was no real cordiality between the two sections. The Rockingham party
despised the City friends of Chatham, who, under the leadership of Lord
Mayor Beckford, had become prominent in the Wilkite riots, and since
that time by a somewhat impertinent use of the right which the City
possessed of directly approaching the King with petitions. They dreaded
also the paramount influence the Grenville party were nearly sure to
possess in any joint Government. On the other hand, Chatham despised the
half measures and moderation constantly advocated by the Rockingham
party. The King, with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain his
friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected in the present
excited state of the nation.
[Sidenote: The King sends for Lord North and avoids a dissolution.]
There was only one of the late ministry capable of assuming the position
of Prime Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so that while the
different sections of the Opposition were still unable to decide on any
united action, they were astonished to find the old ministry
reconstituted and their opportunity gone. The new Prime Minister was a
man whose unwieldy person and want of grace seemed little to fit him for
the command of a popular assembly. His frame was bulky, his action very
awkward, and his shortsighted, protruding eyes, swollen cheeks and
over-large tongue, enabled Walpole to compare him to a blind trumpeter.
But under this awkward exterior he had great capacity for business and
administration, and much sound sense; he was a first-rate debater, and
gifted with a wonderful sweetness of temper, which enabled him to listen
unmoved, or even to sleep, during the most violent attacks upon himself,
and to turn aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his
accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the Government
ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more than an instrument
of the King's will, and thus commanding the support of all royal
influence, from whatever source derived, North was able to bid defiance
to all enemies, till the ill effects of such a system of government and
of the King's policy became so evident, that the clamour for a really
responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded.
[Sidenote: Triumph of the King's policy.]
Thus is closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
the reign--the struggle of the King, supported by the unrepresented
masses, and the more liberal and independent of those who were
represented, against the domination of the House of Commons. It was an
attempt to break those trammels which, under the guise of liberty, the
upper classes, the great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded
after the Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that
struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not recognize the
alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He did not understand that
the people had other objects much beyond his own. He saw that they felt
thus far with him, that they disliked the comparative servitude in which
he was placed, that they felt hurt at the coercion frequently brought to
bear upon him by the dominant faction, that they were willing and
anxious to assist him in breaking those ties of party, which were little
else than the ties of faction and class. Seeing this, he did not
recognize that the people were equally disinclined for the establishment
of personal government, that they wanted to strengthen the Crown and to
weaken the Whig party, chiefly as a means of attaining to a more
complete system of self-government. He believed that his own power and
his own skill had been chiefly instrumental in the success which had met
his efforts. He had no intention of allowing any of the fruits of that
success to fall to any but himself. Kind-hearted and well-meaning, he
wished to govern for the good of his people, but he distinctly wished to
govern for them and not to let them govern for themselves. It is thus
that during the ministry of North, and of those who preceded him, the
royal influence was constantly employed in repression,--repression of
all popular movements at home, repression of all attempts at liberty in
the colonies; and this principle Lord North, backed by a servile House
of Commons, was able to uphold.
[Sidenote: Grenville's reform of election petitions. 1770.]
The House was indeed notoriously under ministerial influence, and one of
the last acts of Grenville was to attempt a reform in one particular at
least. Disputed elections had hitherto been referred to a Committee of
the whole House, and had thus become the merest party questions, in
which the right and wrong of the case was never thought of. Grenville's
measure, which was carried against considerable opposition, gave the
cognizance of such questions to a select Committee, with judicial
powers, and themselves bound by oath. Even thus justice was not secured,
and though the number of the Committee was subsequently again decreased
and fresh measures taken to secure fair decisions, it has lately been
found necessary to put the settlement of election petitions into the
hands of some of the regular judges. This important measure closed the
career of Grenville; before the year was out he died. Thus Lord North
found himself relieved from an able opponent, while the Opposition lost
one of its chiefs, and became still more disorganized. About the same
time the death of the Marquis of Granby, who by his popularity had
formed a link between Chatham's party and the rest of the Opposition,
still further weakened that body, and left North with comparatively easy
work on his hands.
[Sidenote: Increased irritation in America.]
[Sidenote: Lord North upholds Lord Hillsborough's policy.]
It was the American question which still pressed for solution. Profound
anger had been aroused by Bedford's vindictive proposal, and by the
maintenance even in a single instance of the right to tax. Hitherto the
quarrel had been principally with the New Englanders, but a more general
opposition was evidently approaching when the aristocratic province of
Virginia came forward to take the lead. When a solemn demand in the
House of Burgesses for the repeal of the obnoxious measures of the
English Parliament had only produced a dissolution of the House by the
Governor, Lord Bottetort, an organized opposition was formed by men who
subsequently became the chief actors in the War of Independence. A
declaration, signed by Washington, Patrick Henry, Randolph and
Jefferson, was issued against importing British goods till the
restrictions of 1767 had been withdrawn. In Massachusetts the cry
against the troops and the King's ships was continued, and there too the
legislative assembly was prorogued. The complaint made against the
number of soldiers kept in the province, and the consequent danger of
collision, was not groundless. On the 5th of March a riot took place;
and though Captain Preston, who commanded the soldiers, gave no orders
to fire, the troops were unable to command their temper, and some blood
was shed. This "massacre," as it was called, did much still further to
embitter the feelings of the people of Boston. It is pleasant to see
that even amidst the wild political excitement Preston and his soldiers
got a fair trial, and, being defended by John Adams (afterwards
President), were acquitted. This fray happened the very day that Lord
North in England announced his determination of clinging to the policy
of Lord Hillsborough, and said he was ready to remove all taxes except
that on tea. In vain was it pointed out to him that the value of the tax
was little more than £300 a year, and that the Americans had now made up
their minds on the principle, and did not care for the mere lessening of
burdens. He persisted in his view, saying that the Americans deserved no
indulgence, and his motion was supported in the House, by 204 against
142. For a brief space the American question seemed settled.
Massachusetts and Virginia still continued loud in their expressions of
discontent, but in most parts of the continent the question now seemed
rather a small one, and the hostile measures against English trade were
generally disregarded.
[Sidenote: Affair of the Falkland Islands.]
This period of quiet lasted about three years, during which the ministry
of Lord North constantly acquired strength, though there were not
wanting signs of the great faults which characterized its policy. In the
affair of the Falkland Islands, indeed, in spite of the outcries of the
Opposition, there seems to have been no real lack either of prudence or
firmness. These desert islands had been occupied by the English as a
point of importance in the South Seas. Both French and Spaniards had
turned their attention to them also, and a Spanish settlement, called
Fort Soledad, had been formed on one of the islands. The English had,
however, no idea that their neighbours intended to dispossess them,
when, in June 1770, a force of Spaniards from Buenos Ayres arrived off
Fort Egmont, and obliged the garrison to retire. This outrage in the
midst of peace very nearly plunged the nation into war with Spain and
France; for it was Choiseul who was the instigator of the difficulty,
and the skill of Harris (afterwards Lord Malmesbury), Chargé d'affaires
in Spain, would probably have failed to avert it had not Madame Dubarry,
who had lately gained complete influence over Louis XV., seized the
opportunity to overthrow the minister. On his fall Madame Dubarry's
clique, D'Aiguillon, Terray, and Maupeou, became paramount in France,
and, as might be expected under such circumstances, that country ceased
for a time to have much influence in European politics.
[Sidenote: The liberty of reporting Parliamentary debates.]
Though this affair had on the whole been carried through with success,
there had been a certain quantity of opposition in London, showing the
unpopular character of the Government. Murmurs against the press
warrants had been heard, and opposition to them had been overruled
chiefly by Chatham's influence. But the feeling of discontent broke out
in full force the following year. Great jealousy had always been felt in
Parliament as to reports of the debates held there, and such meagre
accounts as had been published, from the memory of hearers or other
private sources, had habitually been brought out under some disguise and
with an affectation of secrecy. In 1770 this habit had passed into
disuse. The Commons, already angry with the House of Lords for having
excluded strangers, and indignant that, while the Lords secured secrecy
their own debates were publicly reported, resolved to enforce the
existing orders against some of the printers of reports. Among others,
one Miller was summoned to be reprimanded. He however refused to come,
saying he was a livery-man of the City. A messenger sent to fetch him
was himself apprehended and taken before the Lord Mayor, Brass Crosby,
and Aldermen Oliver and Wilkes. These magistrates supported the arrest
and held the messenger to bail. The House was very indignant. As the
Mayor and Oliver were members, they justified in their places in
Parliament what they had done, and were committed to the Tower. This was
a sign for a renewal of the riots attending the Wilkite difficulties.
Mobs filled the streets, and Lord North was ill used. The City took up
the part of its members, who lived in prison at the public expense; and
although the law courts held that the City was in the wrong, appearances
became so threatening that the House let the matter quietly drop; and on
the prorogation in May the prisoners were allowed to leave their
confinement in triumphal procession, and the question was not again
raised. This secured for ever the liberty of reporting.
[Sidenote: Lord North's ministry gathers strength.]
In spite of this victory the popular party in the City was losing
ground, and Wilkes was not the name of power it once had been; while
within the walls of Parliament the ministry was constantly acquiring
strength and the Opposition becoming more and more broken up. Grafton
had again consented to return to office; Lord Sandwich, a follower of
the Duke of Bedford, accepted the Admiralty. Lord Suffolk, the leader of
what was left of Grenville's party, became Secretary of State. The
Opposition was thus reduced to the party of Rockingham and such few
followers as consistently clung to Lord Chatham, but these two sections
could never work well together, and the three Whig propositions of the
year were all lost by want of union. The want of harmony between the
Parliament and the country, and the consequent need of some reform, had
been shown by the late quarrels in the City. Chatham brought in a Bill
with that object, embodying his old plan of increased county
representation. This, as it seemed the only manner of securing an
addition of independent members, and as there was not yet in existence
an important manufacturing and industrial element unrepresented, was
probably the best measure that could have been taken. But it did not
find favour with the Rockingham party, and was put aside. The same fate
attended an effort on the part of the Rockingham party to define the law
of libel, and to give the jury in such cases the right of settling not
only the fact of publication, but the character of the libel. Chatham
thought that measure should have been left for him, and a ridiculous
struggle between the two Whig sections in the House was the result. On
the third question, the dissolution of the present Parliament, which had
been the favourite object of all the City opposition and addresses,
Chatham found himself almost alone. While thus all effective opposition
disappeared, Lord North found his chief parliamentary support in his law
officers. Thurlow, his Attorney-General, and Wedderburn, his Solicitor,
afterwards Lord Loughborough, brought--the one the weight of great legal
knowledge, very strong sense, a wonderful power of invective, and a
determination of character almost brutal; the other a time-serving
readiness and facile elegant eloquence which was always at the service
of his chief.
[Sidenote: Royal Marriage Law. 1772.]
[Sidenote: Fate of the Queen of Denmark.]
Excellent as the King's domestic life was, he did not escape the family
discomforts which so constantly attended the house of Hanover. Two of
his brothers gave him much displeasure by their marriages. The Duke of
Cumberland,[10] a man of libertine life, after scandalizing the world by
appearing as defendant in a case of criminal conversation, married Mrs.
Horton, a sister of that Colonel Luttrell who had been forced upon the
electors of Middlesex; while the Duke of Gloucester now declared his
marriage with Lady Waldegrave, an illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward
Walpole. To guard against such marriages in future, the Royal Marriage
Bill was passed, which forbids any member of the Royal Family, unless
children of princesses married abroad, to marry before the age of
twenty-five without the King's consent. After that age they must give a
twelvemonth's notice of their intended marriage, which may be completed
unless it be petitioned against by both Houses of Parliament. A more
real disgrace than these marriages was the fate of George's sister,
Caroline Matilda, Queen of Denmark. Her husband was a disgusting and
licentious sot, whose villanous conduct so changed her naturally good
disposition, that it was not found difficult for her enemies to gain
credence for a story which connected her name in a disreputable manner
with a certain Struensee, at that time favourite and Prime Minister in
Denmark. This man, a physician by profession, had acquired absolute
control over the King's mind, and had speedily risen to power. His
enemies were of course numerous, and the opportunity offered them by the
Queen's conduct only too favourable. Struensee and the Queen were
suddenly apprehended by night, and the Queen, after some remonstrance
from King George, allowed to retire to Zell, where she died after a few
years, protesting her innocence. Struensee, however, was executed, and
confessed the crime with which he and the Queen were charged.
[Sidenote: Division of Poland.]
[Sidenote: Constitution of Poland.]
[Sidenote: Its peculiar institutions.]
[Sidenote: Treaty of Partition.]
[Sidenote: Balance of Power.]
From such comparatively trivial matters as royal marriages and
misconduct it is necessary to turn to what forms one of the darkest
passages in the political history of Europe. England, under the guidance
of a ministry bound to support the selfish policy of a King whose real
aim was solely the aggrandizement of the Crown, had held selfishly aloof
from foreign affairs. France had just disgraced the last capable and
vigorous minister she possessed, and lay supine under the hands of the
King's scandalous mistress. So these two great countries, to their
eternal disgrace, looked calmly on while the Eastern powers, without
reason or plea of reason, dismembered an old kingdom and reduced a noble
people to slavery. The institutions of Poland were very different from
those of the rest of Europe, and such as lent themselves easily to the
plans of encroaching neighbours. Since the failure of the house of
Jagellon (1572) the monarchy had been elective. So great a prize had
naturally attracted the notice of foreign powers, who sought to secure
the advancement of their own interests by obtaining the election of some
favourite candidate of their own. Faction within the country was the
inevitable consequence, and the arrangements of the constitution made
faction permanent. There was no middle class. The nation had not gone
through the same processes as other Western people. Nobility was easily
obtained, and each member of the nobility ranked as the peer of all the
rest. Below the ranks of the nobility came the serfs. Political power,
and also most of the executive, was vested in this wide aristocratical
democracy. Usually delegates of the nobles constituted a governing
house. Sometimes the whole body could, and did, claim the right of
legislating. In the delegates' house one veto could check the progress
of any law. If to this is added that the nation was divided by fierce
differences in religion, it will be seen that no fairer field for
foreign intrigue can be conceived. Nor, in spite of their individual
bravery, were the Poles in a position to withstand force; the nobility
still clung to their old habit of fighting on horseback, so that, at a
time when modern warfare had fairly begun, there was no infantry but
such as consisted of serfs. The strength of the army still consisted in
an irregular body of light horse. Well might the Czarina Catherine say
that anything might be had from Poland for the trouble of picking it up.
She had made the experiment. On the death of Augustus of Saxony, in
1764, Russia had compelled the Poles to elect a late favourite of the
Empress, Stanislas Poniatowsky, and from the time of his election had in
fact treated Poland as her own property. It had been the hereditary
policy of France to withstand Russian influence in Poland, and during
Choiseul's ministry this policy was continued. The Turks were induced to
make a war with Russia, which, though disastrous to them, no doubt
somewhat lengthened the dying agonies of Poland. The confederates, who
opposed in arms the reigning king and the Russian party, chiefly on the
ground that they had insisted on the rights of the dissidents or
dissenters in opposition to the orthodox Catholics, received constant
though secret help from France. The conduct of Austria also was as yet
ambiguous, and, judging by its natural interests, should have been
opposed to that of Russia. On such hopes the confederates rested.
Occasional success lured them on more rapidly to inevitable ruin. But
France was too far away to give real help. Choiseul fell before the
intrigues of the Dubarry party, and neither nation nor ministry was in a
temper or position to pursue with energy a distant and unselfish policy.
On the other hand, Austria speedily began to see more advantage in
joining the prosperous and rising powers of Eastern Europe than in
trying to prop up against them a falling cause. It became evident that
Russia would soon be absolute master of the kingdom. Frederick of
Prussia could not see such an accession to the power of his dangerous
neighbour without taking some corresponding measures, and as a Prussian
army entered and pillaged ruthlessly all the northern provinces, it
became plain that there existed some understanding between Frederick and
the Empress. The movement of Austrian troops, at first supposed to be
friendly to the confederates, soon proved that Maria Theresa, however
grandly she might write and speak, had joined in the conspiracy of
robbers; and before the year 1772 was over the treaty made early in the
year was declared; and the necessary concessions were wrung with much
violence from the King and legislature, absolutely unable to assert any
will of their own. The final ratification took place in May 1773. The
kingdom was to be partitioned. Each of the three great neighbours was to
receive a portion somewhat in proportion to its size. Russia got 87,500
square miles; Austria 62,500; Prussia only 9,465 square miles, but these
containing the best and most industrious part of the nation. What
remained was formed into an hereditary monarchy in the house of
Stanislas. It is fair to say, as an excuse for the supineness with which
England looked on at this vast national crime, that the best and wisest
of her statesmen had systematically directed their attention to the
depression of the house of Bourbon. In the system of balance of power,
as then understood, nothing was regarded as so likely to prove a check
on the power of that house as the increase of the influence of Russia.
Any movement in favour of Poland must have been in union with France and
in opposition to Russia, and would have tended at first to reverse that
action, which was generally regarded as most consistent with the safety
of English interests. In the face of recent facts (1871), it may be
clearly evident that the dangers of Europe come from the East and not
from the West; but it is not fair to blame statesmen or nations because
they did not foresee the French Revolution and its consequences, nor to
throw indiscriminate censure on the whole system of the balance of power
because it has sometimes produced disasters. As long as the social
constitution of Europe remains the same as it has been since the
breaking up of the feudal system, as long as the feeling of nationality
survives, in some form or other the balance of power is a necessary
safeguard to national independence. The fictitious divisions into which
Europe has by dynastic influences been forced, and the maintenance of
which has been the chief cause of the disrepute into which the system of
balance has fallen, have disappeared, or are disappearing, before more
natural and truly national divisions; but until these in their turn give
way to some wholly new industrial organization the undue preponderance
of one nation must be an object of dread to all the rest, and their
efforts must be directed, as events afford opportunity, to diminishing
that preponderance.
[Sidenote: American affairs. 1773.]
[Sidenote: Dunning's petition rejected. 1774.]