[1] Mr. Burke, who wrote the historical portion of the _Annual
Register_ for the year 1761, says, that “when Mr. Pitt resigned the
seals, the great person to whom they were re-delivered received them
with ease and firmness, without requesting that he should resume his
office. His Majesty expressed his concern for the loss of so able
a servant; and to show the favourable sense he entertained of his
services, he made him a most gracious and unlimited offer of any
rewards in the power of the Crown to bestow. His Majesty at the same
time expressed himself not only satisfied with the opinion of the
majority of his council, but declared he would have found himself under
the greatest difficulty how to have acted, had that council concurred
as fully in supporting the measure proposed by Mr. Pitt as they had
done in rejecting it. Mr. Pitt was sensibly touched with the grandeur
and condescension of the proceeding. ‘I confess, sir, I had but too
much reason to expect your Majesty’s displeasure: I did not come
prepared for this exceeding goodness: pardon me, Sir,--it overpowers,
it oppresses me.’ He burst into tears. We are far from an attempt
to add any colouring to so exquisitely affecting a picture; we are,
indeed, far from being able to do justice to perhaps one of the most
pathetic and elevated scenes which could possibly be displayed,--the
parting of such a prince, and such a minister.”
[2] On the evening of this day Bubb Doddington (now Lord Melcombe)
wrote thus to Lord Bute: “I sincerely wish your lordship joy of being
delivered of a most impracticable colleague, his Majesty of a most
imperious servant, and the country of a most dangerous minister. I am
told that the people are sullen about it. Be that as it may, I think it
my duty to my gracious Sovereign and my generous friend to say, that,
if I can be of any service to either in anything that is most dangerous
and difficult, I am most ready to undertake it.” In his answer of the
following day, Lord Bute says: “Whatever private motives of uneasiness
I might have in the late administration, I am far from thinking the
dissolution of it favourable, in the present minute, to the King’s
affairs. I shall not fail to acquaint the King with the very frank and
generous declaration you made. Indeed, my good lord, my situation, at
all times perilous, is become much more so; for I am no stranger to the
language held in this great city: ‘Our darling’s resignation is owing
to Lord Bute, and he must answer for all the consequences;’--which
is, in other words, for the miscarriages of another system, that Pitt
himself would not have prevented. All this keeps up my attention, and
strengthens my mind, without alarming it; not only whispers caution,
but steadiness and resolution; wherein my noble friend’s assistance
will prove a real comfort to me.”
[3] It is impossible to read this letter without being forcibly
reminded of the following splendid passages in Mr. Burke’s celebrated
speech, in 1774, on American taxation:
“If ever Lord Chatham fell into a fit of the gout, or if any other
cause withdrew him from public cares, principles directly the contrary
of his own were sure to predominate. When his face was hid but for a
moment, his whole system was on a wide sea, without chart or compass.
The gentlemen, his particular friends, who, with the names of various
departments of ministry, were admitted to seem as if they acted a part
under him, with a modesty that becomes all men, and with a confidence
in him, which was justified even in its extravagance by his superior
abilities, had never, in any instance, presumed upon any opinion of
their own. Deprived of his guiding influence, they were whirled about,
the sport of every gust, and easily driven into any port; and as those
who joined with them in manning the vessel were the most directly
opposite to his opinions, measures, and character, and far the most
artful and most powerful of the set, they easily prevailed so as to
seize upon the vacant, unoccupied, and derelict minds of his friends;
and instantly they turned the vessel wholly out of the course of his
policy. As if it were to insult as well as to betray him, even long
before the close of the first session of his administration, when
everything was publicly transacted, and with great parade, in his name,
they made an act declaring it highly just and expedient to raise a
revenue in America. For even then, Sir, even before this splendid orb
was entirely set, and while the western horizon was in a blaze with
his descending glory, on the opposite quarter of the heavens arose
another luminary, and, for his hour, became lord of the ascendant. You
understand, to be sure, that I speak of Charles Townshend, officially
the reproducer of this fatal scheme....”
“He had voted, and in the year 1765, had been an advocate for the
stamp act. Things, and the disposition of men’s minds, were changed.
In short, the stamp act began to be no favourite in this House. He,
therefore, attended at the private meeting, in which the resolutions
moved by a right honourable gentleman were settled; resolutions leading
to the repeal. The next day, he voted for that repeal; and he would
have spoken for it, too, if an illness (not, as was then given out,
a political), but, to my knowledge, a very real illness, had not
prevented it. The very next session, as the fashion of this world
passeth away, the repeal began to be in as bad an odour in this House
as the stamp act had been in the session before. To conform to the
temper which began to prevail, and to prevail mostly amongst those most
in power, he declared, very early in the winter, that a revenue must be
had out of America. Instantly he was tied down to his engagements by
some who had no objection to such experiments at the cost of persons
for whom they had no particular regard. The whole body of courtiers
drove him onwards. They always talked as if the King stood in a sort
of humiliated state, until something of the kind should be done. Here
this extraordinary man, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, found himself
in great straits. To please universally was the object of his life;
but to tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not
given to men. However, he attempted it. To render a tax palatable to
the partisans of American revenue, he made a preamble, stating the
necessity of such a revenue. To close with the American distinction,
this revenue was _external_, or port duty; but again, to soften it to
the other party, it was a duty of _supply_.
“To gratify the _colonists_, it was laid on British manufactures; to
satisfy the _merchants of Britain_, the duty was trivial, and (except
that on tea, which touched only the devoted East India Company) on
none of the grand objects of commerce. To counterwork the American
contraband, the duty on tea was reduced from a shilling to threepence.
But to secure the favour of those who would tax America, the scene
of collection was changed, and, with the rest, it was levied in the
colonies. What need I say more? This fine-spun scheme had the usual
fate of all exquisite policy. But the original plan of the duties, and
the mode of executing that plan, both arose singly and solely from a
love of our applause. He was truly the child of the House. He never
thought, did, or said anything, but with a view to you. He every day
adapted himself to your disposition; and adjusted himself before it as
at a looking-glass. Hence arose this unfortunate act.”
[4] On the subject of triennial parliaments, Lord Chatham appears
subsequently to have changed his opinion, as will be seen by reference
to his speech in the Lords, April 30, 1771, in which he declares
himself “a convert to triennial parliaments.”
[5] This suggestion was adopted by the cities of London, Bristol, and
Edinburgh, and the towns of Montrose, Aberdeen, Campbeltown, and Lynn.
[6] On the Burton Pynsent estate, which was disputed by the relatives
of the deceased with the Earl of Chatham.
[7] The Solicitor-General informed Mr. B. when the resolutions were
separately moved, that the grievance of the judges partaking of the
profits of the seizure had been redressed by office; accordingly the
resolution was amended.
[8] The Provincial account of this action differs materially.
[9] On the “morrow” Lord Chatham appeared in the House of Lords _for
the last time_.
[10] The passing around the bow of the enemy’s van and inside of their
line appears to have originated with the leader, Captain Foley, as
no signal was made to direct such a manœuvre, and the suggestion, so
apropos, was highly worthy of a seaman having ready and clear ideas
of what appertained to his profession. The example was followed by
four others of those who composed the van, and the advantage which was
derived from that manœuvre may be best calculated by a reference to the
result. This kind of initiative may well have been learnt from Nelson’s
notable manœuvre in the Battle of St. Vincent in 1797.
[11] The wind had become so moderate that it was not necessary to furl
the sails, that the anchor might hold; they were only hauled as close
up as was possible, which circumstance allowed the men to remain at
their quarters on the principal batteries.
[12] The difference of force between _L’Orient_ and _Bellerophon_, or
any other of the squadron, by estimating the weight of ball fired from
one broadside of each, was above seven to three, and the weight of
ball from _L’Orient’s_ lower deck alone exceeded that from the whole
broadside of the _Bellerophon_.
[13] As an instance of the fatigue, it may here be noted, that one of
the ships, which were inside of the van, and had finished her duty
there, did in the morning, some hours before daylight, weigh her stern
anchor for the purpose of going towards the rear, to attack the enemy
there; and, as the men unshipped the capstan-bars, many of them lay
down among them, being so much overcome with fatigue as to fall asleep,
notwithstanding that they must have known the anchor was got up, and
the ship then moving toward the enemy, to begin a fresh cannonade.
[Transcriber's Note:
Chapter headings regularized.