CHAPTER XVI.

{GEORGE III. 1787–1789}

Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on the Treaty of Commerce

between England and France..... Pitt’s Plan of Financial

Reform..... Motion for the Repeal of the Corporation and

Test Acts..... Affairs of the Prince of Wales..... Motion

for Inquiry into the Abuses of the Post-Office.....

Impeachment of Warren Hastings..... Parliament

Prorogued..... Continental Affairs..... Meeting of

Parliament..... Dispute between Government and the East

India Company..... Pitt’s Financial Measures—Additions

made to the Bill for trying Controverted Elections.....

Claims of the American Royalists, &c. The Slave-Trade

Question..... Charge against Sir Elijah Impey.....

Impeachment of Warren Hastings..... Parliament

Prorogued..... Continental Alliances..... Derangement of His

Majesty..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debates on the

regency

{A.D. 1787}

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 23rd of January. During the preceding year

Fredrick the Great passed off the stage of life, having previously

involved the French and English governments in disagreements, concerning

the troubles which still existed in the Netherlands. No mention was

made of these disagreements and troubles in the king’s speech; but his

majesty dwelt much upon the treaty of navigation and commerce which, as

before related, had been concluded with the French monarch. Against this

treaty and its negociator, Mr. Eden, who had quitted their ranks, and

now supported Pitt, the Whig opposition had a rooted aversion; and

in the debate upon the address, Fox, whose professions of friendship

towards the French were proverbial, not only censured the arrangements,

but sounded the old trumpet of war and national hatred. He denounced

Louis XVI. as a dangerous monarch; dwelt on the ambitious designs and

encroaching spirit of France; blamed ministers for laying aside all

jealousy of that power; and asserted that the court of Versailles was at

that very moment labouring to counteract Pitt’s diplomatists. But though

Fox censured the French treaty, which formed the leading topic of the

king’s speech, he voted for the address, a circumstance for which

he received a little banter from the lips of the minister. Pitt

remarked:—“I am happy that, notwithstanding the vehemence with which

the right honourable gentleman has argued against the address, he is

ready to vote for it. I hope he will continue the same line of conduct

throughout the session; for, if he makes a practice of voting in direct

opposition to his own speeches and arguments, we may look for a greater

degree of unanimity than could otherwise be expected.”

DEBATE ON THE TREATY OF COMMERCE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

In his speech his majesty promised that a copy of the treaty of commerce

between England and France should be laid before the two houses; and

recommended the members to take measures for carrying it into effect. In

accordance with this promise and recommendation, on the 5th of February,

Pitt moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee, to

take into consideration that part of his majesty’s speech which related

to this treaty. This motion was carried; and on the 12th Pitt brought

the subject before the house, and moved these three resolutions:—That

all articles not enumerated and specified in the tariff should be

importable into this country, on terms as favourable to France as to the

most favoured of all other nations; that if any future treaty should be

made with any other foreign power, in any articles either mentioned or

not mentioned in the present treaty, France should be permitted to enjoy

the same terms as that power; and that all the articles specified in the

tariff should be admitted into this country on payment of the duties,

and with the stipulations stated in the treaty. In moving these

resolutions Pitt entered into an eloquent vindication of the measure,

enforcing its object, spirit, and provisions. He expressed his

abhorrence of the maxim, that any nation was destined to be the natural

and unalterable enemy of the other; it was a libel on the constitution

of political societies, and supposed the existence of infernal malignity

in human nature. In most of our wars, he said, France had been the

aggressor; but her assurances and frankness in the present negociations

were such as to entitle her to a return of confidence. Even from the

recent American war Pitt deduced arguments in favour of the treaty with

France; reflecting that though she had gained her object in dismembering

our empire, she had done it at an expense which had sunk herself in

extreme embarrassment, he thought that she was sincere in her wish for

the benefits of a mutual connexion. These benefits were represented by

opposition to preponderate on the side of France; but Pitt endeavoured

to show that if the scales were held with an even hand, the weightiest

would be on our side. He remarked, “It would be ridiculous to imagine

that the French would consent to yield advantages without any idea of

compensation. The treaty would undoubtedly benefit them, but it would be

still more profitable to us. France might gain, for her wines and other

articles, a large and opulent market; but we should procure the same to

a much greater extent for our manufactures. Both nations are prepared

and disposed for such a connexion. France, by the peculiar dispensation

of Providence, was gifted, perhaps, more than any country on earth,

with what made life desirable, in point of soil, climate, and natural

productions: Britain, on the contrary, possessing these advantages in

a less degree, had, from the happy freedom of its constitution and

the equal security of its laws, risen to a state of great commercial

grandeur, and acquired the ability of supplying France with the

artificial conveniences of life in return for her natural luxuries.”

Many objections were brought against this treaty by the opposition; Fox

distinguishing himself on this occasion by his hostility to its several

provisions. In his speech Fox re-asserted that France was the natural

and unalterable enemy of England; and that she ought to be considered,

not only as a rival, but as a nation with whom there ought never to be

any political or commercial connexion whatever. Fox, also, again spoke

of the restless ambition of France, and denounced the character of

the French monarch with great bitterness. Like Pitt, he alluded to the

American war; but it was only to heap coals of fire on the heads of

Louis XVI. and his subjects. He accused them of treachery and duplicity;

pointed out the mean way in which they had taken advantage of our

difficulties, and to revive the national animosity existing between the

two nations; and he reaffirmed that no doubt could be left on the

mind of any thinking man, but that the French nation was actuated by a

regular, fixed, and systematic enmity to this country: she might have

changed her policy, but there was no proof that she had changed her

sentiments. But though some plausible objections were suggested by

members of opposition against this measure, the only topic on which they

insisted with any advantage, and, in truth, the only real difficulty

respecting the execution of the treaty, arose from its inconsistency

with the celebrated Methuen treaty, concluded between Great Britain and

Portugal, by which the duties of Portuguese wines imported into England

were in future to be only two-thirds of those imported from France or

any other country. This point, however, was conceded by France during

the progress of the measure, the duty on French wines being lowered to

that existing on the wines of Portugal, which latter it became necessary

to reduce. After several discussions, in which some young members

distinguished themselves, the measure received the concurrence and

sanction of parliament. On the 8th of March both houses presented a

joint address to his majesty, for concluding a treaty calculated to

promote a beneficial intercourse between the two countries, as well as

the permanent blessings of peace. On the whole, the measure tended

to increase Pitt’s popularity; many great commercial towns, which had

hitherto been hostile to him, declared their entire approval of the

treaty, and expressed a conviction that he was seeking the good of his

country.

PITT’S PLAN OF FINANCIAL REFORM.

Encouraged by his success and increased popularity, on the 26th of

February, Pitt introduced a plan for consolidating the various duties

upon articles in the customs and excise, so as to convert them into

single duties upon each article, and thereby get rid of multiplied

grievances to the people, and of a perplexing confusion of accounts, and

wasting expenses of collection to the government, an operation by which

the revenue would gain about £20,000 per annum. At the same time

Pitt proposed to lower the duties on foreign spirits, with a view of

annihilating the smuggling trade, which he stated amounted to 4,000,000

of gallons annually; whilst that which was legally imported and paid

duty did not exceed the sixth part of that quantity. The whole of Pitt’s

plan obtained a large majority in both houses; the leading members of

opposition expressing their approbation of it, as well as the clearness

and perspicuity with which it had been unfolded. On a subsequent day,

the 29th of April, when Pitt opened his budget, he informed the house

that the state of the revenue would enable him to provide for all

services of the current year, and apply the stated surplus to a

sinking-fund, without the necessity of any loan or new tax. Fox and

Sheridan contended that the finances were not in so prosperous a

condition as he had represented; and after specifying certain supposed

errors and fallacies, they called on the minister to supply the alleged

deficiency by the imposition of new taxes. Pitt, however, defended

his own estimates; contending that it was his duty to render, by every

possible means, the taxes already established more productive, rather

than increase the burdens of the people. In following out this judicious

line of policy, he afterwards proposed a measure for enabling the board

of treasury to divide the country into districts, and to farm the duty

on post-horses, the greater part of which was now lost to the exchequer

by collusion between innkeepers and collectors. To make it certain that

the revenue would not suffer by this experiment, he suggested that the

tax for each district should be put up at the highest point it had

ever reached. This was opposed as contrary to the principles of the

constitution, and as tending to oppression, like that exercised in

France, where the taxes were generally farmed. Pitt, however, defended

the measure by the analogy of turnpike-tolls and cross-posts, and by

showing that the oppression alluded to arose, not from the system of

farming, but from an arbitrary form of government, which naturally led

to oppressive modes of collection. The bill passed the commons by a

large majority, and was carried in the upper house without a division.

MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS.

Great exertions had recently been made by the Protestant dissenters,

to show the public the injustice of that policy which restricted

eligibility to office by a religious test. Pamphlets had been written by

able pens, and when it was found that they had produced their intended

effect, delegates were appointed to arrange a plan, and it was

determined to bring the subject before parliament. The dissenters,

moreover, thought the present a favourable opportunity for seeking

relief from their disabilities, because in the late general election

they had, as a body, warmly espoused the ministerial cause. On the 28th

of March, therefore, Mr. Beaufoy, member for Great Yarmouth, himself a

dissenter, and a friend of the minister, made a motion for taking into

consideration the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, as things

grievous to a large and respectable portion of Society. His general

arguments, with those of Fox, who ably supported the motion, were, that

the Test Act was not originally intended to operate against Protestant

Dissenters, but to prevent the intrigues and influence of the popish

party; that the dissenters deserved well of the nation, and especially

of his majesty’s family, of whom from the Revolution, they had been

the most zealous supporters; that every man having a right to judge for

himself in matters of religion, he ought not, on account of the exercise

of that right, to incur any punishment, or be branded with any marks of

infamy; and that the exclusion from military service and civil trusts

was both a punishment and an opprobrious distinction. The house,

however, was not disposed to take a liberal view of this great question.

Lord North and Pitt, who took the lead in opposing the motion, argued,

that the acts in question were meant to include both Papist and

Protestant dissenters, and that the Corporation Act in particular was

professedly made against dissenters, and not against Papists, though it

eventually included both. The preservation of the Corporation and Test

Acts, they further argued, was essential to the preservation of the

constitution. Yet, by a strange anomaly of sentiment, Pitt declared, in

flattering and explicit terms, the esteem and regard which he felt for

the Protestant dissenters, who had ever approved themselves genuine and

zealous friends of constitutional liberty, of which their conduct during

the late political conflicts had given a memorable proof. Pitt, however,

was resolved to preserve the union, of church and state inviolate, and

it was on this ground chiefly that he opposed the motion, which was lost

on a division, by one hundred and seventy-eight against one hundred. The

dissenters were much disappointed and chagrined at the conduct of Pitt

on this occasion, for it was generally supposed by them, that if he

did not support them, he at least would not have discountenanced their

efforts. It is probable, however, that Pitt himself was in reality in

their favour, but at court a conscientious, and therefore insuperable

hostility existed against such a measure, and a determination on his

part to force it through parliament, would doubtless have led to his

dismissal. Moreover, as there were many important interests involved in

his administration, he may have been led to conclude that the time was

not yet arrived for so bold an enactment.

AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

On the 20th of April, Alderman Newnham rose to ask the chancellor of

the exchequer whether he intended to bring forward any proposition, for

extricating the Prince of Wales from his embarrassing situation; and

having received a reply in the negative, he gave notice of his intention

to bring the subject before the house on the 4th of May. On a

subsequent evening, Pitt requested the alderman to inform the house more

particularly of the nature of the motion he intended to make; at the

same time holding out a threat, apparently with the object of preventing

it being brought forward. Nothing daunted, however, on the 27th of

April, Alderman Newnham stated, that the motion he intended to make

would be to this effect:—“That an humble address be presented to his

majesty, praying him to take into consideration the present embarrassed

state of the affairs of the Prince of Wales, and to grant him such

relief as his royal wisdom should think fit, and that the house

would make good the same.” An interesting conversation followed this

announcement, in which Alderman Newnham was entreated to withdraw

his motion, as being pregnant with inconvenience and mischief. Pitt

observed, that by his perseverance he should be driven to the disclosure

of circumstances which he should have otherwise thought it his duty

to conceal; and Mr. Rolle, member for Devonshire, asserted that the

investigation of the question involved matter by which the constitution

both in church and state might be essentially affected. Fox, Sheridan,

and other members in the confidence of the prince, declared that he

wished for a full and impartial investigation of his conduct, and Mr.

Rolle was called upon to explain the extraordinary language he had used.

Rolle was silent on this occasion; and on the 30th of the month, when

Alderman Newnham again brought the subject before the house, by stating

that his royal highness wished him to persevere in his design, Fox

called the attention of the members to his mysterious declaration.

Looking Rolle full in the face, he said that he wished he had spoken

more explicitly; but he supposed he alluded to a certain low and

malicious rumour, a supposed marriage; a thing which not only had not

happened, but which was even impossible. Rolle acknowledged that his

allusions had reference to this rumour, and Fox then contradicted the

report in the most unqualified language: the fact, he said, not only

never could have happened legally, but never did happen in any way

whatsoever, and had, from the beginning, been a base and malicious

falsehood. Fox said, that he had direct authority from his royal

highness for his declaration; and then another of the prince’s friends

called upon Rolle to declare to the house that he was satisfied with

these explanations. This he refused to do, and Sheridan rose and

observed, that such a line of conduct was neither candid nor manly, and

that the house ought to come to a resolution, that it was seditious and

disloyal to propagate reports injurious to the character of the Prince

of Wales. At this point Pitt interposed, by declaring that Sheridan’s,

and not Rolle’s conduct was unparliamentary: adding, that those who

exhibited such warmth ought rather to acknowledge their obligation to

a gentleman who suggested a question which produced such an explicit

declaration on such an interesting subject; a declaration which must

give entire satisfaction not only to him, but to the whole house.

Alderman Newnham still persisted in his intention to bring forward his

motion, but Pitt seems to have considered that after such a declaration

he had no further pretext for refusing the relief which the prince

required. The result was, that an interview took place at Carlton-house

between the premier and the prince, and the motion was withdrawn.

Subsequently a message was delivered from the king to the house on

the subject, which was followed by an addition to his annual income

of £10,000 out of the civil list; an issue of £161,000 from the same

source, for the payment of his debts; and £20,000 more on account of the

works at Carlton-house. In making the declaration, however, which led

to this result, Fox appears to have gone beyond the strict limits of his

commission. Mrs. Fitzherbert continued to live with the prince, and she

alleged, and her friends also alleged for her, that he knew that

there had been a private marriage that was good and binding, _in foro

conscientiæ_, whatever it might be by act of parliament. The lady would

never speak to Fox again, and it is said, that she was only reconciled

to the prince by his assurance that something should be done or said

in parliament to save her reputation, by those very friends who had

emphatically denied the marriage. Something was said by Sheridan, but he

did not venture to unsay what had been said, or to affirm more than that

another person who had been alluded to was without reproach, and

was entitled to the truest and most general respect. With this Mrs.

Fitzherbert seems to have been satisfied; and the society in which she

moved, which was composed of persons that had great influence and almost

absolute dominion over the world of fashion, seems to have considered

her character and reputation as spotless as they were before. But thus

much is certain, that, if the prince and Mrs. Fitzherbert were married,

it was not legally. It is said that a ceremony was performed _more

Catholico_ in the town-house of her uncle, Lord Sefton; but if this

report is true, such a marriage was expressly declared to be null and

void by the law of the country. The terms of the Royal Marriage Act,

moreover, “is explicit against such a marriage, and it is a matter

of wonder how Mrs. Fitzherbert, who was not an inexperienced

boarding-school girl, but a woman of experience, having been twice

married before ever she met the prince, could have been led into the

belief that her union with the prince was legal. Neither a Catholic

priest, nor a Protestant clergyman, nor the functionary at Gretna Green,

could make such a union binding, for the laws of the country could not

be thus set aside. Conscience may have been satisfied, but after all,

the marriage—if marriage there was—was both irregular and illegal.

MOTION FOR INQUIRY INTO THE ABUSES OF THE POST-OFFICE.

On the 15th of May, Mr. Grey called the attention of the house to

certain abuses and corrupt practices in the post-office, which, he said,

had come to his knowledge, in consequence of the dismissal of his

noble relative, the Earl of Tankerville, from the office of

joint-postmaster-general. After stating some very extraordinary

circumstances which had been brought to light by this dismissal, and

charging Lord Carteret, the present postmaster-general, the Earl of

Tankerville’s late colleague in office, with sanctioning the abuses

which existed, and refusing to reform them, Grey moved, “that

a committee be appointed to inquire into certain abuses in the

post-office.” Pitt gave his assent to this motion, which was carried

without a division: a committee was appointed, and a report was brought

up from that committee on the 23rd of May. The report contained some

startling matter, and it was ordered to be taken into consideration on

the 28th of the above month. On that day Mr. Grey accordingly introduced

the consideration of the report, in doing which he strongly reprobated

the conduct of Lord Carteret, and blamed Pitt himself. He concluded his

speech with moving, ‘“That it appears to this house that great abuses

have prevailed in the post-office, and that, the same being made known

to his majesty’s ministers, it is their duty, without loss of time, to

make use of such measures as are in their power to reform them.” The

post-office was defended by Pitt and Lord Maitland, the latter of whom

moved, first, the previous question, and then that the report should be

put off for three months, both of which motions were carried without a

division. The debate on this question was not only remarkable for the

awkward disclosures concerning the practices in the post-office which

were thereby elicited, but for the personalities in which honourable

members indulged; especially Pitt, Fox, Grey, and Sheridan. The effect

produced out of doors by it were very prejudicial to Pitt and his party,

for the report of the committee went to show that great abuses existed,

and yet all inquiry was nipped in the bud by a ministerial majority.

To have sustained his character as a reformer of abuses, Pitt ought,

certainly, to have acted firmly in the matter; but instead of this he

chose to attribute the part which Mr. Grey had taken to his youth and

inexperience. Pitt himself was only twenty-eight years of age, and after

he sat down, Sheridan rose, and in a merry mood ridiculed the gravity

with which an unmerited reproof had been bestowed upon his friend,

by “the veteran statesman of four years’ experience; the Nestor of

twenty-eight!”

IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

During the previous debates, Burke had not been idle with his

impeachment of Hastings. On the first day of the session he gave notice

that he should resume proceedings on the 1st of February. It was not,

however, till the 7th of that month that any other direct charge was

entered into; and then Sheridan brought forward that which related to

the resumption of the jaghires, and the confiscation of the treasures

of the Begums, or Princesses of Oude, the mother and grandmother of the

reigning nabob. Imperfect records of the brilliant speech which Sheridan

uttered on this occasion, and which occupied five hours in the delivery,

now remain, but of its force some faint idea may be formed, by the

following brief extract. The orator remarked:—“The conduct of Mr.

Hastings, respecting the Nabob and Begums of Oude, comprehends in it

every species of human offence. He has been guilty of rapacity, at

once violent and insatiable; of treachery, cool and premeditated; of

oppression, unprovoked; off barbarity, wanton and unmanly. So long since

as the year 1775, the Begum princess, wife of Sujah-ul-Dowla, wrote to

him in the following terms:—‘If it be your pleasure that the mother of

the late nabob, that myself, his other women, and his infant children,

should be reduced to a state of dishonour and distress, we must submit:

but if, on the contrary, you call to mind the friendship of the late

blessed nabob, you will exert yourself effectually in favour of us, who

are helpless.’ But inflamed by disappointment at Benares, he hastened

to the fortress of Chanar, to put in execution the atrocious design of

instigating the nabob, son of this princess, to matricide and plunder.

No sooner had Mr. Hastings determined to invade the substance of justice

than he resolved to avail himself of her judicial forms, and despatched

a messenger for the chief-justice of India to assist him in perpetrating

the violence which he meditated. Without a moment’s pause, or the shadow

of process instituted, sentence was pronounced; and thus at the same

time, when the sword of government was converted into an assassin’s

dagger, the pure ermine of justice was stained and soiled with the

basest contamination. It was clear to demonstration that the Begums were

not concerned in the insurrection of Benares. No: their treasures

were their treason. If the mind of Mr. Hastings were susceptible of

superstition, he might image the proud spirit of Sujah-ul-Dowla looking

down on the ruin and devastation of his family; beholding the palace

which he had adorned with the spoils of the devoted Rohillas, plundered

by his base and perfidious ally; and viewing the man whom on his

death-bed he had constituted the guardian of his wife, his mother, and

his family, forcibly exposing those dear relations, the objects of his

solemn trust, to the rigour of the merciless seasons, or the violence

of the more merciless soldiery. Such were the awful dispensations of

retributive justice. It was not given to that house to witness the

tremulous joys of the millions whom the vote of that night would save

from the cruelty of corrupted power. But the blessing of the people thus

delivered would not be dissipated in empty air. No: they would lift up

their prayers to heaven, in gratitude to the power, which, by

stretching its mighty arm across the deep, bad saved them from ruin and

destruction.” This subject was peculiarly favourable to a display of

that impassioned eloquence in which the orators of antiquity so much

excelled, when acting as public accusers; and it is universally agreed

that Sheridan’s speech was incomparably the best of its class that had

ever been delivered in the British senate. Its power was seen in its

effects. When the orator sat down, all, or nearly all in the house,

both members, peers, and strangers, joined in a tumult of applause,

and clapped their hands as though they were in a theatre. This was

exceedingly irregular and indecorous, but it shows that Sheridan had

enlisted the feelings of his audience on his side. So manifest were

the effects which it produced, that Sir William Dolben, a friend of

Hastings, foreseeing a conviction if the house divided in the midst of

such excitement, moved that there should be an adjournment. Pitt was in

favour of this motion; but Fox, who wished for a division as much as Sir

William Dolben feared it, objected, and reminded gentlemen that it was

still “only midnight.” He remarked:—“It is obvious that the speech just

delivered has made no ordinary impression; and I see no reason why we

may not come to the question. If any friend of Mr. Hastings should wish

to attempt effacing the impression, this appears to be the proper time

for doing it.” Major Scott, in reply, stated that he could convict

Sheridan of gross misrepresentation of facts, and professed his

willingness to proceed if it was the pleasure of the house; but Pitt

interposed, and an adjournment took place at one o’clock in the morning.

The debate was resumed on the morrow by Francis, the most bitter enemy

Hastings had in the house, and who heightened the picture which Sheridan

had so forcibly drawn. Major Scott replied, and used some powerful

arguments on behalf of the accused. The most powerful was that with

which he concluded his speech. He observed:—“One fact no man can doubt;

namely, that the sum procured from the princesses of Oude could not have

been raised from any other source. And, without that supply, we might

now have been debating here how Mr. Hastings should be impeached—not

for saving, but for losing India.” Scott’s speech made some impression

on the house, but it was of no avail, inasmuch as Sheridan had succeeded

in convincing Pitt that Hastings was guilty. Pitt said that he had

compared the charge minutely with the evidence; that he was ready to

concur with the motion; and that he thought himself bound to vote with

Sheridan. The conduct of Hastings in authorising the resumption of the

jaghires, and seizure of the treasures of the princesses was, in his

opinion, unjustifiable; and the crime was aggravated by making the son

the instrument of robbing his mother, and by refusing to revise his

proceedings, in obedience to the orders of the directors. Pitt’s

explicit declarations made conviction certain, and though some members

of administration looked blank and disappointed, upon a division

Sheridan’s proposition was carried by one hundred and seventy-five

against sixty-eight.

Some days were again employed in the examination of witnesses touching

affairs with the Nabob of Ferruckabad; after which, on the 2nd of

March, this fourth charge was opened by Mr. Pelham. In it Hastings was

accused of withdrawing his protection from that prince, in consequence

of having received a present of £100,000 from the Vizier of Oude; and

of being the primary cause of that cruel oppression, which the nabob

for many years had suffered from the vizier, under whom he held his

dominion. The debate on this subject was very dry, but it was rendered

remarkable by a new advocate of the accused, in the person of the

veteran sailor, Admiral Hood, who had maintained the honour of the

British flag in the late war. Hood argued that great allowance ought to

be made for persons in high and responsible situations; they frequently

finding themselves compelled to act in a manner not strictly consonant

with the rules of equity and justice. With honest simplicity Hood

illustrated his argument by his own delinquency. When in the West

Indies, he said, his fleet was in extreme distress for want of bread,

and he obtained a supply by resorting to means which the law did not

authorize. “Those acts,” he continued, “were indispensable to the

preservation of my ships and my men; yet, if the government had not

stood between me and legal prosecutions, I should in all probability

have been condemned to linger out the remainder of my days in prison.”

Hood said that he considered the eminent services and merits of Hastings

outweighed his errors and delinquencies, and expressed his fears lest

any censure or punishment of him, might operate as a check on the

exertions of future governors and commanders. He added:—“I am an old

man: at my time of life I can entertain no expectation of being again

employed on active foreign service; but I speak for those who come after

me. My regard for my country makes me anxious to prevent a precedent by

which all her services for the future would be greatly impeded; this I

am confident will be the effect of punishing any harsh and severe, but

perhaps necessary, stretches of power, which the saviour of India may

have been found to have committed.” It was thought that if Hood had

advocated the cause of Hastings at on earlier stage of the proceedings,

he might have stopped them with such arguments altogether; but, as it

was, it only served to draw declarations from Pitt which left Hastings

no other hope than that of an acquittal in Westminster-hall. Pitt said

that he should have given a silent vote on the question before the

house, but he felt himself called upon to answer the argument used, lest

the weight of his lordship’s authority on such subjects might mislead

the judgment of the committee. For himself he must ever prefer what was

right to what was expedient. At the same time Pitt admitted, that if a

servant of the public should carry his exertions beyond the strict line

of right, or even of necessity, all due merit should be allowed him,

and the abundance of his zeal should be allowed as an atonement for

the irregularity of his actions and the error of his judgment. But, he

asked, was the conduct of Hastings correspondent to such a principle?

Was the crime that day alleged against him justified by necessity? Was

it of such a size and complexion as could be justified by any necessity?

Wherever a departure was made from justice and right, it was not

sufficient to say that such a step was necessary; the party must prove

the necessity, and this, in his opinion, had not been done. With regard

to the merits of Hastings, he confessed, there had been a period

in which such an argument might have been urged with effect. At the

commencement of the proceedings, the house might have weighed his

crimes against his virtues, and considered whether the latter were

of sufficient excellence to counterbalance the former. Such a

consideration, however, could not with any propriety be entertained

after the inquiry had once been instituted: the committee were not then

required to determine on a general view of facts, the general merits

or demerits of the accused, but on the investigation of a particular

transaction, on the criminality or innocence of that single transaction.

Still Pitt admitted that there remained a stage, in which the merits of

the accused might and ought to be weighed against his failings; which

time, he said, was, when in case of conviction on the charges alleged

against him, he came to receive sentence. Pitt concluded by saying,

that, with respect to the particular charge under discussion, Hastings

had clearly convicted himself of criminality, and by contending that the

deed admitted of no plea of necessity. Upon a division the motion was

carried by a majority of one hundred and twelve against fifty.

The charge relating to abuses, for selfish purposes, in contracts and

salaries, was opened on the 15th of March, by Sir James Erskine, who

endeavoured to show that Hastings had made both corrupt and improvident

bargains for providing bullocks, elephants, &c.; that he had grossly

favoured individuals that were devoted to his will, and useful in his

designs, at the expense of the company; and that he had been guilty

of abuses in the opium contracts. As usual, Major Scott defended the

accused, and entered with great minuteness into the particulars of

the charge; but on a division the motion was carried by sixty against

twenty-six.

The affair relative to Fyzoola Khan, the Rohilla chief, who retained

possession of Rampore in Rohilicund, was brought forward on the 22nd of

March, by Mr. Wyndham. The eloquence and nice metaphysics of Wyndham’s

speech were much admired, but he evidently misstated some of the facts

and bearings of the case. Major Scott proved this to demonstration;

but on a division, the motion was carried by ninety-six against

thirty-seven.

The seventh charge, relating to the corrupt receiving of bribes and

presents, was opened by Mr. Sheridan on the 2nd of April. It was clear

that Hastings had been singularly indifferent as to riches for his

own use yet the orator imputed to him the grossest corruption and most

ravenous greed for money. He remarked:—“He is changeable in

every thing but corruption; there, and only there he is systematic,

methodical, immutable. His revenge is furious as a tempest, or a

tornado; but his corruption is a monsoon; a trade-wind, blowing

uniformly from one point of the compass, and wafting the wealth of India

to the same port, in one certain direction.” In his speech, however, in

indulging his wit and irony, Sheridan gave vent to some sallies, which

showed that he was convinced that Hastings had not received the presents

for himself, but for his employers. Describing the accommodating

morality of the court of directors, and their correspondence with

the governor-general, he remarked that it might be thus

condensed:—“Forasmuch as you have accepted presents, we highly

disapprove of your conduct; but inasmuch as you have applied them to the

credit side of our account, we exceedingly approve your conduct.” Major

Scott again defended Hastings; but on this occasion Lord Mulgrave and

Mr. William Grenvilie, who had before differed from Pitt, spoke very

strongly against the accused, and condemned his conduct as highly

criminal, and Scott himself conld not deny the facts alleged against

him. Many members, indeed, who had supported Hastings on the other

charges, voted against him in this, and on a division the motion was

carried by one hundred and sixty-five against fifty-four.

Though two charges remained to be discussed, the house now resumed, and

the report of the committee was brought up by the chairman. It was moved

that the report “be now read the first time;” but it was suggested by

Pitt that the charges considered should be referred to a committee, in

order that they might select the criminal matter out of them, and frame

it into articles of impeachment. Pitt suggested this plan, that he, with

other members, might be left to deliver their votes freely on the grand

question. He wished it to be understood, he said, that he only went to

a certain length, and that he could not join in a vote of impeachment,

which might seem to countenance the whole of each several accusation.

After some objections on the part of Fox, this suggestion was agreed

to, and the report was then turned over to a committee, for the purpose

which Pitt proposed. In the meantime, on the 19th of April, Francis

opened the eighth charge, which related to the management of the

revenues of Bengal. Much had been recently said of the personal

hostility which Francis entertained towards Hastings, and he commenced

his speech by disclaiming such a feeling, and by asserting that his

animosities were all of a public, and not of a private nature; after

which he entered into an elaborate discussion of the charge, enumerating

the different modes which Hastings had adopted of managing the revenues

in question. Major Scott replied to Francis, and on this occasion Pitt

defended the accused; but upon a division the motion was carried

by seventy-one against fifty-five. The committee appointed to frame

articles of impeachment from the first seven resolutions of the house

were...... Burke, Fox, Sheridan, Sir James Erskine, T. Pelliam, Wyndham,

St. John, J. Ansturther, Welbore Ellis, Michael Angelo Taylor, W. Adam,

Sir Grey Cooper, Philip Francis, F. Montague, Mr. Grey, Sir Gilbert

Elliot, Dudley Long, Lord Maitland, Colonel North, and General Burgoyne.

On the 25th of April, Burke, as chairman of this committe, presented six

articles of impeachment, which were forthwith read for the first time,

and ordered to be printed, and to be taken into consideration on the

9th of May. On that day, accordingly, it was moved that the articles of

impeachment should be read a second time, which motion gave rise to a

long debate. Hastings was again warmly defended by Lord Hood, who went

over his previous arguments, and implored the house to recollect that

whatever errors the accused had committed, he had, notwithstanding,

saved the most valuable possessions of the British empire. On this

occasion, also, Hastings was defended by Wilkes, who had almost veered

round to the opposite point of the political compass from that at which

he had started in early life, and who made one of the most effective

speeches that had been delivered on the subject. Wilkes moved an

amendment that the report should be read a second time that day three

months; and he was followed and supported by Nathaniel Smith, chief

secretary to the court of directors, Alderman Thompson, and Islay

Campbell, lord advocate, the latter of whom reviewed the whole subject,

both as a lawyer and a statesman. Other members, also, expressed their

dissent to an impeachment; and Mr. Burgess produced an address, just

received from the British officers now commanding in India, in which

they all bore testimony to the excellent character, high abilities, and

important services of the late governor-general. All the exertions of

the friends of Hastings, however, proved unavailing. At a late hour Pitt

delivered his authoritative opinion; and he having declared that it was

impossible for him to vote against the motion, and that the house could

no otherwise consult its own honour, its duty to the country, and the

ends of public justice than by sending the impeachment to the lords;

the motion was carried by a majority of one hundred and seventy-five to

eighty-nine. The first article was then read, and agreed to without a

division, and the rest were all passed with some trifling amendments

on the following day. Burke then rose and moved, “that Warren Hastings,

Esq., be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors upon the said

articles.” This, after some observations made by Mr. Sumner—who had

been in the company’s service in India—complaining of the virulence

with which the house prosecuted Hastings, was carried without a

division; and Mr. F. Montague, one of the committee of managers, next

moved, “that Mr. Burke, in the name of the house of commons, and of all

the commons of Great Britain, do go to the bar of the house of lords,

and impeach Warren Hastings, Esq., late Governor-general of Bengal, of

high crimes and misdemeanors, and do acquaint the lords that the commons

will, with all convenient speed, exhibit articles against him, and make

good the same.” This motion was also agreed to without a division, and

Burke forthwith performed his commission; and on the next day, the 11th

of May, he reported to the house what he had done, and proposed that

Messrs. Wallis and Troward should be retained, to act as solicitors for

the impeachment on the part of the commons. Nothing further was done

till the 14th of May, when Burke brought forward the last charge, in

which he accused Hastings of being the cause of all the distresses which

had afflicted the province of Oude, a charge that was voted unanimously.

It was expected that Burke would rest here for the present session; but

on the 21st he moved, “that Warren Hastings, Esq., be taken into the

custody of the sergeant-at-arms of this house.” This was agreed to and

done; and the sergeant-at-arms delivered him into the custody of the

gentleman-usher of the black rod, by whom he was conducted to the bar

of the lords. On the motion of the lord chancellor, however, he was

admitted to bail—himself in £20,000, and two sureties, Mr. Sullivan and

Mr. Sumner, in £10,000 each—and he was ordered to deliver in an answer

to the articles of impeachment in one month from that time, or upon

the second day of the next session of parliament. On the same day, the

seventh article of impeachment being presented to the house by Burke,

was ordered to be carried up to the lords; and on the 23rd, thirteen

more articles were presented to the commons, which were subsequently

carried to the upper house.

{GEORGE III. 1787–1789}

PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

The session was closed on the 30th of May, when the king, in his speech,

commended the measures taken by parliament respecting the reduction of

the national debt, and the treaty of navigation and commerce with the

most christian king. His majesty spoke of the general tranquillity of

Europe; but lamented the unhappy dissensions which prevailed in the

United Provinces.

CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

At this time the attention of government was particularly called to

the troubled state of Holland. The dissensions which had long subsisted

between the stadtholder and the states had arisen to an alarming height,

and demanded the interposition of foreign powers. The French were

favourable to the States of Holland; but, on the other hand, the

cause of the stadtholder was warmly espoused by the King of Prussia in

conjunction with Great Britain. Frequent skirmishes took place between

the Orangists and the democrats ef Utrecht; and in the midst of these

contests, the Princess of Orange, who had more courage than her husband,

the stadtholder, set eff from Nimeguen for the Hague, accompanied

by only a few domestics, with a view of negociating with the

States-general. It is thought that the King of Prussia recommended

this journey, with a view of drawing from it some plausible ground of

interfering in behalf of the House of Orange, and if he did, it fully

answered his purpose. The princess, who was of the royal house of

Prussia, advanced as far as Schoonhoven where she was surrounded by a

party of armed burghers, who conducted her to a small town, there

to await the further will of those who governed the democrats.

Commissioners soon arrived from head-quarters; and they not only refused

her permission to proceed to the Hague, but conducted her back to

Schoonhoven as a prisoner. She remained there two nights and a day,

when, after experiencing insolent treatment from the soldiers who had

her in custody, she was directed to return to Nimeguen. While a prisoner

the princess had written letters to her brother, the King of Prussia;

and on hearing of the insult offered to her, his rage knew no bounds.

He insisted that immediate satisfaction should be made, and exemplary

punishment inflicted on those who had committed the outrage; declaring

at the same time, in some public manifestoes, that this cause was

in itself sufficient to justify an armed intervention. The States of

Holland, however, cherishing a hope that the French, who had led them

on, would not abandon their cause, passed a resolution, justifying

and approving the conduct of their commissioners in the arrest of the

Princess of Orange; and plainly told Frederic William, in their reply to

his demand, that the object of the princess in going to the Hague was

to create a civil war, and that there had not been any real insult or

injury. At the same time the States-general acknowledged the justice of

the King of Prussia’s complaint, and stated that they had made repeated

applications to the States of Holland upon the subject, but which had

been disregarded. Still determined upon obtaining satisfaction, Fredric

William, by his ambassador at the Hague, now demanded that the States of

Holland should write a letter of apology to the princess; should punish,

at her requisition, those who had been guilty of the offences offered to

her august person; should declare that their suspicions about her object

in going to the Hague were unfounded; should revoke the resolutions

which they had voted; and should accompany this revocation of the

resolutions with an invitation of her royal highness to come to the

Hague, for the purpose of entering into negociations in the name of the

stadtholder, her husband, for the adjustment of all differences. The

States of Holland were not in a condition to withstand a Prussian army,

but still hoping for aid from the court of Versailles, they refused to

accede to these humiliating terms, and issued their orders for laying

the country under water, so soon as any Prussian troops should make

their appearance on the frontiers. Thus braved, the king of Prussia

issued his mandate for war with the refractory states. And in this he

was countenanced by the English government. Although nothing at this

time could have been less agreeable to Pitt than the prospect of a war,

his heart being set on economical reforms and financial arrangements,

yet the reduction of the United Provinces to a state of dependence on

France, as was menaced by the French court, was not to be endured, and

he therefore entered cordially into the policy of the Prussian monarch.

As the friends of the house of Orange were in want of money, Pitt

supplied them with a loan, without the authority of parliament; and he

offered to the States-general, through our ambassador at the Hague,

the mediation of the British government, for the restoration of their

legitimate government under the authority of the stadtholder. But Pitt’s

offers of mediation were rejected, and the oligarchical party applied

for assistance to France. The court of Versailles made a regular

notification to that of St. James’s of its intention to aid the

States-general, and the British minister replied that in such a case

England would take an active part in favour of the stadtholder. Pitt,

indeed, engaged the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel to furnish 12,000 troops,

if they should be required, and at the same time sent dispatches, both

by sea and land, to Bengal and Madras, directing the governors of those

provinces, in case of war, to attack the French possessions in India

and to seize the Dutch settlements in the name of the stadtholder. His

prompt measures had the effect of overawing the court of Versailles, and

being likewise distracted by its own financial embarrassments, it was

under the mortifying necessity of abandoning those designs on the United

Provinces, which had long been among its most cherished projects. In the

meantime, on the 13th of September, the Duke of Brunswick, who commanded

the Prussian forces in the contiguous duchy of Cleves, entered Holland

at the head of 20,000 troops. The Dutch had boldly defied the King of

Prussia, but their consternation at this event was extreme, and the

country seemed everywhere unprepared for resistance. Utrecht surrendered

to the Duke almost as soon as summoned; Gorcum, Dordt, Schoonhoven, and

other towns in his route, tamely submitted to him; and Amsterdam,

which alone made any show of resistance, after a fortnight’s siege,

was captured. So rapid were his successes, that the proud republic of

Holland, which had maintained a contest of eighty years against the

power of Spain, and which repulsed the attacks of Louis XIV., when in

the zenith of his glory, was in the course of one month overrun by the

troops of the conqueror. The result was, that the stadtholder was not

only reinstated in his former privileges, but gratified with new, and

that the ancient forms of government were re-established. Tranquillity

being restored, the Duke of Brunswick withdrew the main body of his

forces from Holland, leaving 4,000 only for the security of peace,

and the protection of the stadtholder. About the same time an amicable

arrangement was effected between the courts of England and France, by

which it was agreed to discontinue warlike preparations on both sides,

and to place the navy of each kingdom on the peace establishment. War,

therefore, was averted; Pitt was left to pursue his measures of reform

undisturbed, and the court of Versailles to consider its financial

embarrassments. But in Holland this triumph of the Orangists did not put

an end to the disaffection that prevailed throughout the country; on

the contrary, it facilitated the conquest of the United Provinces by the

revolutionary army of France.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Notwithstanding the affairs on the continent were brought to a happy

termination, it was deemed expedient to re-assemble parliament much

earlier than had been usual for some months past. It met on the 27th of

November, and the speech from the throne expressed great satisfaction

that the disputes in the United Provinces, which not only threatened

their constitution but affected the security and interests of the

British dominions, had been so happily arranged. His majesty entered

into a detail of the negociations which had taken place; after which

he made some remarks on the flourishing state of the revenue, and the

advantages that might be expected from the continuance of peace. The

addresses were agreed to _nem. con._, in both houses. Fox acknowledged

that if it were possible for him on the present occasion to refuse his

concurrence with the sentiments conveyed by his majesty’s speech, or

to oppose the motion, he should commit an outrage against all those

principles and opinions by which his political career had been uniformly

marked. Fox also expressed his warmest approbation of the energetic

conduct of ministers in preventing France from interfering in the

affairs of Holland, and said, that it was his unalterable opinion, that

this country ought, whenever occasion required, to take a vigorous part

in preserving the balance of power in Europe. Yet, though Fox might be

sincere when he uttered these sentiments, he soon showed that he was

still as hostile as ever to ministers. Two nights after he moved for an

address to his majesty, that he would direct copies, or extracts from

any notification made by the court of France of the intention of the

most Christian king to interfere in the affairs of Holland, to be laid

before the house; and he now contended that ministers had incurred

unnecessary expenses, as the King of France never had any intention of

an armed interference. This motion was negatived without a division, but

on the 5th of December, when Pitt moved that a sum not exceeding £36,093

should be granted to the Prince of Hesse Cassel for the year 1788, Fox

again cavilled, by insisting that further information was necessary,

and that it was essential to show how these Hessian troops were to be

employed. Burke showed himself more noble than his friend Fox on this

occasion, for though he expressed a hope that no notion was entertained

of introducing foreign troops into this island, he made no strong

objection to the subsidy proposed, and he warmly commended the measures

which had been pursued with respect to Holland, and congratulated

ministers on their having renewed our connexions with that country.

Pitt’s motion was agreed to unanimously. On the 10th of December a long

debate took place on the subject of an augmentation of forces, which

was proposed by the secretary-at-war, but the views of ministers were

adopted by a large majority, and 3064 additional land-troops were voted.

Money was also voted for erecting fortifications in some of the West

Indian islands, which had seriously felt the want of them during the

late war. These measures were followed by a debate on the numerous

promotions which had recently been made in the navy. Sixteen captains

had been created admirals during the summer, while a much greater

number had been passed over in silence and neglect. This excited great

discontent, and opposition endeavoured to show that great partiality had

been displayed, and a motion was made in the house of commons, “That the

house should resolve itself into a committee to inquire into the conduct

of the admiralty in the business of the promotion.” This motion was

negatived; but subsequently, after the Christmas recess, the subject

was renewed in both houses, in the course of the debates on which

the conduct of Lord Howe, the first lord of the admiralty, became

the subject of severe censure, and he resigned in disgust both with

ministers and parliament. He was succeeded by Pitt’s elder brother, the

Earl of Chatham.

DISPUTES BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.

{A.D. 1788}

During the late disputes, when a rupture with. France was anticipated,

government had dispatched four regiments of soldiers for the protection

of our East India territories; and when the disputes were settled, it

was determined to render this addition to the military establishment a

permanent measure. The court of directors had acceded to the proposal

when originally made by the board of control, and had consented that

the troops should be conveyed in their ships and maintained at their

expense. When, however, an amicable arrangement had taken place with

France, and all danger was over, the directors changed their sentiments,

and contended that unless they themselves made the requisition, they

were by Lord North’s bill of 1781, relieved from the obligation-of

maintaining any troops that might be sent to India. In this opinion

several eminent lawyers, whom they had consulted, appeared to coincide.

On the other hand, Pitt, supported by the crown lawyers, asserted that

the act of 1784 transferred to the board of control all powers formerly

vested in the court of directors, relative to military and political

concerns, as well as the collection and application of the revenues. It

was contended on the part of government, indeed, that those parts of the

act of 1781 which were inconsistent with those of the act of 1784, were,

by the latter, virtually, if not actually repealed. Inconsequence of

these disputes, on the 25th of February Pitt moved for leave to bring in

a bill for removing the doubts in question, and for declaring that the

intention of the legislature, in the act of 1784, was agreeable to the

construction put upon it by the board of control. In support of his

motion Pitt said, that “in his mind nothing could be more clear than

that there was no one step that could have been taken previous to

passing the act of 1784, by the court of directors, touching the

military and political concerns of India, and also the collection,

management, and application of thes revenues of the territorial

possessions, that the commissioners of the board of control had not now

a right to take, by virtue of the powers and authority vested in them by

the act of 1784.” Dundas went even further than Pitt in support of the

motion, for he declared, that the board of control might, if it chose,

devote the whole revenue of India to the purpose of its defence, without

leaving the company a single rupee. Leave was given to bring in the

bill, without a division, but in all its stages, when introduced, it met

with a formidable opposition. Among the objections raised against it,

it was stated, that if passed, an army might be established in India

without the knowledge or consent of parliament. In order to obviate

this, Pitt proposed to add a clause, limiting the number of troops

for the payment of which the board of control were empowered to issue

orders. It was further urged as an objection, that the board might

apply the revenues of India for the creation of undue influence, to the

prejudice of the company’s interests, by the increase of salaries

or perquisites, to prevent which Pitt proposed two other clauses,

prohibiting gratuities, unless recommended by the directors; and

stopping all increase of salary, unless proposed by the directors, and

submitted to parliament. Pitt added a fourth clause, directing that

the directors should lay annually before Parliament an account of the

produce of all their revenues, and of all their disbursements. By these

clauses every real objection to the bill was obviated; but resistance

was still made to it, and the third reading was only carried by a

majority of fifty-four, which, at this period, was considered a very

small majority. The bill encountered a violent opposition in the house

of lords, also; but it was finally carried by a majority of

seventy-one against twenty-eight. Sixteen peers signed a long and

powerfully-expressed protest, representing the bill as friendly

to corrupt intrigue and cabal, hostile to all good government, and

abhorrent to the principles of our constitution.

PITT’S FINANCIAL MEASURES.

Pitt proposed his budget for the year, on the 6th of May. In doing so he

expressed great satisfaction at the flourishing state of our finances;

stating, that although some extraordinary expenses had been incurred

by the events of last year, yet, such was the improved condition of the

revenue, that it afforded means of providing for all the services which

had been voted, without any loan or new taxes, and without the slightest

interruption to the action of the sinking-fund. This he proved by a

statement of figures, and although Sheridan attempted to controvert

his statements, they could not be proved fallacious. Of all men in

the house, indeed, Sheridan was the most unfit to enter into financial

computations, for his genius rather lay in rhetoric than in figures. In

the supplies, 18,000 seamen were voted, and about 29,000 land-forces,

beside those that were on foreign service.

ADDITIONS MADE TO THE BILL FOR TRYING CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

During this session Mr. Grenville proposed and carried certain

amendments and additions to his father’s hill, for better regulating the

trial of controverted elections. The principal of these related to the

interruption of public business, by frivolous petitions, to obviate

which the election committee were empowered to adjudge that a party

prosecuting or supporting any such petition should pay reasonable costs.

By these amendments, also, a rule was laid down for re-establishing the

rights of election, and rendering them immutable.

CLAIMS OF THE AMERICAN ROYALISTS, ETC.

At the conclusion of peace, commissioners had been appointed to inquire

into the losses of the American loyalists, and during this session Pitt

submitted to the house a plan of liquidation. The loyalists were divided

by him into three classes: those who resided in America at the beginning

of the war, and from motives of duty to their sovereign had abandoned

their estates and property; those who at the commencement of the war

had been resident in England, and consequently had not been driven from

America; and those who having enjoyed places or exercised professions

in America, were compelled to leave that country by the war. Pitt rested

their claims on the ground of national generosity and compassion, rather

than of strict justice; and he proposed to pay to the two first classes

the whole of their claims, if they did not exceed £10,000 and beyond

that sum, to deduct from them a _per centage_, greater in the case of

the second class than in the first; and to the third class he proposed

to allow pensions, proportionate to the incomes which they had

relinquished; those whose incomes had not exceeded four hundred

pounds, receiving one half, by way of annuity. A sum amounting to

about £1,340,000 was voted for this purpose. Pitt also, with the

entire concurrence of the house, settled the case of the East Florida

claimants, who had been obliged to quit their habitations and property,

when their country was ceded to Spain. As their losses had arisen

from the voluntary act of government, Pitt thought that they should be

indemnified for their losses, and the sum of £113,952 was voted to

them. Another measure of mercy was a bill for granting to the Earl of

Newburgh, grandson of Charles Radcliffe, beheaded in 1746, for his

share in the rebellion of 1715, a clear rent-charge of £2,500 out of the

estates forfeited by the said Charles Radcliffe, and his brother James,

third Earl of Derwentwater, who forfeited his life on the same account

in 1710, which estates had been settled upon Greenwich Hospital. This

bill afforded great relief to an amiable and deserving nobleman.

THE SLAVE-TRADE QUESTION.

During the present reign several petitions had been presented to

parliament on the subject of the slave-trade; some praying for its total

abolition, and others for a more humane treatment of the African slaves

in the West Indian islands. The honour of first taking up this cause of

humanity in England, as well as in America, belongs to the Society of

Friends, a society which is ever ready to exert its influence for the

good of mankind. By degrees, however, the subject was taken up by men

of all creeds and classes; orators, poets, and prose writers exposed the

iniquity of trafficking in the bones and sinews of men, and by this time

a general feeling existed in favour of the oppressed sons of Africa. A

society was now formed, indeed, and a considerable sum of money raised,

with a view to collect information on the subject, and to support the

expense of an application to parliament for the total abolition of the

slave-trade; great exertions being necessary to insure success, because

it was foreseen that self-interest would oppose a powerful barrier to

the proposed emancipation. Among those who exerted themselves in this

holy cause were Mr. Thomas Clarkson, Mr. Ramsy, Mr. Thornton, Mr.

Granville Sharpe, Lady Middleton, and Mrs. Bouverie, the two former

as writers on the subject, and the remainder as labourers in procuring

converts and subscriptions in the principal towns of England. The great

champion of the cause, however, was the philanthropic and warm-hearted

Wilberforce, the bosom-friend of the premier. Mr. Wilberforce seems to

have been impressed with the idea that this work, with the reformation

of manners, were the two great objects of his life; and to the

suppression of the slave-trade he resolved to devote his whole

parliamentary career. As might be expected, Wilberforce endeavoured to

bring Pitt over to his cause; and he so far succeeded—his persuasions

also being aided by thirty petitions which had, during this session,

been laid on the table—as to induce the minister to issue a summons to

certain members of the privy-council, to examine, as a board of trade,

the state of our commercial intercourse with Africa. This privy-council

was soon engaged in hearing witnesses; some on the part of the African

merchants, who endeavoured to prove the necessity and humanity of the

slave-trade; and others on the part of the London committee, who as

earnestly laboured to show its abomination and iniquity. In the meantime

Mr. Wilberforce undertook to bring forward a motion in the house of

commons on the subject; and as he was a member for one of the greatest

counties in the kingdom (Yorkshire) and an admirable speaker, his party

were sanguine as to his success. Before Wilberforce could carry out his

intentions, however, he fell ill, and was obliged to retire to Bath. The

question stood thus; when, on the 9th of May, Pitt, being solicited by

his friends, and by Granville Sharpe, and the London committe, moved the

following resolution:—“That this house will, early in the next session

of parliament, proceed to take into consideration the circumstances of

the slave-trade complained of in the petitions presented to the house,

and what may be fit to be done thereupon.” Pitt added, that before

the next session the inquiry instituted by the privy-council would be

brought to a conclusion, the result of which might facilitate their

investigation; and he pledged himself to submit the question to the

house, if his friend should still be unable to undertake the task. Burke

and Fox, in reply, expressed great concern at the delay, and severely

reprobated the inquiry carried on before the privy-council, contending

that it ought to have taken place before the house, whose duty it was

rather to advise the king than to ask or wait for his advice. Both

declared that they were willing and prepared to have taken up the

question themselves; and stated that they had given way to Wilberforce

from deference to his abilities and known humanity, and on account

of the influence he possessed with Pitt and the rest of the ministry.

Pitt’s motion was carried unanimously; but Sir William Dolben, in the

course of the debate, urged that the sufferings of slaves on their

voyage from Africa to the West Indies required immediate attention; and

on the 21st of May he moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better

regulation of their transportation. The picture which Sir William Dolben

drew of the sufferings of the slaves on ship-board forcibly exhibited

the horrid nature of the traffic. He represented them as chained

together hand and foot, with only a space of five feet and a half in

length, and sixteen inches in breadth, allotted for each slave; and

being thus crammed together, putrid disorders and other dangerous

diseases were generated, so that when the overseers came in the morning

to examine the freight of human misery, he had to unchain the carcases

of the dead from the living. To prevent this, Sir William proposed that

no ship should be allowed to carry more than one slave to each ton of

her burthen or register, or that a ship of three hundred tons

should carry as many slaves and no more. This was, in point of fact,

legislating for the slave-owners, inasmuch as the regulations would have

the effect of decreasing the rate of mortality; yet as blind to their

own interest as they were hardened in cruelty, petitions were presented

against the proposed measure by the merchants of Liverpool, Bristol, and

London, who stated that it would inflict upon themselves great injuries.

They prayed to be heard at the bar of the house, which prayer was

granted; but the facts reluctantly drawn from those who were brought

forward in support of the present system, were so decisive against it,

that the friends of the bill declined calling any counter-evidence.

Indignant at the disclosures which were made, indeed. Pitt proposed

a clause, rendering every slave-ship which had already sailed from

England, subject to the regulations of the bill; and stated that he

should think it proper to despatch a quick-sailing vessel, with copies

of the act, to the coast of Africa, that they might not have a plea of

ignorance to offer for the infringement of its rules. At the same time

Pitt said, he trusted the house would make compensation to the merchants

who might receive any pecuniary loss by the bill; an object which he

thought was of no consideration when the interests of humanity were

so intimately concerned. Pitt also proposed another clause, granting

certain bounties to owners and surgeons of ships in which the mortality

should not exceed two or three during the voyage; a clause which was

intended to excite greater attention to the preservation of the slaves.

With these additions the bill was carried through the commons in all its

stages by considerable majorities. It also passed the lords; but it

was there strenuously opposed by Admiral Lord Rodney, Lord Chancellor

Thurlow, Lord Sidney, and the Duke of Chandos. The bill, which was

to continue in force till August, 1783, by which time it was hoped

something more would be done in favour of the slaves, received the royal

assent on the 11th of July. The triumph served as an encouragement to

the philanthropists to persevere in the cause of humanity; and from this

time the number of their converts and their means daily increased.

{GEORGE III. 1787–1789}

CHARGE AGAINST SIR ELIJAH IMPEY.

Early in this session it was determined to impeach Sir Elijah Impey,

chief-justice of the supreme court established at Calcutta, by the

Regulating Act of 1773, Six articles of impeachment were accordingly

exhibited to the house by Sir Gilbert Elliot, who supported them by a

long and impressive speech, in which he professed to describe the career

of the accused from his first arrival at Calcutta, down to his recall

by a resolution of the house of commons. The articles which he produced

related to the trial and execution of Nuncomar; to the conduct of Impey

in a cause called the Patna cause; to an extension of jurisdiction,

illegally and oppressively, beyond the intention of the act and charter;

to the Cossijurah cause, in which this extension of jurisdiction had

been carried out with great violence; to the acceptance of the office of

judge of the Sudder Dewannee Adaulut, which was affirmed to be contrary

to law, repugnant to the spirit and act of the charter, and subversive

of all its material purposes; and to the affairs in Oude and Benares,

where it was declared the chief-justice became the agent and tool of

Hastings. At the suggestion of Pitt, these charges were ordered to be

printed, and then referred to a committee of the whole house; which

committee was to take them into consideration on the 4th of February.

When that day arrived, a petition was presented from Sir Elijah Impey,

praying to be heard in answer to the charges, before the house proceeded

any further; and the prayer being granted, he was called to the bar

for that purpose. His defence was very long and conducted with great

ability, embracing every point on which he was charged. It produced a

deep and lasting impression on the house, and Pitt was heard to declare

that had he been placed in the same situation, he could not say but that

he should have acted precisely as the accused had done. It was evident

that the prosecution would soon be dropped, and it was rendered still

more clear by the evidence taken at the bar of the house. This evidence

was all taken by the 28th of April, on which clay Sir Gilbert Elliot

began his reply to the defence, which was not finished before the 9th of

May. Sir Gilbert moved, in conclusion, a resolution importing that the

first charge had been made good, which was supported by Fox, Burke,

and Colonel Fuliarton, and controverted by Sir Richard Sutton, Mr. D.

Pulteney, the attorney and solicitor-general, and the chancellor of

the exchequer. Upon a division, the motion was lost by a majority

of seventy-three against fifty-five; and on the 27th of May, the day

appointed for the committee to sit again, upon the usual motion that the

speaker do now leave the chair, it was opposed by the attorney-general,

and negatived without a division; and the further consideration of the

charges was adjourned to that day three months. The prosecution of Sir

Elijah Impey was now closed, for the other charges were never taken into

consideration.

IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

In the meantime the impeachment of Hastings had been carried on with

great activity. In the early part of this session the commons had

appointed a committee of management for his impeachment, and on the 13th

of February his trial commenced with every solemnity that the forms of

official dignity could impart. The trial took place in Westminster-hall,

which was fitted up with great magnificence for the occasion; benches,

stages, and boxes were erected, and the old grey walls were hung with

scarlet. All the magnates of the land were assembled at this trial;

either to take part in the proceedings, or to act as mere spectators.

The first two days of the trial were occupied in the arrangement of

ceremonials. When all were seated the sergeant-at-arms made

proclamation, and called upon Warren Hastings, Esquire, to appear in

court. Hastings advanced, accompanied by his two bail, Sullivan and

Sumner, and the sergeant-at-arms again made proclamation, that whereas

charges of high crimes and misdemeanors had been exhibited by the house

of commons, in the name of themselves, and of all the commons of Great

Britain, against Warren Hastings, Esq., all persons were to take notice

that he now stood upon his trial, that they might come forth and make

good the said charges. Hastings was then addressed by the Lord

Chancellor Thurlow in the following terms:—“Warren Hastings, you stand

at the bar of this court charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, a

copy of which has been delivered to you: you have been allowed counsel,

and a long time has been given you for your defence; but this is not to

be considered as a particular indulgence to you, as it arose from the

necessity of the case; the crimes with which you are charged being

stated to have been committed in a distant place. These charges contain

the most weighty allegations, and they come from the highest authority.

This circumstance, however, though it carries with it the most serious

importance, is not to prevent you from making your defence in a firm

and collected manner, in the confidence that, as a British subject, you

are entitled to, and will receive full justice from a British court.”

To this address Hastings replied:—“My lords, I am come to this high

tribunal equally impressed with a confidence in my own integrity and in

the justice of the court before which I stand.” After this the clerks

of the court proceeded to read the charges and answers, which occupied

the remainder of this day and the whole of the next; and when this was

completed, Burke, on the 15th of February, as the head of the committee

of managers, opened the impeachment by a speech which lasted four days.

He commenced by the following observations:—“My lords, the gentlemen

who have it in command to support this impeachment of Mr. Hastings,

have directed me to open the cause with a general view of the grounds

on which the commons have proceeded in their charge against him. They

have directed me to accompany this with another general view of the

extent, the magnitude, the nature, and the effect of the crimes which

they allege to have been committed. They have also directed me to give

an explanation of such circumstances preceding those crimes, or

concomitant with them, as may tend to elucidate whatever is obscure in

the articles. To those they have wished me to add a few illustrative

remarks on the laws, customs, opinions, and manners of the people who

are the objects of the crimes which we charge on Mr. Hastings.” In

following out the course prescribed him, Burke in turns charmed,

excited, and terrified his audience, and produced all the effects

attributed to the most successful orators in the days of antiquity. His

appeals to the feelings and passions of his auditory were much too

frequent, especially as those parts of his speech were derived from the

tales of the enemies of Hastings; tales that were amplified and

exaggerated, either by private malevolence or by oriental hyperbole.

Apart from this grand error, however, Burke’s speech was one of the

finest that was ever delivered in the English language. Parts of it

were “soberly sublime,” exhibiting a wonderful range of knowledge, a

high statesman-like philosophy, and a fine spirit of Christian

philanthropy. His arguments were enforced with great acuteness, and

were so powerful as almost to convince Hastings himself that he was a

guilty man. “For half an hour,” said the accused, “I looked up at the

orator in a reverie of wonder; and, during that space, I actually felt

myself the most culpable man on earth; but I recurred to my own bosom,

and there found a consciousness that consoled me under all I heard and

all I suffered.” The excitement which was produced by Burke’s speech

operated upon all that heard him; ladies fainted in the galleries, and

the inflexible face of the Lord Chancellor Thurlow was several times

seen to quiver with emotion. In pronouncing his preoration on the

fourth day, the orator raised his voice to such a pitch as seemed to

shake the walls and roof of Westminster Hall. He exclaimed,—“Therefore

it is with confidence that, ordered by the commons, I impeach Warren

Hastings Esq., of high crimes and misdemeanors. I impeach him in the

name of the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, whose

trust he has betrayed. I impeach him in the name of all the commons of

Great Britain, whose national character he has dishonoured. I impeach

him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights, and

liberties he has subverted, whose properties he has destroyed, whose

country he has laid waste and desolate. I impeach him in the name of

human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured, and

oppressed in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition

of life. And I conjure this high and sacred court to let not these

pleadings be heard in vain.” As soon as the agitation, which Burke’s

speech and accusation gave rise to, had subsided, a debate ensued

respecting the manner in which the defence should be conducted. It was

finally decided, in opposition to the wish of the managing committee

and the opinions of their counsel, that, according to the usual

practice in trials, the prosecutor should complete his case before the

accused commenced his defence. Accordingly, Fox, after making some

complaints against this decision, opened the Benares charge down to the

expulsion of Cheyte Sing, which was followed up and completed by Mr.

Gray. After this the evidence was brought forward, and the whole was

summed up by Mr. Anstruther on the 11th of April. The court did not

meet again till the 15th of April; when Mr. Adam opened the next

charge, relating to the Begums of Oude, which was continued and

completed by Mr. Pelham. The evidence on this charge was summed up by

Sheridan; on which occasion he made another grand display, though, it

is said, not equal to that which he made on the same subject in the

house of commons. As on the former occasion, his speech abounded with

tropes and figures; and his performance attracted a fuller audience

than had yet assembled in the hall. It lasted three whole days; but

only a few fragments of his speech are extant, and scarcely any one of

those in existence convey any notion of the fascination which, it is

said, that his oratory exercised over those who heard him. One of the

most beautiful portions of his speech related to the correspondence of

the governor and his agent. It reads thus:—“When I see in many of these

letters the infirmities of age made a subject of mockery and ridicule;

when I see the feelings of a son treated by Mr. Middleton as puerile

and contemptible; when I see an order given from Mr. Hastings to harden

that son’s heart, and to choke the struggles of nature in his bosom;

when I see them pointing to the son’s name and to his standard, while

marching to oppress the mother, as to a banner that gives dignity—that

gives a holy sanction and reverence to their enterprise; when I see and

hear these things done; when I hear them brought into three deliberate

defences set up against the charges of the commons, my lords, I own I

grow puzzled and confounded, and almost begin to doubt whether, where

such a defence can be offered, it may not be tolerated. And yet, my

lords, how can I support the claim of filial love by argument? much

less the affections of a son to a mother, where love loses its awe, and

veneration is mixed with tenderness. What can I say on such a subject?

What can I do but repeat the ready truths which, with the quick impulse

of the mind, must spring to the lips of every man on such a theme?

Filial love! the moral of instinct, the sacrament of nature and duty,

or rather let me say, it is miscalled a duty, for it flows from the

heart without effort, and is its delight, its indulgence, its

enjoyment. It is guided, not by the slow dictates of reason; it awaits

not encouragement from reflection or from thought; it asks no aid of

memory; it is an innate, but active consciousness of having been the

object of a thousand tender solicitudes, a thousand waking, watchful

cares of meek anxiety and patient sacrifices, unremarked and unrequited

by the object; it is a gratitude founded on a conviction of

obligations, not remembered, but more binding because not

remembered—because conferred before the tender reason could

acknowledge, or the infant memory record them; a gratitude and

affection which no circumstances should subdue, and which few can

strengthen; a gratitude in which injury from the object, though it may

blend regret, should never breed resentment; an affection which can be

in creased only by the decay of those to whom we owe it, and which is

then most fervent, when the tremulous voice of age, resistless in its

feebleness, inquires for the natural protector of its cold decline. If

these are the general sentiments of man, what must be their

depravity—what must be their degeneracy—who can blot out and erase from

the bosom the virtue that is most deeply rooted in the human heart, and

twined, within the cords of life itself? Aliens from nature! Apostates

from humanity! And yet, if there be a crime more fell, more foul; if

there be anything worse than a wilful persecutor of his mother, it is

that of a deliberate instigator and abettor to the deed; this it is

that shocks, disgusts, and appals the mind more than the other; to

view, not a wilful parricide, but a parricide by compulsion; a

miserable wretch, not actuated by the stubborn evils of his own

worthless heart, not driven by the fury of his own distracted brain,

but lending his sacrilegious hand, without any malice of his own, to

answer the abandoned purposes of the human fiends that have subdued his

will. To condemn crimes like these we need not talk of laws or of human

rules; their foulness, their deformity does not depend on local

constitutions, on human institutes, or religious creeds; they are

crimes, and the persons who perpetrate them are monsters, who violate

the primitive condition on which the earth was given to man; they are

guilty by the general verdict of human-kind.” Sheridan concluded his

speech by an appeal to British justice, which, as it is preserved to

us, is a mere sonorous roll of words, with a common-place meaning;

after which he acted a stage-trick; as if fainting, he fell back into

the arms of his friend Burke.

This was the last charge against Hastings that came before the court in

Westminster Hall during the present session. In the house of commons,

however, there was much discussion concerning the money issued from the

exchequer, for the discharge of the expenses incurred in the

impeachment. Mr. Burgess moved that an account of all the money

expended should be laid before the house; and, though opposed by the

managing committee, who said they considered the motion as made merely

as an attempt by the friends of Hastings to vex and impede the

committee in the prosecution, it was carried, and an account of the

expenses was laid upon the table. But this account was incomplete; and

Mr. Burgess had to make three other motions before the particulars of

the expenditure were clearly brought before the house. In all these

motions he was supported by Pitt, who declared he thought it necessary

that the house should know how the money was spent, and have the power

of checking the expenditure if they thought it in any case unnecessary.

It seems to have been suspected that many men were making a profitable

affair of the impeachment; and it must be confessed that the conduct of

the managers, in resisting the inquiries, seemed to justify that

suspicion. Their grand argument against the motion was, that such a

measure as giving an account of the expenditure, was unprecedented, and

had never been attempted nor dreamed of in any great prosecution. They

stated that the charges already incurred in employing counsel were

remarkably moderate, and that the fees were, in fact, inadequate to the

services performed. They even argued, that if more money had been

spent, more good would have been done, as they could then have procured

“secret services,” which they thought very necessary in such a case.

These were unfortunate arguments, as they left an impression on the

minds of many, that some, at least, engaged in the prosecution for what

they could get by it. On the other hand, it is possible that some

members wished to impede the operations of the committee, and to favour

Hastings by cutting off, or, at least, greatly reducing their

resources. Even after all his motions were carried, Mr. Burgess

expressed a doubt whether the house had really authorised the managers

to employ counsel; whether there was any precedent for it; and whether

the assistance of counsel was necessary. Pitt did not go thus far; but

he questioned whether two civilians, besides ordinary counsel, were

required. The whole debate, indeed, seems to show that there was an

anxiety among certain members in the house to benefit Hastings, by

encouraging doubts and insinuations against his prosecutors; which

doubts and insinuations were the more regarded, because two of them, at

least—Fox and Sheridan—did not enjoy any high reputation as regards

money matters. It would have been very ungracious of the house,

however, if, after giving the managing committee a commission to

conduct the prosecution, it had left them to pay the expenses of that

prosecution out of their own pockets. This was not done; but the

discussions which took place on the subject of the expenditure had the

effect of keeping down the growth of the law expenses, by drawing

public attention to them, and by establishing the rule, that the

solicitors should continue to present, from time to time, an account of

all money spent in the prosecution. Had this rule not been laid down,

the cost of this prosecution would probably have been enormous; and, as

it was, they must have been great, for the expenses already amounted to

£4300, exclusive of the erections in and decorations of Westminster

Hall. The expenses which Hastings had incurred was much greater; and

yet of twenty charges only two had been heard; and he then had to make

his defence.

PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued on the 11th of July, by a speech from the

throne, in which his majesty complimented the two houses on their

attention and liberality. The king mentioned that the Emperor of Germany

had joined the Empress of Russia in a war against the sultan; and he

referred to treaties into which he had entered with the King of Prussia

and with the States-general of the United Provinces, which he trusted

would be productive of the happiest results both to England and to all

Europe.

CONTINENTAL ALLIANCES.

The treaties to which his majesty alluded had been concluded early in

this year. That between England and Holland embraced a mutual guarantee

of dominions; a security for the existing form of government in the

United Provinces; and regulations by which the commerce of each country

was placed on the footing of the most favoured nations. The treaty

between the kings of Great Britain and Prussia was one of defensive

alliance; in which, besides the usual articles of mutual agreement, the

contracting parties bound themselves to act at all times in concert,

for the maintenance of the security, independence, and government of

the United Provinces. The object of these treaties was not so much

to preserve the balance of power in Holland against the influence of

France, as to secure that country from any attempts which might be made

against it by the Emperor of Germany and the Empress of Russia, whose

forces were now banded together. It was supposed that the object of

the alliance of the Austrian and Russian courts was conquest and

aggrandizement; a supposition which seemed confirmed by their known

characters, and by the war which they were carrying on against the

Ottoman empire. From France, at this period, there was now nothing to

fear, for it was a house divided against itself, and was, therefore,

incapable of either disturbing the peace of her neighbours, or of

rendering them any assistance in case of attack from any other quarter.

But out of the weakness of France arose the necessity of opposing a

barrier against the dangerous alliance which had been formed between the

two imperial courts; for it was imagined, that if successful in their

war with the sultan, they would afterwards direct their hostile and

ambitious views to other parts of Europe.

DERANGEMENT OF HIS MAJESTY: DEBATES ON THE REGENCY.

When the king prorogued parliament he appeared to be in his usual good

state of health, but shortly after he became indisposed, and was advised

by his physicians to try the mineral waters of Cheltenham. During his

residence at Cheltenham his health greatly improved, but in the month

of August, when he returned to Windsor, his disorder took an unfortunate

turn, for symptoms of mental derangement appeared, which gradually

increased, till he was no longer capable of attending to public

business. His madness was also accompanied by a bilious fever, from

which, for several days, his life was despaired of, as well as his

reason. This event affected all classes, and caused great consternation

at court and in the cabinet; it also gave rise to intrigue and strife

among contending parties.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament stood prorogued to the 20th of November, and six days before,

circular letters were issued, requesting the attendance of members on

that day. The peers and members being assembled, the state of the king’s

health was formally notified to them, in the upper house by the lord

chancellor, and in the commons by Pitt. In both houses a motion of

adjournment to the 4th of December was made, in order to see whether his

majesty’s disorder was likely to be of long continuance, which motion

was carried _nem. con._

In the mean time the leaders of both parties busied themselves in

intrigue and deliberation. Neither party, however, were yet clear as to

the steps they should pursue, for the varying opinions of the physicians

were calculated to perplex their minds, rather than to serve as a guide

to their conduct. It was necessary that some decisive information should

be obtained before the meeting of parliament, and therefore, on the 3rd

of December, a privy-council was held at Whitehall, for the purpose of

examining the physicians. The result of the opinion of the physicians

was, that his majesty was incapable of attending to business; that,

judging from experience in similar cases, there was a fair prospect of

his recovery; but that the time when that event would take place was

uncertain. Parliament reassembled on the following day, when this

report was presented to the lords by Earl Camden, and to the commons by

Pitt. In both houses it was represented by ministers that the functions

of government were suspended; that in this dismembered state of the

legislature the right devolved on the two houses of parliament, to make

such provision as should be adequate to meet the case; but that it was

necessary, before any step could be taken in such a delicate business,

that the extent of the deficiency should be fully ascertained. It was

moved by Lord Camden in the lords, and by Pitt in the commons, that

the report should be taken into consideration on Monday, the 8th of

December, which was agreed to; but doubts were expressed in the commons,

whether the house could proceed upon a mere report, and whether they

ought not rather to examine the physicians themselves at their own bar,

or by means of a committee. Pitt replied, that the case required great

delicacy, and that the report of the physicians was made upon oath,

which the house of commons had not the power to administer. Fox agreed

with Pitt, in the propriety of proceeding with delicacy; but, he added,

“if delicacy and duty should happen to clash, the latter ought not to

be sacrificed to the former.” Nothing further, however, was said at this

time on the subject, and after deciding that the speaker was competent

to issue writs for new elections, to supply the places of some members

who had died during the recess, the house adjourned to the time above

mentioned.

About this time the royal family removed to Kew, for the greater

convenience of the king’s medical attendants, and as the malady

continued without abatement, the Rev. Dr. Willis, who had quitted his

clerical functions, and devoted himself with great success to the cure

of insanity, was called in to undertake the principal and constant

charge of his majesty. When parliament reassembled on the 8th of

December, Pitt related these circumstances, and conceiving that it would

materially serve his cause, he himself now moved for a committee to

examine the physicians who had attended the king during his illness.

This motion was carried without a division, and a committee of

twenty-one was appointed, Pitt, himself, being their chairman. A similar

motion was made and carried in the upper house, and a committee of peers

was appointed for the same purpose. The report of the committee was

presented by Pitt in the commons on the 10th of December, which was

favourable to the king’s ultimate recovery; and after it was ordered to

be printed, the premier, whose object it was to delay decision on

the subject of the regency, moved that another committee should be

appointed, to inspect the journals for precedents of such proceedings as

had been adopted in former instances, when the sovereign authority was

suspended by sickness, infirmity, or any other cause. This called

forth the opposition of Fox, who objected to the motion as nugatory and

productive of unnecessary delay. Pitt knew well, he said, that there

were no precedents which applied to the present case. He contended that

all that was requisite for their decision had been done by the report

just laid on the table; a report by which the incapacity of the

sovereign had been fully ascertained. Fox then advanced, as a

proposition deducible from the principles of the constitution and the

laws of hereditary succession, that whenever the sovereign was incapable

of exercising the functions of his high office, the heir-apparent, if

arrived at maturity, had as indisputable a claim to the exercise of the

executive authority, in the name and on the behalf of the sovereign,

during his incapacity, as in the case of his natural demise. In

advancing such a proposition as this Fox committed a great blunder, for

by it he became the advocate of prerogative, in opposition to the rights

of the people. Pitt instantly perceived his error, and he took the

utmost advantage of it, by taking up the cause which Fox had suddenly

deserted. With an appearance of patriotic indignation, Pitt declared

that the assertion which Fox had made was little short of treason

against the constitution; insisted that the heir-apparent had no more

right, in the case alleged, to the exercise of the executive power than

any other person in the realm; and asserted that it belonged to the

two remaining branches of the legislature to make such provision for

supplying the temporary deficiency as they should think proper. He

asked, when the regular exercise of the powers of government was from

any cause suspended, to whom could the right of providing a remedy for

the existing defect devolve, but to the people, from whom the powers of

government originated? Kings and princes, he said, derived their

power from the people; and to the people alone, by means of their

representatives, did it belong to decide in cases for which the

constitution had made no specific provisions. On these grounds Pitt

insisted that the Prince of Wales had no more right to supply the

existing deficiency than any other subject, though he admitted that it

was expedient for parliament to offer him the regency. Fox and Burke

replied to Pitt, but they were unable to refute his arguments, and his

motion was carried without a division, and a committee of twenty-one

was appointed to look for precedents, which all men knew were not to

be found. On the following day Lord Camden made a similar motion in the

lords, in doing which he strongly condemned the doctrine which Fox had

advanced, and contended, with Pitt, that the light and duty of naming

the regent, and limiting his power, belonged exclusively to the houses

of parliament. The motion of Fox was supported by Lords Loughborough,

Stormont, and Porchester, and controverted by Lord Stanhope and the lord

chancellor, the latter of whom declared that the doctrine was a new one

to him. Thurlow seems to have been induced to speak on this occasion,

in order to throw discredit on his rival, Lord Loughborough, who was a

friend of the Prince of Wales, and was looking for the chancellorship.

Recently the lord chancellor had been silent as a statue on the subject

in question, and from his conduct it appeared evident that he was

waiting to see how the malady of the monarch terminated, before he

decided upon what part he should take. It was more than suspected,

indeed, that Thurlow had, from the commencement of his majesty’s

illness, been in correspondence with the prince and his friends, while

at the council-table, and on the woolsack, he seemed to agree with his

colleagues in office.

The report of the committee appointed to search for precedents was

brought up and ordered to be printed, on the 12th of December. On this

occasion Fox, aware that his doctrine was repudiated by the house, and

by the nation at large, relinquished the idea of pressing the claims of

the prince as a right, and only expressed his anxiety to procure for him

a full enjoyment of royalty, under the appointment of the two houses.

He was still ready, he said, to maintain, that while parliament had the

right to determine on the incapacity, the heir-apparent, after such a

determination, had the right of government, so long as that incapacity

existed; but at the same time he remarked, as Pitt agreed with him that

under present circumstances the prince was the person who ought to be

invested with the regency, he thought it would be better to abstain from

any discussion of such nice and subtle distinctions. Fox concluded, by

expressing a hope that the chancellor of the exchequer would inform

the house what course he meant to pursue, and by suggesting that a

declaration or address should be sent to the prince from parliament,

stating the fact of his majesty’s present incapacity, and investing his

royal highness, during that incapacity, with the full exercise of regal

powers. In reply, Pitt declared that he still differed as much as ever

from Fox on the question of right: the Prince of Wales, he said, had no

right whatever to the regency. Upon this point they were at issue, nor

would he move a step further till the question was decided. Fox pressed

him to state what proposition he meant to make respecting the regency,

but he declared that he would not offer any point for discussion, until

the house knew whether they were sitting as judges, merely to pronounce

on the king’s incapacity, or as an assembly possessing a power of

deliberation, and capable of exercising their own discretion—whether

that which should be vested in the prince was a matter of adjudication

on their part, or a trust on behalf, and in the name of his majesty.

An attempt was made in the house of lords to turn Pitt aside from his

purpose, by recommending that all discussions on the rights of the

Prince of Wales should be avoided, but Pitt, aware that a great

constitutional question was involved in the subject, still persevered

in his determination. On the 16th of December, therefore, he moved

three resolutions, the object of which was to declare that his majesty

being-prevented by indisposition from public business, it was the right

and duty of the lords, spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great

Britain, to provide the means of supplying the defect of the personal

exercise of the royal authority. In the debates which followed these

resolutions both parties put forth their whole strength. There was

a motive for this on either side. The Whigs knew, that if their

adversaries triumphed, such restrictions would be laid on the power and

patronage of the regent, as would render it impossible for them to carry

on the administration, and would render all the business of government

unprofitable and uncertain; while, on the other hand, the Tories knew

that by their success they should secure the favour of the king more

firmly than ever, if he should be able to resume his functions. The

contest was a curious one, because parties had completely changed

opinions: the Whigs, those staunch advocates for the rights of the

parliament and the people, now clamoured for prerogative and the

hereditary rights of princes; and the Tories, those old sticklers

for prerogative and hereditary rights, now as loudly clamoured for the

rights of the parliament and the people. Pitt was endeavouring to show

that the assertion of the inherent rights of the Prince of Wales, was

one of those exploded ideas of indefeasible right which had fallen into

contempt, and Fox had to persuade the house that the primary axioms of

government and the abstract rights of the people were things unworthy

their notice. The propositions moved by Pitt were warmly supported by

the master of the rolls, the lord advocate of Scotland, the attorney

and solicitor general, and the solicitor general to the queen. They were

opposed by Lord North and Fox, the latter of whom combated the arguments

of his opponents with an earnestness worthy of a better cause: fighting

like a man whose very existence depended on the issue of the debate. Fox

himself seems to have felt that his cause was not a good one, for after

replying to the arguments adduced in favour of the propositions, by Pitt

and his supporters, and vindicating himself from the notion of being

influenced in his opinion by the favour of the prince, he made a

personal attack on the minister, accusing him with sacrificing the

principles of the constitution to his lust of power. Pitt replied to

this attack, and enforced his former arguments; after which a motion

made by Lord North for the speaker to leave the chair, was negatived by

a majority of two hundred and sixty-eight against two hundred and four,

and then the resolutions passed without a division. They were reported

on the 19th, when another stormy debate took place, and in the end

two amendments—one moved by Mr. Powys and one by Mr. Dempster—were

negatived without a division, and the two first resolutions were

received. Dempster moved an amendment on the third resolution, but as

the house was exhausted, the consideration of it was deferred till the

22nd of December, when it was negatived by two hundred and fifty-one

against one hundred and seventy-eight. The three resolutions were now

received, and ordered to be communicated to the lords at a conference,

wherein the commons were to desire their lordships’ concurrence in them.

This conference took place on the 23rd of December, and the lords agreed

to the resolutions, after two long debates and one division, in which

there was a majority of ninety-nine against sixty-six. Among the lords

no one more heartily concurred in these resolutions than Thurlow, who

seems to have been convinced at this time that it was his interest to

take a decided part with his colleagues. He had, in fact, been recently

assured by Willis and others of the king’s physicians, that his

majesty’s malady could not be of long duration, and that the king’s

temperate mode of living gave promise of health and long life. Thurlow

also seems to have been convinced that if the king did not recover, he

could place no permanent reliance on the Whigs, who were bound to prefer

his rival, Loughborough. Hence, my lord chancellor had broken off all

correspondence with the enemy, and when the questions involved in the

three resolutions were taken into consideration, he defended them with

all his might. As before stated, the resolutions were agreed to: a

committee was also appointed to acquaint the commons at a conference

that they concurred with them. A strong protest was entered and signed

by forty-eight peers, among whom were the Dukes of York and Cumberland.