Produced by Cathy Maxam, Heather Clark and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
FARMER GEORGE
[Illustration: _From a caricature (circa 1810) in the British Museum_
GEORGE THE THIRD]
FARMER GEORGE
BY
LEWIS MELVILLE
_Author of "The First Gentleman of Europe,"
"The Life of William Makepeace Thackeray,"
&c., &c._
WITH FIFTY-THREE PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. II
LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN AND SONS, LTD.
NO. 1 AMEN CORNER, E. C. 1907
PRINTED BY
SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD
BATH.
(2002)
CONTENTS
VOL. II
CHAP. PAGE
XIII. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. I. THE STAMP ACT 1
XIV. THE KING _versus_ ROCKINGHAM AND THE
REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT 26
XV. THE "KING'S FRIENDS" 46
XVI. THE KING'S RULE 65
XVII. THE ROYAL FAMILY 98
XVIII. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. II. THE KING'S
WAR 126
XIX. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. III. THE LOSS OF
AMERICA 155
XX. CHARLES JAMES FOX AND WILLIAM PITT 173
XXI. THE KING'S MALADY 202
XXII. THE KING'S RECOVERY 222
XXIII. THE KING'S CHILDREN 237
XXIV. 1789-1806 251
XXV. LAST YEARS 263
AUTHORITIES 293
ILLUSTRATIONS
VOL. II
PAGE
GEORGE III _frontispiece_
CHARLES WATSON WENTWORTH, SECOND MARQUESS
OF ROCKINGHAM _facing_ 26
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM " 46
AUGUSTUS HENRY, DUKE OF GRAFTON " 61
FREDERICK NORTH, SECOND EARL OF GUILFORD " 72
ADMIRAL THE HON. AUGUSTUS KEPPEL " 94
HENRY FREDERICK, DUKE OF CUMBERLAND " 102
WILLIAM HENRY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER " 102
MARIA, DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER " 104
ANNE, DUCHESS OF CUMBERLAND " 109
AUGUSTA, DUCHESS OF BRUNSWICK " 120
CAROLINA MATILDA, QUEEN OF DENMARK " 120
CHARLES JAMES FOX " 180
"THE UNFORTUNATE ASS" " 183
"THE CAPTIVE PRINCE, OR, LIBERTY GONE MAD" " 186
EDMUND BURKE " 187
WILLIAM PETTY, EARL OF SHELBURNE " 189
WILLIAM PITT " 192
GEORGE III " 202
GEORGE III " 222
THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ENGLAND IN 1787 " 237
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1793 " 251
GEORGE III IN HIS STUDY " 287
QUEEN CHARLOTTE " 289
FARMER GEORGE
VOL. II
CHAPTER XIII
ENGLAND AND AMERICA. I. THE STAMP ACT
George Grenville will live in history as the statesman who took the
first step seriously to alienate the American colonies from the
motherland. He was, indeed, an unfortunate man, for he is doomed to be
remembered only by the magnitude of his mistakes. He attacked Wilkes,
and that demagogue at once took a place in the line of heroes who have
fought for the liberty of the subject against the oppression of the
Crown; he taxed a colony, and not long after England had to deplore the
loss of the United States: indeed, the only act that Dr. Hunt can find
to the credit of Grenville's judgment was the purchase, for L70,000 from
the Duke and Duchess of Athol, of the Isle of Man, which then for the
first time came completely under the royal authority.[1]
[1] _Political History of England, vol. X, 1760-1801._
Of course, the idea to tax the American colonies did not arise with
Grenville. It had been suggested by an American governor to Walpole,
who, however, was too wary to entertain the scheme. "No, it is too
hazardous a measure for me," he said drily; "I shall leave it to my
successors."[2] But those who guided the helm of State immediately after
him were also careful not to deal with the question except by ignoring
it, and consequently it was left for Grenville to undertake, under
pressure, it is said, from the King.[3] "I have heard it doubted whether
the measure originated with Mr. George Grenville," John Nicholls has
written. "I have heard it intimated the measure originated with the
King, that is to say, with the King's secret advisers; and that Mr.
Grenville acceded to the plan with considerable reluctance. I have no
means of knowing whether the measure originated with Mr. Grenville or
with the King. But from the unremitting obstinacy with which the King
persevered in the wish to impose taxes on the Colonies by a British
Parliament, every man must see that it may fairly be called the
favourite measure of his reign."[4]
[2] Coxe: _Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole_.
[3] "The idea to tax the colonies seems to have been the King's, and it
is said that Grenville believed that even the attempt must have alarming
consequences." Galt: _George III, his Court and Family_.
[4] _Recollections and Reflections._
It is an axiom of the constitution that the King can do no wrong, and
therefore, whoever proposed the scheme, the responsibility falls on the
shoulders of the responsible ministers of the Crown, who, on March 10,
1764, laid before Parliament resolutions for further regulating American
commerce, for the prevention of smuggling, and for the maintenance of a
small standing army of 10,000 men. Certain port dues were to be raised,
though they were to be counterbalanced by concessions in other
directions; but the increase in revenue from this source would not
suffice to maintain the garrison, the cost of which was estimated at
L350,000 a year; and it was proposed to raise L100,000 by an Act
requiring that all legal documents should have stamps.
This was, indeed, an innovation, for hitherto custom duties had been
imposed upon the colonists solely for the purpose of regulating trade:
the Stamp Act would raise revenues from them. There was something to be
said in defence of the Act, for though the late war had not been
undertaken solely as a defence of the colonies, yet a great expense had
been incurred by the operations necessary to repress the intrusions of
the French Canadians. Was it right, Grenville asked, that the colonies
should be defended by England, and should contribute nothing towards the
cost of their defence? To Grenville, who never looked ahead, this
seemed unreasonable, for, he contended, since the money raised in
America was to be spent there, there could be no justifiable objection
to the tax which it was proposed to impose; but, while he pointed out to
the colonial agents resident in London that the tax was reasonable and
an easy and equitable way to raise the money, he expressed his
willingness, if the colonists disliked the scheme, to abandon it if the
colonists would raise the money themselves in some other way. In his
desire to be conciliatory he decided to defer the introduction of the
Stamp Act until America had time to express an opinion.[5]
[5] The King's Speech at the prorogation of Parliament on April 19,
1764, contained a reference to the measures respecting America. "The
wise regulations which have been established to augment the public
revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant possessions of my
crown, and to encourage and secure their commerce with Great Britain,
call for my hearty approbation."
Early in 1765 the Stamp Act was introduced, and passed the House of
Commons with but forty dissentients. The debate, Burke says, was
extremely languid. Pitt, suffering from gout, was unable to be present,
but Conway[6] and Beckford protested against the measure, and Barre[7],
more far-seeing than most, denounced it in a startling speech, in which
he referred to the colonists as "sons of liberty." "Children planted by
your care!" he exclaimed. "No! your oppressions planted them in America;
they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable
country! They nourished by your indulgence! They grew by your neglect of
them! They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in your
defence." The Bill, which was to come into operation on November 1,
passed the House of Lords without a division, and the Royal Assent was
given on March 22.
[6] Henry Seymour Conway (1721-1795), lieutenant-general 1759, general
1772, field-marshal 1793.
[7] Colonel Isaac Barre (1726-1802).
The question, however, was in England "little understood and less
attended to";[8] and contemporary memoirs may be ransacked in vain for
any reference thereto. Even Walpole, whose letters form so detailed a
chronicle of events, dismissed it cavalierly. "There has been nothing of
note in Parliament," he wrote to Lord Hertford on February 12, 1765,
"but one slight day on the American taxes, which Charles Townshend
supporting, received a pretty heavy thump from Barre, who is the present
Pitt and the dread of all vociferous Norths and Rigbys, on whose lungs
depended so much of Mr. Grenville's power." The fact of the matter was
that England had not realized the importance of colonies, and
practically nothing was known in the motherland of her possession. "I
suppose you are violent for your American friends," Lady Sarah Bunbury,
so late as July 6, 1775, wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien. "I hope they are
good sort of people, but I don't love Presbyterians and I love the
English soldiers, so that I at present have a horror of those who use
them ill beyond the laws of war, which _scalping_ certainly is, and I
don't believe a word of the soldiers doing more than they ought; you
know one is always unreasonable when one's prejudiced."[9]
[8] Horace Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_.
[9] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox._
Now the colonists were, of course, no more addicted to scalping and
other practices "beyond the laws of war" than the English; and the
knowledge that these and similar ideas prevailed at home undoubtedly
infused a feeling of bitterness into their love for the country of their
descent. Moreover, very naturally, they resented the almost ostentatious
display of their unimportance in the eyes of English ministers, which
became known to them when, to give one example from many, on the
resignation of the Duke of Newcastle, a whole closetful of American
despatches was found unopened.[10] They were English, and proud of
their descent, a hardy, frugal, independent folk, determined not to be
treated as a subject race; the last people in the world to brook
interference, and the first to remember that they were colonies, not
conquests, brothers, not slaves. They were simple in their habits and in
their ideas, and, in some places, Puritanical to excess--the stool of
repentance and the scold's gag were still in use, and they had
anticipated the publican's "black list"; but as a nation they were
thriving, and the towns of Boston, New York, Charleston, and
Philadelphia were so many convincing proofs of their increasing wealth.
[10] _Walpoliana._
"Lord Sussex told Sir Denis le Marchant that one of the
Under-Secretaries of that day said to him, 'Mr. Grenville lost America
because he read the American despatches, which his predecessors had
never done;' and so complete a sinecure was the Board of Trade then
considered, that a Colonel Bladen, one of the commissioners, happening
to apply himself to the duties of his office, the Colonel went
by the name of 'Trade,' while his colleagues were called 'The
Board.'"--Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
The colonists were bound to the motherland by a strong feeling of
loyalty, by fear of the French-Canadians, whose aggressions they were
not strong (or perhaps, it is more accurate to say did not realize they
were strong) enough to repel, and also by the prevailing jealousy
between the different provinces which was so strong that Otis in 1765
declared that, if left to itself, "America would be a mere shambles of
blood and confusion." England's treatment of the colonies was not harsh,
but the tactless treatment aroused even more discontent than an
illiberal policy. The Americans were continually being irritated by the
attitude of the governors sent out by the committee of the Privy Council
responsible for colonial government, but paid by the provinces over
which they ruled, who did not understand them, made no attempt to learn
their habits, and showed little or no regard for the Assemblies in their
districts. "Such wrong-headed people," said one of these officers, "I
thank God I never had to do with before." The Americans, on the other
hand, complained of many of the people who were sent from England to
occupy official positions. "For many years past most of the places in
the gift of the Crown have been filled with broken Members of
Parliament, of bad, if any, principles, pimps, _valets-de-chambre_,
electioneering scoundrels, and even livery servants." General Huske
wrote about 1758: "In one word, America has been for many years made the
hospital of Great Britain for her decayed courtiers and abandoned,
worn-out dependants. I can point you out a chief justice of a province
appointed from home for no other reason than publicly prostituting his
honour and conscience at an election; a livery servant that is secretary
of a province, appointed from hence; a pimp, collector of a whole
province, who got this place of the man in power for prostituting his
handsome wife to his embraces and procuring him other means of
gratifying his lust. Innumerable are instances of this sort in places of
great trust."[11]
[11] Phillimore: _Life of Lyttelton_.
These annoyances were but pin-pricks, compared with many restrictions
placed upon their trade. There were laws ordaining that all trade
between the colonies should be carried in ships built in England or the
colonies, and forbidding the exportation of tobacco, sugar, cotton,
wool, and other articles except to England and her other colonies, as
well as a host of minor regulations, such as that in the woods of Maine
no tree with a diameter greater than two feet at a foot above ground
should be cut down, except to make a mast for a ship of the royal navy.
It is true that on the other hand no Englishman might buy tobacco that
was not grown in America or Bermuda, that the export trade to the
motherland was encouraged by bounties, and that owing to a system by
which duties were remitted on exportation to America they could
purchase continental goods more cheaply than they could be obtained in
England[12]; but these compensations did not make amends, in the
colonists' eyes, for the regulations that cramped their trade.
[12] William Hunt: _Political History of England, 1760-1801_.
These restrictions were much resented, and, as the volume of their
commerce increased, might well have goaded the colonists into rebellion,
had they not chosen the path of least resistance, and evaded them
through the simple device of smuggling. The Sugar Act of 1733, designed
in the interests of British merchants, forbidding the importation of
sugar and molasses from the French West Indies except on payment of a
prohibitive duty, aroused the ire of the Americans, who, realizing the
uselessness of petitions,[13] only plunged still deeper into the
contraband trade. This, in turn, angered those who had expected to
benefit by the Act, and many protests to enforce the law were made to
the home government, who turned a deaf ear to such representations until
after the Peace of Paris, when Bute sent revenue cutters to cruise off
the American coast. The officers of these ships were sworn to act as
revenue officers and smuggling was somewhat checked at the cost of a
vast deal of irritation at the summary methods of the sailors.
[13] Petitions from Provincial Assemblies were ignored by ministers at
home, and even memorials from such important states as Massachusetts and
New York, ordered by the King in Council to be laid before Parliament,
were suppressed.
The easy passage of the Stamp Act showed that Parliament did not
anticipate any considerable opposition from America, and even the agents
of the colonies, including Benjamin Franklin, who represented
Pennsylvania, thought that a small standing army was desirable, and
believed the colonies had no choice but to submit. The colonists
themselves, however, were not slow to express a very decided opposition
to the Act, and perhaps their objection was not the less vehement
because Grenville had prefaced the introduction of the resolutions by
stating that they were an "experiment towards further aid." That,
though, was but a trifle beside the main issue. Hitherto all taxes in
the colonies had been voted by the several Provincial Assemblies: now
was asserted the right of England to tax her colonies. Not to protest
was tacitly to admit the theory of the absolute dominion of the
motherland, and at once a stand was made against the infringement of the
doctrine that in free nations taxation and representation go hand in
hand. Some attempt was made in England to show that America was
virtually represented in Parliament, but this fallacy was exposed by
Pitt: "There is an idea in some minds that the colonies are virtually
represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is
represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire in this
kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation were augmented to
a greater number! Or, will you tell him that he is represented by any
representative of a borough? a borough which perhaps its own
representatives never saw. This is what is called _the rotten part of
the constitution_. It cannot continue a century. If it does not drop it
must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation in this House is
the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of man; it does
not deserve a serious refutation."[14]
[14] _Speech during the Debate on the Address, January 14, 1766._
It was not denied by the colonists that the money raised in their
country would be spent in their country, but this was only a further
aggravation, for they resented the idea of a standing army, perhaps
remembering the abuses which in earlier days it had been called upon to
support in England. They contended that in time of war they had shown
themselves willing and able to raise a force at the request of the
governors, for which act they had been thanked by Parliament; and they
asserted that in times of peace their militia was sufficient to protect
them. The fact that the Stamp Act relaxed certain restrictions on their
trades weighed as nothing against a subsequent measure obliging them to
provide the British troops stationed amongst them with quarters and also
with fire, candles, beds, vinegar and salt. This was an invasion of the
privacy of their homes that, in time of peace, they would not endure.
"Sad news in the papers--G----d knows who's to blame!
The Colonies seem to be all in a flame,
This Stamp Act, no doubt, might be good for the Crown,
But I fear 'tis a pill that will never go down."[15]
[15] Anstey: _The New Bath Guide_.
No sooner did the colonists learn of the passing of the Stamp Act than a
cry of protest rang out from all over the country. James Otis, the
King's Advocate, resigned his official position in order to be at
liberty to denounce the action of the home Government, a task in which
he was ably seconded by John Adams; while Patrick Henry, whom Byron
described as
"the forest-born Demosthenes,
Whose thunder shook the Philip of the seas,"
introduced into the Virginian House of Burgesses a set of resolutions,
that the first settlers in that province had brought with them, and
transmitted to their posterity, all the privileges and immunities
enjoyed by the people of England, that they enjoyed the right of being
governed by their own assembly in the article of taxes and internal
police, and that the Stamp Act was illegal, unconstitutional and
unjust.[16] "Caesar had his Brutus," Henry concluded a violent speech.
"Charles the First his Cromwell, George the Third"--here he was
interrupted by cries of "Treason" which disconcerted him for a moment
when he recovered himself and continued--"may profit by their example.
If this be treason make the most of it." It showed the temper of the
nation that Virginia, hitherto regarded as the most loyal state,
approved the resolutions by a large majority. The Governor immediately
dissolved the assembly, but, like all the acts of the English in America
at this time, this move was too late to be effective, for the
resolutions were regarded by other provinces as a precedent, and were
adopted by numerous other legislative bodies.
[16] Adolphus: _History of England_.
Boston, which had had experience of the utter futility of petitions to
the King and to Parliament, flamed at once into violence. The Assembly
there voted thanks to General Conway and Colonel Barre for their
opposition in the House of Commons to the Stamp Act, and ordered their
portraits to be placed in the Town Hall. On August 26 a mob destroyed
the Stamp Office, the Admiralty records, and the houses of public
officials who had given offence by accepting the objectionable Act.
Hutchinson, the Lieutenant-Governor and Chief-Justice of Massachusetts,
was maltreated; while Oliver, the Secretary of the province, who had
accepted the post of Stamp-Distributor, was hung in effigy on a tree in
the main street of the town, his house destroyed and himself compelled
by the threatening crowd to resign his new appointment, and to
swear--beneath the tree where his effigy swung in the breeze--that under
no circumstances would he ever resume it. The rioters were supported by
the overt sympathy of their countrymen. Mayhew, a popular preacher,
chose for the text of a sermon, "I would that they were even cut off
which trouble you"; the Governor, who had arrested a prominent merchant,
one of the ring-leaders of the disturbances, was compelled to release
him, under threat from the civic guard that otherwise they would disband
themselves; while some other imprisoned citizens were set free by the
mob, which forced the gaolers to surrender the keys.
November 1, when the Stamp Act came into operation, was kept as a day of
mourning. The bells were muffled and tolled and mock funerals passed
through the streets; copies of the Act were hawked through the towns
with the title of "England's Folly and the Ruin of America"; while the
newspapers appeared with a death's-head in place of the stamp which by
the new measure they had to bear. Boston was content to hoist half-mast
the colours of the shipping in its harbour, but Philadelphia spiked the
government guns in the town and in the barracks, and other towns
displayed their resentment in similar practical ways.[17]
[17] Almon: _Collection of Papers_.
It was found impossible, however, to distribute the stamps; nay, more,
it was impossible even to keep them, for the rioters kept strict watch
and as each box was landed, wrested it from the authorities, and
consigned it to the flames. The Governor of New Jersey had to request
that the stamps should be kept on a man-of-war, while on November 7,
Francis Bernard, the Governor of Massachusetts, informed Admiral Lord
Colville that such was the "increasing licentiousness" of the people
that he feared that he would be obliged to quit his post. The position
indeed was untenable. Every legal document to be valid required a stamp,
but there was no stamped paper to be had. The law courts could proceed
only with criminal cases, for which no stamps were required; and
business was at a standstill, until the Governors, realizing the danger
of allowing this state of affairs to continue, on the ground that it was
impossible to secure stamps, issued certificates to the merchants
permitting them to send their ships on voyages without complying with
the Act. Not content with this licence, however, the Council of
Massachusetts went so far as to enter a resolution in their journals
that it was lawful to transact business without stamps.[18] A more fatal
blow to the mother-country was delivered by the principal colonial
merchants, who agreed in solemn conclave to order no more goods from
England, to cancel all orders already given, and to send no more
remittances to England in payment of debts until the Stamp Act was
repealed--which last resolution could be excused only on the ground that
all is fair in war.
[18] Stedman: _History of the American War_; Andrews: _History of the
American War_.
Opposition in the colonies had been fanned by the change of government
at home. The news of Grenville's fall in July had been received with
delight, and the joy was intense when it became known that in the
succeeding Rockingham administration, Conway, who had opposed the Stamp
Act, had accepted the office of Secretary of State for the southern
department. The occurrences in America were, however, still viewed with
indifference in England, and the King in a letter to Conway, dated
December 5, was one of the first to sound the note of alarm. "I am more
and more grieved at the accounts of America. Where this spirit will end
is not to be said. It is undoubtedly the most serious matter that ever
came before Parliament; it requires more deliberation, candour, and
temper than I fear it will meet with."[19] The trouble was alluded to in
the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament on December 17. "Matters
of importance," it was said, "had lately occurred in some of the
colonies in America, which demand serious attention"; but such a
reference was resented by George Grenville and his supporters, who
attacked ministers for attempting to gloss over the recent events in
America as "matters of importance," when, as a matter of fact, they
contended, the colonies were in a state of rebellion.
[19] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
In spite of the conviction in America that General Conway would remove
the obnoxious tax, ministers were undecided what course to pursue, and
when at last they realized the seriousness of the position, they found
themselves face to face with only a choice between the disconcerting
tasks of repealing the Stamp Act or enforcing it at the point of the
sword. They were not given long to decide, for pressure was brought to
bear upon them by the great body of English merchants who were suffering
from the suspension of the American trade. Petitions were presented from
London, Liverpool, Glasgow and other manufacturing towns, pointing out
that the debts that America refused to discharge amounted to four
millions sterling--an eighth of the entire amount was owed to Glasgow
shippers by the states of Maryland and Virginia alone--that further
orders were withheld, and that consequently, artisans were thrown out of
work, and many merchants would shortly be reduced to bankruptcy. The
only remedy for this disastrous state of affairs, the petitioners
represented, was a speedy repeal of the Stamp Act.
It remained, however, for Pitt to force the hands of the new
administration. "My resolution is taken," he wrote to Nuthall[20] on
January 9, 1766; "and if I can crawl or be carried, I will deliver my
mind and heart upon the state of America." Pitt stated his opinion very
openly in the debate on the Address, when he declared that England had
no right to lay a tax on the colonies, although the authority of England
over them was sovereign and supreme in every case of legislation.
[20] Thomas Nuthall, died 1775, appointed by Rockingham Solicitor to the
Treasury, 1765.
"The colonists are subjects of this kingdom equally entitled with
yourselves to all the national rights of mankind and the peculiar
privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by its laws and equally
participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans
are the sons, not the bastards, of England. Taxation is no part of the
governing or legislative power. Taxes are the voluntary gift and grant
of the Commons alone. In legislation, the three estates of the realm are
alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a
tax, is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law; the gift and
grant is of the Commons alone. In ancient days, the Crown, the barons,
and the clergy possessed the lands. In those days the barons and the
clergy granted to the Crown, they gave and granted what was their own.
At present, since the discovery of America, and other circumstances
permitting, the Commons are become the proprietors of the land; the
Church has but a pittance; the property of the Lords, compared with that
of the Commons is as a drop of water in the ocean; and this House
represents those Commons, the proprietors of the lands; and those
proprietors virtually represent the rest of the inhabitants. When,
therefore, in this House we give a grant, we give and grant what is our
own. But in an American tax, what do we do? We, your Majesty's Commons
for Great Britain, give a grant to your Majesty, what? Our own property?
No; we give a grant to your Majesty the property of your Majesty's
Commons of America. It is an absurdity in terms. The distinction between
legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty. The Crown,
the peers, are equally legislative powers with the Commons. If taxation
be a part of simple legislation, the Crown, the peers, have rights in
taxation as well as yourselves; rights which they will claim, which they
will exercise when the principle can be supported by power.... The
commoners of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever
been in possession, in the exercise of this, their constitutional right,
of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if
they had not enjoyed it. At the same time this kingdom, as the supreme
governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her
laws, by her regulations and restrictions, in trade, in navigation, in
manufactures; in everything, except that of taking their money out of
their pockets without their consent. Here I would draw the line, '_quam
ulira citraque requit consistere rectum_.'"
George Grenville at once spoke to oppose this view, only to bring down
upon him a scathing attack from Pitt. "The gentleman tells us that
America is obstinate; that America is almost in open rebellion. Sir, I
rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people so dead to
all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would
have been fit instruments to have made slaves of all the rest." The
Great Commoner's uncompromising declaration of the inability of the
English Parliament legally to tax the colonies, however, was not allowed
to escape criticism. Burke[21] opposed the theory, "Junius" attacked it,
and in the House of Lords Lord Mansfield denied it; while, later,
Macaulay denounced it. "The Stamp Act," he said, "was indefensible, not
because it was beyond the unconstitutional competence of Parliament, but
because it was unjust and impolitic, sterile of revenue, and fertile of
discontent."[22]
[21] In this debate Edmund Burke, who was at the time Secretary to the
Prime Minister, made his first speech, upon which he was congratulated
by Pitt, who said, "It was seasonable, reasonable, and eloquent."
Through it he first sprang into fame, but when some one expressed
surprise at this sudden elevation, Dr. Johnson, who knew Burke and of
course had read "The Vindication of Natural Society" and "On the Sublime
and Beautiful," exclaimed, "Sir, there is no wonder at all. We, who know
Mr. Burke, know that he will be one of the first men in the country."
[22] _Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham._
Whether Pitt was right or wrong, his influence was such that Lord
Rockingham realised the importance of conciliating him.[23]
[23] "The events of yesterday in the House of Commons have shown the
amazing power and influence which Mr. Pitt has whenever he takes part in
debate."--Lord Rockingham to the King.
At the same time, however, the Prime Minister desired to steer a middle
course, and eventually resolved to repeal the Stamp Act, but to preface
the measure by a Declaratory Act, enunciating the undoubted right of
Parliament to make laws binding the British in all cases. Benjamin
Franklin, examined before a Committee of the House of Commons appointed
to inquire into the American question, while denouncing the Stamp duty
as impolitic and injurious to the colonies and expressing his belief
that his countrymen would never submit to it in any form, unless
compelled by arms, expressed his opinion that, while nothing would
induce the Assemblies to revoke their resolutions, they would not object
to an act asserting the abstract rights of Parliament to impose taxes
as long as the Stamp Act was repealed. Rockingham, thus encouraged,
thereupon introduced the Declaratory Act, not because he had any liking
for it, but because in his opinion many people of high principles would
never have been brought to repeal the Stamp Act without it.[24] "It was
not the inclination of Lord Rockingham," said Charles James Fox some
years later, "but the necessity of his situation, which was the cause of
the Declaratory Act. The Act passed the House of Commons without a
division, and, in the House of Lords, when Lord Camden insisted on a
division, there were only four peers who voted with him
'non-content.'"[25]
[24] _Life of Lord Camden._
[25] _Chatham Correspondence._
"My position is this. I repeat it. I will maintain it to my latest hour.
Taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on
the laws of nature. It is more. It is an eternal law of nature; for
whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own. No man has a right to
take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or his
representatives. Whoever attempts to do so attempts an injury. Whoever
does it commits a robbery. He throws down and destroys the distinction
between liberty and slavery."--Lord Camden in the House of Lords,
February 24, 1766.
The House of Commons had on January 21 given leave to Conway to bring in
a bill to repeal the Stamp duty, and had rejected by 275 to 167
Grenville's amendment to substitute "explain and amend" for "repeal."
The Bill was read for the first time on February 21 and in the long and
fierce debates that ensued Grenville took an active part in defence of
his measure. "It was," said Horace Walpole, "too much to give up his
favourite Bill and his favourite occupation, talking, both at once."
Though vigorously contested to the end, the Bill passed the lower
chamber, and was on March 4 carried to the House of Lords, where, says
George Onslow, it met "with not quite so civil a reception as such a
bill, so carried in our House, and so conveyed as it was, by a hundred
and fifty members to the other House, did, in my opinion, deserve."
After two divisions, each of which resulted in a majority for ministers,
the Bill passed the House of Lords and on March 18 received the Royal
Assent, "an event that caused more universal joy," Burke said,
"throughout the British dominions" than perhaps any other that can be
remembered, and left Grenville to lament that "it was clear that both
England and America were now governed by the mob."