Meanwhile the remonstrances of the American colonists had induced the
ministry to give up all the new taxes, with the exception of that on
tea, which it was determined to keep up, as an assertion of the right
of Parliament to tax the colonies. In America, this remaining tax
continued to excite as much discontent as the whole had formerly done,
for it was the principle of a right to impose taxes which they found
fault with, and not the amount of the tax itself. Their discontent
with the mother country was found to affect trade considerably, and
the British merchants were anxious to bring the dispute to a close.
The government was then induced to grant such a drawback from the
British duty on tea, as enabled the East India Company to offer the
article in America at a lower rate than formerly, so that the American
duty, which was only three pence per pound, did not affect the price.
It was never doubted that this expedient would satisfy the colonists,
and large shipments of tea were accordingly sent out from the British
ports. The principle of the right to tax still lurked, however under
the concession, and the result only showed how little the sentiments
of the Americans were understood at home.
The approach of the tea cargoes excited them in a manner totally
unlooked-for in Britain. At New York and Philadelphia, the cargoes
were forbidden to land; in Charleston, where they were permitted to
land, they were put into stores, and were prohibited from being sold.
In Boston harbor, a ship-load was seized and tossed into the sea. This
last act was resented by the passing of a bill in Parliament for
interdicting all commercial intercourse with the port of Boston, and
another for taking away the legislative assembly of the state of
Massachusetts. The former measure was easily obviated by local
arrangements; and in reference to the latter, a Congress of
representatives from the various States met at Philadelphia, in
September 1774, when it was asserted that the exclusive power of
legislation, in all cases of taxation and internal policy, resided in
the provincial legislatures. The same assembly denounced other
grievances, which have not here been particularly adverted to,
especially an act of the British legislature for trying Americans, for
treasonable practices, in England. The Congress also framed a covenant
of non-intercourse, by which the whole utility of the colonies to the
mother country, as objects of trading speculation, was at once laid
prostrate. The colonists still avowed a desire to be reconciled, on
the condition of a repeal of the obnoxious statutes. But the
government had now resolved to attempt the reduction of the colonists
by force of arms. Henceforth, every proposal from America was treated
with a haughty silence on the part of the British monarch and his
advisers.
The war opened in the summer of 1775, by skirmishes between the
British troops and armed provincials, for the possession of certain
magazines. At the beginning there seemed no hope of the contest being
protracted beyond one campaign. The population of the colonies was at
this time under three millions, and they were greatly inferior in
discipline and appointments to the British troops. They possessed,
however, an indomitable zeal in the cause they had agreed to defend,
and fought with the advantage of being in the country of their
friends. At Bunker’s Hill, near Boston (June 17, 1775), they had the
superiority in a well-contested fight with the British troops, of whom
between two and three hundred were killed. At the end of one year, the
British government was surprised to find that no progress had been
made towards a reduction of the Americans, and sent out an offer of
pardon to the colonists, on condition that they would lay down their
arms. This proposal only met with ridicule.
On the 4th of July 1776, the American Congress took the decisive step
of a declaration of their independence, embodying their sentiment in a
document remarkable for its pathos and solemnity. During the next two
campaigns, the slender forces of the new republic were hardly able
anywhere to face the large and well-appointed armies of Great Britain.
Much misery was endured by this hardy people in resisting the British
arms. Notwithstanding every disadvantage and many defeats, America
remained unsubdued.
The first serious alarm for the success of the contest in America, was
communicated in December 1777, by intelligence of the surrender of an
army under General Burgoyne at Saratoga. In the House of Commons, the
ministers acknowledged this defeat with marks of deep dejection, but
still professed to entertain sanguine hopes from the vigor with which
the large towns throughout Britain were now raising men at their own
expense for the service of the government. Mr. Fox, the leader of the
Opposition, made a motion for the discontinuance of the war, which was
lost by 165 to 259, a much narrower majority than any which the
ministry had before reckoned in the Lower House.
In proportion to the dejection of the government, was the elation of
the American Congress. Little more than two years before, the British
sovereign and ministers had treated the petitions of the colonists
with silent contempt; but such had been the current of events, that,
in 1778, they found it necessary, in order to appease the popular
discontent, to send out commissioners, almost for the purpose of
begging a peace. As if to avenge themselves for the indignities of
1775, the Americans received these commissioners with the like
haughtiness; and being convinced that they could secure their
independence, would listen to no proposals in which the acknowledgment
of that independence, and the withdrawal of the British troops, did
not occupy the first place. The ministers, unwilling to submit to such
terms, resolved to prosecute the war, holding forth to the public, as
the best defense of their conduct, the necessity of curbing the spirit
of insubordination, both in the American colonies and at home, which
they described as threatening the overturn of the most sacred of the
national institutions.
The rise of Great Britain during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, in wealth and military and naval power, had been observed
by many of the surrounding states with no small degree of jealousy.
France in particular, had not yet forgiven the triumphant peace which
Britain had dictated in 1763. The Americans, therefore, by their
emissary, the celebrated Benjamin Franklin, found no great difficulty
in forming an alliance with France, in which the latter power
acknowledged the independence of the colonists, and promised to send
them large auxiliary forces. Viewing the distressed state to which
Britain was reduced by the contest, and concluding that the time had
arrived to strike a decisive blow for the humiliation, Spain soon
after declared war against her; and in 1780, Holland was added to the
number of her enemies. Russia then put herself at the head of what was
called an Armed Neutrality, embracing Sweden and Denmark, the object
of which was indirectly hostile to Britain. So tremendous was the
force reared against Britain in 1779, even before all these powers had
entered into hostilities, that it required about 300,000 armed men,
300 armed vessels, and twenty millions of money annually, merely to
protect herself from her enemies. Even her wonted superiority at sea
seemed to have deserted her; and for some time the people beheld the
unwonted spectacle of a hostile fleet riding in the Channel, which
there was no adequate means of opposing.
It was now obvious to the whole nation that this contest, upon
whatever ground it commenced, was a great national misfortune; and the
Opposition in Parliament began to gain considerably in strength. After
some votes, in which the ministerial majorities appeared to be
gradually lessening, Mr. Dunning, on the 6th of April 1780, carried,
by a majority of eighteen, a motion, ‘that the influence of the crown
had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished.’ This was
looked upon as a severe censure of the government, considering that
the House of Commons was not altogether a popular body, but included
many who had seats there only through the influence of the crown, or
by the favor of the nobility and gentry.
In the year 1778, an act had been passed, relieving the Roman
Catholics in England from some of the severe penal statutes formerly
enacted against them. The apprehension of a similar act for Scotland
caused the people of that country to form an immense number of
associations with a view to opposing it; and in the early part of
1779, the popular spirit broke out at Edinburgh and Glasgow in several
alarming riots, during which one or two Catholic chapels, and some
houses belonging to Catholics, were pillaged and burnt. An extensive
Protestant Association was also formed in England, to endeavor to
procure the repeal of the English act. This body was chiefly led by
Lord George Gordon, a son of the late Duke of Gordon, and member of
the House of Commons. In June 1780, an immense mob assembled in London
to accompany Lord George to the House of Commons, where he was to
present a petition against the act, signed by 120,000 persons. His
motion for the repeal of the act being rejected by a vast majority, he
came out to the lobby and harangued the crowd in violent terms,
suggesting to them similar acts to those which had taken place in
Scotland. The mob accordingly proceeded to demolish the chapels of the
foreign ambassadors. Meeting with no effectual resistance, for the
magistrates of the city were afraid to take decisive measures against
them, they attacked Newgate, released the prisoners, and set the
prison on fire. The new prison at Clerkenwell, the King’s Bench, and
Fleet Prisons, and the New Bridewell, were treated in like manner. At
one time thirty-six fires were seen throughout the city. The mob had
uncontrolled possession of the streets for five days, pillaging,
burning, and demolishing; until the king in council determined to
authorize the military to put them down by force of arms. Tranquillity
was then restored, but not before upwards of 400 persons were killed
and wounded. Many of the ringleaders were convicted and executed. Lord
George Gordon was tried for high treason, but acquitted on a plea of
insanity, which his subsequent life showed to be well founded. Similar
outrages were attempted in other cities, but prevented by the vigor of
the magistrates. The chief sufferers from these riots were the party
who aimed at political reforms. On the other hand, the king obtained
increased respect, in consequence of the firmness he had shown in
taking measures for the suppression of the riots.
The states of North and South Carolina, which contained a larger
proportion of persons friendly to the British crown than any of the
northern states, had submitted, in 1780, to a British army under
General Clinton. Next year the greater part of the troops which had
been left in those states were conducted northward by Lord Cornwallis,
in the hope of making further conquests; but the consequence was that
General Greene, after a series of conflicts, in which he greatly
distressed various parties of the British troops, regained both
Carolinas, while Lord Cornwallis took up a position at Yorktown in
Virginia. At this time, General Washington, the American
commander-in-chief, to whose extraordinary sagacity and purity of
motives the colonists chiefly owed their independence, was threatening
General Clinton’s army at New York. Clinton tamely saw him retire to
the southward, believing that he only meant to make a feint, in order
to draw away the British from New York, when he in reality meant to
attack Cornwallis. On the 29th of September (1781), Yorktown was
invested by this and other corps of Americans and French; and in three
weeks more, the British batteries being completely silenced, Lord
Cornwallis surrendered with his whole army. With this event, though
some posts were still kept up by the British troops, hostilities might
be said to have been concluded.
At the next opening of Parliament many of those who had formerly
supported the war, began to adopt opposite views; and early in 1782, a
motion, made by General Conway, for the conclusion of the war, was
carried by a majority of nineteen. The necessary consequence was,
that, on the 20th of March, Lord North and his colleagues resigned
office, after twelve years of continued misfortune, during which the
prosperity of the country had been retarded, a hundred millions added
to the national debt, and three millions of people separated from the
parent state.
As usual in such cases, a new administration was formed out of the
Opposition. The Marquis of Rockingham was made prime minister, and Mr.
Fox one of the secretaries of state. The new ministers lost no time in
taking measures for the restoration of peace. Unfortunately for their
credit with the nation, Sir George Rodney gained an important victory
over the French fleet of the island of Dominica, April 12, 1782, after
the ministers had despatched another officer to supersede him in the
command. On this occasion, thirty-seven British vessels encountered
thirty-four French; and chiefly by the dexterous manœuvre of a breach
of the enemy’s line, gained one of the most complete victories
recorded in modern warfare. The triumph was eminently necessary, to
recover in some measure the national honor, and enable the ministers
to conclude the war upon tolerable terms. In November, provisional
articles for a peace with the United States of America, now
acknowledged as an independent power, were signed at Paris, and the
treaty was concluded in the ensuing February. When the American
ambassador was afterwards, for the first time, introduced at the
British levée, the king received him kindly, and said with great
frankness, that though he had been the last man in his dominions to
desire that the independence of America should be acknowledged, he
should also be the last to wish that that acknowledgment should be
withdrawn. War was soon after concluded with France, Spain, and
Holland, but not without some considerable concessions of colonial
territory on the part of Great Britain.
The conclusion of this war is memorable as a period of great
suffering, arising from the exhaustion of the national resources, the
depression of commerce, and the accident of a bad harvest. The
principles of prosperity were, after all, found to be so firmly rooted
in the country, that immediately after the first distresses had passed
away, every department of the state resumed its wonted vigor, and
during the ensuing ten years of peace, a great advance was made in
national wealth.
In 1786, Mr. Pitt established his celebrated but fallacious scheme for
redeeming the national debt, by what was called a Sinking Fund. The
revenue was at this time above fifteen millions, being about one
million more than was required for the public service. This excess he
proposed to lay aside annually, to lie at compound interest; by which
means he calculated that each million would be quadrupled at the end
of twenty-eight years, and thus go a great way towards the object he
had in view. To this scheme Mr. Fox added the infinitely more absurd
amendment, that, when the government required to borrow more money,
one million of every six so obtained should be laid aside for the same
purpose. The scheme was so well received as to increase the popularity
of the minister, and it was not till 1813 that its fallacy was proved.
In the same year commenced the parliamentary proceedings against Mr.
Warren Hastings, for alleged cruelty and robbery exercised upon the
natives of India during his governorship of that dependency of Great
Britain. These proceedings were urged by Mr. Burke and other members
of the Whig party, and excited so much public indignation against Mr.
Hastings, that the ministry were obliged, though unwillingly, to lend
their countenance to his trial, which took place before Parliament in
the most solemn manner, and occupied in the aggregate one hundred and
forty-nine days, extending over the space of several years. The
proceedings resulted in the acquittal of Mr. Hastings.
The king and queen had in the meantime become the parents of a
numerous family of sons and daughters. The eldest son, George, Prince
of Wales, had now for several years been of age, and exempted from the
control of his father. He had no sooner been set up in an
establishment of his own, than he plunged into a career of
prodigality, forming the most striking contrast with the chastened
simplicity and decorum of the paternal abode. He also attached himself
to the party of the Opposition, though rather apparently from a
principle of contradiction to his father, than a sincere approbation
of their political objects. The result was the complete alienation of
the Prince of Wales from the affections of his majesty.
In November 1788, an aberration of intellect, resulting from an
illness of some duration, was observed in the king, and it became
necessary to provide some species of substitute for the exercise of
the royal functions. To have invested the Prince of Wales with the
regency, appeared the most obvious course; but this would have thrown
out the ministry, as it was to be supposed that his royal highness
would call the chiefs of his own party to his councils. Mr. Fox
contended that the hereditary nature of the monarchy pointed out an
unconditional right in the prince to assume the supreme power under
such circumstances; but Mr. Pitt asserted the right of Parliament to
give or withhold such an office, and proposed to assign certain limits
to the authority of the intended regent, which would have placed the
existing ministry beyond his reach. The Irish Parliament voted the
unconditional regency to the prince; but that of Great Britain was
about to adopt the modified plan proposed by Mr. Pitt, when, March
1789, the king suddenly recovered, and put an end to the difficulty.
The debates on the regency question exhibit in a very striking light
how statesmen will sometimes abandon their most favorite dogmas and
strongest principles on the call of their own immediate interests.