Meeting of Parliament in the year 1756--Negotiations with
France--Accommodation with the King of Prussia--Beckford’s
accusation against Admiral Knowles--Grants to North
America--Employment of Hessian Mercenaries--Mischiefs produced
by the Marriage Act--Plan for raising Swiss Regiments debated
in the Commons--Horace Walpole’s Speech on this subject--Swiss
Regiment Bill passes the Commons and Lords--Anecdote of Madame
Pompadour--Debates on Budget and Taxes.
The Parliament, which had adjourned during the holidays, met again
January 13. The Opposition was enriched with Sir Harry Erskine, who
having enlisted under Mr. Pitt, was dismissed from his post in the
Army. Mr. Pelham had formerly pressed the King to break him, but
in vain. His Majesty now recollected that advice, and took upon
himself to order this act of authority: had it been intended to
turn the new patriots into ridicule, it could not have answered the
purpose better.
France began to unfold the mystery of her moderation; yet with much
caution. Monsieur Rouillè sent a Memorial to Bonac, their resident
at the Hague, which he delivered to Colonel Yorke, but making him
give a receipt for it. It demanded, now the King was returned from
Hanover, that he would punish those _brigands_, who had taken so
many French ships, whose complaints, though often repeated, had
still been disregarded. It demanded restitution. _That_ granted,
the Court of Versailles would be ready to treat with us. In answer
to this Memorial, France was charged as the aggressor, by her
encroachments in America. Restitution of territory on their part
was demanded, before any reparation would be offered on our side.
We had begun the war with flippancy, the Duke of Newcastle’s
general exordium, which he was not wont to prosecute with firmness:
an unexpected event broke out, which accounted for his continuing
to act with resolution. The Russians had been listed in our quarrel
to awe the King of Prussia, and then our Ministers dreaded the awe
they had given. The Opposition too, it was probable, intended to
inflame his resentments on the Russian treaty: to obviate which,
Mechell, the Prussian Minister, had been assured that nothing
hostile was meant against his master; that if any word of that
cast had slipped in, it was hoped he would excuse it: that we had
no thought of giving him the first provocation. This had been
taken well. We followed it with proposing to that Prince a treaty
of guarantee for the _Empire_. He changed the latter word for
_Germany_, because formerly the Low Countries had been reckoned
into the Empire, and he would not be involved in a war for them.
He desired that the treaty so modified might be returned to him
directly, that he might show it to the Duc de Nivernois, whom
France was sending to engage him in their quarrel. This guarantee
for Germany, this thorn drawn out of the side of Hanover, dispelled
at once the King’s aversion to his nephew. The terms were joyfully
accepted, and the treaty was signed Jan. 17th.
21st.--The Committee of the whole House, preparatory to a new
Bill, which George Townshend (to please him) was ordered to bring
in, voted all the old Acts of Parliament relating to the Militia,
useless.
23rd.--Beckford complained to the House of Admiral Knowles’s
tyrannic government of Jamaica, whom he abused immeasurably,
and of which he quoted many instances, and moved for several
papers necessary to a prosecution. Fox said that Knowles was
already recalled, and indirectly seemed to defend him. Pitt took
it up with great warmth and solemnity, cast reflections on Fox
for endeavouring to screen the guilty, and paid great court to
Beckford, who, till now, had appeared to prefer Mr. Fox. The
papers were granted. Of the affair I shall say no more; it drew
out to great length; Fox openly espoused Knowles, who was cleared
triumphantly, Beckford having charged him with much more than he
had proofs or power to make out.
The same day Sir George Lyttelton, the new Chancellor of the
Exchequer, opened the Ways and Means for the supplies of the year.
The matter he unfolded well, but was strangely awkward and absent
in reading the figures and distinguishing the sums. Pitt ridiculed
and hurt him; yet he made a good reply, and told Pitt that truth
was a better answer than eloquence; and having called him _his
friend_, and correcting himself to say _the Gentleman_, and the
House laughing, Sir George said, “If he is not my friend, it is not
_my_ fault.” Pitt was sore in his turn; and the dialogue continued,
with great professions of esteem from Lyttelton, of contempt from
Pitt; who at last grew into good humour; but with regard to the
imputation of eloquence, said, he found there were certain ways of
answering certain men.
A day was spent without any issue on the Vice-Treasurership
of Ireland, which had been lately split into three, to make a
disposition for Ellis: the other two were Lords. George Grenville
questioned whether a third sharer could sit in Parliament,
consistently with the Act which forbids subdivisions of places. The
Debate, after some hours, was put off till inquiry could be made in
Ireland, whether this partition was novel or not.
28th.--The Government proposed to Parliament to bestow 120,000_l._
as a reward on such persons and colonies of North America as had
distinguished their zeal and activity on the new commotions. Five
thousand pounds was particularly destined to Sir William Johnson,
the avenger of Braddock. Charles Townshend, with great warmth,
opposed the gross sum, unless it was to be accounted for. Pitt
pursued the attack, and said, we had a disjointed Ministry, who
united only in corrupt and arbitrary measures. Fox replied with
great spirit, thanking Pitt for the great service he did him by
his attacks, and assuring him that he knew of no disunion; that he
believed Pitt himself did not, or he would join with one part of
the Administration against the other, as he had done formerly. But
his complaints being general, proved a general harmony, except with
one family; and their clamours would never pass for the voice of
the nation: George Grenville flamed at these words, but the Speaker
and Lord Strange interposed, and the Debate was adjourned, to give
way to a Bill on Linens. After the Debate, Pitt and Fox talking it
over, the latter told the other, that so far from any disagreement
between himself and Newcastle, there were men (meaning the two
Townshends) who had offered that Duke to abandon Pitt, if his Grace
previously would give up Fox--and the latter would have named them;
but Pitt could guess too well, not to wave such an explanation. It
must not be supposed that Charles Townshend bore any inveteracy to
Fox; he left all bitterness to his brother; and was content with
promoting confusion. The money was granted in the next Committee
without a division, but not without many reflections from the new
opponents. Beckford alone would have given a larger sum; and Legge,
who aimed at governing and drawing Lord Halifax into their system,
approved what, he said, he was sure under that Lord’s management
would be liable to no abuse.
France beginning to retaliate on our vessels, and threatening
some attempt on our coast, the new Hessian mercenaries were sent
for, and assistance according to treaty demanded from Holland.
Lord Ravensworth, whether to reconcile himself to the King, or to
distress the Administration,--for both his views and manner of
disclosing them were very unintelligible,--proposed to send rather
for Hanoverians; but without support or success.
A little event happened that demonstrated the mischiefs produced
by the Marriage Act: one Grierson, a Minister, was convicted of
solemnizing matrimony contrary to that law. No fewer than 1400
marriages were said to be dissolved on his conviction, in which
number 900 women were actually pregnant. The Chancellor triumphed
in punishing so many who had dared to contravene his statute: a
more humane man would have sighed to have made such numbers suffer
even by a _necessary_ law.
On the next affair, though of very little importance, seven tedious
days were wasted in the House of Commons, besides a Debate in the
Lords. Like other fuel for Opposition, the subject, when it had
once passed into a Bill, was never remembered more. Every topic is
treated in Parliament as if the liberty and fate of the country
depended upon it: and even this solemnity, often vented on trifles,
has its use. The certainty of discussion keeps Administration in
awe, and preserves awake the attention of the representatives of
the people. Ministers are, and should be, suspected as public
enemies: the injustice arising to them, or the prejudice to the
country by such jealousy, can hardly ever be adequate to the
mischief they may do in a moment, if too much is left to their
power, if too much trust is reposed in their integrity. But to the
point in question.
One Prevot, a refugee adventurer, recommended by the Princess of
Orange, had ingratiated himself with the Duke, and was countenanced
by him in a proposal of raising four Swiss battalions to be blended
with new levies in our colonies, and employed in North America:
the commander to be English; Prevot, second in command. The
officers to have co-equal benefits with the natives _there_, but
to acquire _here_ no rank or advantage. In consequence of this
plan, February 9th, an estimate of the charge was presented to the
House by the Secretary at War, who introduced it with a description
of the advantages which the Americans, sensible of their want of
discipline, would derive from being led by experienced officers.
Pitt, instead of censuring the scheme, dwelt on the tardiness of
it, painted the negligence of the Administration since the peace of
Aix, from the very date of which they had had reason to suspect the
designs of France; lamented Lord Loudun, who was placed at the head
of a scroll of paper; compared two miserable battalions of 1000 men
sent from hence, with 3000 dispatched thither by the French; and
asked, if it was but at that day that the Administration began to
defend America? Did they not know that this could not be a force
before August?--yet he would take this because no better [was] to
be had. The foreign officers would undergo another consideration:
he should not be for them. Lord Barrington replied, that 8900 men
were already voted for the service of America. Charles Townshend,
a perfect master of our West Indian affairs and history, gave
a detail of many enterprises that had failed by a mixture of
Europeans and Americans; wherever the latter only [were] employed,
the swiftness of recruiting had been incredible; when blended, in
three years 2000 men had not been levied. As he knew our neglects
in that quarter of the world better than Pitt, he was not less
gentle in lashing them.
Pitt, as if left behind in the race, again resumed it; asked Lord
Barrington if he would presume to say that there were actually 3000
men in arms in America? would he add paper to paper? He himself
should pity Lord Loudun, if stated as a commander of sufficient
force! He professed being hostile to no man, was friendly to his
King and country; but the inadvertence of his Majesty’s Ministers
had brought his age to the brink of destruction--yet it was no
comfort to look back and blame; it was a pleasure to try to be of
service. There had been a long series of ignorance, and incapacity,
and collusion, since the treaty of Aix; our Ministers had gone on,
hardly complaining, quite acquiescing! Lord George Sackville spoke
very sensibly on the situation of affairs, with some reproof on
Ministers, but charging more on the defects of the constitution
of our colonies, which ought to have one power established there,
as the French government in their settlements is one. On the
Pensylvanian Quakers he was more sharp, and with great reason;
they had defeated every plan of defence, were careless against the
French, acrimonious out of season against their Governor, and had
passed a Militia law, which they meant should be ineffectual. The
estimate, amounting to 81,000_l._, was voted without a division.
The next day, Lord Barrington moved for leave to bring in the
Bill, and explained the restrictions it was to contain. Pitt
thanked the Ministry for having departed from their first plan,
which had been calculated to consist entirely of foreigners: yet
he ascribed the honour of this mitigation to the opposition made,
and said, that ever since they had heard the first objections, the
Ministers had been trying to play with poison and dilute it, yet
still it was poison. If others would take it for a remedy, let
the Bill be brought in; though he had thought it wrong from the
first concoction. He charged the plan as a violation of the Act
of Settlement, on which supposition this and all the following
Debates rolled. He said, he heard that we wanted Dutch engineers
for sieges--what sieges had the Dutch made? English officers had
behaved everywhere with lustre--the Dutch nowhere. Were Dutch
engineers of such value, that we should _pro tanto_ repeal the
Act of Settlement?--but wanted! were officers wanted? was it a
symptom of scarcity of officers, when you have just broken a
brave[52] officer, distinguished with marks of two wounds, and by
the applause of the Duke; and who was cashiered for nothing but his
vote in Parliament!
Fox called to order, and asked the Speaker, if that assertion was
not a violation of it--“I ask the House their opinion,” cried Pitt;
“and though the House should forbid me at the bar, as long as my
mind reproaches the author of it, I will say it is my opinion that
he was broken for his vote.” “He has changed his phrase,” replied
Fox; “he asserted--he now believes. He cannot prove it, and it was
kind to stop him.” “If the House commands me,” said the Speaker,
“I will speak: who asserts, I suppose, is ready to prove. He may
say he believes. They who advise a measure are responsible.”
Pitt, fortified with this declaration (and without it he would
not have retracted), persisted; bidding Fox, armed with arbitrary
power, and with that majority of which he had heard so much,
bring him to the bar: and he told him, it was the characteristic
of the present Administration to break the Act of Settlement for
pretended utility; and in this case the utility was so small, that
it was stabbing that Act with a bodkin. Fox answered, that he
should be ashamed to think this scheme had been altered for Pitt’s
objections; and asked, how it was possible to Debate, without
urging the expedience of what was contended for? that Pitt had
asked, what pledge of fidelity these foreigners were to give: in
three centuries what Swiss had ever betrayed any country? With
regard to the dismission of Sir Harry Erskine, no apology was
necessary. Twenty years ago, when Lord Westmoreland, Lord Cobham,
and Mr. Pitt himself had been dismissed, the Opposition would have
brought in a Bill to prevent such removals; but it would have been
making officers independent both of the Crown and of Parliament,
and was rejected. Pitt allowed, that he thought officers might be
broken, even without recourse to a Court-Martial: and Sir Harry
Erskine himself affected to say that he did not complain of his
dismission: a civil or a military life was indifferent to him: yet
he could wish, if there were any other cause than his vote, that
Mr. Fox would declare it.
James Grenville, in a formal obscure speech, produced a clause of
the Act of Settlement, by which he would have proved that this Bill
could not be received, unless another were first passed, by which
any foreigners to be naturalized must renounce employments; and
he instanced in Bills of that purport passed for the marriages of
King William and the Prince of Orange. The Debate took entirely
this turn, the Opposition asserting that this would be a Bill of
Naturalization; and if so, not receivable: the Administration, that
it gave them something more than naturalization. Pitt declared
himself struck with Grenville’s remark, which had not been
communicated to him; and urged the Ministry with giving to these
foreigners _per saltum_ the very excepted parts, and with bestowing
on officers in the dregs of the Republic of Holland what had been
withheld from the Prince of Orange. Murray would have evaded this,
by asking if anything in the Bill tended to naturalization? The
Speaker declared there was such an appearance. George Grenville
said, by this evasion the Ministry will have only to omit the word
_naturalization_, and it may grant what advantages it pleases to
foreigners. “But,” said Lord Strange, “in Arabia none but a native
can purchase a mare: suppose the Prince of the country gave me
permission to buy a mare, would he naturalize me?” It passed by 165
to 57 that the Bill should be brought in.
The Bill was read for the first time on the 12th. Pitt and Charles
Townshend ridiculed the various forms into which the scheme had
shifted. The former asked how the blanks were to be filled up, and
if it was for ever to be a floating mark never to be hit! From
Lord Barrington he did not expect much information, to whom, with
Hotspur, he would say, “that which thou dost not know, that thou
canst not tell:” and he said, the Ministers had got something in
their hands which they neither knew how to hold or drop. The other
went further, and insinuated expectations of seeing more foreigners
brought over by side-winds. Lord Barrington replied, that no
Government presumed to fill up blanks in an Act of Parliament.
Proposals were made for taking the opinion of the Colonies on this
plan. The Bill was ordered to be printed, and the Debate adjourned
by agreement to the second reading.
The 18th, Charles Townshend presented a petition from the agent
for the settlement at Massachusets Bay against the proposed Swiss
battalions. Pitt moved to have laid before the House two petitions
from Pensylvania, representing the distressed situation of their
province. Fox, for seven more, in which they implore assistance.
Sir Richard Lyttelton, for the list of officers on half-pay,
insinuating how little occasion there was to employ foreigners.
Lord Barrington then moved to have the Bill committed, which Sir H.
Erskine opposed.
Horace Walpole the younger discussed the question, whether this
regulation would be an infringement of the Act of Settlement, of
which, he said, nobody could be more tender, as he had lately
shown, by opposing the treaties which he had thought clashed with
that Act. A literal infringement he allowed it would be, but merely
literal, and the benefits to be reaped by departing from the
letter, he was of opinion would come within the very spirit of the
Act, were undoubtedly consonant to the intention of the Legislators
who framed it, and tended to secure the blessings of that very
establishment to a considerable number of our fellow-subjects.
That the Legislators may be, and generally are, the greatest men
of their age, yet their notions and ideas must flow, and are
taken up from the views of their own age; and though they build
for posterity, yet they build with materials of their own time:
that they attempt to prevent as far as they foresee: that any
constitution, however wisely framed, if once declared unalterable,
must become a grievance: wise and happy as our own is, did it not
grow so by degrees? should we presume to pronounce that it received
the last perfecting hand in the reign of King William? subsequent
alterations showed it had not. That the great purpose of the
patriots of that reign, when by the misrule of their native Kings
they were reduced to place a Foreign Family on the Throne, had been
to guard against the predilection of their new sovereigns in favour
of ancient subjects, and to secure their posterity from being
enslaved by those who were introduced to protect liberty. This
country had experienced how little even English Kings could resist
practising against English liberty; a race of German Princes,
accustomed to arbitrary government, was still more likely to grasp
at arbitrary power. That these apprehensions had dictated that
clause in the Act of Settlement which prohibits any foreigner born
from being so far naturalized as to be capable of any employment,
civil or military; and there the words did clash with the scheme in
question.
The Swiss and Germans settled in Pensylvania were excluded by
the Act of Settlement from the glorious privilege of defending
the country they had preferred to their own; were debarred from
fighting in an English quarrel, which at the same time was become
their own. He was aware, he said, that the Act only specified that
they should be incapable of commissions; but a raw, undisciplined
multitude, not only not commanded by officers of their own, but not
understanding the commands of those under whom they were to serve,
would introduce confusion instead of utility; and unless they might
have proper officers, it would be rashness to employ the men. The
framers of the Act of Settlement did not foresee that a time would
come, when, from the too Christian spirit of the Quakers, and the
too unchristian ambition of France, our most valuable colonies
would be in immediate danger. They did not foresee that this danger
would meet with a providential resource on the very spot: that an
hundred thousand Germans and Swiss, animated by the most amiable
principles, zeal for religion, passion for liberty, and a spirit of
industry, would be actually settled in the heart of the province
most exposed--if they had, would they have been patriots, if they
had still narrowed the Act of Settlement to the rigour it now wore?
“No, Sir,” said he; “nor when they formed a great act on the
plan of their fears, did they apprehend that England would ever
be enslaved by an Army of Germans that should take America in
their way. But putting the most extravagant of all suppositions,
that there could hereafter be an intention of employing these
almost constitutional troops against the constitution, whether
would it be most likely, that Swiss Republicans, and Germans fled
from Monarchy, would fight for a King attempting to make himself
arbitrary, or in defence of liberty which they had travelled
even to America to seek? What should induce a Saltzburgher, for
instance, who had abjured his own ecclesiastic tyrant, to serve
an English King in a still more unconsecrated cause? Nobody, he
believed, was so visionary as to impute any such scheme to the
royal person on the Throne; nor would he dwell on the experience
which the nation had had for near thirty years of how capable his
Majesty was of attempting to violate the most minute part of the
constitution. In his long and happy reign he could recollect but
one instance, which, in the most strained construction, could
make the most jealous suspect that his Majesty meditated even to
surprise us into subjection; and that was, by governing Hanover
with so parental a hand, as if he meant to insinuate to Englishmen
that they might be the happiest subjects in the world, though under
an arbitrary Prince.”
He was persuaded, he said, that no gentleman could disapprove
the deviation in question from the Act of Settlement, but from
apprehensions of its being drawn into a precedent--he would state
the case. Could the most designing Minister come to Parliament
(for before they get rid of Parliament, they must make use of
it against itself), and say, in the year 1756 you consented to
allow commissions to about forty foreign officers to regiment
and discipline a proportion of Swiss and Germans, none of them
Hanoverians, in Pensylvania, to defend that province against the
encroachments of the French, when the Quaker natives would not,
and you could not, raise troops to defend them; and therefore we
hope you will have no scruple to violate it again now, perhaps in
the year 1800, but will let us import into England some regiments
of Hanoverians already raised and disciplined?--no; they could not
say this; and when a precedent does not tally, it is in no danger
of becoming a precedent. King William’s patriots could not mean
that any part of the West Indies should be sacrificed to France,
rather than suffer it to be defended by a providential supply of
foreigners whom tyranny had driven, not invited, thither. Who was
there, at this day, who did not commiserate the blind bigotry of
the Jews,[53] who thought God capable of giving them so absurd a
precept, as a prohibition of defending their country on a Sunday?
“This is the light, Sir,” said he, “in which I protest I see
it. I think I execute the will of those great men better by
departing from, than by adhering to the letter of that valuable
testament they left us. Could it be possible for them to have been
narrow-minded enough to have intended such rigid minuteness, common
sense would teach me to reject so prejudicial a bequest; and yet,
Sir, though I have declared my opinion so strongly, if even this
clause in the Act of Settlement should still occasion difficulty,
as I hope it will not be efficient to obstruct the scheme, I
should not be sorry to see it. Even a literal violation of such an
Act is too material to be passed over lightly. We ought to show
that we do not supersede a single sentence of it without weighty
consideration. I never wish to see unanimity on such a measure.
Unanimity is a symptom of monarchy; jealousy is constitutional; and
not only constitutional, but the principle of our existence. If our
ancestors had intended only an assembly of deliberation, the Privy
Council, or that more compact body of wisdom, the Cabinet-Council,
might have sufficed to deliberate. We were calculated to suspect,
to doubt, to check. I think, Sir,” added he, “we have already
shown that we do not proceed wantonly or inconsiderately. One
honourable gentleman (Pitt), with whom I must ever lament to
differ, by standing up for the very letter of the Act, has given
all the weight that can be given to it--his dissent is sufficient
deliberation--and I flatter myself that my agreeing with _those_
who think that in the point before us the letter and the spirit
jar, and who, I know, feel as warmly for the constitution, and who
have taken all imaginable precaution to preserve the integrity
of the Act without losing so necessary a service, will not be
interpreted as any want of attachment to so essential a bulwark of
our liberties.”
* * * * *
I am sensible how much too large a space this speech occupies in
these Memoirs, and how indecently such weak arguments are displayed
at length, while the opinions of many great men are sedulously
contracted. Yet the author had some reasons which he hopes will
excuse this seeming arrogance. He wished to give an instance that
he acted freely, spoke freely; and as he seldom has had, or sought,
occasion to mention himself, he trusts that this one excess will
be overlooked, especially as it produced a memorable saying of the
King, to whom the author is willing to do honour where he can, as
he always has done justice on him when he deserved the contrary.
Horace Walpole lived in friendship with Fox, in harmony with Pitt,
and rather thought better of the conduct of the latter. Having
declared openly against the treaties, he would not turn with Fox
to a defence of them, and had surprised, by deserting him. He had
now been desirous of showing that that separation had been only
temporary, and yet he could not resist paying greater compliments
to Pitt in the very speech intended for support of Fox; but
Walpole always leaned most to a man in Opposition. Why he flattered
the King in this speech is not so comprehensible; nor could he
give any reason for it himself. It was unnecessary, it was out of
character and without any view, for he never even went to Court.
Fox repeated the compliment to the King. He was pleased; but said,
he did not expect Walpole would have spoken on that side; adding,
“You may blame me here, Fox, but I will tell you the truth; I try
to make my people at Hanover as happy as I can, and they deserve it
of me.”
Young Hamilton pursued the argument on the Act of Settlement with
great ability, and urged, that not to deviate from it would be to
defeat it; the chief end of it had been to prevent men unconversant
with our country and laws from having the administration of them;
but now it was alleged to hinder the service of another country,
America. Foreigners there had only become soldiers, because they
no longer could be planters; yet gentlemen seemed to turn their
eyes from existing dangers to imaginary. The Debate lasted till
ten at night, but neither with remarkable events nor speeches, and
it passed by 215 to 63 to commit the Bill. Charles Townshend again
pressed to hear Bollan and the agents and General Waldo on Monday.
On the 20th the Committee sat. Pitt ridiculed with much humour
this scheme which the Ministry so greatly applauded, and yet with
which the nation would not have been blessed, if by a fortuitous
concurrence of circumstances Prevot had not been taken prisoner
in August, and carried into Brest, if he had not been going an
adventurer to America, and had not found his way from Brest
hither;[54] and if, after all, he had not taken it into his head
to have a regiment. He wished this Ulysses-like wanderer might be
as wise! wished the Ministers would wait but till Monday, to hear
the colonies! He had been told, indeed, that the immutable laws
of the Medes were absurd--were the resolutions of Ministers to be
more unchangeable than those of the King of Persia--of Xerxes with
his multitude at his heels? He did not comprehend this modelling,
rejecting, resuming, shaping, altering; he believed all this
beautiful mechanism had been employed about it, but you that are to
buy it, will they not let you examine and weigh it, and know the
intrinsic value? Fox said, Lord Baltimore and Penn were not limited
by any Act of Settlement, but could commission foreigners. The
Massachusets can naturalize and then commission them. He had never
wished any Ministers should be immutable; God forbid they should be
so in any sense! if common sense on their side, they would be in
the wrong to be immutable. But would you hear Mr. Bollan on the
Act of Settlement? his whole petition was against the regiment;
tended to reject the Bill, not to alter it. “Penn,” continued he,
“authorizes me, Lord Baltimore authorizes me, to approve this Bill,
though they did not think it decent to petition for it. I have been
told that from Bollan we should hear of injustice, oppression,
ingratitude--I cannot believe it, for I remember what passed in a
certain assembly some time ago between two persons, one[55] not
present now, the other, I believe, is--(looking about indirectly
towards Charles Townshend). The person now here bad the other _take
the poor American by the hand and point out his grievances. He
defied him; if that would not do, he beseeched him to point out a
single grievance: for his part, he did not know of one._ When that
day shall come,” added Fox, “I hope that gentleman, who speaks as
well as the honourable person himself over against me, will attend
and confute both Mr. Bollan and his introductor.”
Charles Townshend at the first shock was thunderstruck;[56]
they had been his own words to Lord Egmont, had been faithfully
treasured in Fox’s accurate memory, and were brought out with
all the art and severity imaginable; but in a moment Townshend
recovered himself, struck his hand on his forehead as feeling the
impulse of conception, and starting up, replied with inimitable
spirit and quickness, “That every one saw whither those prepared
observations pointed; he took them to himself--and what had been
the case? Lord Egmont had complained of the civil government of
the colonies, and of the instructions to Sir Danvers Osborn, which
I, I advised, and which, cried he, I am ready to fight over. I
never complained of _civil_ oppression--I _am_ ready to meet Fox
and his _aide-de-camp_ Lord Egmont--the oppression I mean is in
the _military_. The soldiers have been promised rewards--they have
been kept in garrison contrary to promise--have I made out the
distinction? If I have, then I say this is an unmanly attack on a
young man.” Fox’s friends called out, “Order! order!” Townshend
rejoined, “Order! order! unmanly! is that disorderly? Upon my
word, these are the nicest feelings in Xerxes’s troops that ever I
knew.” This flash of wit put a whole majority out of countenance.
A grain less of parts, or a scruple more of modesty, had silenced
Townshend for ever. “Fox,” continued he, “cries, ‘What! hear Bollan
on the Act of Settlement!’ he chose to enter on no other part of my
argument--and then he talked of mutability--there was forage and
joking for the troops!”
Fox with great art observed what satisfaction it gave him to hear
that there was no oppression in the civil government; and thus
pinned down Charles Townshend from producing a detail of grievances
that he had prepared on American affairs. The rest of the Debate
was most indifferent, or could not avoid appearing so: 213 against
82 voted against hearing Bollan. The Opposition then tried by four
divisions to prevent the prosecution of the Bill in the Committee;
but the Ministry persisting in making no further answers, at past
eleven at night Pitt and his followers walked out, and the only
blank in the Bill was filled up, as Lord George Sackville proposed,
with the words _fifty officers and twenty engineers_.
Two days afterwards the Bill was reported and again opposed, as it
was on the last reading, when the Ministry, tired with debating,
and making no reply, Charles Townshend, in a fine, animated, and
provoking speech, tried to make them break silence, taunting the
majority with following leaders who would not vouchsafe to give
them reasons, reproaching the Ministers with the insult of their
silence, and calling on the new placemen to give some proofs of
being fit for their posts, the arrangement of which, and the
various reasons of fear or convenience which had contributed to
the late settlement, he described with much humour and wit. Fox,
smiling, told him, he called so agreeably, that he should never
call in vain; and yet, plainly as Mr. Townshend had spoken, he did
not know under what part of the description to suppose himself
included. He could not be the insolent Minister; “it requires more
parts than I have,” said Fox, “to support insolence. But why am I
silent? have I been so on this Bill? Have I not been reproached
with talking too often on it? I ask pardon, and have nothing new to
say on it, but this, that I objected to hearing Bollan, because Mr.
Townshend can speak as readily and knows as much. I rest my credit
on what I have said before; only observing, that the majority which
Mr. Townshend calls mean, I believe he does not think a mean one.”
Pitt spoke again for an hour and half, but without fire or force;
and old Horace Walpole terminated this tedious affair with the
lowest buffoonry, telling a long story of an old man and his wife;
that the husband said to her, “Goody Barrington, for that was her
name--I must not falsify my story; if it had been Onslow, I must
have said it,” continued he, addressing himself to the Speaker; who
replied, very properly, “Sir, one old woman may make as free as she
pleases with another.” The Bill passed by 198 to 69.
In the House of Lords it was attacked by Lord Temple, and defended
by Lord Halifax. Lord Dacre, a worthy, conscientious man,
unpractised in speaking, asked with great modesty and diffidence,
if it was true that there were orders given for listing in Germany.
If it was, he should alter his vote and oppose the Bill. It
occasioned confusion. At last, Lord Halifax owned he believed it
was true. The Duke had given such orders without participation of
the Duke of Newcastle. The Bill passed without a division; yet
Lord Temple and Lord Talbot protested in words drawn by Charles
Townshend.
In France, the prosecution of the war was by no means an unanimous
measure. D’Argenson, the promoter of it, was on ill terms with
Madame Pompadour, whose interest was to lull the King and nation
in pleasures and inactivity, not to foment events that might shake
her power. It received a blow from another quarter. The Cardinal
de la Rochfoucault, and Sassy, the King’s confessor, played off
the earthquake on his superstition. He promised to receive the
sacrament at Easter, and relinquish his mistress. She, who held
more by habit than passion, saw no reason why a woman might not
work the machine of religion as well as a priest, and instantly
gave into all his Majesty’s scruples; offered up her _rouge_ to the
demon of earthquakes, and to sanctify her conversion and reconcile
it to a Court-life, procured herself to be declared _Dame du
palais_ to the Queen.
February 25th.--Sir George Lyttelton, as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, opened the plan of supplies and taxes for the current
year. The first, a duty on wrought plate, was calculated to bring
in 30,000_l._ a year. Another, on bricks and tiles, and a double
duty on cards and dice; the actual duty produced 10,000_l._ a year;
but as doubling the tax would not double the produce, the addition
was estimated at only 7000_l._ a year. This, said Sir George, some
will think a tax on _necessaries_. The Legislature calls gaming a
vice; but the legislators, who can best expound their own laws,
seem, by their practice, to think otherwise. Legge objected to
either tax on plate or bricks; and showed with singular art how
much greater a master he was of the nature of the revenue and
commerce than his successor. Sir George seemed to repeat an oration
on trade that he had learned by rote; Legge talked on it like a
merchant. He urged that plate was not a prejudicial commodity,
but a dead treasure, to be resorted to on an emergency: if sold,
it would go abroad; if coined here, did not increase the national
stock. He showed that bricks would be a partial tax, as many parts
of the kingdom employ only stone. But within the volume of our
duties there was actually a fund of taxes that might be drawn out
without any new impositions, the old were so fraudulently levied,
or so injudiciously distributed. He instanced in the duty on tea,
which being regulated by Sir John Barnard, produced near double,
and demolished smuggling. By reduction of the duty on raw silk,
it rose from 800_l._ per annum to 15,000_l._ That on hemp, if
reduced, would produce much more. George Townshend proposed taxes
on the number of servants, and on exportation of horses, because no
French officer had fewer than two English horses. Murray asked if
many of our taxes were not partial--on cyder, on malt, on coals?
Lord Strange objected strongly to the brick-tax, because the houses
that ought to pay most, those of the rich, are built of stone.
Vyner observed, that a tax on plate was teaching servants to turn
informers. The plate-tax passed. That on bricks was postponed,
and at last dropped, on finding how prejudicial it would be and
unpopular. It was changed for one on ale-houses.
FOOTNOTES:
[52] Sir H. Erskine.
[53] Yet the Jews were but a seventh part so great fools as the
Quakers.
[54] He had been met by Governor Lyttelton, who was taken in the
Blandford by the French.
[55] Lord Egmont.
[56] See vol. i. p. 422.