THE KING'S RULE
The Duke of Grafton as a matter of course now became Prime Minister, but
there were not wanting signs that the administration would not long
endure, and when Lord Chatham reappeared in the political arena it was
obvious its days were numbered. The famous statesman's return was most
unexpected, for he was still supposed to be in the country, incapable of
ever again transacting business.[85] "He himself," wrote Walpole on July
7, 1769, "_in propria persona_, and not in a straight-waistcoat, walked
into the King's _levee_ this morning, and was in the closet twenty
minutes after the _levee_." At his interview Chatham told George that he
disapproved of the policy of the ministry, especially as regarded Wilkes
and America--a statement calculated to alarm the King, who approved of
the action taken. "For my part," said the Earl, "I am grown old, and
unable to fill any office of business; but this I am resolved on, that I
will not even sit at Council but to meet Lord Rockingham. He, and he
alone, has a knot of spotless friends, such as ought to govern this
kingdom." As he emerged from the Royal Closet, Chatham encountered
Grafton, and, embittered especially by the remembrance of the dismissal
of his personal friend, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, from the post of Governor
of Virginia, greeted him with the utmost coldness. It was to be war to
the death, and Chatham was too great a man to veil his enmity under the
cloak of friendship.
[85] "At length the clouds which had gathered over his mind broke and
passed away. His gout returned, and freed him from a more cruel malady.
His nerves were newly braced. His spirits became buoyant. He woke as
from a sickly dream. It was a strange recovery. Men had been in the
habit of talking of him as of one dead, and, when he first showed
himself at the King's _levee_, started as if they had seen a ghost. It
was more than two years and a half since he had appeared in
public."--Macaulay: _The Earl of Chatham_.
The battle began after the reassembling of Parliament on January 9,
1770, when the King in his speech referred to a distemper which had
recently appeared among the horned cattle. This was seized upon by the
caricaturists, and denounced by "Junius": "While the whole kingdom was
agitated with anxious expectation upon one great point, you meanly
evaded the question, and instead of the explicit firmness and decision
of a king, gave us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier and the
whining piety of a Methodist." It has not been made clear whether this
was inserted by the King, who in his capacity of farmer was much
perturbed by the ravages made by the disease, or whether it was an
attempt to attract the attention of Parliament to this rather than to
more serious issues.
Serious issues enough there were at the end of 1769 to occupy the
attention of all thoughtful men. The English were undeniably angry, the
Wilkes affair was dividing parties and sowing dissension between
statesmen, and America was threateningly restless. The King's treatment
of the City's remonstrance[86] had aroused to a fine frenzy habitually
calm folk, and discontent was so rife that rebellion itself was in the
minds of many Englishmen. "The tumults of London, in March, 1769, which
menaced with insult or attack even the palace of the sovereign, bore no
feeble resemblance to the riotous disorders that preceded the Civil
Wars, under Charles the First," Wraxall wrote. "A Hearse, followed by
the mob, was drawn into the Court-yard at St. James's, decorated with
insignia of the most humiliating and indecent description. I have always
understood that the late Lord Mountmorris, then a very young man, was
the person who on that occasion personated the executioner, holding an
axe in his hands, and his face covered with a crape. The King's firmness
did not, however, desert him, in the midst of these trying ebullitions
of democratic rage. He remained calm and unmoved in the Drawing-room,
while the streets surrounding his residence echoed with the shouts of an
enraged multitude, who seemed disposed to proceed to the greatest
extremities."[87]
[86] See _ante_ vol. I, pp. 266-7.
[87] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
Horace Walpole was somewhat perturbed at the situation. "The English may
be soothed: I have never heard that they were to be frightened," he
wrote. "This is my creed and all our history supports it." The King,
however, seemed bent on desperate measures and, according to _The
Whisperer_ (February 24, 1770), When the Marquis of Granby resigned his
employments, the King said to him, "Granby, do you think the army would
fight for me?" To which the Marquis nobly replied, "I believe, Sir, some
of your officers would, but I will not answer for the men."[88] This
state of turmoil gave a great unholy joy to David Hume: "I am delighted
to see the daily and hourly progress of madness, and folly, and
wickedness in England," he wrote from Edinburgh. "The consummation of
these fine qualities are the ingredients for making a fine narrative in
history, especially if followed by some signal and ruinous convulsion,
as I hope will soon be the case with that pernicious people. He must be
a very bad cook who cannot make a palatable dish from the whole."
[88] "We have independent mobs that have nothing to do with Wilkes, and
who only take advantage of so favourable a season. The dearness of
provisions incites--the hope of increase of wages allures--and drink
puts them in motion. The coal-heavers began; and it is well it is not a
hard frost, for they have stopped all coals coming to town. The sawyers
rose, too, and at last the sailors, who have committed great outrages in
merchant-ships and prevented their sailing."--Horace Walpole, May, 1768.
The duel between Chatham and Grafton took place during the debate on the
Address. The Earl who, owing to his ill-health had never yet done
justice to his oratorical powers in the House of Lords, now made a
splendid fighting speech, in which after expressing the good-will he
bore his fellow-subjects in America, he denounced the proceedings
against Wilkes and the American policy of the ministry. This was the
signal for the other malcontents to engage. "I accepted the Great Seal
without conditions," Lord Camden states in the House of Lords. "I meant
not therefore to be trammelled by his Majesty--(I beg pardon) by his
ministers; but I have suffered myself to be too long. For some time I
have beheld, with silent indignation, the arbitrary measures of the
minister; I have often drooped and hung down my head in Council, and
disapproved by my looks those steps which I knew my avowed opposition
could not prevent; I will do so no longer, but openly and boldly speak
my sentiments." The Duke of Beaufort and the Duke of Manchester, the
Earl of Coventry and the Earl of Huntingdon gave up their offices at
Court; and the resignation of James Grenville, Vice-Treasurer of
Ireland, and Dunning, Solicitor-General, followed, together with that of
Lord Granby, Commander-in-Chief and Master of the Ordnance, who retained
only his colonelcy of the Blues.
Lord Camden was dismissed immediately after his speech, but great
difficulty was found in filling his place. The Woolsack was offered to
Mansfield, and then to Sir Eardley Wilmot, Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, neither of whom would accept it, partly because there was then no
retiring pension for a Lord Chancellor, and it was too great a risk to
give up a lucrative position for a post the tenure of which was so
precarious.[89] The Great Seal was then offered to Charles Yorke, who
declined on the ground that he did not wish to desert the Rockingham
party. The King sent for him on January 17 and charged him on his
loyalty to accept the office, declaring if he did not do so, the Lord
Chancellorship would never again under any circumstances be offered to
him. Thus pressed, Yorke accepted very reluctantly, but the annoyance
told upon his feeble health, and he died three days later--by his own
hand, it was whispered. The patent that raised him to the peerage was
made out and awaited only the impress of the Great Seal. When he was
dying he was asked to authorise that impression, but he refused, and
added with a shudder that he hoped the Great Seal was no longer in his
custody.[90] "Nothing was now left for the Duke of Grafton but to get
himself out of the way before "Junius" had time to point the moral. It
was impossible for him to continue Prime Minister after the most
ambitious lawyer at the bar had thought death a less evil than the
disgrace of being his Chancellor."[91] "Junius" was not to be baulked of
his prey, however, and referred to the episode in a letter to the Duke
of Grafton, dated February 14, 1770. "To what an abject condition have
you laboured to reduce the best of princes, when the unhappy man who
yields at last to such personal instance and solicitation as can never
be fairly employed against a subject feels himself degraded by his
compliance, and is unable to survive the disgraceful honours which his
gracious sovereign had compelled him to accept."
[89] Lord Camden was a poor man, and would have been much inconvenienced
by his dismissal, had not Chatham earlier secured to him a pension of
L1,500.
[90] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[91] Trevelyan: _Early Life of C. J. Fox_.
The Duke resigned on January 28, and Chatham was avenged.
During the absence of Lord Chatham, George III had gained a complete
ascendancy over the ministry and, now that Grafton had retired, he was
determined not to yield the control of affairs without a struggle. He
wanted, not a minister with views of his own, but one who would obey
instructions. Such a man was Lord North,[92] who, backed by the weight
of the royal influence, was the ostensible Prime Minister for the
ensuing twelve years.[93]
[92] Frederick, Lord North (1732-1792), succeeded his father as second
Earl of Guilford in 1790. He is, however, better known as Lord North.
[93] "As Lord Bute gradually retired into the shade of private life, and
became insensibly forgotten, Mr. Jenkinson proportionately came forward
in his own person, and on his own proper merits. Throughout the whole
period of Lord North's administration from 1770 down to 1782, his
intercourse with the King, and even his influence over the royal mind,
were assumed to be constant, progressive, commensurate with, and
sometimes paramount to, or subversive of, the measures proposed by the
First Minister. However difficult of proof such assertions were, and
however contrary, as I believe, they were to truth or fact, they did not
operate the less forcibly on the bulk of the nation, and were not less
eagerly credited by men of all parties. No denials on the part of
persons in power could erase the impression, which newspapers and
pamphlets industriously circulated throughout the kingdom."--Wraxall:
Historical Memoirs of My Own Times.
[Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker._
_From a painting by Nathaniel Dance_
FREDERICK NORTH, SECOND EARL OF GUILFORD
_To face p. 72, Vol. II_]
North had gained his official experience as a Junior Lord of the
Treasury, and as a joint-Paymaster of the Forces. At first he had not
created a favourable impression, but there were discerning persons who
saw early he would come to the fore. His appearance was much against
him. "Nothing could be more coarse, or clumsy, or ungracious than his
outside," Horace Walpole said. "Two large prominent eyes that rolled
about to no purpose--for he was utterly short-sighted--a wide mouth,
thick lips, and inflated visage, gave him the air of a blind
trumpeter."[94] "Here comes blubbering North. I wonder what he is
getting by heart, for I am sure it can be nothing of his own," some one
said to Grenville, seeing North in the park, apparently rehearsing a
speech. "North is a man of great promise and high qualifications,"
replied Grenville; "and if he does not relax in his political pursuits,
he is very likely to be Prime Minister." Lord Rockingham thought well
enough of him to invite him to become Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, an
offer which, at the King's instigation, he eventually declined.
[94] _Memoirs of George III._
"It cost him, North, many bitter pangs, not to preserve his virtue, but
his vicious connexions," wrote Walpole. "He goggled his eyes, and groped
in his pocket money, more than half consented; nay, so much more, that
when he got home, he wrote an excuse to Lord Rockingham, which made it
plain he thought he had accepted." Nor was Charles Townshend in any
doubt as to North's abilities. "See that great heavy, booby-looking
seeming changeling," said Townshend when Chancellor of the Exchequer;
"you may believe me when I assure you as a fact, that if anything should
happen to me, he will succeed to my place, and very shortly after come
to be First Commissioner of the Treasury."[95] The prediction was
fulfilled, for when Townshend died, Lord North became Chancellor of the
Exchequer under Chatham, and was retained in that position by Grafton.
[95] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
North had, indeed, most of the qualifications that make a good leader of
the House of Commons. He was witty, good-humoured, undisturbed by
personal attacks, and undeniably honest. "He was a man of admirable
parts, of general knowledge, of a versatile understanding, fitted for
every sort of business, of infinite wit and pleasantry, of a delightful
temper, and with a mind most perfectly disinterested," wrote Burke; "but
it would be only to degrade myself by a weak adulation, and not to
honour the memory of a great man, to deny that he wanted something of
the vigilance and spirit of command that the time required."[96] He was
an excellent debater, and managed to retain his hold on the House even
when the Opposition was led, first by Burke and then by Chatham.
[96] _Letter to a Noble Lord._
It had been Chatham's hope that, when the Duke of Grafton resigned, the
King would be compelled to dissolve Parliament; but the King, on his
side, was determined not to make an appeal to the country, which he was
well aware would return an adverse majority and so compel him to receive
the Whig families back into power. "I will have recourse to this," he
said, laying his hand on his sword, "sooner than yield to a
dissolution." In his hour of difficulty George turned to North, who came
to his assistance, and formed a ministry, for which service the King was
grateful, until many years later North coalesced with Fox. He bestowed
upon him the posts of Ranger of Bushey Park, and Lord Warden of the
Cinque Ports, with a most acceptable stipend, and promised to bestow the
Order of the Garter upon him, "which I shall do with the greater
pleasure as I never have had any intimation from you that it is an
honour you are in the least ambitious of."[97] He also expressed a
desire in September, 1777, to discharge out of his Privy Purse his Prime
Minister's debts. "Having paid the last arrears on the Civil List, I
must now do the same for you," he wrote. "I have understood, from your
hints, that you have been in debt ever since you settled in life. I must
therefore insist that you allow me to assist you with L10,000, or
L15,000, or L20,000, if that will be sufficient. It will be easy for you
to make an arrangement, or at proper times to take up that sum. You know
me very ill if you think not that, of all the letters I ever wrote you,
this one gives me the greatest pleasure; and I want no other return but
your being convinced that I love you as well as a man of worth, as I
esteem you as a minister. Your conduct at a critical moment I can never
forget."[98]
[97] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[98] _Ibid._
The King took for his part the management of the House of Commons, and
it was work that suited his capabilities. It has already been mentioned
that at his accession he began to study public business, and so far as
the details were concerned he made great progress. "He knew all about
the family histories and genealogies of his gentry, and pretty histories
he must have known. He knew the whole _Army list_; and all the facings
and the exact number of buttons, and all the tags and laces, and the cut
of all the cocked hats, pigtails and gaiters in his army. He knew the
_personnel_ of the Universities; what doctors were inclined to
Socinianism, and who were sound Churchmen; he knew the etiquette of his
own and his grandfather's Courts to a nicety, and the smallest
particulars regarding the routine of ministers, secretaries, embassies,
audiences; the smallest page in the ante-room or the meanest helper in
the kitchen or stables. These parts of the royal business he was capable
of learning, and he learned."[99] This, however, by no means exhausts
the list of his qualifications. Not the most scrupulous electioneering
agent knew more tricks than he, or was better acquainted with the
figures of the voting in all the constituencies, or the names and views
of likely candidates.
[99] Thackeray: _The Four Georges_.
George III reduced bribery to a fine art, and, parsimonious as he was in
his own affairs, he had no hesitation in buying the patron of a borough
or in paying the debts of a man who was willing to stand as the "King's
Friend" at the next election. "If the Duke of Northumberland requires
some gold pills for the election, it would be wrong not to give him some
assistance," he wrote to North before the Middlesex election in 1779.
North declared that the expenses of election in 1779, 1780 and 1781,
paid for by Government amounted to L53,000, and that the preceding
general election cost L50,000 in addition to pensions of the annual
value of L15,000! Enormous as was the Civil List, it could not support
these outlays in addition to its regular expenses with which it was
charged; and soon there was presented the strange spectacle of a House
of Commons being invited to make good the deficit that had been caused
chiefly by the bribes given to or for members of its body. On February
28, 1770, Lord North asked Parliament to discharge the King's debts,
which amounted to L513,511, and although this sum was voted, it was only
after a heated debate. The King was horrified to learn that Dowdeswell
in the House of Commons and Rockingham in the House of Lords had moved
that particulars of each expense should be specified, and that the
papers might distinguish under which administration each debt had been
incurred. Burke and Grenville supported the motion in the Commons, and
in the Lords Chatham made a rousing speech that voiced the feelings of
the nation. What had been done with the money, he wanted to know, that
there should be this great deficit? The King had built no palaces, he
had not lavished great sums on pictures or statuary, he had not rewarded
distinguished soldiers and sailors with large pensions; the expenses of
his household were, comparatively speaking, small, and the price of
commodities was lower than in the preceding reign, and, although his
Majesty was not illiberal in his charities, the outlay in this direction
had certainly not impoverished him. No, he concluded, the money had been
devoted to the support of sinecure posts to be held by minor politicians
and in other ways to pervert the honesty of Parliament.
The King, regarding himself as above criticism, was greatly incensed by
this speech, and his anger was increased in the following year when Sir
Edward Astley moved for a return of pensions granted since the
commencement of the Parliament then sitting. "I cannot help expressing
some surprise," he wrote to Lord North on April 5, 1770, "at seeing
Lieutenant-General Conway's name in support of Sir Edward Astley's
motion, which is so antiquated an Opposition's point, but which no
candid man could be supposed to adopt."[100] It was, therefore, with
great reluctance that in May, 1770, he applied again, through Lord
North, for another grant. Further delay was impossible, however, for
even his household bills were unpaid and his servants' wages were six
quarters in arrears. North asked for L600,000 to settle pressing demands
and an increase to the Civil List of L100,000 a year. The request again
provoked much candid criticism. Fox taunted the Prime Minister with the
pledge he had given when he was in office in 1769 that no such demand
should be made again; and other members pointed out that in the accounts
the pensions amounted to L438,000, that there were items of L171,000 and
L114,000 for secret service, and that furthermore the accounts very
obviously had been falsified. The grant was eventually made, but when
Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker of the House of Commons, presented the
Civil List Bill to the King, he made a speech. "Your Majesty's faithful
Commons have granted a great sum to discharge the debt of the Civil
List; and considering that whatever enables your Majesty to support with
grandeur, honour and dignity, the crown of Great Britain, in its true
lustre, will reflect honour on the nation, they have given most
liberally, even in these times of danger and difficulty, taxed almost
beyond ability to bear; and they have now granted to your Majesty an
income far exceeding your Majesty's highest wants, _hoping that what
they have given cheerfully, your Majesty will spend wisely_." The
"King's Friends" voiced their indignation at this address, but Fox moved
"that the Speaker did express, with just and proper energy, the zeal of
the House for the support of the honour and dignity of the Crown in
circumstances of great public charge," and he carried the House with him
in a vote of thanks to Sir Fletcher Norton.
[100] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
After this stern rebuke, even George III had not courage enough to apply
again to Parliament, but as the lavish corruption continued, money had
to be found, and to provide for his master's necessities, North
sacrificed his financial reputation. In 1781 he raised a loan of
L12,000,000 upon terms so liberal as to give the bondholders a return of
ten per cent., but instead of following the usual course of inviting
bankers to become subscribers, he divided the much desired stock among
the supporters of the Government in both Houses, who were thus
handsomely rewarded for their services. This was so disgraceful a
proceeding that even a servile House of Commons could not overlook it,
and the transaction was undoubtedly one of the causes that contributed
to North's overthrow in the following year.[101]
[101] On February 15, 1802, Addington delivered a message to the Commons
from the King. "His Majesty feels great concern in acquainting the House
of Commons that the provision made by Parliament for defraying the
expenses of his household, and civil government, has been found
inadequate to their support. A considerable debt has, in consequence,
been unavoidably incurred, an account of which he has ordered to be laid
before this House. His Majesty relies with confidence on the zeal and
affection of his faithful Commons, that they will take the same into
their early consideration, and adopt such measures as the circumstances
may appear to them to require." The amount required was in round figures
L1,000,000, and the reasons alleged for the deficit were the dearness of
provisions, the expenses caused by the younger princes and princesses
who were growing up, the marriage of the Prince of Wales, and the
support of Princess Charlotte of Wales.
No scruple as to kingly dignity restrained George III from endeavouring
to profit by the glamour that surrounds the throne. "I am sorry to find
the Attorney-General (Thurlow) rather retracts. I feel the propriety of
keeping him in his present situation; and if any kindness from me on
Wednesday can effect it, you may rest assured he shall be got into
thorough good temper," he wrote to North on June 7, 1774; and on another
day, "The last division was nearer than some persons will have expected,
but not more than I thought. I hope every engine will be employed to get
those friends that stayed away last night to come and support on Monday.
I wish a list could be prepared of those who went away, and those that
deserted to the minority. _That would be a rule for my conduct in the
Drawing-room to-morrow._"[102] "I am so desirous that every man in my
service should take part in the Debate on Tuesday," he wrote again on
January 7, 1770, "that I desire you will very strongly press Sir G.
Elliot and any others that have not taken a part last session. I have no
objection to your adding that I have particularly directed you to speak
to them."[103] "I consent," he wrote on April 21, 1775, "to Sir Watkin
Williams (Wynn) being Lieutenant of Merioneth, _if he means to be
grateful_, otherwise favours granted to persons in opposition is not
very political."[104]
[102] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[103] _Ibid._
[104] _Ibid._
George made it quite clear that to attack the Government or vote against
it was regarded by him as a personal insult, and he was determined that
no man should do so with impunity. "Lord North's attention in correcting
the impression I had that Colonel Burgoyne and Lieutenant-Colonel
Harcourt were absent yesterday is very handsome to those gentlemen, for
I certainly should have thought myself obliged to have named a new
Governor in the room of the former, and to have removed the other from
my Bedchamber,"[105] he wrote on March 12, 1772, in reference to a
division on the Royal Marriage Act; and when the Prime Minister
suggested that Chatham's pension should be settled in reversion on his
younger son, William Pitt: "The making Lord Chatham's family suffer for
the conduct of their father is not in the least agreeable to me," he
replied, on August 9, 1775. "But I should choose to know him to be
totally unable to appear again on the public stage before I agree to any
offer of that kind, lest it should wrongly be construed into a fear of
him; and indeed his political conduct the last winter was so abandoned,
that he must, in the eyes of the dispassionate, have totally undone all
the merit of his former conduct. As to any gratitude to be expected from
him or his family, the whole tenor of their lives has shown them void of
that most honourable sentiment. But _when decrepitude or death puts an
end to him as a trumpet of sedition_, I shall make no difficulty in
placing the second son's name instead of the father's, and making up the
pension L3,000."[106]
[105] _Correspondence of George III with Lord North._
[106] _Ibid._
The truth is that George III was vindictive, though he would have been
the last to admit this, for never doubting he was always in the right,
he was confident that what to others seemed revenge, was actually only
legitimate punishment meted out to the wrong-doer. "He has a kind of
unhappiness in his temper, which, if it be not conquered before it has
taken too deep a root, will be the source of frequent anxiety," Lord
Waldegrave had written when he was the royal Governor. "Whenever he is
displeased, his anger does not break out with heat and violence, but he
becomes sullen and silent, and retires to his closet, not to compose his
mind by study and contemplation, but merely to indulge the melancholy
enjoyment of his own ill-humour. Even when the fit is ended,
unfavourable symptoms too frequently return, which indicate that on
certain occasions his Royal Highness has too correct a memory."[107]
This serious blemish lasted all the days of his life, and was noticeable
particularly in his attitude towards Chatham and, later, towards Fox.
[107] _Memoirs of Lord Waldegrave._
"How many Secretaries of State have you corresponded with?" the King
once asked an ex-Governor of Gibraltar. "Five, Sire," was the reply.
"You see my situation. The trade of politics is a rascally business.
It's a trade for a scoundrel, and not for a gentleman." So George III
unconsciously passed judgment on himself, for it is clear that he had
much to do with making politics a trade. Reflect upon the treatment he
meted out to Rockingham, as upright a statesman who could be found in
the three kingdoms, whose dismissal was chiefly due to the fact that he
was too honest. "Rockingham had a way of listening to a questionable
proposal that was more alarming to George III even than the eloquence of
Pitt or the lengthiness of Grenville."[108]
[108] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
It is interesting, in the light of this knowledge, to turn to a
contemporary portrait of the King as a statesman. "Never was any prince
more religiously tenacious of his engagements or promises. Even the
temporary privation of his intellect did not affect his regard to the
assurances that he had given previous to such alienation of mind; nor,
which is still more wonderful, obliterate them from his recollection. I
know that on his recovery from the severest visitations under which he
has laboured he has said to his minister, in the first moment of his
convalescence, 'Previous to my attack of illness I made such and such
promises; they must be effectuated,'" wrote Wraxall. "Satisfied with the
legitimate power entrusted to him by the British Constitution, and
deeply impressed with the sanctity as well as the inviolability of the
oath administered to him at his coronation, George the Third did not
desire to pass the limits of his rightful prerogative. But, equally
tenacious of his just pretensions and firm in resisting popular violence
and innovation, he never receded from any point or abandoned any
measure, under the impulse of personal apprehension. His courage was
calm, temperate, and steady. It was constitutional and hereditary; but
it was always sustained by conviction, sense of public duty, and
religion."[109] Yet when politics were concerned, George was not so
tenacious of his word as to fulfil it to a member of the Opposition. To
give one instance. He had, in 1765, promised the reversion of the
colonelcy of the Blues to the Duke of Richmond, but when the holder of
the command, Lord Granby, died in October, 1770, he immediately
appointed Conway to the vacant post. "The Duke of Richmond, who did not
expect that engagement would be kept to him, now in earnest opposition,
wrote an artfully handsome letter to the King, to release him from that
promise," Walpole has related; "but his Majesty had violated it before
he received the Duke's dispensation and made no answer."[110]
[109] _Historical Memoirs of My Own Times._
[110] _Memoirs of George III._
However, Wraxall was, perhaps, not wrong in his belief that George III
was sustained by "conviction, sense of public duty and religion," as at
a first reading might be supposed. "In all that related to his kingly
office he was the slave of deep-rooted selfishness; and no feeling of a
kindly nature was ever allowed access to his bosom whenever his power
was concerned, either in its maintenance, or in the manner of exercising
it," Brougham has written. "The instant that his prerogative was
concerned, and his bigotry interfered with, or his will thwarted, the
most unbending pride, the most bitter animosity, the most calculating
coldness of heart, the most unforgiving resentment, took possession of
his whole breast, and swayed it by turns. The habits of friendship, the
ties of blood, the dictates of conscience, the rules of honesty were
alike forgotten; and the fury of the tyrant with the resources of a
cunning which mental alienation is supposed to whet, were ready to
circumvent or to destroy all who interposed an obstacle to the
fierceness of unbridled desire."[111] Doubtless George did his duty
according to his lights, with indomitable spirit, contending with
unflinching courage as readily against the greatest as the weakest of
his ministers. He certainly believed it was the right of a King to
govern, and his narrow understanding coupled with an obstinate
disposition made him hold that to achieve this any methods were
justifiable.
[111] _Historical Sketches of Statesmen._
The greatest misfortune was that, while George III acquired a thorough
acquaintance with the duties of each of the departments of state, there
his knowledge ended. He knew how things should be done: never what to
do; and the pity of it was that his ambition was not confined within the
range of his abilities. He insisted upon being consulted in all matters,
which was right and proper. "Not a step was taken in foreign, colonial,
or domestic affairs, that he did not form his opinion upon it, and
exercise his influence over it. The instructions to ambassadors, the
orders to governors, the movements of forces down to marching of a
single battalion in the districts of this country, the appointments to
all office in church and state, not only the giving away of judgeships,
bishoprics, regiments, but the subordinate promotions, lay and
clerical."[112] All these are the topics of his letters, only
unfortunately on all these matters "his opinion is pronounced
decisively; on all his will is declared peremptorily."[113] When all
England was troubled by the reverses of the American war the sovereign
was exercising his wits upon the appointment of a Scotch puisne judge
and a Dean of Worcester, or was busy drawing up the march of a troop
from Buckinghamshire into Yorkshire. If only he had confined himself to
such matters!
[112] _Historical Sketches of Statesmen._
[113] _Ibid._
"I know he was a constant consort; own
He was a decent sire, and middling lord.
All this is much, and most upon a throne;
As temperance, if at Apicius' board,
Is more than at an anchorite's supper shown.
I grant him all the kindest can accord.
And this was well for him, but not for those
Millions who found him what Oppression chose."[114]
[114] Byron: _The Vision of Judgment_.
North as a High Tory was prepared on taking office to carry out the
King's policy so long as he could approve of it and even so long as he
could abstain from active disapproval; but unfortunately for his
reputation he remained in office and acted as the King's spokesman long
after affairs were directed in a manner contrary to the dictates of his
own conscience. "Submission in the Closet and corruption in the Commons"
were, according to Sir George Trevelyan, the watchwords of the Prime
Minister; and this indictment cannot be contravened. In mitigation of
sentence however, it may be urged that it was made very difficult for
him to withdraw from office. "I certainly did not come into office by my
own desire," he declared in the House of Commons. "Had I my wish, I
would have quitted it a hundred times; but as to my resigning now, look
at the transactions of this day, and say whether it is possible for a
man with a grain of spirit, with a grain of sense, to think of
withdrawing from the service of his King and his country at such a
moment. Unhappy that I am, that moment finds me in this situation; and
there are but two ways in which I can now cease to be minister;--by the
will of my sovereign, which I shall be ready to obey; or by the pleasure
of the gentlemen now at our doors, when they shall be able to do a
little more than they have done this day."
Again and again the Prime Minister resigned, only to be implored not to
desert his master. Many writers have spoken of North's fondness for
office as the reason for his remaining at the head of affairs, but his
indolence and the King's appeals to his compassion were two powerful
reasons for his continuing to hold the post of Prime Minister. His
position, indeed, was no bed of roses, for he was the last man in the
world to find pleasure in unpopularity. "In all my memory," he said
pathetically, "I do not remember a single popular measure I ever voted
for;" and the truth of this remark is patent to all who are acquainted
with the conduct of the affairs of state at this time, for the minister
shared, or at least supported, the mistakes of the King. "To those who
can for a moment forget the misfortunes which the perversity of George
III entailed upon his country, there is an element of the comical in the
roundness and vehemence with which he invariably declared himself upon
the wrong side in a controversy," Sir George Trevelyan has put the
situation admirably. "Whether he was predicting that the publication of
debates would 'annihilate the House of Commons, and thus put an end to
the most excellent form of government which has been established in this
kingdom;' or denouncing the 'indecency' of a well-meaning senator who
had protested against the double impropriety of establishing state
lotteries, and then using them as an engine for bribing Members of
Parliament; or explaining the reluctance of an assembly of English
gentlemen and landowners to plunder the Duke of Portland of his estate
by the theory that there was no 'truth, justice, and even honour' among
them; he displayed an inability to tolerate, or even to understand, any
view but his own, which can only be accounted for by the reflection that
he was at the same time a partisan and a monarch. He could never forgive
a politician for taking the right course, unless it was taken from a
wrong motive." The fact of the matter was that the King was always to be
found in arms against liberty.
"He ever warred with freedom and the free
Nations as men, home subjects, foreign foes,
So that they uttered the word 'Liberty!'
Found George the Third their first opponent. Whose
History was ever stained as his will be
With national and individual woes?"[115]
[115] Byron: _The Vision of Judgment_.
He was against Wilkes, naturally enough against "Junius," he took an
active interest in fostering opposition to the "Nullum Tempus" Bill, the
object of which was to protect the subjects against dormant claims of
the Crown, and he treated America like a wayward child.
"He came to his sceptre young; he leaves it old:
Look to the state in which he found his realm,
And left it; and his annals too behold,
How to a minion first he gave the helm:
How grew upon his heart a thirst for gold,
The beggar's vice, which can but overwhelm
The meanest hearts; and for the rest, but glance
Thine eye along America and France."[116]
[116] _Ibid._
Mistake after mistake was made by the King and his government, not the
least serious of which was the persecution of Admiral Keppel. When it
became known that a treaty had been entered into between America and
France, Keppel was sent, in June, 1777, to watch the French coast. He
discovered a large French fleet at Brest ready to set sail, and
returned to Portsmouth for reinforcements. Both fleets put to sea on
July 9, and sighted each other a fortnight later, when the enemy was
unwilling to fight, and Keppel with a force still inferior could not
force an engagement until the 27th inst. off Ushant. Much damage was
done to both sides, and the fleets drew off for repairs, but when the
signal was given to renew, Sir Hugh Palliser was either unable or
unwilling to obey, and his delay enabled the French to escape. Keppel
screened his second-in-command, but rumour could not be stilled, and
letters appeared in the newspapers making serious allegations against
Palliser, who demanded from his superior officer a complete vindication,
which the latter declined to give. The matter was brought up in the
House of Commons at the beginning of December, and there ensued an angry
debate in which Palliser charged Keppel with misconduct. Keppel was a
member of the Opposition, and though he had been informed in 1776 that
his services might be required, no notice was taken of him at Court in
the interval. Indeed, as he afterwards remarked, his "forty years'
endeavours were not marked by the possession of any one favour from the
Crown except that of its confidence in time of danger."[117] Keppel
was court-martialled, and the Court sat from January 7, 1779, for
thirty-two days; amidst great public excitement. Though, to a great
extent, the affair had been made a party question, Keppel had more than
political support, for a memorial signed by twelve admirals was
presented to the King by the Duke of Bolton,[118] in which they remarked
on the impropriety of the Board of Admiralty sanctioning charges made by
"their colleague in office" against his commander, and pointing out
that, if such a practice be countenanced, it would not be easy for men
attentive to their honour to serve his Majesty, particularly in
situations of principal command.[119]
[117] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[118] Harry Powlett, sixth Duke of Bolton--the "Captain Whiffle" of
_Roderick Random_.
[119] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_.
[Illustration: _From a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds_
ADMIRAL THE HON. AUGUSTUS KEPPEL
_To face p. 94, Vol. II_]
The news of Keppel's acquittal arrived in London on February 11 between
nine and ten o'clock in the evening, and before an hour had elapsed
nearly every house in the metropolis was illuminated. The windows of the
mansions of Lord North and Lord George Germaine were broken, the
Admiralty was attacked, Palliser was hung in effigy, his house broken
into, and his furniture carried into St. James's Square, and there
burned by an angry, excited mob. "If you had any doubts about the truth
of the accounts of the trial of Admiral Keppel, I suppose you will
hardly credit the enthusiasm that has seized England and Ireland about
him," Lady Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien on March 9, 1779,
"and yet nothing is more true than the general and wild joy that has
animated all ranks of people. What a flattering thing it is to obtain
much more than a Roman triumph _merely_ for being an honest man, and a
just, brave and humane officer, whose conduct has won him the hearts of
a whole fleet, of a whole kingdom. How much more glorious is such a
triumph than the pomp of war and all its melancholy honours. It is
impossible not to envy him."[120]
[120] Lady Sarah Lennox: _Life and Letters_.
After this the King regarded Keppel as his personal enemy, and, as we
have said, used his influence against the Admiral when he stood as
parliamentary candidate for Windsor in 1779. A certain silk-mercer, a
stout Keppelite, would subsequently mimic the King's peculiar voice and
manner as his Majesty entered his shop and muttered in his hurried way:
"The Queen wants a gown--wants a gown. No Keppel!--no Keppel! What,
what, what!" Keppel lost the election, but the King paid heavily for his
victory. "With all due respect to his Majesty I say it, but in my
opinion he has hurt himself a great deal more than he has hurt the
admiral in using his influence and authority to make him lose Windsor,"
Lady Sarah Bunbury wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien on September 22, 1780. "A
seat in _this_ Parliament and in _these_ times is no such very valuable
privilege as to break an honest man's heart if he loses it, particularly
when, as at Windsor, the electors come to him with the most affected
countenances saying, 'Sir, we honour, we esteem, we love you, we wish
you were our member, but our bread depends upon our refusing you our
votes; we are ordered to go against you, and you are too good to wish us
ruined by his Majesty's anger.' ... There are strange reports about all
the underhand and indeed some _open_ ways used to force the Windsor
people to vote against him."[121]
[121] Lady Sarah Lennox: _Life and Letters_.