highly distasteful to the country gentlemen, and to the
whole Tory party. Expressions of loud disapprobation were heard on their
side of the house, and some bitterly complained that deception had been
practised against them relative to American taxation. On the other hand,
while the opposition contended that the season was gone by when such a
plan would have succeeded, it was generally approved by them. They yet
hoped, they said, that there might be a chance of conciliation, and
therefore they would give the minister their support. At the same time,
Lord North was severely reprehended by some of the opposition members.
Fox said his arguments “might be collected into one point, and his
excuses comprised in one apology, or rather in one word, _ignorance_; a
palpable and total ignorance of America: he had expected much, and had
been disappointed in every thing; necessity alone had compelled him now
to speak out.” In the course of his speech, Fox informed the house
that there was a report abroad that within the last ten days France
had signed a treaty with America, acknowledging their independence, and
entering into a close alliance with the colonists. He called on Lord
North to afford the house satisfaction on so important a point, and that
minister reluctantly acknowledged that such a treaty was in agitation,
though as it was not authenticated by our ambassador he could not say
that it was concluded. The motion for bringing in the bill was carried
by a majority of about two to one, and on the first reading some of the
Tory members expressed their disapprobation of our wholly renouncing the
right of taxing the colonists. In reply, Lord North declared that the
not exacting the renunciation of independence by the Americans did not
imply that we intended to yield that point; that the commissioners would
not be empowered to concede thus much; and that the Americans would be
expected to treat as subjects, and not as a sovereign state. The bills
were passed, and when brought up to the lords, the opposition was
renewed. The Duke of Richmond read the American declaration of
independence, and asked ministers whether they meant to subscribe to
assertions such as these:—“That the king is a tyrant,”..... “that his
majesty has lost the affection of his American subjects by the insolent,
daring, perfidious and unconstitutional language of ministers, etc.”
His grace said these bills, instead of regaining the affections of the
Americans, would sound the trumpet of war to all nations; that they were
at once ignominious and ineffectual; that they meant nothing or
worse than nothing; that they were better calculated to divide than
conciliate; and that they empowered commissioners to treat with America,
and then called them back again to consult parliament. His grace also
stated as a notorious fact that ministers had sent persons over to Paris
to tamper with Dr. Franklin and Silas Deane, and that these American
agents had rejected their offers, together with the terms of the new
bills, in scorn. Lord Temple opposed the bills on different grounds. He
denounced them as mean and truckling, and as tending to prostrate the
king, the parliament, and the people of Great Britain at the feet of
Franklin and Silas Deane, to whom ministers had paid homage in sackcloth
and ashes. The people, he said, had recovered from the shock occasioned
by Burgoyne’s reverses, and ministers were now going to depress their
newly-awakened animation by succumbing to an arrogant enemy. Lord
Shelborne also opposed the bills as tending to separate the two
countries. He never would consent, he said, that America should
be independent of England, and he represented that his idea of the
connexion between the two countries was, that they should have one
friend, one enemy, one purse, and one sword; that Britain, as the great
controlling power, should superintend the whole; and that both the
countries should have but one will, though the means of expressing it
might be different. This, he said, might have been obtained long ago
without bloodshed or animosity. The bills passed without a division: a
protest was entered against them, but it was only signed by one solitary
peer, Lord Abingdon.
INTIMATION OF THE FRENCH TREATY WITH AMERICA.
The conciliatory bills were scarcely passed when Lord North delivered
a message from the throne to the commons, stating the receipt of
information from the French king, that he had concluded a treaty of
amity and commerce with his majesty’s revolted subjects in America,
and that in consequence of this offensive communication, the British
ambassador at Paris had been ordered home. His majesty, the minister
said, fully relied on the zeal and affection of his people to repel the
insult and maintain the honour of the country. The note of the French
ambassador was laid before parliament, and it was to this effect:—“The
United States of North America, who are in full possession of
independence, as pronounced by them on the 4th of July, 1766, having
proposed to the King of France to consolidate, by a formal convention,
the connexion begun to be established between the two nations, the
respective plenipotentiaries have signed a treaty of friendship and
commerce, designed to serve as a foundation for their mutual good
correspondence. His majesty, the French king, being resolved to
cultivate the present good understanding subsisting between France and
Great Britain by every means compatible with his dignity and the good
of his subjects, thinks it necessary to make his proceeding known to the
court of London, and to declare at the same time that the contracting
parties have paid great attention not to stipulate any exclusive
advantages in favour of the French nation, and that the United States
have reserved the liberty of treating with every nation whatever
upon the same footing of equality and reciprocity. In making this
communication to the court of London, the king is firmly persuaded it
will find new proofs of his majesty’s constant and sincere disposition
for peace; and that his Britannic majesty, animated by the same friendly
sentiments, will equally avoid every thing that may alter their good
harmony, and that he will particularly take effectual pleasures to
prevent his French majesty’s subjects and the United States from being
interrupted, and to cause all the usages received between commercial
nations to be, in this respect, observed, and all those rules which can
be said to subsist between the two courts of France and Great
Britain. In this just confidence, the undersigned ambassador thinks it
superfluous to acquaint the British minister that the king, his master,
being determined to protect effectually the lawful commerce of his
subjects, and to maintain the dignity of his flag, has, in consequence,
taken effectual measures in concert with the Thirteen United and
Independent States of America.” In making this communication to the
house, Lord North moved an appropriate address to the king, which again
called forth the spirit of opposition. In discussing the motion, an
amendment was proposed requesting his majesty to dismiss the ministers.
Lord North was reproached with having suffered himself to be surprised
by the notification of a treaty which appeared to have been two years
under discussion, and with leaving the country on the eve of war
destitute of adequate means for its internal security. Without designing
to vindicate ministers, Governor Pownall detailed the circumstances and
progress of the treaty. The account, however, which he gave was widely
different from matter of fact. He said that the idea had not existed six
months, and had not been in actual negociation more than half that time.
But it is well known that the idea had been uppermost in the minds of
the American leaders for full two years, and that Silas Deane had been
attempting to negociate for nearly that period, and Benjamin Franklin
had been at Paris with the same object in view for near twelve months.
It appears indeed that the only reason the treaty was not signed long
before, was that the French at first attempted to drive a hard bargain,
conceiving that the Americans were in such a weak condition that they
would agree to any terms rather than not obtain the co-operation of
France. The news of ther surender of Burgoyne’s army, as Governor
Pownall observed, lowered the demands of the French, and this it was
that made them hurry on such a treaty as congress desired. But even.
now Pownall remarked, peace was yet practicable, if Great Britain would
pursue the proper course. He said:—“The Americans are and must be
independent. We acknowledge it in our acts, and have already, though we
may try to cover our shame with words, resigned all dominion over them.
They will never rescind their declaration; but if parliament will
extend the powers of the commissioners so far as to acknowledge their
independence, on conditions, they will, in return, form with us a
federal treaty, offensive, defensive, and commercial. The compact,
signed at Paris, is not yet ratified by congress: by a speedy and candid
exertion this country may still be enabled to take advantage of the
natural predilection of the Americans for the parent state. If a federal
treaty Were not adopted, and the Americans should ever be induced to
treat on other terms, one of their first demands must be a reimbursement
of expenses, and an indemnification for losses. A pecuniary remuneration
was out of the question; but in lieu of it government must sacrifice
Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Newfoundland fishery. This would be
insisted on; but if independence were conceded America could only
treat with England on the same ground as any other independent nation.”
General Conway and Mr. Dundas argued that it would be better policy to
form a federal union with America, than to let her fall into the hands
of France; but the vast majority of the house seemed to think that the
entrance of France into the quarrel rendered all present thought of
negociation an absurdity and a meanness; and that no future friendship
could be hoped from a people who, though descended from us and bound to
us by the strong ties of community of descent, language, and religion,
had united themselves with the most ancient, inveterate, and most
powerful of all our enemies. At the same time war was advocated, it was
suggested that Chatham, the scourge of the house of Bourbon, was the
proper man to occupy the post held by Lord North at such a crisis.
But Lord North did not coincide in this opinion. He expressed a total
disregard to office, but contended that the interest of the empire, as
well as his own reputation, demanded that he should still sit at the
helm of the state. The original address was carried by a large majority,
and in the house of lords an amendment to the address was negatived by
a majority of sixty-eight against twenty-five. Addresses were also
returned from both houses to a royal message intimating his majesty’s
intention of calling out the militia.
INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF THE NAVY.
Previous pages show that there had already been debates on the state
of the navy. Now that a war with France was inevitable the subject was
brought prominently forward; especially in the house of lords. On the
13th of March, Lord Howard of Effingham moved a series of resolutions
explaining the condition of the navy during the last eight years; the
number of ships broken up, built, or repaired; and the precise condition
and expense of the ordnance. In moving these resolutions, Lord Howard
spoke of the necessity of economy, and accused the first lord of the
admiralty with gross mismanagement. Lord Sandwich, who had been assailed
on previous occasions when the same subject was introduced, now made a
long and able defence. The British naval force, he said, at that moment
consisted of three hundred and seventy-three ships of all rates, which
was a force double to that which England had in her possession half a
century before. In drawing the comparison or the present state of the
navy with its condition in 1727, he adduced arguments highly favourable
to his own administration; but notwithstanding this, the opposition were
very violent in their language towards him. He was even threatened with
the vengeance of the people, who, it was said, would rise and tear him
to pieces, as the Dutch had treated De Witt. The debate was tumultous,
but the motions were all negatived.
MOTION FOR EXCLUDING CONTRACTORS FROM PARLIAMENT.
After various debates on the iniquities practised by contractors, and
the badness of the provisions which they supplied, Sir Philip Jennings
Clarke introduced a bill for excluding contractors from parliament,
unless their contracts were publicly obtained by competition. In this
debate ministers were coupled with the offenders, and Lord George
Gordon, who afterwards rendered himself so notorious, declared that Lord
North was the worst of all contractors—he was, he said, a contractor
for men, a contractor for parliament, and a contractor for the
representatives of the people! Lord George advised the minister to save
his country and rescue his own life from popular vengeance by calling
away his butchers from America, by retiring with all the rest of his
majesty’s evil advisers, and by turning away from his own wickedness.
The first and second reading of the bill was carried, but the motion for
committing the bill was negatived on the 5th of May, by a majority of
two, and it was consequently lost.
REVISION OF THE TRADE OF IRELAND.
During the month of April a committee of the house of commons was
formed for the revision of the trade laws which affected Ireland. In
consequence of the American war, a stop had been put to exportations
of manufactures, and a large body of the people deprived of employment.
Lord Nugent therefore proposed that Ireland should be permitted to
export all articles of Irish manufacture—woollen cloths and wool
excepted—on board British vessels to the coast of Africa and other
foreign settlements, and to import from the same all goods, except
indigo and tobacco. He also proposed that they should be allowed to
export Irish sailcloth, cotton-yarn, and cordage to England, free of
duty. Two bills founded upon these propositions were introduced, and
both sides of the house admitting the justice of the measures seemed to
agree in the propriety of adopting them. The great commercial body
of England, however, took the alarm, and during the Easter recess, a
formidable opposition was entered into by the merchants in all quarters.
Petitions flowed into parliament from every part of the country, and the
different members of parliament were instructed by their constituents to
oppose the measures. Many who had previously been disposed to give them
their support, in compliance with these instructions now opposed them;
but Mr. Burke, who was member for the great trading city of Bristol,
manfully refused, and continued to co-operate with Lord Nugent in his
task. In presenting a petition from Bristol against the measures, he
ably advocated them, and declared that if from his conduct he should
forfeit the suffrages of his constituents at the next election, it
should stand on record, as an example to future representatives of
the commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the
desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him that they were
wrong. Notwithstanding the petitions and the altered opinion of many
members, the second reading of the two bills was carried by a large
majority. The petitioners, however, were resolute in their opposition
to the measures. They prayed to be heard by counsel, and this being
granted, such was the weight of the pleadings of the close-trade
interest, that the supporters of the bills were compelled to effect
a sort of compromise by which the amount of the benefit conferred on
Ireland was greatly diminished.
BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.
While the measures for benefiting the trade of Ireland were under
discussion, Sir George Saville brought in a bill for the relief of the
Roman Catholics, by repealing certain penalties and disabilities created
by the 10th and 11th of William III., entitled an Act for preventing
the Growth of Popery. The Roman Catholics had recently presented a very
flattering address to his majesty, and the occurrences in America and
the attempts made by the Americans to excite insurrection seem to have
suggested to the minds of ministers the expediency of tranquillizing and
securing the affections of the Irish people. This bill, therefore,
was supported by ministers, and it was carried through the commons
unanimously. The Bishop of Peterborough warmly opposed it in the house
of lords, but the majority of the peers gave it their support, and the
bill passed into a law. By it the subjects of Great Britain professing
the Romish creed were permitted to perform their religious rites, and
were rendered capable of inheriting or purchasing real estates, on
subscribing an oath of allegiance to the king, and disclaiming the
pope’s authority over this realm, or his power of absolving its people
from their obligations to the government as by law established. This
dawn of religious freedom has been extolled as one of the greatest
glories of the reign of George III.; but it must be recollected that
this measure was one of expediency, which detracts materially from its
glory.
{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}
MOTION OF CENSURE ON LORD GEORGE GERMAINE, ETC.
On the 19th of March, during the sitting of the committee of the whole
house on the state of the nation, Mr. Fox moved a resolution of censure
on Lord George Germaine, as the chief author of Burgoyne’s disaster.
This motion was rejected, and the solicitor-general then proposed that
the house should exonerate the noble secretary from all blame. A vote to
the effect that the failure of the expedition from Canada was not caused
by any neglect of the secretary of state was carried, but the resolution
was not reported. By this time Burgoyne, who was a member of parliament,
and who had been permitted to return home upon parole, was in his place
to speak for himself. He had an opportunity of explaining the whole
matter on the 26th of May, when a motion was made for a select committee
to consider the transactions of the northern army, the convention of
Saratoga, and the means by which the general of that army had obtained
his release. In supporting the motion, Burgoyne vindicated his conduct
at great length, and complained bitterly of fabrications which injured
his own honour and the honour of the army, as well as of his treatment
in parliament during his absence, and his treatment generally since his
return to England. He solicited a full inquiry, asserting that he put
his fortune, his honour, and his head on the issue. The reply of Lord
George Germaine was brief, and he concluded by saying that the house was
not the proper tribunal to decide upon the campaign, and therefore he
could not see the propriety of parliamentary interference. The motion
was rejected.
In the course of the debate, Mr. Temple Luttrell adduced the story of
the court-martial which had sat upon Lord George Germaine himself,
after the battle of Minden, and made an insulting comparison between his
conduct in that battle, and the conduct of the brave and enterprising
Burgoyne. In a paroxysm of rage, Lord George asserted that he did not
merit such an attack; that he would for once descend to a level with the
wretched character and malice of his assailant; and that, old as he was,
he would meet the fighting gentleman and be revenged. The house called
to order, and the speaker reprimanded both members, and insisted that
the affair should proceed no further. Lord George immediately apologized
for his warmth, but Luttrel escaped out of the house, and would neither
apologize nor give the required assurances till the sergeant-at-arms was
called in. He then said that he meant his reflections as public matter,
and that they were not to be referred to private abuse or enmity, and
there the matter ended.
[Illustration: 121.jpg DEATH OF CHATHAM]
LORD CHATHAM’S LAST APPEARANCE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
About this time, some of the leaders of the opposition became convinced
that the only possibility of detaching America from France and avoiding
both wars was by acknowledging the independence of the American
colonies. These sentiments were communicated to Chatham, and he was
solicited by those who entertained them to honour a motion about to be
made by the Duke of Richmond on this subject with his support. In reply,
Chatham confessed his concern that he was under so wide a difference
with his noble friends respecting the sovereignty and allegiance of
America; but notwithstanding his increased infirmities, he expressed his
determination to be in the house on the 7th of April, which was the day
mentioned as that on which the subject was to be brought forward.
On that day Chatham appeared in the house for the last time. He came
wrapped up in flannel, supported by two friends, and looking like a
dying man; and as he entered, the peers rose up and continued standing
while he passed to his seat. The Duke of Richmond made his motion,
which was for an address to the king, beseeching him to acknowledge
the independence of America, by withdrawing all his forces from that
country; and to dismiss his ministers. Lord Weymouth, one of the
secretaries of state, opposed the motion, and Chatham followed on the
same side against his own party. He was supported by his crutches and
his two friends, and when he had gained his feet, he took one of his
crutches from under his arm, and raising it cast his eyes toward heaven,
and said:—“I thank God that I have been enabled to come here this
day, to perform my duty and to speak on a subject which has so deeply
impressed my mind. I am old and infirm; I have one foot—more than one
foot in the grave; I am risen from my bed to stand up in the cause of my
country, perhaps never again to speak in this house.” This was delivered
in a feeble tone, but as he grew warm, his voice rose and became as
harmonious as ever. In the course of his speech, he entered into a full
detail of the American war, dilating on all the measures which he had
opposed, and evils which he had predicted; adding, at the close of each
review, “and so it proved.” Chatham then spoke more particularly on the
subject of the motion. He remarked: “My lords, I rejoice that the
grave has not closed upon me; that I am still alive to lift up my voice
against the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy!
Pressed down as I am by the hand of infirmity, I am little able to
assist my country in this most perilous conjuncture; but, my lords,
while I have sense and memory I will never consent to deprive the royal
offspring of the House of Brunswick, the heirs of the Princess Sophia,
of their fairest inheritance. Where is the man that will dare to advise
such a measure? My lords, his majesty succeeded to an empire as great in
extent as its reputation was unsullied. Shall we tarnish the lustre
of this nation by an ignominious surrender of its rights and fairest
possessions? Shall this great kingdom, that has survived whole and
entire the Danish depredations, the Scottish inroads, and the Norman
conquest—that has stood the threatened invasion of the Spanish
armada,—now fall prostrate before the house of Bourbon? Surely, my
lords, this nation is no longer what it was! Shall a people, that
fifteen years ago were the terror of the world, now stoop so low as to
tell their ancient, inveterate enemy, ‘Take all we have, only give us
peace?’ It is impossible! I wage war with no man, or set of men. I wish
for none of their employments; nor would I co-operate with men who still
persist in unretracted error; who, instead of acting on a firm, decisive
line of conduct, halt between two opinions where there is no middle
path. In God’s name, if it is absolutely necessary to declare either for
peace or war; and the former cannot be preserved with honour, why is
not the latter commenced without hesitation? I am not, I confess, well
informed of the resources of this kingdom, but I trust it has still
sufficient to maintain its just rights, though I know them not. But,
my lords, any state is better than despair. Let us at least make one
effort; and if we must fall, let us fall like men!” When Chatham
sat down, the Duke of Richmond rose again, and after replying to the
arguments of Lord Weymouth, he attempted to answer the great orator.
Although evidently disconcerted and irritated at the course he had
taken, the Duke professed the greatest veneration for Chatham’s name and
person, and the greatest gratitude for the services he had rendered
the country. The name of Chatham, however, he said, could not perform
impossibilities, or restore the country to the state it was in when
directed by his counsels. Our finances were then, through the abilities
of that able financier, Mr. Pelham, in a flourishing condition; our
fleet was then in an admirable condition, under the direction and care
of that able naval officer, Lord Anson; and the influence of the crown
then had not reached its present and alarming height. During the greater
part of the war, he continued, we had only France to contend with, and
when Spain commenced hostilities, France was reduced to the lowest ebb,
having already lost her navy and the best of her colonies. Then also
America fought for us, but now she would be allied with France and Spain
against us. He added, “If the noble earl had pointed out the means
of supporting this unequal contest, I should readily acquiesce in his
sentiments; but since he has not only omitted to point out the means,
but acknowledged that he knows them not, he will excuse me if I adhere
to my former opinion. No person is more anxious for the dependence of
America; but being convinced of its total impracticability, I would
retain the colonists as allies, and thus prevent them from throwing
themselves into the arms of France. The noble earl, as a reason for war,
has mentioned the inherent rights of the heir apparent. To recover
these possessions by force is now impossible; but I will readily join
in calling to a severe account those who have caused the loss of his
inheritance.” During this harangue, the Earl of Chatham had frequently
denoted by the motion of his hand that he had remarked and would reply
to some observations which he deemed offensive, and when the Duke of
Richmond sat down, he attempted to rise for that purpose. But his work
was done: his strength failed him, and he would have fallen to the floor
but for the prompt assistance of some noble peers. He was carried
into an adjoining chamber, and the whole house, agitated by the event,
adjourned in silence.
DEATH OF LORD CHATHAM, AND POSTHUMOUS HONOURS TO HIS MEMORY.
Lord Chatham so far recovered as to be able to be carried down to
his favourite villa of Hayes, in Kent. These appearances of recovery,
however, were soon found to be delusive. He expired on the 11th of May,
in the seventieth year of his age. His death was announced in the house
of commons late in the evening of that day by his friend Colonel Barré,
who moved for an address to the king that his remains should be interred
at the public expense in Westminster Abbey. The motion was seconded by
Mr. T. Townshend, and seemed to meet with general approbation; but Mr.
Rigby, who apprehended that a public funeral would not be agreeable
to his majesty, as Chatham had not recently been looked upon with much
favour at court, suggested that a public monument to his memory would be
a better testimony of the public admiration and gratitude. The result of
this suggestion, however, was very different from that which Townshend
intended. Mr. Dunning said it would be better to have both the public
funeral and the monument, and he combined both in a resolution, which
was carried without one dissentient voice; Lord North giving it his
warmest support. A funeral and a monument were therefore secured to the
great orator, and as, notwithstanding his places, pensions, and legacies
left him, Chatham had died in debt, on the recommendation of Lord John
Cavendish, £20,000 was voted for the payment of his debts, and £4000
a-year was settled upon-his heirs. No opposition was made to these
grants in the commons; but a motion made by the Earl of Shelburne in the
lords, that the peers should attend his funeral was lost by a majority
of one vote. The annuity bill was also opposed in the lords; but it was
carried by a majority of forty-two to eleven. In all these votes his
majesty concurred, although during the noble earl’s life he had opposed
an application made to him to settle the pension he enjoyed in reversion
to his second son, William Pitt, until, at least, decrepitude or death
had put an end to him “as a trumpet of sedition.” His majesty, however,
could not carry his resentment beyond the grave, and perhaps pleased
with the last noble sounds of his trumpet, he gave his warm assent to
the honours and rewards which parliament had voted to the great orator
and his heirs. And the posthumous honours paid to Chatham were not
confined to the king and the parliament. The Common-council petitioned
to have his remains interred in the noblest edifice of Great Britain,
St. Paul’s Cathedral, and when this was refused, they erected a monument
in Guildhall to his memory. He was one of the greatest orators England
ever produced; greater even than the garbled and defective reports of
his speeches would denote him to have been. In his private life his
character was both exemplary and amiable—his public character is
defined in the preceding pages.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND’S MOTION RESUMED.
The Duke of Richmond’s motion was resumed on the day after it had been
interrupted by Chatham’s illness. The resumed debate, however, only
served to place the difference of opinion which existed between the
Rockingham and Chatham parties respecting America in a clearer light.
The former contended for the independence of that country, without
reserve or delay; while the latter as warmly contended that such a
measure would prove one of the greatest political evils that could
befall the nation. The Earl of Shelburne also maintained that the
resources of Great Britain, if properly managed, were sufficient to
cope with our triple foes—America, France, and Spain—and that our
navy would not fail of supporting the glory they had gained in so many
conflicts. The motion was negatived by a majority of fifty-five against
thirty-three.
THE SESSION CLOSED.
Although the season was now far advanced, motions were made in both
houses to put off the prorogation. These motions were, however lost, and
on the 3rd of June, the king terminated the session. In his speech, his
majesty thanked his faithful commons for their zeal and attention to the
interests of their country, and the honourable support they had made for
the royal family; several annuities having been granted to his numerous
family. Alluding to the one great question, he said, that his desire was
to preserve the tranquillity of Europe; that the faith of treaties and
the law of nations had been respected by him, and that he had anxiously
avoided giving offence to any foreign power. He added:—“Let that power
by whom this tranquillity shall be broken, answer to their subjects and
to the world for all the fatal consequences of war!”
PROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE.
Having entered into a treaty with America, in which treaty it was
stipulated that the Americans should never return to their allegiance
to the British crown, and having thereby hurled a bold defiance to the
power of England, the French made preparations for war. At this time
France was by no means in a flourishing condition, but by oppressing
the poverty-stricken people with imposts, duties, and _corvées_, and by
taking the bread from half-famished mouths, means were found to raise
armies and equip fleets. The coasts of Normandy and Britainy swarmed
with soldiers, who threatened to invade England; arms, money, and men
were sent to America; and the navy of France set out to contend with
the navy of Great Britain, for the mastery of the seas between the two
countries. On the 18th of March, the French king issued an edict to
seize all British ships in the ports of France, and shortly after our
government laid an embargo on all French ships in British ports. This,
with the mutual withdrawal of ambassadors, and the interruption of
all diplomatic intercourse, left the two countries in a state of open
hostility, although no heralds or manifestoes were employed on either
side to make a formal declaration of war. On their part, the French had
in reality no materials for manifestoes, whence their silence; while on
our part, ministers were too much employed to think of such a ridiculous
solemnity. It was, moreover, too well understood on both sides that
the only arguments likely to avail must proceed from the mouth of the
cannon.
NAVAL OPERATIONS IN THE BRITISH CHANNEL.
The maritime defence of England was entrusted to Admiral Keppel, and he
put to sea with twenty sail ot the line for that purpose. On the 17th
of June, Keppel discovered two French frigates, the “La Licorne” and “La
Belle Poule,” reconnoitring his fleet. The con duct of France seemed
to call for and to justify extreme measures, and Keppel’s instructions
being ample, he resolved to effect the capture of these two frigates.
Accordingly they were chased, and the first, fired both with cannon
and musketry, struck her colours and was captured; but the other having
fiercely encountered and dismasted a pursuing vessel, escaped among the
rocks on the French shore. Shortly after a French schooner and another
frigate were captured, and from papers found in these several vessels
Keppel discovered that the enemy had thirty-two sail of the line and
twelve frigates ready for sea in Brest harbour. This determined him to
return to Portsmouth for reinforcements. These reinforcements, however,
were either not ready or were not there, and while he was waiting for
them the Brest fleet had put out to sea under the command of the Count
d’Orvilliers, and had captured a frigate which Keppel had left to watch
the movements of the enemy. This was on the 9th of July, and on the very
same day, Keppel, whose fleet had been augmented to thirty sail of the
line, departed in quest of d’Orvilliers. He fell in with the French
admiral on the 23rd, but as the French, who had the advantage of the
wind, showed no inclination for battle, the English continued chasing
and manoeuvring to windward for four days. On the 27th, however, a dark
squall brought the two fleets close together off Ushant. The signal
was instantly made to engage. The fleets were then sailing in different
directions, and on contrary tacks, and a furious cannonade was
maintained for nearly three hours, at the end of which time they had
passed each other, and the firing ceased. The loss in killed and wounded
was greatest on the side of the French, but some of the British ships
under Sir Hugh Palliser were so crippled that when Keppel wore round to
renew the engagement they could not obey the signal, and he formed his
line of battle ahead. On their part the French formed their line to
leeward of their antagonists, and Keppel expected that they would try
their force “handsomely with him in the morning;” but in the course of
the night d’Orvilliers edged away for Brest, and claimed the victory,
because he had not been thoroughly beaten. Keppel returned to England to
get new masts and rigging, and on the 18th of August, d’Orvilliers again
set sail to cruise off Cape Finisterre. A few days after, Keppel also
again put to sea, but he stretched further to the westward, to protect
the merchant-ships returning from the two Indies, and to prevent any
portion of the French fleet from reaching America. Every ship sailing
from the Indies arrived safely in England, and our privateers and
cruisers captured many French trading-vessels; but the two fleets did
not again come into collision, and popular indignation, excited by
disappointment, attributed the blame to Keppel and Sir Hugh Palliser,
who served under him. The journals of the day teemed with invectives
against them for not pursuing the French admiral after the battle off’
Ushant; and the opinion was very general that they had not acted with
the required decision when the fleet of the enemy was in their power.
By the court and the admiralty, however, their conduct was viewed
with approbation; and Keppel, at least, would not deign to answer his
anonymous accusers. Sir Hugh Palliser replied to an attack made upon
him in a morning paper, and because Keppel refused to authenticate
his answer or to contradict statements made by an anonymous accuser,
Palliser published his own case, in which he charged his superior
officer with inconsistency, for having approved his conduct in a public
despatch, and now refusing to vindicate his character. Keppel, however,
acted the more nobly: anonymous accusations are beneath the notice of a
high-minded and honourable man, and he who replies to such, dignifies a
character which is little superior to a midnight assassin, and should
be treated with mortifying contempt. That accuser who will not face
the accused, places himself out of the pale of the laws and usages of
society.
DISGRACEFUL INFRACTION OF THE CONVENTION OF SARATOGA.
Although the Americans had given Burgoyne leave to return home upon
parole, yet, in bold defiance of the convention signed by Gates, they
still kept his troops as prisoners of war. As there was a difficulty in
reaching the port of Boston early in the winter, Burgoyne had applied to
Washington to change the place of embarkation, and to substitute for it
some place on the Sound. Washington referred the matter to congress, and
he was directed to inform Burgoyne, that no proposition for indulgence
or for altering the terms of the convention would be listened to, unless
directed to their own body. The truth is, congress had scarcely ceased
rejoicings for the success of Gates, when they determined to break the
compact. Measuring the faith and honour of the English officers by
their own, they pretended a concern that the army which had surrendered,
instead of sailing for England, would join the forces of General Howe;
or, that if they did not do this, and if they sailed for England, their
arrival there would enable the government to send out an equal number
of troops employed in the home service to take their places in America.
Hence, they set their wits to work in order to delay the return of the
troops to England. The first thing they did was to pass a resolution
directing General Heath to transmit to the board of war, a descriptive
list of every person comprehended in the convention. Burgoyne and his
officers bitterly resented the insinuations of congress, and
raised objections to such a humiliating measure; but his army was,
nevertheless, described man by man, with all the minuteness of a
French commissary of police. After this was done, a number of British
transports came round to take Burgoyne and his troops on board, but
congress now attempted to find several flaws in the clauses of
the convention of Saratoga. They pretended that the ships were not
sufficient, or sufficiently furnished with provisions for a voyage
to Europe, and that, therefore, General Howe contemplated the shorter
voyage to Sandy Hook or Delaware; and they further pretended that some
of the British soldiers had secreted their cartouch-boxes, which were,
they said, comprehended in the technical term “arms,” and upon such
futile and unfounded pretensions they gravely concluded that the
convention was broken. The British officers denied these allegations,
and the whole subject was referred to a committee of congress, who,
in their report, substantiated them by fallacy, and thereupon it was
resolved that “the embarkation of Lieutenant-General Burgoyne and the
troops under his command, should be suspended until a distinct and
explicit ratification of the convention of Saratoga should be properly
notified by the court of Great Britain to congress.” The men were then
thrown into prison, and the British transports were ordered to quit the
neighbourhood of Boston without delay. Burgoyne addressed a letter of
remonstrance to congress, and insisted on the embarkation of his army
as stipulated in the convention; but a committee to whom this letter was
referred, reported that it contained no arguments sufficient to induce
congress to alter their resolutions, and the men were still kept in
prison. Burgoyne then demanded that he, at least, should be permitted
to return to England upon his parole, which request was readily granted,
and it was in this manner that he had been allowed to come home, leaving
his army behind him. The whole affair reflects the greatest disgrace
upon the members of congress, and Washington and Gates share in that
disgrace; the former for having joined hand-in-hand with congress in
the affair, and the latter for not preventing the act of perfidy, or
throwing up his commission if he had not sufficient influence to prevent
it. All the American leaders, however, seem to have parted company
with faith and honour, and they rejoiced in the prospect of keeping
Burgoyne’s troops prisoners of war till the war should be ended, being
well convinced that the court of Great Britain would not make the
required notification.
LAFAYETTE’S EXPEDITION TO CANADA.
During the preceding year, while the treaty between France and America
was pending, the Marquess de Lafayette, a warm-hearted and warm-headed
young Frenchman, who had imbibed the political notions of the new
school of philosophy, which had for some time been sowing the seeds
of revolution in France, resolved to embark in the cause of America.
Accordingly he set sail for that country, accompanied by Baron Kalb, and
a few other adventurers, and when he arrived he was received with open
arms by Washington and by congress. On the 31st of July, indeed, the
members of congress expressed their sense of his accession to their
cause in warm terms, and conferred on him the rank and commission of
major-general. He fought in the battle of the Brandywine, where he was
shot in the leg, and where he narrowly escaped being taken prisoner.
Nothing more is heard of him till the depth of the winter, when
Washington still lay hutted in Valley Forge, contending against the
horrors of sickness and famine, as previously narrated. At this time
congress, who were sitting in York Town, at the instigation of a board
of war, composed of Gates, Starke, and others, all personal enemies of
Washington, resolved to make another irruption into Canada, and that
the command should be given to Lafayette. It was supposed that the young
French nobleman would have great influence with the French descendants
in Canada, which was the chief reason of his being raised to the
command. The plan was completed without a word of intimation to
Washington; and when it was fully resolved upon he received a letter
from Gates, now his rival, enclosing another for the young marquess,
requiring his immediate attendance on congress to receive his
instructions. At the same time, Washington was directed to send one of
his best regiments to join the Canadian expedition. Lafayette repaired
to congress, and Washington put the required regiment in motion for
Albany, on the Hudson, where the invading force was to be assembled.
According to his own account, Lafayette made large demands on congress
in order to ensure the success of his expedition, which demands were all
complied with. He soon, however, found that the word of congress could
not be depended upon. He was told that 2500 men would be assembled at
Albany; that he would be joined by a great body of militia further up
the Hudson; that he should have a certain sum of money in specie, and
2,000,000 dollars in paper-money; and that he must proceed from the head
of the Hudson to Lake Champlain, cross that water on the ice, burn the
English fleet at the Isle Aux Noix, and then, descending the Sorel and
crossing the St. Lawrence, repair to Montreal, to act as circumstances
should permit him. Lafayette set out full of ardour and hope, but he
had scarcely left congress when it crossed their minds that the young
Frenchman might, instead of inducing the Canadians to join the thirteen
United States, induce them to renew their connexion with their mother
country—France. These misgivings were natural, and the result was that
congress resolved to neglect this long-cherished scheme of conquest.
Accordingly, when Lafayette arrived at Albany, he did not find half of
the promised regular troops, and as for the militia, it had either not
received or attended to the summons. Even the troops he found there
wanted clothing and provisions, and while he had little or no specie,
the paper-dollars proved scarcely worth the carriage. Moreover, he had
no sledges to carry his troops across the ice, and when the month of
March arrived, the lakes began to thaw, and he received intelligence
that the English were well prepared to receive him. Lafayette now gave
up the enterprise, and after having made an attempt to engage some
Mohawk Indians in the service of congress, in which he met with but
little success, and having administered a new form of oath, devised by
congress, to the population of Albany, he was permitted to return to the
camp of Washington.
UNFORTUNATE ACTION UNDER LAFAYETTE.
During the winter and the commencement of the spring, while the great
body of the British troops were quartered in Philadelphia, several
excursions were made by detachments in different directions, chiefly for
the purpose of obtaining provisions and clothing. These excursions
were generally attended with success, and many American prisoners were
brought into Philadelphia. Washington, however, was still permitted
to rest securely in Valley Forge, where he omitted no opportunity of
bettering the condition of his forces. His exertions were great, and
he was now ably seconded by Baron Steuben, a Prussian officer, who had
served for many years on the staff of Frederick the Great, and who,
like Lafayette, had become an adventurer on this theatre of war. Steuben
taught the raw troops of the republic the system of field-exercise which
his Prussian majesty had introduced or improved; and when they next took
the field, therefore, they presented a far more soldier-like appearance
than they had presented in the previous campaigns. It was in the month
of May that they again took the field. In that month the British had
made an expedition by sea and land to destroy all the American shipping
in the upper part of the Delaware between Philadelphia and Trenton. This
may be considered the opening of the campaign, and the expedition was in
a great measure successful.
More than forty American vessels were burnt; a considerable quantity of
stores and provisions were destroyed; and some Americans were slain and
wounded in the vain endeavour to defend them. Washington now began to
act. On the 19th of May he detached Lafayette with nearly 3000 men to
take post at Barren Hill, about seven miles in advance of Valley Forge,
but on the opposite side of the Schuylkill. The object of this movement
appears to have been the restraining of the British excursions, but
the position was ill-chosen, as the communication between it and Valley
Forge was difficult, and easy to be interrupted by an active enemy.
Probably Washington calculated that General Howe would still continue
his inactivity, and especially as it was now known that the British
contemplated the abandonment of Philadelphia. But in this he was
mistaken. On the night of the 20th, General Grant was detached with
5000 men to surprise Lafayette in this position, and he reached a point
between his rear and Valley Forge without discovery. At the same time
another detachment, under General Grey, marched along the western bank
of the Schuylkill, and posted themselves at a ford about three miles
in front of Lafayette’s right flank, while the rest of the British army
advanced to Chesnut-hill. His retreat was utterly cut off, except by the
way of Matson’s-ford. As soon as Lafayette became aware of his danger he
saw this, and he instantly fled, pell-mell, with his detachment to this
ford, leaving on his way six field-pieces. There was a race between him
and Grey which should get first to Matson’s Ford, but fear quickened
his steps and those of his followers, and Grey’s men being fatigued with
their long night-march, the Frenchmen won the race, and the ford was
passed before Grey could reach it. General Grant also was slow in his
pursuit from behind, and Lafayette was even allowed time to send
back some of his men across the water to recover the artillery he
had abandoned. He escaped with the loss of about fifty men killed and
wounded, and a few more taken prisoners; but had this expedition, which
had been well conceived, been executed with greater rapidity, the career
of Lafayette would have terminated, and his followers must either have
been captured or slain. Washington himself seems to have considered that
his case was hopeless. By means of glasses he had discovered Lafayette’s
peril, and he caused his bridge across the Schuylkill to be broken
down, lest the British, after annihilating this detachment, should fall
upon himself at Valley Forge.
{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}
SIR HENRY CLINTON TAKES THE COMMAND OF THE BRITISH TROOPS.
The above wore the last military operations in America over which Sir
William Howe presided. He had been for some time soliciting his recall,
through feelings of resentment for want of confidence reposed in him,
and inattention to his recommendations; and on the 24th of May, Sir
Henry Clinton arrived at Philadelphia to supersede him in the command.
How General Howe could imagine that any recommendations which he could
make would be attended to, is matter of surprise, when his inglorious
campaigns are considered. He had done nothing of consequence during the
long time he had been in America, and at the very time he was superseded
in the command, he was conscious that the army must soon evacuate
Philadelphia. For the last seven months he had, indeed, been living a
life of pleasure, which wholly unfitted both him and his army for active
service. Hence, it is no wonder that before his departure both officers
and men, expressed their warmest affection for him. On the 18th of May
a grand fête was given to him as a proper leave-taking, which was
celebrated in such bad taste that it reflected disgrace on those who got
it up, and those who consented to be honoured by it. Even if the Howes
had been uniformly victorious and had finished the war by brilliant
exploits, the pageantry was of such a nature as would have been better
fitted for some inglorious Eastern despot; how much more then was it
misplaced when all the work they had been commissioned to execute was
left undone. The enemy had still the sword in their hands, and were
daily increasing in courage, in skill, in strength, and in numbers. Such
was the state of America when Sir William Howe returned to England. His
brother, Admiral Lord Howe, who was a man of ability, still retained
the command of the fleet, although he also wished to return home, and
to take no further part in the contest. The rumours of the French war
first, and then the arrival of the French fleet on the coast of America,
alone induced him to retain his command.
ARRIVAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN AMERICA WITH THE CONCILIATORY BILLS.
Commissioners appointed under Lord North’s conciliatory bills, arrived
in the Delaware on the 6th of June. These commissioners were Lord
Carlisle, Governor Johnstone, and Mr. Eden, who lost no time in making
known their commission. They applied to Washington for a passport for
their secretary, Dr. Adam Ferguson, to enable him to lay some overtures
of the commission before congress. Washington, however, refused to
grant this passport, and he forwarded the letter of the commissioners
to congress by the common military post. After deliberating on
the communications for some days, congress replied to the king’s
commissioners through their president, that the act of parliament, the
commission, and the commissioners’ letter all supposed the people of the
American states to be still subjects of the King of Great Britain, and
were all founded upon an idea of dependence. This was represented as a
mistake. The Americans, they said, were a free people, and congress were
ready to enter upon the consideration of a treaty of peace and commerce,
not inconsistent with treaties they had previously contracted, whenever
the King of Great Britain should show a sincere disposition for that
purpose; the only proof of which would be an explicit acknowledgment of
their independence, and the withdrawal of all the troops and the fleets
from the United States. The truth is, the commissioners arrived too
late to effect any conciliation. Silas Deane had previously arrived from
Paris with the French treaties ratified, and with abundant assurances of
assistance and co-operation, and the Americans were thereby confirmed in
their resolution to obtain their absolute independence. In addition to
his public exertions as a commissioner, Governor Johnstone endeavoured
to gain over some of the members of congress and other persons of
influence, by opening a private correspondence with them. But this
was discovered, and the result was, that his letters were laid before
congress, and a resolution was passed to the effect that it was
incompatible with the honour of congress to hold any further
communication with that commissioner. The commissioners next attempted
to separate the people from their leaders by a manifesto declaring
pardons to all who should within forty days withdraw from the service of
congress, and proffering peace with peculiar privileges to the colonies
collectively or separately, which should return to their allegiance to
the British monarch. But this was answered by counter manifestoes from
congress, and the efforts of the commissioners were rendered signally
abortive; and they were compelled to return home as they went. The whole
body of colonists were resolute in their desire and purpose of obtaining
their independence.
EVACUATION OF PHILADELPHIA BY THE BRITISH, ETC.
At this time it was known that Count d’Estaing was at sea with a
considerable land force on board, to aid the Americans. This had
doubtless the effect of making congress and the colonists more
determined in their opposition to the British government. On the other
hand, it had the effect of rendering the British general more cautious.
As soon as the prospect of a French war opened on the British cabinet,
as a more central situation was desirable for the army, the evacuation
of Philadelphia was contemplated, and as the French troops might arrive
soon to the aid of Washington, Sir Henry Clinton, contrary to the wishes
of the British officers, who burned with impatience to be led on to
the Valley Forge, resolved to withdraw his troops from the capital of
Pennsylvania. This was executed about the middle of June, and they were
transported across the Delaware without molestation. The march, however,
of the troops was encumbered by a long train of the inhabitants of
Philadelphia, all royalists, who feared the vengeance cf congress, and
their progress was consequently slow. Moreover, the country abounded
with rough roads and difficult passes, while the British troops had to
mend the bridges in their route which Washington had caused to be
broken down. The passes were all occupied by the militia, but these were
everywhere driven from their posts without difficulty. These measures
were preliminary to a step which Washington contemplated, of crossing
the Delaware and falling upon the rear of the retreating enemy. He
crossed that river with this intent; but though he hung upon Clinton’s
flank and rear, he did not venture to attack him, and carefully selected
for himself such ground and such a line of march as prevented his being
attacked by the British. Several days passed in this manner, councils
of war being in the meantime held to deliberate upon the expediency
of bringing on a general engagement. Washington himself was anxious to
hazard an action, but of seventeen generals only two besides himself
were in favour of hazarding either a general or partial engagement. In
a council held on the 24th of June, however, a proposal was carried
to strengthen the detachment which had got on the left flank of the
British, and 1500 picked men were thrown in the direction specified. At
the same time, Washington secretly determined to bring on a more general
engagement, in spite of the majority of the council-of-war, if possible.
He did this to his own cost on the 28th of June. On that day the British
having arrived at a place called Freehold Court-house, near Monmouth, a
vigorous attack was made on their baggage by a detachment under General
Lee, the deserter, who had been previously exchanged, and was again
actively employed in the American service. This attack, however, was
expected, and the detachment was bravely repulsed. The British light
troops impetuously pursued the fugitives, until they were met and
rallied by Washington himself. The pursuers were now in danger, and to
prevent their being cut off, Sir Henry Clinton was compelled to maintain
his position under a severe cross-fire, after which he withdrew to his
former position. His loss in killed and wounded was about three hundred
and sixty men, many of whom had expired through excessive heat and
fatigue without receiving a wound. The enemy’s loss was still greater,
and as little more than half of Clinton’s army was with him, it seems to
have convinced Washington that it would be folly to attack the British
forces in a general engagement. It is said, indeed, that he lay that
night in the midst of his soldiers, ready to renew the contest next
morning, had not his opponents thought proper to retire. But it is
evident that Washington was aware of the continued retreat of the
British, and yet he did not venture to follow a step further. He had
expected a triumph and had met with a check, and though he boasted to
congress that he would have followed if Clinton had not moved off in
silence and secresy, and before he had any idea of his departure, yet
he had already determined to hasten to the Hudson by another route, in
order to join an army collected by General Gates, and to give up the
pursuit! Congress also acted as inconsistently as Washington. They
celebrated the affair of Freehold Court-house as a great and glorious
victory, although it must have appeared clear to them that Washington
had been checked, if not actually defeated. Clinton reached New York
in safety on the 5th of July, where he found Lord Howe with his fleet.
Washington took up his position on the borders of the Hudson, where he
remained till late in the autumn.
DISGRACE OF GENERAL LEE.
When Washington met General Lee in full retreat, he assailed him with
some bitter and reproachful words for his conduct. Suspicions were
afterwards thrown out that Lee intended to cause the defeat of the army,
for the purpose of disgracing the commander-in-chief. The whole conduct
of Lee proves that these suspicions were groundless, and he wrote
several letters to Washington in vindication of his character. These
letters, however, contained language which placed him at the mercy of
Washington, and being found guilty by a court-martial, he was sentenced
to suspension from his rank for one year. Although a man of great
abilities, and although he had rendered the American cause good service,
both in the councils-of-war and in the field, he never, indeed, after
this disgrace, attracted honourable notice. Yet he appears rather to
have fallen from the effects of envy than from his misconduct, for it
is a well-established fact, that Washington himself looked upon
his abilities with a jealous eye. It was, in truth, the conduct of
Washington towards him in the late affair which had betrayed him into
the error which laid him beneath his rival’s feet. Gratitude should have
taught Washington to have behaved more generously, for more than once
Lee had corrected his rashness, and saved him from ruin. Yet before his
failure in his attack on the British troops, Washington had attempted
to place the raw and inexperienced Lafayette over his head, and he might
have been warned by this, that no opportunity would be lost in securing
his downfall.
UNSUCCESSFUL ATTACK BY THE AMERICANS AND FRENCH ON RHODE ISLAND.
Six days after General Clinton arrived at New York, the French fleet,
under Count d’Estaign, who had lost many days by putting into the
Delaware, appeared before that city. His force consisted of twelve
sail of the line, and three or four heavy frigates. He had, indeed,
collectively, eight hundred and fifty-four guns to oppose to Howe’s 614,
and the weight of his metal and the size of his ships were still greater
in proportion even than the number of his guns. It was expected that the
count would immediately attack Lord Howe’s squadron, but he lay inactive
outside the Hook for eleven days. All this time, the British admiral
was preparing for a contest, and the sailors universally burned with
impatience to engage the enemy. As a defeat would have been fatal to
the troops on shore, Howe wisely forbore to respond to their wishes
of attacking the enemy, and at length, on the 22nd of July d’Estaign
weighed anchor, and instead of entering Sandy Hook, stood out to sea,
and then shaped his course northward to attempt the reduction of Rhode
Island. In his passage to America, the French admiral had been pursued
by Vice-Admiral Byron whose fleet unfortunately had been dispersed and
shattered by storms. The wreck of two or three of these ships joined
Lord Howe a few days after d’Estaing had left his anchorage, and when
these had been put in sailing and fighting trim, Lord Howe sailed in
quest of the French admiral. General Sullivan had been ordered to pass
over from the continent with 10,000 men to attack the British lines at
Newport, in which 6000 troops were intrenched, while d’Estaing with the
French fleet assailed them on the other side. When near the coast, also,
the French admiral was joined by Lafayette with 2000 American troops,
and he entered the Sound and prepared to land near Newport. Four
English frigates were lying at anchor there, and as the defence of these
frigates was impracticable, the crews set fire to them and joined the
troops on the island. The French admiral was on the point of landing
when Howe hove in sight, he having been hitherto deterged from so doing
by a quarrel with General Sullivan as to which of them should hold
the supreme command. The appearance of Howe altered the operations
of d’Estaing. Being superior in force he resolved to sail out of the
harbour and meet the English. Both commanders prepared for battle; but
while they were each exerting all their skill to gain the advantages
of a position a furious storm arose, which dispersed the hostile fleets
over the face of the ocean. Both fleets were greatly damaged, but Howe’s
fleet suffered least. Subsequently one of his ships fell in with the
Languedoc, d’Estaign’s flag-ship, and another with the Tonnant, both of
superior size, and would have captured them had they not been rescued
by other portions of the scattered fleet, Another isolated battle
afterwards occurred between two ships, in which the French lost seventy
killed and wounded, while the English lost only one man killed and had
fifteen wounded. No captures, however, were made on either side, and
while Howe returned to New York for the purpose of refitting his ships,
d’Estaing came to anchor near Rhode Island. By this time, Sullivan,
contrary to the wishes of Lafayette, had landed on the island with his
10,000 men, and had commenced the siege of Newport. He also had
suffered by the storm, for it had blown down all his tents, damaged
his ammunition, and caused the death of several of his soldiers. When it
abated, Sullivan renewed the siege; but though the garrison of Newport
amounted only to about 1200 men, he only ventured to proceed by regular
approaches. Sullivan was not much encouraged by the reappearance of the
French Admiral, and when d’Estaing announced his intention of retiring
to Boston to refit, the besiegers lost all hope, and numbers of them
deserted and crossed over to Connecticut. It was in vain that Sullivan
remonstrated with the French admiral: he had received orders from
his government to be very careful of his fleet, and having reasons
to believe that Howe had received reinforcements, he adhered to his
resolution of getting to a place of safety. Sullivan then implored him
to leave the French forces he had on board, and the bearer of his letter
was also charged with a protest, written in angry terms, and complaining
of the desertion of the French. This protest was signed by all the
general officers in Rhode Island, except Lafayette; but the French
admiral considered it as insulting, and sailed away for Boston in an
angry mood. Sullivan then abandoned the siege of Newport, and retired to
the north of the island. He was pursued by Sir Robert Pigott, commander
of the garrison of Newport, who brought him to battle on the 29th of
August. The loss was about equal, but Sullivan found himself compelled
to evacuate the island in haste. He retired just in time, for on the
following day a reinforcement, commanded by Sir Henry Clinton, arrived
at Rhode Island. The attempt on the island, therefore, signally failed,
and Sullivan laid the blame of the failure on the French admiral. He
even published some letters reflecting very severely on the conduct of
d’Estaing, and asserted that the Americans had been basely abandoned
by their new allies. The public feeling was so strong against him, that
when he arrived at Boston he met with a rude reception. The French were
everywhere hooted by the Bostonians, and in a scuffle between them a
French officer was killed. The French were also denounced by some of the
hottest members in congress, and even the alliance with the French court
was reprobated and reviled in bitter terms. About the same time, also,
riots happened at Charlestown, in South Carolina, between American and
French seamen, in which several lives were lost on both sides. But,
at the same time that the Americans exhibited this feeling toward the
French, they could not deny that the French alliance was still useful
to them; and hence they had no thought of coming to an open rupture with
their government.
OPERATIONS OF THE BRITISH ARMY.
After relieving Rhode Island, General Clinton returned to New York. On
his voyage thither he detached Major-General Grey to Buzzard Bay, in
Massachusets, a famous rendezvous of American privateers; and that
officer destroyed seventy sail of ships there, with many store-houses
and wharfs, and a fort mounting eleven pieces of heavy cannon. Grey
then proceeded to an island called Martha’s Vineyard, where he took or
destroyed several more vessels, destroyed a salt-work, and obliged the
inhabitants to deliver up their arms, and furnish him with 10,000 sheep
and 3000 oxen. With these supplies he returned to New York, and shortly
after he made an incursion into New Jersey, where he surrounded an
American detachment in the dead of the night, killed most of them, and
took the rest, with Colonel Bajdor, their commander, prisoners. About
the same time a small squadron, under the direction, of Captain Collins,
with some troops, under the command of Captain Ferguson, destroyed
a nest of privateers at Egg Harbour, and cut to pieces a part of the
legion of the Polish Count Pulawski. On the return of this squadron to
New York, the British army was placed in winter-quarters, and Washington
moved his troops to Middlebrook, in New Jersey, where they hutted, as in
Valley Forge.
ATTACK OF THE SAVAGES ON THE SETTLEMENT OF WYOMING, ETC.
The beautiful district of Wyoming was at this time dotted with eight new
townships, each containing a territory of about five miles on both sides
of the river Susquehanna. Poets and travellers have fondly fancied that
it was inhabited by a peaceful population, in unison with the lovely
scenery of the district. Such conceptions, however, are the very reverse
of the fact. Greece was as the garden of Eden, and yet fierce warriors
inhabited its soil. And so it was with Wyoming. By its geographical
position the district seemed properly to belong to Pennsylvania, but the
colony of Connecticut claimed it in virtue of an old grant; and it was
first settled by the population of that colony. The Pennsylvanians,
however, set up a counter claim, and, after many long and angry
debates the two colonies went to war about the disputed district. These
hostilities lasted till after the breaking out of the war with England;
but a near approach of danger caused the belligerents to forego their
quarrel. Several Pennsylvanian families by this time had obtained a
settlement in Wyoming, and these were all royalists. So also were some
of the Connecticut settlers, but there, as elsewhere, the revolutionary
party gained the ascendency. They used their power tyrannically, and
faction and feuds raged through all the townships. “Fair Wyoming,” by
the bad passions of its inhabitants, was converted into a very hell. In
every house there was division of sentiment, and the sources of domestic
happiness were all poisoned by the bitter waters of strife. At length
the revolutionary party completely got the upper hand. Oppressed and
persecuted indeed, the royalists for the most part left their homes and
became fugitives in the back-settlements. After this the revolutionists
sent a large reinforcement to serve in the army of congress. By so
doing, however, they laid themselves open to attack from the savages and
their fugitive brethren. Warnings of their danger were repeatedly given
them; but although they built some little forts in order to protect the
district, they had but indifferent garrisons to put into them, and it
was easy to foresee that sooner or later they would reap the fruit of
their conduct towards their brethren. They appear to have conceived
that they were in no danger, and especially as some Indian tribes had
promised them protection; but their dream of security was suddenly
disturbed by the appearance of eight hundred men on the bank of the
Susquehanna. These were in part savages and in part Anglo-Americans,
disguised as Indian warriors. Some of them were in fact the outcasts of
Wyoming, who burned to revenge their wrongs. They were led by Colonel
Butler, the same who had offered General Carleton the service of the
Indians in Canada four years before, On the appearance of this force
there were only sixty American regulars in the district, and these were
commanded by Colonel Zebulon Butler, said to be of the same family as
the officer that was leading on the savages and exiles. There were,
however, about three hundred militiamen under Colonel Dennison, and
these with the regulars prepared to oppose the invaders. The Indians
and their allies entered the valley near its northern boundary; and they
quickly took one of the forts called Wintermoots, which they burned. The
militiamen and regulars assembled at Forty-fort, a stronger place on
the west side of the Susquehanna, and four miles below the camp of the
invaders. Had Colonel Zebulon Butler remained in this fort he might have
stemmed the onward progress of the invaders till assistance could have
been obtained from Washington. Zebulon Butler, however, resolved to
leave the fort and encounter the enemy. He found them posted in a plain,
partially covered with pine trees, dwarf oaks, and underwood. He moved
towards them in single column, but as he was passing along he was
saluted by the fire of Indians, who lay concealed behind bushes and
trees. Notwithstanding, Zebulon Butler formed into line and prepared for
battle. His left flank, which was composed of militiamen, was quickly
turned by a body of Indians, who poured a destructive fire on his rear,
and he was compelled to command a retreat. All fled precipitately,
but the enemy was in their front, while on one side was a marsh and a
mountain, and the other a deep river. A dreadful scene ensued. Throwing
away their rifles and muskets, the Indians and their enraged allies fell
upon the fugitives with their tomahawks, and heeded not the loud cry
which was raised for quarter and mercy. About sixty men, with Colonels
Zebulon Butler and Dennison, escaped by swimming across the river,
hiding in the marsh, or climbing the mountain; but the rest, amounting
to nearly four hundred men, were butchered on the spot. Zebulon Butler
fled from Wyoming with his few surviving men, and Dennison proposed
terms of capitulation, which the enemy granted to the inhabitants.
These unfortunate people, however, dreading the vengeance of their white
brethren, generally, abandoned their homes, and in their turn became
outcasts and wanderers. The invaders then collected all the property
of the district worth carriage; burned all the houses and levelled the
forts; and then returned to the wilderness from whence they came. The
troops of congress shortly after made some retaliation. Washington was
at the very time of the invasion sending some troops to the defence of
Wyoming, and these being reinforced by a great many riflemen of Morgan’s
corps, they rushed upon the Indian settlements, burned their villages,
exterminated all they could discover, and compelled the rest to retire
further from the frontiers of the colonies. Those who escaped, however,
awaited another opportunity for revenge.
ARRIVAL OF THE FRENCH ENVOY AT PHILADELPHIA.
After Sir Henry Clinton had evacuated Philadelphia, congress returned to
that city. In the course of the autumn M. Gérard arrived there as envoy
to the United States from the court of France. About the same time
instructions were prepared and sent to Dr. Franklin, as minister
plenipotentiary at the court of Versailles. The French minister and
suite received very flattering attention from the majority of the
members of congress, but beyond this they had reason for complaint. By
the people they were looked upon with suspicion, and some considered
them in the light of enemies. There was, indeed, a significant
distinction drawn at this time between parties in America, which exists
to this day: the moderates were called the English party, and the
ultra-revolutionists, the French party. But it was soon found that even
the French party could not always agree in the plans and schemes of the
French ambassador and his government, and that, therefore, the alliance,
though solemnly ratified by treaty, was not cemented by reciprocal
affection.
MOVEMENTS OF THE BRITISH AND FRENCH FLEETS.
After refitting his ships Lord Howe went to Boston, with design to
attack the French admiral in that water. He found the anchorage,
however, so effectually protected by batteries, that he was compelled to
forego this design, and return to New York. Soon after he received leave
of absence, and he resigned the command of his squadron to Rear-admiral
Gambier. Howe then proceeded to Rhode Island, where he met with
Vice-admiral Byron, to whom he gave up the command of the American
station as commander-in-chief, and then set sail for England. After his
departure, Byron, with a part of his force, went back to Boston to look
after the French; but his ships were driven off the coast by a violent
hurricane, and he was obliged to seek a port in order to refit. While
thus situated the French admiral put out to sea, in order to undertake
operations for conquests in the West India Islands. On the same day,
however, that he stole out of the harbour of Boston, Commodore Hotham
sailed from Sandy Hook to escort Major-general Grant, with 5000 men, to
protect these islands, and he joined Admiral Barrington at Barbadoes, on
the 10th of December.
CAPTURE OF DOMINICA BY THE FRENCH.
It was not solely with a view of supporting the Americans, and
vindicating the wrongs of humanity, that the French entered upon the
arena of strife. On the contrary, the principal aim of the French
cabinet was aggrandisement. A scheme had been devised for seizing all
the sugar-plantations of Great Britain. And some time before d’Estaing
set sail for the West Indies the French had commenced putting this
scheme into effect. On the 7th of September the Marquis de Bouille,
governor-general of Martinique landed with about 2000 men on our island
of Dominica, and proceeded to attack the different batteries and forts
by land, while French and American frigates and privateers attacked them
by sea. There were abundance of artillery and stores in Dominica, but
unfortunately there were not sufficient men to defend the island; and,
after a gallant defence of some outworks, Lieutenant-governor Stewart
found himself compelled to capitulate:—the island fell into the hands
of the French.
CAPTURE OF ST. LUCIE BY THE BRITISH.
The British commanders, on arriving at Barbadoes, being informed of
the loss of Dominica, resolved to take another island from the French.
Without suffering the troops to land, therefore, Major-general Grant
proceeded to St. Lucie, attended by the joint squadrons of Hotham
and Barrington. Five British regiments, with all the grenadiers and
light-infantry, under the command of Brigadier-general Medows, first
landed, and being ably seconded by Major Harris, he drove the French
commandant, the Chevalier de Miccud, from a strong position which he had
taken on the heights at the end of an inlet, called Grand Cul de Sac.
While this was doing, Brigadier-general Prescott landed, with five other
regiments, to secure the whole of the bay, and to establish posts in
order to preserve a communication with Medows. General Medows pushed
forward, and took possession of the important post of the Vigie, which
commands the north side of the Carénage harbour; while Brigadier-general
Sir Henry Calder occupied other posts upon the mountains which commanded
the south side of the Grand Cul de Sac, and Major-general Grant lay on
the heights, called Morne Fortune. The British troops were thus situate
when d’Estaing arrived off the island, in order to relieve it. On
discovering his approach, the British admirals immediately collected all
their ships into the Grand Cul de Sac, and then formed a line close and
compact right across the entrance of the bay. The fleet under the French
admiral was by far the most powerful; but he was thrice defeated in his
attacks upon the British squadron, and he then landed 5000 picked troops
in a bay, between Gros Islet and the Carénage Bay. D’Estaing resolved,
in the first instance, to direct his entire force against Medows, who
was cut off, by his movement, from all support from the other
divisions of the British. General Medows had only 1,300 men, with two
twelve-pounders and four six-pounders, to defend his position; but his
force chiefly consisted of veterans, and it was in vain that d’Estaing
led his forces against, them. Three several charges were made upon them;
but the French were repulsed, with the loss of four hundred men killed,
and more than 1000 wounded. He was compelled to leave the island; and
as his fleet disappeared, the Chevalier de Micoud descended from some
heights to which he had retired, came into the British camp with the
principal inhabitants, and signed a capitulation with General Grant, who
granted such favourable terms as won for him the gratitude of the enemy.
Thus, while the British lost Dominica, they won St. Lucie.
{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}
RE-CAPTURE OF THE ISLANDS OF ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON.
Earlier in the year, in consequence of their aggression on the coast of
America, the French were deprived of their privilege of fishing on the
banks of Newfoundland. The little islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon had
been ceded to them at the peace of 1763, but they were now recaptured
by the British, and the garrisons conveyed to France.
FRENCH PLANS REGARDING CANADA COUNTERACTED BY WASHINGTON.
The ambitious views of the French cabinet were not confined to the West
Indies. This was made manifest to the Americans before d’Estaing
set sail from Boston. He published a proclamation to the Canadians,
exhorting them to return to their former allegiance: and at the same
time Washington, through the ascendency of a French party in congress,
was urged to undertake the reduction of that province in conjunction
with a French force. He was directed by the committee for foreign
affairs to communicate with Lafayette on the subject; but instead of
this, he wrote a long letter to congress, urging, in a forcible manner,
the impolicy of the measure; and, in consequence of his representations,
the plan proposed by congress for the emancipation of Canada, in
co-operation with an army from France, was deferred “until circumstances
rendered the co-operation of the United States more certain,
practicable, and effectual.” The truth is, the Americans, enlightened by
Washington, saw through the designs of France, and they had no idea of
thus aggrandising their allies. Moreover, they found no encouragement in
Canada; for, notwithstanding the proclamation of the French admiral, the
Canadians were determined to remain quiet under the British government,
being fully satisfied with its mild rule, and confident that it was
able to protect them in their obedience. Soon after this plan failed,
Lafayette returned to France, as he himself reports, to offer his sword
to his own sovereign, who was now engaged as a principal in the war, and
to induce the French court to send more effectual succours to the aid
of congress, without any reference to the conquest of Canada. It is well
known, however, that both the Marquis and his court cast a longing eye
upon Canada; and it cannot be doubted but that its conquest was the
chief end which he had in view when he recommended an increase of
French troops in America. On his arrival in France, Lafayette was
enthusiastically welcomed by the war party; and although the French
monarch pretended, at first, to be offended with him for joining the
cause of America, before he himself had espoused it, he was almost
immediately honoured with the command of the dragoons of the king’s
guard.
CAPTURE OF SAVANNAH BY THE BRITISH.
During this year, soon after the return of the commissioners to England,
an important operation took place on the side of Georgia, and the
complete success of which gave a hope that the war, if transferred to
the south, might prove more successful than it had hitherto been. Some
of the southern colonies were in a state of utter confusion—royalists
being arrayed against revolutionists, and province against province.
Thus, between the people of East Florida, who remained under the British
government, and the people of Georgia, who had joined the cause of
congress, there existed an irreconcilable hatred. These provinces had
but recently been at war with each other, when Georgia was successfully
invaded by the British. Sir Henry Clinton despatched Colonel Campbell
thither with 3500 men, by sea, under convoy of Admiral Parker, and on
his arrival his first object was the reduction of the city of Savannah,
the capital of Georgia, which was defended by the American General
Robert How. The whole country between Savannah and the sea was
impassable to troops, being low, marshy, and intersected by creeks and
artificial watercourses. The city stood on the southern bank of the
Savannah River, about fifteen miles from the sea; and Parker therefore
conveyed the troops up that river, and after surmounting some
difficulties he succeeded in landing them at a plantation about three
miles below the city. Some Highlanders, commanded by a Cameron, first
moved from the river bank along a narrow causeway, with some high ground
at the end of it where the Americans were posted. As they approached the
Americans opened a fire upon them, and Cameron and two of his company
were slain. The loss of their leader, however, urged the clansmen on to
desperate enterprise. They rushed upon the enemy with a fierce cry
for revenge, and drove them back into some woods nearer the town. When
Campbell arrived on the scene of action he found the American general
posted outside the town, having swamps, woods, trenches, and deep
rice-fields all around him. He discovered a private path leading through
the swamp, which covered the enemy’s right flank, and having sent some
of his Highlanders’ light infantry and New York volunteers round by
that path, he surprised the enemy in the rear. They fled for their
lives through the town of Savannah, four hundred and fifty of them being
captured in their flight; and the town and fort, with an abundance of
stores, became the prize of the conquerors. In a few days the remnant of
How’s army was driven across the Savannah River into South Carolina,
and then the inhabitants flocked to Colonel Campbell to take the oath
of allegiance to the British monarch. The provincials were greatly
conciliated by his lenity and moderation; and even some of the
hot preachers, who had excited the Georgians into insurrection and
republicanism, now turned royalists. The whole of Georgia was in the
hands of the royalists except the town of Sunbury, and this place was
soon after reduced by General Prevost, who was sent to Savannah to take
the chief command. He was joined here by many suffering royalists from
South Carolina and Virginia, while others repaired to head-quarters at
New York.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament met on the 25th of November. Little notice was taken of
the operations in America; but his majesty bitterly complained of the
unprovoked hostility of the court of France. His majesty also alluded to
preparations going on in Spain, and remarked that however friendly and
seemingly sincere the professions made to us might be, it was a subject
that must gain the attention of the house. The king noticed the complete
failure of the commissioners and of the conciliatory measures passed
during the last sitting of parliament, and urged the necessity of the
most active exertions, in order to vindicate and maintain the honour
of the crown and the interests of the people. He concluded with saying,
that, according to the powers vested in him, he had called out the
militia to assist in the defence of the country, and that he had with
high satisfaction witnessed the public spirit, ardour, and love of their
country which animated all classes of his subjects; and which could not
fail of ensuring safety at home and procuring respect abroad.
In both houses the address of his majesty was opposed. In the lords
it was condemned in toto, with the king’s speech, and the opposition
proposed putting an absolute negative upon the whole. It was argued in
support of this proposition, that ministers were proceeding upon false
principles, upheld by obstinacy, folly, and error, and tending to
inevitable ruin; that new men and new measures must be adopted before we
could hope for success in war, or honour and security in peace; that as
ministers had shown themselves incompetent to the management of the
war when they only had the Americans to contend with, it was not to
be expected that they would be able to contend with the united arms
of France and America; and that they would be still less able if Spain
joined the contest. Ministers and their supporters argued that it would
be monstrous to refuse addressing, especially as the speech dwelt solely
on the dangers of the kingdom from the perfidy of France; and as the
address was a simple declaration of supporting his majesty against the
machinations of the French government. The address was carried by
a majority of sixty-seven against thirty-five. In the commons the
opposition moved an amendment “to assure his majesty that from zeal and
affection that house was ready to give the most ample support to
such measures as might be thought necessary for the defence of those
kingdoms, or for frustrating the designs of that restless power which
had so often disturbed the peace of Europe; but that they thought it
their duty to inquire by what fatal councils and unhappy systems of
policy this country had been reduced from that splendid situation which,
in the early part or his majesty’s reign, made her the envy of all
Europe, to her present dangerous state, which had of late called forth
our utmost exertions without any adequate benefit.” The speakers in
opposition, who supported this amendment, chiefly dwelt on the numerous
blunders of administration in the management of the war; attributing
every failure to their measures, and every successful operation to
circumstances over which they had no control. It was argued, indeed,
that ministers had only made such preparations as would ensure defeats;
and that it was marvellous we were not involved in indiscriminate ruin
and disgrace. The blunders of ministers were both numerous and palpable,
but it cannot be denied that they were mightily magnified by the
opposition, who looked at their every movement with a jealous and
jaundiced eye. The amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred
and twenty-six against one hundred and seven.
AFFAIR RESPECTING ADMIRAL KEPPEL AND SIR HUGH PALLISER.
During the debate on the amendment in the commons, Charles Fox
introduced the subject of the operations of the fleet commanded by
Keppel and Palliser, and attributed all the blame of its failure to the
conduct of ministers and the admiralty, who, he said, had not sent a
sufficient fleet out, and that it was sent to sea too late to effect
the objects for which it was fitted out. This subject was brought
prominently before the house of commons on the 2nd of December. Mr.
Temple Luttrel said, that the whole of that transaction demanded a
particular and close inquiry, and that the two admirals, who were both
in the house, were bound to give information for the sake of their own
honour, and also for the sake of public tranquillity. Thus challenged,
Keppel, who was a whig, stood up to defend his own conduct. He could not
consider, he remarked, that the British flag had been tarnished in his
hands, or that the affair off Ushant was in any way disgraceful. He
impeached no man; and was persuaded that Sir Hugh Palliser manifested no
want of courage. He expressed a hope that he should not be compelled to
answer any questions relative to the action or to individuals, at the
same time asserting that he was ready to explain his own conduct in
that house or elsewhere, Nothing, he said, was left untried to bring the
French to a decisive action. He then adverted to Palliser’s publication
in the newspapers. He was surprised, he said, that he should have
appealed to the public when no accusation was made against him, and have
endeavoured to render his superior in command unpopular and odious; and
he declared that he would never again embark in a fleet with an officer
who could conduct himself in a manner so fatal to all obedience and
discipline. Sir Hugh Palliser, who was a Tory, then rose and said, that
it was his interest to obtain inquiry, and that he was as eager for it
as his superior officer. He censured Keppel’s reserve, and challenged
him to deliver his opinions without disguise, that he might be able
to give a full answer. He complained of the aspersions thrown upon his
character by the newspapers, and said that while justice was rendered to
his courage, insinuations were thrown out that he might have neglected
or disobeyed the signals of his superior. He concluded by asserting that
he had vainly sought an explanation from Keppel, before appealing to
the public with a detail of facts, by which he would stand or fall; by
denying that he had refused to obey signals; and by declaring that he
feared neither a parliamentary inquiry nor a public trial. In reply,
Admiral Keppel asserted that one of his signals was not obeyed though
it was flying for five hours, but that he would not charge Vice-admiral
Palliser with disobedience, as the condition of his ships might, as
represented by him, have prevented his coming up. Palliser rejoined by
charging Keppel with having neglected to arrange his ships in such a
manner as to ensure a general engagement; with having neglected to tack
and double on the French with his van and centre, after these had passed
the enemy’s rear, whereby he, the vice-admiral, was exposed to be cut
off; with having permitted the enemy to rally, and to claim a victory
by standing after the English ships; and with having, finally, led the
British fleet in an opposite direction, instead of pursuing the enemy.
The conversation here dropped, but the charges made by Sir Hugh Palliser
were afterwards repeated to the Admiralty; and this led to the trial of
both the accuser and the accused before a court-martial.