State of Parties at Lord North’s Accession to the post of First
Minister.--Victory of the Court Party.--Character of Lord
North.--The other Ministers.--Debate in the House of Lords on the
State of the Nation.--Quarrel between the Speaker and Sir William
Meredith.--Debate in the Lords.--Lord Chatham attacks the Influence
of the Court.--Repeal of American Duties.--Bold Conduct of the City
Authorities.--Remonstrance Presented to the King.--Debate on the
Civil List.--Lord Chatham attacks the Duke of Grafton.--Indirect
Censure on the City Remonstrance in the House of Commons.--Loyal
Address carried.
1770.
Nothing could be more distressful than the situation into which the
Duke of Grafton had brought the King, and in which he abandoned him.
Whether it was owing to disgust, or whether men had conceived that the
Duke could not maintain himself, the majority had suddenly dwindled
away to an alarming degree, nor was any time given to prepare for the
change. The 31st was appointed for going again into the committee on
the state of the nation, the very business on which the failure of
numbers had disclosed itself. A new arrangement without new strength
was not encouraging. Lord North had neither connections with the
nobility, nor popularity with the country, yet he undertook the
government in a manly style, and was appointed First Lord of the
Treasury on the 29th, with only one day to intervene before it would be
decided whether he would stand or fall. Could he depend on men whom he
had not time to canvass? Was it not probable that the most venal would
hang off till they should see to which side the scale would incline?
Yet Lord North plunged boldly into the danger at once. A more critical
day had seldom dawned. If the Court should be beaten, the King would
be at the mercy of the Opposition, or driven to have recourse to the
Lords--possibly to the sword. All the resolutions on the Middlesex
election would be rescinded, the Parliament dissolved, or the contest
reduced to the sole question of prerogative. Yet in the short interval
allowed, Lord North, Lord Sandwich, Rigby, and that faction on one
side, the Scotch and the Butists on the other hand, had been so active,
and had acted so differently from what the Duke of Grafton had done,
that at past twelve at night the Court proved victorious by a majority
of forty; small in truth, but greater by fifteen or twenty than was
expected by the most sanguine, the numbers being 226 to 186.[50]
The question in effect was, that a person eligible by law cannot by
expulsion be rendered incapable of being rechosen, unless by act of
parliament. The courtiers moved that the chairman should leave the
chair, and carried it. Lord North, with great frankness and spirit,
laid open his own situation, which, he said, he had not sought, but
would not refuse; nor would he timidly shrink from his post. He was
rudely treated by Colonel Barré, who already softened towards the Duke
of Grafton, to whom he attributed weight and dignity, but expressing
contempt for the new Premier, as a man of no consequence. The latter
replied not only with spirit but good-humour, and evidently had
the advantage, though it was obvious how much weight the personal
presence of a First Minister in the House of Commons carried with it.
George Grenville amazed everybody by a bitter complaint of libels and
libellers hired by the Court; and this at a season when, deserve what
it might, the Court undoubtedly laboured under an unparalleled load
of abuse. Colonel Lutterell, on the other hand, affirmed that he had
traced a most flagrant libel home to a near relation of that gentleman,
who, he believed, was also privy to it. He had forced the printer to
divulge the writer, one Lloyd,[51] who had confessed on his knees,
with tears, that Lord Temple had forced him to practise that office.
Lutterell added that he had taxed Lord Temple with it by letter, who
had not deigned to make an answer. Captain Walsingham said he had gone
to Lord Temple on the same errand, who had declared on his honour he
was not concerned in it. Grenville flamed, and called for a committee
to inquire into libels. He was answered finely by Sir Gilbert Elliot,
who now, contrary to his custom of late, took a warm part. He had been
much neglected by Grafton, though the confidential agent of the King
and Lord Bute; and never distinguished himself, though none more able,
but on cases of emergency, and when the Court ventured or chose to make
its mind more known than by the Minister. Elliot told Grenville that,
had he not entered into factious combinations, _he_ knew Grenville
would have been entreated to save his country. That Grenville was not
pardoned and again received into favour, proved how much more the King
and his mother were swayed by their passions than by their interest.[52]
Frederic Lord North, eldest son of the Earl of Guilford, was now in
the thirty-eighth year of his age. Nothing could be more coarse or
clumsy or ungracious than his outside. 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. A deep untuneable voice, which, instead of modulating, he
enforced with unnecessary pomp, a total neglect of his person, and
ignorance of every civil attention,[53] disgusted all who judge by
appearance, or withhold their approbation till it is courted. But
within that rude casket were enclosed many useful talents. He had much
wit, good-humour, strong natural sense, assurance, and promptness, both
of conception and elocution. His ambition had seemed to aspire to the
height, yet he was not very ambitious. He was thought interested, yet
was not avaricious. What he did, he did without a mask, and was not
delicate in choosing his means.[54] He had lent himself readily to all
the violences of Mr. Grenville against Wilkes, had seized the moment of
advancement by accepting the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer (after
a very short opposition) when the Court wanted a person to oppose to
the same Mr. Grenville; and with equal alacrity had served under the
Duke of Grafton. When the first post became vacant by the Duke’s
strange retreat, no man so ready to place himself in the gap as Lord
North. It was in truth worth his ambition, though he should rule but a
day, to attain the rank of Prime Minister. He had knowledge, and though
fond of his amusement, seemed to have all necessary activity till
he reached the summit. Yet that industry ceased when it became most
requisite. He had neither system, nor principles, nor shame; sought
neither the favour of the Crown or of the people, but enjoyed the good
luck of fortune with a gluttonous epicurism that was equally careless
of glory and disgrace.[55] His indolence prevented his forming any
plan. His indifference made him leap from one extreme to another; and
his insensibility to reproach reconciled him to any contradiction.
He proved as indolent as the Duke of Grafton, but his temper being
as good as the Duke’s was bad, he was less hurt at capital disgraces
than the Duke had been at trifling difficulties. Lord North’s conduct
in the American war displayed all these features. He engaged in it
against his opinion, and yet without reluctance. He managed it without
foresight or address, and was neither ashamed when it miscarried, nor
dispirited when the Crown itself became endangered by the additional
war with France. His good humour could not be good nature, for at the
beginning of the war he stuck at no cruelty, but laughed at barbarities
with which all Europe rung. It could not be good sense, for in the
progress he blushed at none of the mischiefs he had occasioned, at
none of the reproaches he had incurred. Like the Duke of Grafton, he
was always affecting a disposition to retire, yet never did.[56] Unlike
the Duke, who secured no emoluments to himself, Lord North engrossed
whatever fell in his way, and sometimes was bribed[57] by the Crown to
promote Acts, against which he pretended his conscience recoiled--but
it never was delicate when profit was in the opposite scale. If he had
ambition, it was of very mean complexion, for he stooped to be but a
nominal Prime Minister, and suffered the King’s private junto to enjoy
the whole credit of favour, while, between submission and laziness,
Lord North himself was seldom the author of the measures in which he
bore the principal part. This passive and inglorious tractability, and
his being connected with no faction, made him welcome to the King:
his having no predominant fault or vice recommended him to the nation,
and his good humour and wit to everybody but to the few whom his want
of good breeding and attention offended. One singularity came out in
his character, which was, that no man was more ready for extremes
under the administration of others, no man more temperate than Lord
North during his own:--in effect, he was a man whom few hated, fewer
could esteem. As a Minister he had no foresight, no consistence, no
firmness, no spirit. He miscarried in all he undertook in America, was
more improvident than unfortunate, less unfortunate than he deserved
to be. If he was free from vices, he was as void of virtues; and it is
a paltry eulogium of a Prime Minister of a great country, yet the best
that can be allotted to Lord North, that, though his country was ruined
under his administration, he preserved his good humour, and neither
felt for his country nor for himself. Yet it is true, too, that he
was the least odious of the Ministers with whom he acted; and though
servile in obedience to a Prince who meant so ill, there was reason to
think that Lord North neither stimulated, nor was more than the passive
instrument of the black designs of the Court.
The other chief Ministers were, Lord Dartmouth, Lord Suffolk, Lord
Gower, Lord Weymouth, Lord Sandwich, Lord Rochford, and afterwards
Lord George Germaine, besides two, who, though not ostensible
Ministers, had more weight with the King than Lord North himself.
Of those, Lord Dartmouth only stayed long enough to prostitute his
character and authenticate his hypocrisy. The Chancellor, Bathurst,
was too poor a creature to have any weight; and Lord Rochford, though
more employed, had still less claim to sense, and none at all to
knowledge. Lord Suffolk’s soul was harrowed by ambition, and as he
had not parts to gratify it, he sought the despotism of the Crown as
means of gratifying his own pride. Lord Gower, Lord Weymouth, and
Lord Sandwich, all had parts, and never used them to any good or
creditable purpose. The first had spirit enough to attempt any crime;
the other two, though notorious cowards, were equally fitted to serve
a prosperous Court; and Sandwich had a predilection to guilt if he
could couple it with artifice and treachery. Lord George Germaine was
proud, haughty, and desperate. Success by any means was necessary to
restore his credit; and a Court that was capable of adopting him,
was sure he would not boggle at anything to maintain himself. Lord
Mansfield was by birth, education, principle, cowardice, and revenge
for the public odium, a bigot to tyranny. He would have sacrificed the
universe, and everything but his personal safety, to overturn the
constitution and freedom of England. But in the blindness of that rage,
and from not daring to open the attempt where the danger to himself
would have been imminent, he was the author of the liberty of America,
and the instrument of Providence to bless a whole continent, whose
destruction he sought to involve with that of his country. Jenkinson
had, and deserved, no marked character; he was the tool of the King
and Lord Mansfield, and had just parts enough to make his servility
inexcusable. Wedderburne, Sir Gilbert Elliot, and Dyson were also much
implicated in the following counsels; but the two latter died early in
the American war. Thurlow, Rigby, and Ellis bore their part in kindling
that fatal flame--but I am anticipating what did not appear till three
or four years later--though it was both necessary to specify the chief
incendiaries of the ensuing calamities, and to account for Lord North’s
escaping capital hatred for seeming to bear so capital a part in so
criminal a scene; but as not one of the set I have recapitulated had
recommended himself to the favour of the public, Lord North, by his
good humour, easily drew most good will to himself, and did not, like
most of the rest, push it from him by insolence and avowed profligacy.
Many events intervened, before the grand scene opened, and those I must
now detail.
From Lord North’s entrance into power, the Court found all their
facilities of governing by corruption and influence return. Every
question was carried in both Houses by more than sufficient majorities:
and though the Ministers were teazed within, and the King from without,
Lord Chatham was always baffled in the Lords, Dowdeswell, Burke, and
Grenville in the Commons; nor could Wilkes in the City keep up more
than an ineffectual flame. I will recapitulate, as briefly as I can,
the chief events and debates of the following period.
Lord North was no sooner set at the head of affairs, than he solicited
General Conway’s support. The latter professed great regard for him,
but declared he would not sit in council with Lord Gower and Lord
Sandwich, now the Duke of Grafton, to whom alone he had been obliged,
was retired. Conway, accordingly, with the King’s consent, returned no
more to the Cabinet Council. The Privy Seal was given to Lord North’s
uncle, the Earl of Halifax. Charles Fox and Charles Townshend,[58]
of Hunningham, were made Commissioners, the first of the Admiralty,
the second of the Treasury. Ellis[59] succeeded James Grenville as
Vice-Treasurer of Ireland; but Lord Howe and Lord Cornwallis resigned
their places, having, as they said, had no obligations but to Lord
Chatham and the Duke of Grafton. Dr. Blackstone was made a judge, and
Sir Gilbert Elliot succeeded Lord Howe as Treasurer of the Navy.[60]
On the 2nd of February, the Lords went into the state of the nation,
on a question like Dowdeswell’s, and sat till two in the morning, an
hour scarce ever known in that House. The Duke of Richmond principally
shone, and said he concluded the Duke of Grafton had resigned from
being conscious of the badness of the cause. Grafton denied the
supposition; said, nobody did or ever should know the cause of his
resignation--and then entered into the most vehement protestation of
eternal attachment to his friends the Bedfords. Lord Shelburne and
Lord Sandwich had a warm altercation; but the most disagreeable part
of the day fell on the late Chancellor, Camden. Grafton, Gower, and
Weymouth declared, on their honours, that he had never objected to the
legality of what had been done on the Middlesex election; and the Duke
affirmed that he had not suspected Lord Camden’s doubts till the month
of August last. All Lord Camden could say was, that he had never been
positively consulted on it, and had not thought himself obliged to
give any opinion when not called upon; yet it appeared in the debate
from Lord Chatham, that Lord Camden had declared the illegality to him
before August--a proceeding not quite justifiable in a Chancellor,
who is styled keeper of the King’s conscience, to be silent to the
Ministers on so important a step, and to condemn their measures to
the chief of their opponents. The motion was rejected by 96 to 47,
and then the majority voted, that for the House of Lords to interfere
in a resolution of the House of Commons in a matter of election would
be unconstitutional, and tend to a breach between the two Houses. Two
warm protests were signed on that occasion by the Lords in opposition,
declaring they would never rest till the nation should obtain
satisfaction on the Middlesex election.[61]
On voting the land tax, Burke complained of the new grants of pensions
and reversions, and of the hardship of levying three shillings in the
pound for such purposes. Lord North defended them by the precedent
of Lord Camden’s pension. Dowdeswell named Dyson and Bradshaw as
enjoying monstrous and exorbitant grants, and gave notice they should
be inquired into. James Townshend, the Sheriff, declared that as the
county of Middlesex was not fairly represented, he would not pay the
land tax. Lord North answered calmly, that the law would decide whether
he should pay it or not. The declaration, though intended for example,
was not followed: but the Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina,
voted 1500_l._ to the Supporters of the Bill of Rights.
On the 12th, Lord Chatham moved for a resolution that the capacity of a
person to be elected did not depend finally on a determination of the
House of Commons. This was supported by Lord Camden, but denied by Lord
Mansfield, and evaded by the previous question.
Dowdeswell the same day aimed a destructive blow at the prerogative,
but one too wholesome to meet with success.[62] It was to take away
votes at elections for Members of Parliament from all under-officers
of the revenue, as of the excise, customs, &c. The motion was popular
and constitutional; but the old artillery of the Court, the Tories,
were played against the proposal, and it was rejected by 263 against
188. Dowdeswell and Grenville pledged themselves to promote such a
bill, should they ever be Ministers again. Lord North told them they
certainly did not think themselves likely to become so, when they
supported such a measure.[63]
On the report from the committee on the state of the nation, a great
quarrel happened between the new Speaker and Sir William Meredith, who
were ancient enemies. Grenville had insisted on a right of separating
two questions, which being contested, Meredith appealed to the Speaker.
Sir Fletcher, a novice in the orders of the House, made an artful but
false distinction; at the same time complaining of the hardship of
being pressed for decision in the dawn of his office. Sir William said
he had meant nothing uncandid; but Norton, hot and unguarded, said, “he
now saw he must never expect candour from that gentleman.” Those words
caused such an uproar for twenty minutes that nobody could be heard,
most crying out to have the words taken down. Conway and others tried
to moderate; but Barré inflamed the heat, and Dowdeswell moved that the
Speaker’s behaviour had been an infringement of the liberty of debate,
and a violation of the rules of the House. The Speaker was enraged, and
perceiving that so violent a motion would be rejected with indignation,
he insisted on putting the question on himself, which was thrown out
without a division. The whole discussion lasted between four and five
hours, protracted by the Speaker’s fault, who would make no concession,
and who desired the House to take notice that he had made no apology to
Meredith.[64]
A motion of Grenville for an account of the disbursements on the Civil
List for the year 1769 was rejected by 262 to 165. Many reflections
were thrown out on the new grants to Sir Fletcher Norton, Dyson, and
Bradshaw; but as the majority was again risen to ninety-seven, the
Court paid no regard to complaints. Lord North had flung himself into
the hands of Lord Bute’s junto,[65] and had even taken for his own
private secretary one Robinson, steward to Sir James Lowther[66]--not
without giving offence to the Bedfords, who had meant to govern North
themselves.
But if Lord North established his credit at Court by recurring to the
patronage of the Favourite, it did but serve to revive jealousies of
Lord Bute and the Princess; a strong instance of which broke forth.
Sir Edward Hawke had declared for an addition of four thousand seamen,
then retracted that opinion, but said, if he should remain in the
Admiralty,[67] he should the next year be for adding five thousand
men. On this declaration of so renowned an Admiral, Lord Craven and
Lord Abingdon moved for two thousand seamen more. The Duke of Richmond
supported their motion with great abilities, knowledge, and matter,
and pointed out the encroachments and dangers from France and Spain
in Corsica and the East Indies, and from the formidable Spanish fleet
that seemed to threaten Jamaica, warning the Ministers that they
should be answerable for refusing more seamen, if any mischief should
arise. Still they refused them, but with much confusion and little
argument. Lord Chatham went farther, in his best manner and with most
inflammatory matter, perceiving how little he could hope either from
the King or Parliament. He pronounced that since the King’s accession
there had been no _original_ Minister (a forced expression for no
_independent_ Minister) in this country; that there was a _secret
influence_ (which he described so as to point at the Princess, not at
Lord Bute) which governed and impeded everything, and was greater than
the King. He drew a flattering yet artfully ridiculous picture of the
King’s gracious facility in granting everything in his closet, while in
Council or in Parliament it was defeated by the faction of the secret
influence. He himself, he said, had been duped and deceived by it; and
though it was a hard thing to say of himself, confessed he had been a
fool and a changeling. The Duke of Grafton, mistaking Lord Chatham,
asked whether the King or himself had been pointed at by the Earl,
and spoke with warmth, dignity, and grace. He declared Lord Chatham
had forced him into Administration, as he had many letters to prove;
but the happiest day of his life had been that of his resignation.
For the words dropped by Lord Chatham, _they were the effects of a
distempered mind brooding over its own discontents_.[68] This last
expression hurt Lord Chatham deeply: he repeated it over and over, and
said he had drawers full of papers to prove that he had always had
sufficient vigour of mind to avoid the snares laid for him. He would
neither retract, he said, nor explain away the words he had uttered;
but returned the Duke’s attack with severe reflections on his Grace’s
falsehood and deviations. The Ministers did not dare to take notice of
what had been thrown out against the Princess, but rejected the motion
by 70 to 38. The Duke of Richmond hinted that in the late war the
Emperor of Morocco had offered to embark fifty thousand men on board
Admiral Saunders’s fleet, and invade Spain. Lord Rockingham, the Duke
of Richmond, and the Cavendishes, who had kept aloof from Lord Chatham,
were so charmed with his attack on the Princess, that they visited him
publicly. It was more surprising that the Duke of Grafton supported the
new Administration with more parts and spirit than he had done his own;
and in that and the following winter recovered much of the esteem that
he had lost when in power, though without having recourse to that usual
restorative of character, opposition.
On the 5th of March the House of Commons went upon the consideration
of America. Lord North proposed to repeal all the late duties, but
that on tea. _Mr. Conway advised the repeal of that also_, most men
believing that a partial repeal would produce no content. Grenville
agreed in condemning, as the Rockingham party did too, a partial
repeal; but, too obstinate to consent to any repeal, went away without
voting, and the motion passed. Lord North produced letters showing that
the association for not taking our goods was in a great measure broken
through, as the Colonies found they could not do without them. In fact,
they continued secretly to send commissioners hither for goods while
they appeared most vehement against letting them be imported--the true
reason why our merchants did not, as having no cause, complain of the
decay of that trade.[69]
To find the petitions slighted, and to have driven away the Prime
Minister without shaking the Administration, was a mortifying
disappointment to the Opposition; and which, though they affected great
contempt for the leaders of the Court party, gave no shining idea
of their own abilities employed in vain to overturn them. The next
expedient to which the opponents had recourse, did as little honour to
their invention, being nothing more than a renewal of petitions under
the title of a remonstrance; and which, being only a variation of
terms, not of means, produced, like other such remedies, no more effect
than the dose to which it was a succedaneum. The Liverymen of London,
indignant at the King’s making no answer to their petition, had, with
the assistance of the Common Council, and by the countenance (if not
by the instigation) of Beckford, the Lord Mayor, obtained a Common
Hall, notwithstanding the opposition of almost all the Aldermen. At
that Hall it was determined to present a remonstrance to his Majesty on
his not having deigned to take any notice of their petition; and the
Sheriffs attended him to know when he would be waited upon with the
remonstrance. The King replied, “As the case is entirely new, I will
take time to consider of it, and will transmit an answer to you by one
of my principal Secretaries of State.” In two days Lord Weymouth wrote
to the Sheriffs to know how their message was authenticated, and what
the nature had been of the assembly in which it was drawn up. The
Sheriffs went the next morning with a verbal message, and insisted on
being admitted to an audience to deliver it. Alderman Townshend told
the King he came by direction of the Livery in Common Hall assembled.
The King replied, “I will consider of the answer you have given me.”
From the temper both of the City and the Court, it was fortunate that
no mischief arose. The boldness of the former was met by the contempt
of the latter. The Remembrancer being denied admittance into the
closet with the Sheriffs, he asked Lord Bolingbroke, the Lord of the
Bedchamber in waiting, whether it was not usual to admit the person
possessed of the office he held? Bolingbroke replied, “I do not know: I
never saw you here before, and hope never to see you here again.”
Sir Robert Ladbroke proposed to the Court of Aldermen to declare
that the remonstrance was no act of that court or of the Corporation
of London; but the Lord Mayor refused to put the question without
consulting the books of the City; and many reflections were thrown on
the courtly Aldermen for attempting to govern the City contrary to
its own sense. Sixteen of the Aldermen, however, protested against
the remonstrance, which, by the King’s allowance, was carried to him
on the 14th of March by the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs. An immense mob
accompanied them, but committed no indecorum, except hissing as they
passed Carlton House, the residence of the Princess Dowager. The King
received them sitting on the throne. The Common Serjeant began to read
the remonstrance, but being inclined to the Court, was so frightened
that he could not proceed, and Sir James Hodges[70] was forced to
read it. The King, with great composure, and without expressing
anger, scorn, or fear, read his answer, which, though condemning the
address, was uncommonly condescending, and in a style of appeal to
his people.[71] It had been debated whether they should be admitted
to kiss the King’s hand. Lord Hertford, the Chamberlain, was ordered
to tell the Lord Mayor, that if they desired to kiss his Majesty’s
hand, he would grant it. Beckford said, “I desire of all things to
kiss my Sovereign’s hand,” which they all did. In the relation of
that ceremony given the next day in the _Public Advertiser_, it was
described in this bitter manner:--_the King instantly turned round to
his courtiers and burst out a-laughing--Nero fiddled while Rome was
burning_. Two papers, still more indecent, called _The Whisperer_ and
_The Parliamentary Spy_, were published weekly against the King, the
Princess, and the Parliament.
During the above transaction, Mr. Dowdeswell moved for the accounts of
the Civil List, expressing the different Administrations under which
the debts had been contracted. Lord North objected; but Lord Mount
Stewart,[72] desiring his father’s share might be specified, it was
accorded, as were the rest, though, till his application, they had
been refused, notwithstanding Grenville and Dowdeswell, both of whom
had been Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the former First Lord of
the Treasury, too, had begged to have their accounts particularized.
Grenville justly observed, that that deference to Lord Mount Stewart’s
request, proved his father’s actual influence, and consequently Lord
North’s servility to him.
Lord Rockingham made the same demand of accounts in the House of Lords,
but down to that very year. The former were granted as in the other
House; the latter part was refused. Lord Chatham said, Sir Robert
Walpole, on whom he made great encomiums, once asking the payment of
but 113,000_l._ gave in the vouchers: now, 500,000_l._ had been asked
without any account delivered, which had been refused even till now,
though the debt had been paid. Growing more inflammatory, he drew
a picture of the late King, who, he said, was _true, faithful, and
sincere_, and who, when he disliked a man, always let him perceive
it--a portrait intended as a satirical contrast to the character
of the reigning monarch. On the Duke of Grafton he was still more
bitter, whom he repeatedly called _Novice_, and whom, he said, he had
never meant for First Minister; the Duke had thrust himself into the
function, removing Lord Camden and Lord Shelburne; but that, when the
latter was dismissed, could he have crawled out, he himself would have
gone to the King, and insisted that the Duke should be dismissed too.
The Duke answered with firmness and sense; said he knew Lord Chatham
had wished him to hold his power only under himself, and had meant
him for a cypher, _regnante Cæsare_. The debate continued chiefly
between these two; but Lord Chatham adding, _that Lord Camden had been
removed for his vote in Parliament_, Lord Marchmont insisted on the
words being taken down. At first Lord Chatham was disconcerted, but
soon avowed the words; and they were taken down, though his violence
was so great that he was with difficulty compelled to sit down. Lord
Sandwich, alarmed, moved to adjourn; but the Duke of Richmond insisting
that Lord Chatham, being accused, had a right to vindicate himself,
and the latter declaring that he would not retract his words, Lord
Marchmont grew frightened, and moved that nothing had fallen in that
or any former debate that could justify the assertion of Lord Camden
having been dismissed for his vote. This modification was seized by the
majority, who finding Lord Chatham inflexible, did not dare to push
him to extremities, but meanly and timidly voted those words, though
the Opposition would not agree to them. In the course of the debate,
Lord Temple said Lord Mount Stewart had done himself immortal honour by
desiring to have his father’s accounts produced; and that they would,
he supposed, vindicate Lord Bute himself from many calumnies. It was
doubted whether this was flattery, or art to draw forth the accounts,
that matter might be found in them for impeachment. Of all the party,
Lord Shelburne was most warm, agreeable to his maxim, that the King was
timid and must be frightened. I think it was in that debate (which was
a very heterogeneous one) that Lord Mansfield, being called upon for
his opinion on Lutterell’s case in the Middlesex election, declared his
opinion should go to the grave with him, having never told it but to
one of the Royal Family; and being afterwards asked to which of them,
he named the Duke of Cumberland--a conduct and confidence so absurd
and weak, that no wonder he was long afterwards taunted both with his
reserve, and with his choice of such a bosom-friend.
The great difficulty was to determine what part the King should take
on the remonstrance. It reflected much on him--more on the House of
Commons; and, in the opinion of some lawyers, amounted at least to a
misdemeanour. The first idea was, that the King should lay it before
both Houses with complaint; but in the meantime, Sir Thomas Clavering,
a rich northern baronet, no otherways considerable, moved the House
of Commons to address the King to lay the remonstrance and his answer
before the House, the former being, as he concluded by the latter,
very offensive. Beckford, the two Sheriffs, and Alderman Trecothick
warmly avowed their share in the remonstrance. Harley attacked Beckford
as the disturber of the City’s peace; and a warm altercation between
them ensued. The Opposition, particularly Wedderburne, urged that to
censure any petition or remonstrance, unless it was high treason,[73]
was a direct violation of the Bill of Rights. Lord North was very
zealous, especially in defence of that wretch, his ancestor, the
Lord Keeper, for which he was well ridiculed by Burke, who begged
the House to stop, and reminded them how often he had warned them to
go no farther, involving themselves more and more by every step they
took. Conway answered Wedderburne with uncommon applause, condemning
the remonstrance, but recommending moderation. Grenville fluctuated
strangely, neither condemning or countenancing the remonstrance, but
dissuading punishment. Could they, he asked, punish all concerned in
it, or could they punish partially? Even Lord John Cavendish spoke
for temper, and owned the remonstrance had gone too far. The address
was voted by 271 against 108. The Ministers no doubt had instigated
that motion as less obnoxious than a direct complaint from the Throne
would have been, and as wearing the appearance of independence from
the person who made the motion: but the gentleman’s independence was a
little sullied by the command of Languard Fort being four days after
conferred on his brother, Colonel Clavering, a meritorious officer, to
whom it had been promised, but which made the connection of the elder
with the Court observed.[74]
Such was the dangerous and disgraceful situation into which the
unconstitutional intrusion of Lutterell had drawn the Court. They
did not dare to punish the indignation they had provoked, lest worse
consequences should ensue: nor did their triumph in maintaining
Lutterell in his seat, compensate for the timidity they betrayed
in bearing so insolent a remonstrance, which was one of the
humiliating effects that had flowed from their original illegality
in the prosecution of Wilkes,[75]--a speaking lesson to Princes and
Ministers not to stretch the strings of prerogative! The whole reign
of George the Third was a standing sermon of the same kind; and the
mortifications I have been recounting were but slight bruises compared
to the wounds he afterwards received by not contenting himself with
temperate power and established obedience.
The remonstrance and answer being delivered to the House, Sir Thomas
Clavering and Sir Edward Blackett[76] moved a resolution, that to deny
the validity of proceedings in Parliament was unwarrantable, and
tended to disturb the peace of the kingdom. The Opposition objected to
the question, as the House of Commons, being the party accused, ought
not to judge in their own cause; and the previous question was moved.
The day passed temperately, except that Beckford and Harley gave one
another the lie. The courtiers were moderate, and the Rockingham party
decent, which kept the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs within bounds. Dunning
made a great figure against the Court; but the resolution passed, the
previous question being rejected by 284 to 127.
The next day the same Baronets moved a loyal address to the King. The
debate turned on the infringement of the Bill of Rights, by questioning
petitions in Parliament. Lord John Cavendish, Wedderburne, and Sir
Joseph Mawbey, acknowledged the remonstrance to be improper, but
defended the right of remonstrating; and Lord John proposed a less
fulsome address. Mr. Ridley, and Sir Matthew Ridley, his son, declared,
they said, in the names of the country gentlemen, whose silence avowed
them, that they had gone thus far with the Administration, but would
go no farther if punishment was thought of: yet Rigby talked highly
for severe proceedings, and reviled the Livery and the Opposition.
Beckford, not at all content with these last for supporting him no
better, yet vaunted his own firmness and ridiculed the merchants
who had addressed the last year, calling them _contractors_ and
remittancers; and scoffing at the courtiers in plain terms for serving
for such scanty pay, in comparison of contractors who made 5000_l._ or
6000_l._ a year. Lord North himself, he said, had not above 2000_l._
a year. Lord North offered to the Cavendishes to omit the most
exceptionable parts of the address; but as they would not close with
him, it was voted by 284 to 94.[77] The Lords, on the 22nd having had a
conference with the Commons, concurred in the address. Lord Chatham was
confined by the gout. Lord Shelburne alone avowed the language of the
remonstrance. Lord Denbigh and Lord Pomfret were, on the other hand, as
gross in flattery to the King. Lord North’s moderation, concurring with
the opinion of many lawyers, that the remonstrance was no misdemeanour,
prevented any farther views of punishment on that subject.