REIGN OF GEORGE III. (_continued_).
The American Colonies and their Trade--Growing Irritation in
America--The Stamp Act--The American Protest--The Stamp Act
passed--Its Reception in America--The King's Illness--The
Regency Bill--The Princess Dowager omitted--Her Name inserted
in the Commons--Negotiations for a Change of Ministry--The
old Ministry returns--Fresh Negotiations with Pitt--The first
Rockingham Ministry--Riots in America--The Stamped Paper
destroyed--Pitt's Speech--The Stamp Act repealed--Weakness
of the Government--Pitt and Temple disagree--Pitt forms
a Ministry--And becomes Lord Chatham--His Comprehensive
Policy--The Embargo on Wheat--Illness of Chatham--Townshend's
Financial Schemes--Corruption of Parliament--Wilkes elected for
Middlesex--Arrest of Wilkes--Dangerous Riots--Dissolution of
the Boston Assembly--Seizure of the _Liberty_ Sloop--Debates in
Parliament--Continued Persecution of Wilkes--His Letter to Lord
Weymouth--Again expelled the House--His Re-election--The Letters
of Junius--Luttrell declared elected for Middlesex--Incapacity of
the Ministry--Partial Concessions to the Americans--Bernard leaves
Boston--He is made a Baronet--"The Horned Cattle Session"--Lord
Chatham attacks the Ministry--Resignations of Granby and
Camden--Yorke's Suicide--Dissolution of the Ministry.
If Grenville and his Cabinet, in their ignorance of human nature, had
made a gross mistake in their conduct towards Wilkes, they now made
a more fatal one in regard to our American colonies. These colonies
had now assumed an air of great importance, and were rapidly rising
in population and wealth. The expulsion of the French from Canada,
Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton, the settlement of Georgia by General
Oglethorpe, the acquisition of Florida from Spain, had given a
compactness and strength to these vast colonies, which promised a still
more accelerated and prosperous growth. At this period the inhabitants
are calculated to have amounted to two millions of Europeans, and
half a million of coloured people, Indians and negroes. The trade was
becoming more extensive and valuable to the mother country. The imports
from England, chiefly of her manufactures, amounted to three million
pounds annually in value. They carried on a large trade with our West
Indian islands and the Spanish American colonies, and French and Dutch
West Indies. They also built ships for the French and Spaniards, in
the West Indies. They had extensive iron and copper mines and works
in different states. They manufactured great quantities of hats in
New England. The fisheries of Massachusetts produced two hundred and
thirty thousand quintals of dried fish, which they exported to Spain
and Portugal, and other Catholic countries of Europe. Carolina exported
its rice to these countries as well as to England; and they exported
vast quantities of cured provisions, dye-woods, apples, wax, leather,
tobacco from Virginia and Maryland (fifty thousand hogsheads annually
to England alone) valued at three hundred and seventy-five thousand
pounds. The masts from New England, sent over for the British navy,
were the largest in the world.
Such was the busy scene which these colonies were now presenting.
Dutch, German, and Swedish emigrants were carrying their industry and
handicrafts thither. But, instead of our merchants seeing what a mighty
market was growing up for them there, their commercial jealousy was
aroused at the sight of the illicit trade which the colonists carried
on with the Spanish, French, and other colonies, and even with Europe.
The planters of the British West Indies complained of the American
colonists taking their rum, sugar, coffee, etc., from the Dutch,
French, and Spanish islands, in return for their raw produce, asserting
that they had a monopoly for all their productions throughout the whole
of the British dominions. Loud clamours were raised by these planters
in the British Parliament, demanding the prohibition of this trade;
and, after repeated endeavours in 1733 an Act was passed to crush it,
by granting a drawback on the re-exportation of West Indian sugar from
England, and imposing duties on the importation of the West Indian
produce of our European rivals direct into the American colonies.
These were measures which must have greatly irritated the American
colonists. They exhibited a disposition to curb and repress their
growing energies between the interests of British merchants and British
West Indian planters. The prospect was far from encouraging; whilst,
at the same time, the English Ministers, crushing these energies with
one hand, were contemplating drawing a revenue by taxation from them
on the other. Britain argued that she sacrificed large amounts in
building up colonies, and therefore had a right to expect a return
for this expenditure. Such a return, had they had the sagacity to
let them alone, was inevitable from the trade of the colonies in an
ever-increasing ratio.
Grenville, being on the look-out for new taxes, had paid particular
attention to the rapid growth of the American colonies, and was
inspired with the design of drawing a revenue from them. The scheme
had been suggested to Sir Robert Walpole, when his Excise Bill failed,
by Sir William Keith, who had been governor of Pennsylvania; but Sir
Robert had a far deeper insight into human nature than the shallow
and obstinate Grenville. He replied, "I have already Old England set
against me, and do you think I will have New England set against me
too?"
During the Session of 1764 Grenville imposed several duties on American
articles of export, if imported direct from the French, Dutch, and
Spanish West Indies. The Americans did not dispute the right of the
mother country to impose such duties on the trade of the empire in any
quarter; but these imposts, seeing the object of them, were not the
less galling. But Grenville did not stop there; he stated, at the time
of passing these duties, that it was probable that Government would
charge certain stamp duties in America. This was creating a sore place
and immediately striking it. The infatuated Minister was contemplating
an act of the nature of which neither he nor his colleagues had any
conception.
The news of these imposts, and of this intended stamp duty, flew across
the Atlantic, and produced the most bitter excitement. Never could
this unwelcome news have reached the colonies at a more unpropitious
moment. To restrictions on their legitimate trade, the British had been
adding others on their illegitimate trade. Nearly all the American
colonies lay on the seaboard, and were, therefore, naturally addicted
to a free sort of trade, which these new duties made contraband. The
British Government had sent out a number of revenue ships and officers
to cut off this trade, and capture and confiscate all vessels found
practising it. The colonists met in various places, and passed very
strong resolutions against these regulations. The people of New England
spread their views and resolves all over the colonies by means of
the press. They refused to listen to any overtures of the British
Government on the subject. They claimed the right to grant, of their
own free will, such contributions to the revenue of the empire as their
own assemblies should deem just, and to submit to no compulsion where
they had no voice. They called on all the colonists to refrain as much
as possible from purchasing any of the manufactures of England so
long as she showed a disposition to oppress them, and to obtain their
materials for clothing from other countries, or to begin to manufacture
them themselves; and to cease also to use all luxuries on which the
duties were laid. To make their case known in England, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Maryland, and Georgia appointed the celebrated Benjamin
Franklin their agent in London.
Parliament met on the 10th of January, 1765. The resentment of the
Americans had reached the ears of the Ministry and the king, yet both
continued determined to proceed. In the interviews which Franklin and
the other agents had with the Ministers, Grenville begged them to point
to any other tax that would be more agreeable to the colonists than
the stamp-duty; but they without any real legal grounds drew the line
between levying custom and imposing an inland tax. Grenville paid no
attention to these representations. Fifty-five resolutions, prepared
by a committee of ways and means, were laid by him on the table of the
House of Commons at an early day of the Session, imposing on America
nearly the same stamp-duties as were already in practical operation
in England. These resolutions being adopted, were embodied in a bill;
and when it was introduced to the House, it was received with an
apathy which betrayed on all hands the profoundest ignorance of its
importance. Burke, who was a spectator of the debates in both Houses,
in a speech some years afterwards, stated that he never heard a more
languid debate than that in the Commons. Only two or three persons
spoke against the measure and that with great composure. There was
but one division in the whole progress of the Bill, and the minority
did not reach to more than thirty-nine or forty. In the Lords, he
said, there was, to the best of his recollection, neither division nor
debate!
[Illustration:
AMERICAN PROVINCES
in 1763
AFTER THE CONTEMPORARY MAP
by Peter Bell.
]
But a very different spirit displayed itself in America on the arrival
of the news of the passing of the Act. Franklin's friend, Thompson,
replied to him, that, instead of lighting candles, there would be
works of darkness. The rage of the American public burst forth in
unequivocal vigour. At New York, the odious Stamp Act was represented
surmounted with a death's head instead of the royal arms, and was
hawked through the streets with the title of "the folly of England
and the ruin of America." At Boston the colours of the shipping were
lowered half-mast high, and the bells of the city were muffled and
tolled funeral knells. Everywhere there was a frenzied excitement,
and the provincial Assemblies resounded with the clamour of indignant
patriotism. It was the fortune of that of Virginia to give the leading
idea of union and co-operative resistance, which led to the grand
conflict, and to eventual victory over the infatuated mother country.
There Patrick Henry, a very different man to Franklin, started up, and
kindled by his fiery breath the torch of confederate resistance. But
it was at once seen that, to acquire their full weight, the colonies
must unite. Speeches, pamphlets, articles in newspapers, all called
for co-operation. A print was published exhibiting a snake cut into a
number of pieces, each piece inscribed with the name of a colony, and
with the motto, "_Join or die_." In consequence, several of the states
sent representatives to a general congress, to be held at New York in
the month of October, to take measures for a general resistance to the
Stamp Act.
[Illustration: REVENUE CUTTERS CAPTURING AN AMERICAN SMUGGLING VESSEL.
(_See p._ 184.)]
Whilst the American colonies were thus stimulated, by unwise taxation,
into a temper which never again could be entirely allayed, the king
was suddenly attacked with an illness, that startled himself and the
kingdom from that security which his apparently robust constitution
had inspired. He was said to labour under cough and fever; but it
became pretty well understood, after a time, that it was something
more alarming--that it was, in fact, an attack of that insanity which
recurred again and again, and held him for years, during the latter
part of his reign, in its fearful power. This time it was of short
occurrence; and the moment it was past, George held a levee at St.
James's, and appeared at it with a cheerful air, as if to dissipate
all alarm. But the king himself immediately proposed a measure, which
showed that it had excited grave thoughts in him. He submitted to
Ministers the propriety of a provision for a regency, in case of any
recurring malady which should incapacitate him for business. The matter
was discussed in the Cabinet, and it was agreed that such a bill should
be prepared, empowering the king to name, if deemed necessary, "either
the queen, or any other person of the royal family usually residing in
Great Britain."
On the 24th of April, accordingly, the king proposed, in a speech from
the throne, the measure to the Houses in these words. Both Houses sent
addresses of affection, and the bill was introduced into the House of
Lords; and it was there contended that it was too vague, no person
being directly named, except the queen. To remedy this the king sent
a new message, naming the five princes of the royal house, with the
power of nominating others in the case of the deaths of any of them.
Still, on the second reading, Lord Lyttelton declared that this left it
perfectly uncertain who would become regent; and he moved an address to
the king to name which one of the persons specified he would nominate
as regent. But here the Duke of Richmond asked, whether the queen were
naturalised; and if not, whether she were capable of acting as regent.
He asked, also, who were, strictly speaking, the royal family? The Earl
of Denbigh replied, "All who were prayed for;" but the Duke of Bedford
contended that those only in the order of succession constituted the
royal family. This went at once to exclude the Princess Dowager of
Wales, the king's mother; and Halifax, Bedford's colleague, agreed with
him. Amidst all this confusion, Lord Halifax hastened away to the king,
and advised him to have the name of his mother omitted, lest the Lords
should strike it out, and thus make it appear a public insult. The poor
bewildered king, taken by surprise, said, "I will consent, if it will
satisfy my people."
Halifax, possessed of this authority, returned to the House of
Lords, and announced that, by the king's permission, he proposed the
re-commitment of the bill, with the names only of the queen and the
sons of the late king now living. Thus, the Princess Dowager was
publicly stigmatised, on the authority of her own son, as incapable
of reigning. The amendment, as the royal pleasure, was agreed to.
The country was struck with astonishment. The Duke of Bedford is
represented by Horace Walpole as almost dancing about for joy; the
consternation of Bute and his party was indescribable. To cover the
disgrace, they represented it as the wish of the Princess Dowager
herself. But when the king was left to his own reflections, it began
to dawn upon him that he had, by his weak compliance, openly insulted
his own parent in the grossest manner. He bitterly upbraided Halifax
with having thus stolen his consent by a surprise. But Grenville,
with his usual obstinacy, declined to replace the princess's name
unless it were strongly pressed upon him in the House. He trusted,
however, that the Opposition, who hated the princess, would relieve
him of this necessity by voting against the reinsertion of the name.
But he was mistaken. Mr Morton, the chief justice of Chester, one of
the Bute party, moved for the insertion of the princess's name in the
bill, and the Opposition made no objection; they only too much enjoyed
Grenville's embarrassment. He was therefore compelled to insert the
name, which--thus falsifying Halifax's assertion to the king, that,
if left in, it would be struck out by Parliament--was carried by an
overwhelming majority.
The circumstance sank deeply into the mind of the king, and, resenting
especially the conduct of Grenville--who had acted as though he held
a monopoly of office,--he determined to be rid of him. He therefore
consulted with his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland. That prince, to
whom age and infirmities seemed to have given a degree of wisdom,
declared the offer of the Ministry to Pitt to be the necessary step,
and willingly undertook to make it. But knowing that Pitt would not
even listen to the proposal without Temple, he dispatched a summons to
Stowe for that nobleman, and himself, infirm as he was, went to Hayes,
to learn the will of the great commoner personally. Pitt showed himself
disposed to accept the office, on condition that general warrants
should be declared illegal; that the officers dismissed on account of
their votes be restored; and that an alliance with Protestant powers,
and especially with Prussia, should be formed, to counterbalance the
compact between France and Spain. This was asking a great deal; but
Pitt demanded more in the particulars of appointments, namely, that
Pratt, who had opposed the Court so decidedly as regarded Wilkes and
general warrants, should be Lord Chancellor, and he opposed the Court
desire that the Duke of Northumberland should be at the head of the
Treasury. Pitt, moreover, designed the Treasury for Temple. But, when
Temple arrived, he refused to take office at all. The fact was that
just now he was making a reconciliation with his brother, Grenville,
and was averse from throwing him overboard. So far from joining Pitt,
he was on the verge of another breach with him. Pitt, disconcerted by
this repulse, with a weakness to be deplored in so great a man, refused
to accept the offer to form a ministry at all.
The unfortunate king was obliged to submit, and retain his present
incompetent Ministers. These incompetent Ministers, on their part,
now believing themselves indispensable, became at once proportionably
assuming, and even insolent, in their demands. Grenville and Bedford
put several direct demands to the king as the conditions even of their
condescending to serve him: that he would promise to have no further
communications with Lord Bute, nor to allow him the slightest share
in his councils; that he would dismiss Bute's brother, Mr. Mackenzie,
from the office of Privy Seal of Scotland, and from the management
of Scottish affairs; that he would dismiss Lord Holland from being
Paymaster of the Forces, and appoint Lord Granby Commander-in-Chief.
The king, after some demur, submitted to all these conditions, except
the appointment of Lord Granby, and escaped that only by Granby himself
declining the post. George submitted, because he could not help it,
to these imperious conditions; but he inly resented them, and did not
avoid showing it by his coldness towards both Bedford and Grenville. At
this, the haughty Bedford took fire, and read the king a severe lecture
before leaving town for Woburn. He complained of the king showing
kindness to the enemies of the administration; and demanded whether the
king had kept his promise not to consult Lord Bute.
George had much difficulty in restraining his indignation, but he
kept it down, and only bowed the duke silently out of his presence.
No sooner had he departed than he flew to Cumberland, and declared he
would bear this no longer. Again overtures were made to Pitt, again
Pitt expressed himself willing to take office, but again declined,
because Temple still refused. Foiled in these attempts to engage Pitt,
and equally foiled in an endeavour to engage some of the heads of the
leading Whig houses, who would enter no administration without Pitt, a
heterogeneous cabinet was at length cobbled up, through the management
of the old Duke of Newcastle, who was hankering after office. The
Marquis of Rockingham was put forward as First Lord of the Treasury
and Premier. Grafton and Conway were to be Secretaries of State; and
the latter, lately dismissed with ignominy from the army, was to lead
the Commons. The Earl of Northington was made Chancellor, the old
Duke of Newcastle Privy Seal; another old and almost superannuated
nobleman, Lord Winchelsea, President of the Council. Charles Townshend
retained his post of Paymaster of the Forces. Such materials, it was
clear, could never long hold together. "It is a mere lute-string
administration," said Townshend himself; "it is pretty summer wear, but
it will never stand the winter!"
Whilst these changes had been passing at home, the effervescence in
America had grown most riotous and alarming. Boston took the lead
in tumultuous fury. In August, the house of Mr. Oliver, the newly
appointed stamp-distributor, was attacked and ransacked; his effigy was
hanged on a tree, thenceforward honoured by the name of the Liberty
Tree. It was then taken down, paraded about the streets, and committed
to the flames. The colonel of the militia was applied to, but sent
an evasive answer, showing that there were others above the mob who
enjoyed what the mob were doing. With this encouragement they broke
out afresh, crying, "Liberty and Property!" which, said a colonial
authority, "was their cry when they meant to plunder and pull down a
house." This time they gutted and partly demolished the houses of the
registrar-deputy of the Admiralty, the comptroller of the customs,
and the lieutenant-governor, destroying a great quantity of important
papers. In New York, delegates assembled from nine different colonial
Assemblies. The governor forbade them to gather, declaring their
meetings unprecedented and unlawful, but he took no active measures to
prevent their deliberations. The Congress met in October, and sat for
three weeks. They appointed Mr. Timothy Ruggles, from Massachusetts,
their chairman, and passed fourteen resolutions denying the right of
the mother country to tax them without their own consent; and they drew
up petitions to the king and Parliament. Everywhere associations were
established to resist the importation of British manufactures after
the 1st of January next, and it was agreed that they should dissolve
themselves as soon as the stamp tax was abolished. But it is well
known, from letters addressed to Franklin, that the Republican element
was already widely spread through the colonies, and this very first
opportunity was seized on by its advocates to encourage the idea of
throwing off the allegiance to England without further delay.
As the 1st of November approached, the day on which the Stamp Act was
to take effect, the excitement became intense. Furious crowds assembled
in the ports to prevent the landing of the stamped paper from the
ships which brought it. The appointed distributors were compelled to
resign their posts. At New York the stamped paper was landed, but such
was the commotion that it had to be put into the custody of the city
magistrates, and be kept under guard in the city hall. It was utterly
impossible to put the paper into use, and, after some interruption,
business and the courts of law were allowed to proceed without it, on
the plea that the stamps could not be obtained.
On the 14th of January, 1766, the king opened Parliament with a
speech, rendered necessary by the change of Ministry and the affairs
of America. A great debate followed, in which Burke made his maiden
speech, and was followed by Pitt, who said in his loftiest tone of
eloquence: "This kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies.
On this point I could not be silent, nor repress the ardour of my
soul, smote as it is with indignation at the very thought of taxing
America internally without a requisite voice of consent. Taxation is
no part of the governing or legislative power. Taxes are the voluntary
gift and grant of the Commons alone. At the same time, on every real
point of legislation, I believe the authority to be fixed as the
pole-star--fixed for the reciprocal benefit of the mother country and
her infant colonies. They are the subjects of this kingdom, equally
entitled with yourselves to all the rights of mankind and the peculiar
privileges of Englishmen, and equally bound by its laws. The Americans
are the sons, not the bastards of England. The distinction between
legislation and taxation is essential to liberty. The Crown, the Peers,
are equally legislative powers with the Commons. If taxation be a part
of simple legislation, the Crown, the Peers, have rights in taxation as
well as yourselves--rights which they will claim whenever the principle
can be supported by might."
Grenville rose and defended the Stamp Act. He denied that the right
of taxation depended on representation. He complained justly, that
when he proposed to tax America, there was little opposition in that
House. He contended that protection and obedience were reciprocal, and
he exposed the fallacy of Pitt's distinction between taxes and duties.
There was much justice in these remarks. The words of Grenville, so
pointedly directed against him, immediately called up Pitt again. He
had spoken; it was contrary to all rule, but the lion of Parliament
broke recklessly through the meshes of its regulations, and when he
was called to order the members supported him by cries of "Go on! go
on!" He went on, severely castigating Grenville for complaining of the
liberty of speech in that House; and dropping in his indignation the
terms of courtesy towards the late Minister of "honourable" or "right
honourable," said simply--"Sir, the gentleman tells us that America is
obstinate--America is almost in open rebellion. Sir, I rejoice that
America has resisted. Three millions of people so dead to all the
feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have
been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest." He then exposed
the cases quoted by Grenville to show that taxation in this country
had been imposed without representation, showing that these very
instances led to immediate representation. "I would have cited them,"
he continued, "to show that even under arbitrary reigns Parliaments
were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent. The gentleman
asks when the Americans were emancipated? But I desire to know when
they were made slaves?" He then touched on the true sources of benefit
from our colonies, the profits of their trade. He estimated the profits
derived from the American commerce at two millions sterling, adding
triumphantly, "This is the fund that carried us victoriously through
the late war. This is the price America pays us for protection." He
then alluded to the comparative strength of the two countries. "I
know the valour," he said, "of your troops. I know the skill of your
officers. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this country
can crush America to atoms. But in such a cause as this your success
would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall like the strong
man. She would embrace the pillars of the state, and pull down the
constitution along with her."
The advice of Pitt prevailed. Ministers determined to bring in two Acts
in accordance with his counsels: an Act declaratory of the supreme
power of Parliament over the colonies, and another repealing the Stamp
Act, on the plea which he had suggested. The Declaratory Act passed
readily enough, for all parties agreed in it; but the repeal of the
Stamp Act met with stout opposition. Grenville, with the pertinacity of
a man who glories in his disgrace, resisted it at every stage. When he
was hissed by the people, he declared that "he rejoiced in the hiss. If
it were to do again, he would do it!" In the Lords there was a strong
resistance to the repeal. Lord Temple, who had now deserted Pitt,
supported his brother Grenville with all his might. Lords Mansfield,
Lyttelton, and Halifax, the whole Bedford faction, and the whole Bute
faction, opposed it. The king declared himself for repeal rather than
bloodshed.
[Illustration: TROOPS ESCORTING THE STAMPED PAPER TO THE CITY HALL, NEW
YORK. (_See p._ 188.)]
To acquire popularity, the Rockingham administration made a further
restriction on the import of foreign silks; they made a modification
of the Cider Bill, but this only extended to taking the duty off
cider belonging to private persons, and was regarded as a bribe to
the country gentlemen. They induced the House of Commons to pass a
resolution on the 25th of April, declaring general warrants illegal,
and, if for seizing any member of the House, a breach of privilege.
But when they passed this in the form of a bill, the Lords threw it
out; and a second bill for the same purpose failed in the Commons.
Still, these conciliatory measures did not procure them confidence.
Colonel Barré refused them his support; General Conway was sick of
his post, and longed to be out of it; and Henley, Lord Northington,
as Chancellor, was found actually intriguing against his colleagues.
With the Court they grew into no favour, because the king thought
them backward in procuring from Parliament suitable provision for his
younger brother. It was clear that this could not last. To cap the
climax of weakness, the Rockingham Cabinet came to open issue amongst
themselves on the plan of government for Canada. Northington informed
the king that they could not go on; and the king, on the 7th of July,
gave the Chancellor a letter to Pitt, inviting him to form a new
Ministry. The same day his Majesty also informed the existing Cabinet
of the change which he contemplated. Conway said frankly, it was the
best thing the king could do; but Lord Rockingham and the Duke of
Newcastle were deeply offended.
Pitt hastened up to town, and was graciously received by the king, who
told him that he left the choice of his colleagues entirely to himself.
Pitt, as twice before, immediately proposed that his brother-in-law,
Lord Temple, should be placed at the head of the Treasury. Temple was
summoned from Stowe, but was as haughty and unmanageable as ever. He
demanded that all the old Ministers should be dismissed, that Lord
Lyttelton should have the Privy Seal, Lord Gower be Secretary of
State, etc. Pitt could not accede to these terms. This time he did
not throw up the offer of the Premiership to oblige his wrong-headed
brother-in-law, who had the overweening idea that he was as great a man
as Pitt himself. He stood firm, and, after a long interview at North
End, Hampstead, where Pitt had taken a house for the time, Temple set
off to Stowe again in high dudgeon, declaring that Pitt had thrown
off the mask, and never meant to accept his co-operation at all. Lord
Camden advised Pitt to stand fast, throw off the Grenvilles, and save
the nation without them. He acted on the advice.
He found the Bedford clan ready, as usual, for office, but wanting to
come in a whole legion; the poor weak Duke of Newcastle was equally
prepared, shedding tears in his facile way, hugging and kissing
people in his trouble, and wondering why his "dear old friend" had
thus abandoned him. Pitt passed on, and chose Lord Camden as Lord
Chancellor; Northington as President of the Council; Lord Granby as
Commander-in-Chief; Shelburne and Conway as Secretaries of State;
the Duke of Grafton as First Lord of the Treasury; Charles Townshend
as Chancellor of the Exchequer; with Lord North, James Grenville,
brother of Temple, Colonel Barré, and others, in secondary posts.
Mr. Stewart Mackenzie, Bute's brother, was restored to his former
office, but without any control over Scottish affairs. It was clear
that Pitt had selected his colleagues without regard to party, but
with an eye to the ability of the respective persons. It was a mode of
acting particularly after the fancy of the king, who had always been,
according to his own words to Pitt on the occasion, "zealously ready to
give his aid towards destroying all party distinctions, and restoring
that subordination to government, which can alone preserve that
inestimable blessing, liberty, from degenerating into licentiousness."
"I venture," said Burke, "to say, it did so happen that persons had a
single office divided between them, who had never spoken to each other
in their lives, until they found themselves, they knew not how, pigging
together, heads and points, in the same truckle bed."
But where, all this time, was the Great Commoner? The whole world
was astonished when the fact came out that Pitt would accept no post
in his own Ministry but that of Privy Seal, which necessitated his
removal to the House of Peers. The king himself offered no opposition.
Pitt's colleagues were not only astonished, but confounded; for they
calculated on having his abilities and influence in the House of
Commons. "It is a _fall up stairs_," said the witty Chesterfield,
"which will do Pitt so much hurt that he will never be able to stand
upon his legs again." No doubt it was a great mistake, but the
infirmity of Pitt's health is an abundant excuse. This matter settled,
Chatham condescended to coax the haughty Duke of Bedford, whom he met
at Bath, to join him. He explained that the measures he meant to pursue
were such as he knew the Duke approved. Having heard him, Bedford
replied, proudly, "They are _my measures_, and I will support them, in
or out of office." It was understood that he would receive overtures
from Chatham, and, in these circumstances, Parliament met on the 11th
of November.
Previous to this, however, Chatham had thought over several decisive
measures, and sketched out a scheme of foreign and domestic policy,
which marked how far above the intellectual grasp of most of his
contemporaries was that of his mind. He determined, if possible, to
form an alliance of European states against the Family Compact of the
Bourbons in France and Spain; to reform the Government of Ireland,
which greatly needed it, and that of India.
His first measure was to establish the Great Northern Alliance. He had
obtained information of designs on the part of France and Spain to make
a descent on our southern coast, and burn the dockyards of Portsmouth
and Plymouth. Before quitting office, in 1761, he had planned this
alliance, and he now made endeavours, but in vain, to induce Frederick
of Prussia to come into such an alliance. Frederick was too sore at his
treatment by the Cabinet of Lord Bute to listen to any proposals from
England. Still, this would not have prevented Chatham from prosecuting
the object of the alliance with Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Germany, and
Holland, had he remained long enough in office. His name carried the
utmost weight all over the Continent. His indomitable vigour, and his
victorious arms, had been witnessed with wonder. In Paris, Horace
Walpole found the news of his return to office produced a panic not to
be described. The very mention of his name struck a silence into the
most boastful or insolent company.
His enemies of his own house were not so easily intimidated. The summer
had been an unprecedentedly rainy one. The crops had failed, and, in
consequence of the scarcity and dearness of corn, there had been riots,
especially in the western counties. The enraged people had burned down
the ricks and barns of the farmers who were hoarding their corn for
higher prices. Chatham instantly, that is, on the 10th of September,
issued a proclamation against "forestallers and regraters." As the
riots still increased, on the 24th he caused an Order in Council to
be issued, laying an embargo on corn, and prohibiting the sailing of
vessels already laden with wheat for foreign markets, the failure
of crops being as great on the Continent as in England. He had been
advised not to venture on so bold a measure without calling together
Parliament; but he would not hear of it, lest it should look like
timidity of counsel. It was a daring stretch of prerogative, and did
not pass without severe censure. Chatham defended the measure: he
quoted Locke in justification of such measures for the prevention of
internal calamity and tumult; and he defended it further by the fact,
that to have called together Parliament would have brought noblemen
and gentlemen from their own neighbourhood, just when they were most
needful there to maintain order. Lord Camden, the present Chancellor,
and Lord Northington, the late one, stoutly supported him, Camden
saying that it was a measure so moderate and beneficial, that a Junius
Brutus might have trusted it to a Nero. Unfortunately, he added that,
at worst, it was only "a forty days' tyranny"--a phrase which excited
the utmost clamour, and was long remembered against him.
In the Christmas recess Chatham hastened to Bath, to improve his health
for the campaign of the ensuing Session; but when Parliament met again,
in the middle of January, 1767, Ministers were in consternation at his
not reappearing. The Duke of Grafton and Beckford, who were his most
devoted adherents, were thunderstruck. They found it impossible to keep
in order the heterogeneous elements of the Cabinet. All the hostile
qualities, which would have lain still under the hand of the great
magician, bristled up, and came boldly out. The spirit of Bedford,
of Newcastle, and of Rockingham, was active in their partisans, and
gathered courage to do mischief. Lord Shelburne and the Duke of Grafton
became estranged; Charles Townshend, who had as much ambition and
eccentricity as talent, began to show airs, and aim at supremacy.
Grafton implored Chatham to come to town if possible, and when that was
declared impracticable, to allow him to go down, and consult with him
in his sick chamber. But he was informed that the Minister was equally
unable to move or to consult.
In these unfortunate circumstances, Charles Townshend, as Chancellor
of the Exchequer, proposed the annual rate for the land-tax. He called
for the amount of four shillings in the pound, the rate at which it had
stood during the war; but he promised next year to reduce it to three.
The country gentlemen grumbled, representing that in years of peace
it was commonly reduced to three and sometimes to two. Grenville saw
his advantage--his great opponent away and the landholders ready to
rebel--and he moved that, instead of next year, the reduction should
take place immediately. Dowdeswell supported him, and the amendment
was carried by two hundred and six votes against a hundred and
eighty-eight. The Opposition was astonished at its own success, and yet
it need not have been; they who had to vote were chiefly land-owners,
and men who did not like taxing themselves. As Lord Chesterfield
observed, "All the landed gentlemen had bribed themselves with this
shilling in the pound."
The Opposition was in ecstasies: it was the first defeat of Ministers
on a financial question since the days of Walpole, and in our time the
Chancellor would have resigned. The blow seemed to rouse Chatham. Three
days after this event, on the 2nd of March, he arrived in town, though
swathed in flannel, and scarcely able to move hand or foot. He declared
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself could not hold office
together. A few days, and Townshend would have been dismissed from
office, and the country might have escaped one of its greatest shocks;
but, unfortunately, the malady of Chatham returned with redoubled
violence, and in a new and more terrible form. He was obliged to refuse
seeing any one on State affairs.
Such a calamity could not but be attended with the most mischievous
consequences. Chatham was obliged to leave town, and seek retirement
and a purer air at North End, near Hampstead. Townshend, who in a
few days would have ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, still
retained office, and now showed more freely the wild and erratic
character of his genius. He had lost half a million from the revenue by
the reduction of the land-tax, and he pledged himself to the House to
recover it from the Americans. He declared that he fully agreed with
George Grenville, even in the principle of the Stamp Act, and ridiculed
the distinction set up by Chatham, and admitted by Franklin, of the
difference between internal and external taxation. This was language
calculated to fire the already heated minds of the colonists, who,
the more they reflected on Chatham's lofty language on the supreme
authority of the mother country in the declaratory Act, the more firmly
they repudiated it.
On the 11th of March, 1768, the Parliament, having nearly lived
its term of seven years, was dissolved, and the most unprecedented
corruption, bribery, and buying and selling of the people's right to
their own House, came into play. The system originated by Walpole was
now grown gigantic, and the sale and purchase of rotten boroughs was
carried on in the most unblushing manner by candidates for Parliament,
particularly aristocrats, who had managed to secure the old boroughs
as their property, or to control them by their property. The Mayor and
Aldermen of Oxford wrote to their members, long before the dissolution,
to offer them the renewal of their seats for the sum of seven thousand
five hundred pounds, which they meant to apply to the discharge of the
debts of the corporation. The House arrested the Mayor and Aldermen,
and clapped them in Newgate for five days; but on their humbly begging
pardon at the bar of the House, they released them again to continue
their base contract. Nay, whilst in prison, these corporation officials
had sold their borough to the Duke of Marlborough and the Earl of
Abingdon. Well might Chatham say this rotten part of the constitution
wanted amputating. Where the people of corporations had votes, they
were corrupted beyond all hope of resistance by the lavish bribes of
the wealthy. The Earl Spencer spent seventy thousand pounds to secure
the borough of Northampton for his nominee. There were attorneys acting
then as now for such boroughs and such corrupt constituents, and
they went about offering them to the highest bidders. One Hickey was
notorious amongst this tribe; and above all, the borough of Shoreham
distinguished itself by its venality, which assumed an aspect almost
of blasphemy. The burgesses united in a club to share the proceeds
of bribery equally amongst themselves, and styled themselves "the
Christian Club," in imitation of the first Christians, who had all
things in common! In the train of all this unprincipled corruption
followed riots and tumults amongst the people, who were at once
starving from the scarcity and dearness of bread, and infuriated with
the drink with which they had been plied to serve the views of these
base candidates. From the centre of this unholy chaos again rose the
figure of John Wilkes, as the reputed champion of liberty.
He was advised to try Westminster, where Mr. John Churchill, the
brother of his coadjutor, the satirist, and others, were in his
interest, but he boldly struck for the City of London. There were seven
candidates at the poll. Wilkes received one thousand two hundred and
forty-seven votes, but he was still lowest on the poll. His friends,
the mob, had no franchise.
Undaunted by his defeat, he immediately offered himself for Middlesex,
and there, though the mob could not vote, they could act for him.
They assembled in vast numbers, shouting, "Wilkes and Liberty!" They
accompanied him to the poll; they stopped all the roads that led to
the hustings at Brentford, suffering no one to pass who was not for
Wilkes and liberty. His zealous supporters wore blue cockades or paper
in their hats, inscribed "Wilkes and Liberty," or "No. 45." At night
they assembled in the streets, insisting on people illuminating their
houses in honour of Wilkes; abused all Scotsmen they met; scribbled
"No. 45" on the panels of carriages as they passed; made the parties in
them shout their favourite cry; broke the windows of Lord Bute at the
West End, and of Harley, the Lord Mayor, at the Mansion House--the same
Harley, a younger brother of the Earl of Oxford, who, as sheriff, had
had to burn No. 45 of the _North Briton_ in Cornhill. By such means the
mob managed to return Wilkes at the very head of the poll.
This was wormwood to the Government; and Wilkes did not leave them many
days in quiet. He had declared that, on returning to England, he would
surrender himself under his outlawry on the first day of the next term.
Accordingly, on the 20th of April, he presented himself to the Court of
King's Bench, attended by his counsel, Mr. Glynn, and avowed himself
ready to surrender to the laws. Lord Mansfield declared that he was not
there by any legal process, and that the court could not take notice
of him; but in a few days he was taken on another writ, and on the
8th of June he was again brought before Lord Mansfield, who declared
the outlawry void through a flaw in the indictment; but the original
verdict against him was confirmed, and he was sentenced to imprisonment
for twenty-two calender months, and two fines of five hundred pounds
each--one for the _North Briton_, and the other for the "Essay on
Woman."
[Illustration: "THE POLLING."
ONE OF THE SERIES OF FOUR PAINTINGS ENTITLED "THE ELECTION," BY W.
HOGARTH.]
[Illustration: THE MOB RELEASING MR. WILKES ON HIS WAY TO PRISON. (_See
p._ 193.)]
But these proceedings had not been effected without continual tumults.
On the day that Wilkes was arrested by order of the King's Bench
(the 27th of April), and, being refused bail, was sent to the King's
Bench prison, the mob stopped the hackney coach as it proceeded over
Westminster Bridge, took out the horses, and, with shouts of "Wilkes
and Liberty!" drew him, not to the prison, but into the City, and took
him into a tavern in Cornhill, where they kept him till midnight,
declaring that he should enjoy his freedom in spite of the law. But
Wilkes knew his position better than his champions, and, stealing away,
he went voluntarily to the King's Bench, and surrendered himself. The
next morning, when the mob knew that he was in prison, they assembled
in furious throngs, and demanded, under the most terrible menaces, his
liberation. They were at length dispersed by a detachment of Horse
Guards, but not until the mob had abused and pelted the soldiers. These
riots were kept up in different places from day to day; and on the
10th of May, twenty people were killed or wounded. When the soldiers
who had fired on the rioters were brought to trial, they were not
only acquitted, but the new Parliament voted loyal addresses on the
occasion; and the Government, through Lord Barrington, the Secretary
at War, and in the king's name, thanked publicly the officers and men
for their signal service in protecting the public peace. This only
added fresh fuel to the popular flame. To protect the public peace by
shooting the people, and to assure the perpetrators of this outrage,
as Lord Barrington did, that they should have every assistance from
Government in defending them from all legal consequences, was rightly
deemed most un-English conduct. The riots spread on all sides.
In October of this year Chatham at length resigned, and Parliament
assembled on the 8th of November. The two great objects which engrossed
the attention of Government in these days were North America and John
Wilkes. The news of the Act imposing import duties had reawakened all
the indignation of the people of Massachusetts. The Bostonians took
immediate steps to realise their doctrines. In October, 1767, the chief
men there met, and entered into a bond to purchase or wear no English
manufacture, but to encourage domestic manufacture till these obnoxious
import duties were withdrawn. The Massachusetts Assembly passed strong
resolutions to the same effect, and Mr. James Otis, who had been most
active in contending for them, exerted himself, through the press,
to circulate them all over America. Causes were not long wanting for
testing the resolution of the people of Massachusetts. The governor
of that colony, Francis Bernard, was precisely the man to bring the
matter to a crisis. He was able, determined, and of a hot temper. The
people hated him, because they knew that he was writing home despatches
full of the most unfavourable representations of their proceedings
and designs. He refused to confirm the nomination of such members of
the council as he knew were opposed to the new regulation; and Lord
Shelburne supported him in his act. In consequence, the Assembly
addressed a circular letter to all the other colonies, calling on them
to unite in defeating the new duties. Bernard in vain opposed the
resolution authorising this circular letter; and, on his report, Lord
Hillsborough instructed him to demand from the Assembly the rescinding
of the resolution. The Assembly refused, declaring that if a British
Minister could control the votes of provincial Assemblies, liberty was
but a mere show. Lord Hillsborough had instructed Bernard to dissolve
the Assembly in case it refused to rescind the resolution. In the
meantime, events took place which might have caused a more judicious
man to pause ere he fulfilled these instructions.
On the 10th of June, 1768, a sloop called the _Liberty_, the property
of Mr. John Hancock, of Boston, arrived in the harbour of that city
laden with a cargo of Madeira wine. Resistance having been offered to
the collection of the duties, the comptroller signalled the _Romney_
man-of-war, lying at anchor off Boston, to take the sloop in tow and
carry her under her guns. Crowds, meanwhile, had gathered on the quay,
and commenced measures for resistance. The captain of the _Romney_
sent out his boat's crew to haul in the sloop, and the mob attacked
them with stones. The man-of-war's men, notwithstanding, executed their
task, and carried the _Liberty_ under the guns of the _Romney_.
But the success of the capture only intensified the commotion on shore.
The tumult continued the next day; the mob broke the windows of the
houses of the commissioners and the custom-house officers; they dragged
the collector's boat on shore, and made a bonfire of it. These officers
fled for their lives--first on board the _Romney_, and then to Castle
William, a fortress at the mouth of the harbour. The third day was
Sunday, and the Bostonians kept the day with the decorum customary with
New Englanders; but on the Monday the riot was resumed with unabated
vigour. Placards were carried round the town, calling on the Sons of
Liberty to meet on Tuesday at ten o'clock. The Sons of Liberty were
members of the non-importation associations, which had been established
there, and in many parts of America. They had adopted that designation
from a phrase in a speech of Colonel Barré, delivered in Parliament
as early as 1765. Daughters of Liberty existed as well as Sons of
Liberty, who mutually bound themselves to drink no tea, as well as to
wear nothing imported after the passing of these duties. The Government
retaliated by pouring troops into the town and summoning ships of war
into the harbour.
Such, then, was the state of affairs at the meeting of Parliament in
November, 1768. These events in America claimed immediate attention.
The petition of the Convention of Massachusetts, on its arrival, was
rejected indignantly. The Opposition called for the production of the
correspondence with the civil and military authorities there on the
subject, but this demand was negatived. In January, 1769, the House
of Lords took up the subject in a lofty tone. They complained of the
seditious and treasonable proceedings of the people of Boston and of
Massachusetts generally; and the Duke of Bedford, affirming that it
was clear that no such acts could be punished by the magistrates or
tribunals of the colony, moved an address to the king recommending that
the criminals guilty of the late outrages should be brought to England
and tried there, according to an Act of the 35th of Henry VIII. On the
26th of January it was introduced to the Commons. There it excited a
very spirited opposition. Pownall, who had himself been governor of
Massachusetts, and knew the Americans well, accused the Lords of gross
ignorance of the charters, usages, and character of the Americans;
and Governor Johnstone as strongly condemned the motion, which was
carried by one hundred and fifty-five to eighty-nine. On the 14th of
March a petition from New York, denying their right to tax America in
any way, was rejected, on the motion of Lord North; and, still later
in the session, Governor Pownall moved that the revenue acts affecting
America should be repealed forthwith. By this time everybody seemed to
have become convinced of the folly of the attempt; but Ministers had
not the magnanimity to act at once on the certainty that stared them in
the face. Parliament was prorogued on the 9th of May, and did not meet
again till the following January, as if there were nothing of moment
demanding its attention.
With the same want of sagacity which was driving Ministers and
Parliament to the loss of America, they were still persecuting Wilkes
into popularity. On the 14th of November, 1768, Sir Joseph Mawby,
member for Southwark, presented a petition from Wilkes, reciting all
the proceedings of Government against him, and praying for his being
heard at the bar of the House. Wilkes appeared before the House on the
31st of January, where he took exception to the word "blasphemous" as
applied to the "Essay on Woman." Thurlow, afterwards Lord Chancellor,
a most swearing, blaspheming man, protested that if the House did not
declare it blasphemous, it would be a disgrace to it. However, the
words "impious" and "obscene" were substituted. On the 1st of February
the House determined that his petition was frivolous. The next day
the House went into another charge against Wilkes. In the preceding
April Lord Weymouth, previous to the riots in St. George's Fields, had
issued a letter, as Secretary of State, to the magistrates of Lambeth,
warning them of the danger of riots taking place in the endeavour to
free Wilkes from prison, and offering them the aid of the military.
Wilkes, while in the King's Bench, had obtained a copy of this letter,
and sent it to the _St. James's Chronicle_ with his own comments,
styling it a "hellish project," and as the direct cause of that "horrid
massacre." Weymouth complained to the House of Lords that this was a
breach of privilege. A conference was had with the Commons; Wilkes was
brought to the Bar, where Baldwin, the printer, had acknowledged the
letter to be his, and then, so far from denying it, claimed the thanks
of the country for having exposed that "bloody scroll." The Commons
decided that he was guilty of an insolent and seditious libel, and on
the following day, February 3rd, on the motion of Lord Barrington, he
was expelled the House, by a majority of two hundred and nineteen to
one hundred and thirty-seven. The king had directly asked for such a
verdict by a letter to Lord North, declaring that Wilkes's expulsion
was "highly expedient and must be effected."
The direct consequence was that he was immediately nominated again by
the freeholders of Middlesex. Mr. Dingley, a mercantile speculator of
London, offered himself as the Government candidate, but withdrew in
a fright, and Wilkes was returned, without opposition, on the 16th of
February, only thirteen days after his expulsion. The next day Lord
Strange moved in the Commons, that John Wilkes, after having been
expelled, was incapable of serving again in the present Parliament, and
the case of Sir Robert Walpole was quoted in justification. Wilkes was
a second time declared incapable of sitting, the election was declared
void, and the public indignation rose higher than ever. The freeholders
of Middlesex instantly met at the "London" Tavern, and subscribed
on the spot two thousand pounds towards defraying the expenses of
Wilkes's election. They then formed themselves into a "Society for
Supporting the Bill of Rights," and a third time proposed Wilkes as
their candidate. He was immediately returned for Middlesex, Dingley not
finding any one who dared to nominate him. The next day, the 17th of
March, the Commons again voted the election void.
With the beginning of this year, 1769, there commenced, under the
signature of "Junius," the most remarkable series of political letters
which ever appeared in our political literature. Time has not yet
disclosed who this public censor was, though the most weighty reasons
attach the belief to its having been Sir Philip Francis. Whoever
he was, his terrible dissections of the conduct and characters of
public men--the Duke of Grafton, the Duke of Bedford, Lord Mansfield,
and others, not excepting the king himself--caused the most awful
consternation amongst the ranks of the Ministry, and raised the highest
enthusiasm in the public by the keen and caustic edge of his satire and
his censure, by the clear tone of his reasonings, his obvious knowledge
of secret Government movements, and the brilliant lustre of his style.
At the same unfortunate juncture, the king insisted on Lord North
demanding from Parliament half a million for the liquidation of his
debts, though he possessed a civil list of eight hundred thousand
a-year. Simple as were the habits of George and his queen, the most
reckless disregard of economy was practised in his household. No means
were taken to check the rapacity of his tradesmen, and it was shown
that even for the one item of the royal coach, in 1762, there had been
charged seven thousand five hundred and sixty-two pounds! The Commons
voted the half million, the public grumbled, and the popularity of
Wilkes, the great champion of reform, rose higher than ever. A fourth
time the freeholders of Middlesex nominated him as their candidate; and
on this occasion a fresh Government nominee presented himself. This
was Colonel Henry Lawes Luttrell. Two other candidates, encouraged by
Luttrell's appearance, came forward; and on the 13th of April the list
of the poll, which had gone off quietly, showed Wilkes one thousand
one hundred and forty-three; Luttrell, two hundred and ninety-six;
Whitaker, five; and Roach, none.
On the 15th of April, notwithstanding Luttrell's signal defeat, the
House of Commons, on the motion of Onslow, son of the late Speaker,
voted, after a violent debate, by a majority of fifty-four, that "Henry
Lawes Luttrell, Esq., ought to have been returned for Middlesex."
The debate was very obstinate. The whole of the Grenville interest,
including Lord Temple, was employed against Government, and the
decision was not made till three o'clock on Sunday morning.
To such a pitch of folly and despotism had the Grafton Ministry
been driven by the events of the Session of 1769, by their conduct
towards the Americans and Wilkes. The Rockinghams and Grenvilles were
combined against the Grafton Cabinet, and thus acquiring popularity at
its expense. Lord Camden, though still retaining his place, utterly
disapproved of their proceedings. The people everywhere held meetings
to express their total loss of confidence in both the Ministers and
Parliament, and to pray the king to dissolve the latter. In the autumn,
the action of Wilkes against Lord Halifax, for the seizure of his
papers, was tried, and the jury gave him four thousand pounds damages.
But, gloomy as was the aspect of affairs at home, they were far more
so in America. There, the insane conduct of the Government had gone on
exasperating and alienating the colonists. True, the Cabinet, on the
close of Parliament, held a meeting to consider what should be done
regarding America. Grafton proposed to repeal the obnoxious duties
at the commencement of the next session, but he was overruled on the
motion of Lord North, and it was agreed to repeal all but the tea
duties. Within a few days after the close of the session, therefore,
Lord Hillsborough wrote this news in a circular to the governors of
the American colonies. As was certain, the partial concession produced
no effect, the principle being still retained in the continued tea
duty. Moreover, Hillsborough's circular was composed in such harsh
and uncourteous terms, that it rather augmented than assuaged the
excitement.
In Massachusetts the colonists were more exasperated against Governor
Bernard, on account of his letters reflecting on the Bostonians in
the matter of the late riots, these letters having been laid before
Parliament, and copies of them by some means procured and sent on
by their agents. They declared that it was beneath their dignity to
deliberate in the midst of an armed force, and requested Bernard to
withdraw the troops, but he refused; and they, on their part, declined
to vote supplies, on which he adjourned them to Cambridge. There,
however, as Cambridge was only separated from Boston by an arm of the
sea, they continued to protest against an armed force, as an invasion
of the national rights of the colonists, and highly dangerous. Bernard
soon announced to them his intention to sail for England, to lay the
state of the colony before the king, and the house immediately voted
a petition to his Majesty, praying him to keep him from coming back
again. Bernard then called upon them to refund the money expended
for the quartering of the troops; but that they pronounced quite as
unreasonable as the Stamp Act, and finding them utterly intractable,
Bernard prorogued the Assembly, and quitted the colony, leaving the
administration in the hands of Lieutenant-Governor Hutchinson.
Yet, in that blind and defiant spirit, which he continued to show till
he had lost the colonies, George created Bernard a baronet on his
reaching home, for having, in effect, brought Massachusetts to the
verge of rebellion; and, to show his emphatic sense of these services,
he himself paid all the expenses of the patent.
Parliament assembled on the 9th of January, 1770. People had been
surprised at the unusual delay in summoning it, considering the
critical state of America, but they were much more surprised when the
subject put foremost in the king's speech was a lamentation over the
murrain which had appeared amongst horned cattle during the recess,
and which Ministers had taken some measures to stop without calling
together Parliament. It was true that he afterwards alluded to the
state of affairs in America, and trusted some means would be devised by
Parliament to appease the irritation. But whilst war itself appeared
imminent there, whilst the whole country at home was in a state of high
discontent, and the Spitalfields weavers were at this moment in a state
of open riot, the idea of giving the chief place in the royal speech to
horned cattle caused a burst of universal ridicule. It was thenceforth
called the "Horned Cattle Session." Junius launched one of his fierce
missives at the Duke of Grafton, observing, "Whilst the whole kingdom
was agitated with anxious expectation on one great point, you meanly
evaded the question, and, instead of the explicit firmness and decision
of a king, gave us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier."
[Illustration: WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM.]
Chatham had begun to ponder the proceedings of Ministers towards
America and towards Wilkes, or rather his constituents, as soon as
the returning activity of his mind permitted him. The conduct of the
Duke of Grafton, who had taken the lead during his retirement, did
not escape his censure. He had too easily fallen into the demand
of the Cabinet for severe measures in both those cases. No sooner,
therefore, did Chatham appear than he launched the whole thunder of
his indignation, and such was still his power that he shattered the
Cabinet to atoms. No sooner was the Address to the king moved and
seconded, than he rose and passed, with some expressions of contempt,
from the mention of the horned cattle to the more important topics. He
drew a dismal picture both of the domestic condition and the foreign
relations of the country. He glanced at the manner in which the Treaty
of Paris had been made, the abandonment of the King of Prussia, and the
consequent isolated condition of the kingdom, without a friend or an
ally. But bad as the external affairs of the nation were, he described
the internal as far worse. There everything was at discount. The people
were partly starving and wholly murmuring; the constituencies were
alarmed at the invasion of their rights in the case of John Wilkes; and
the colonies were on the very edge of rebellion. Such was the condition
to which the Government in a short time had reduced the commonweal.
More than all did he condemn the policy pursued towards America. He
protested against the term "unwarrantable," as applied to the conduct
of the colonists; proposed to substitute the word "dangerous." He owned
that he was partial towards the Americans, and strongly advocated a
system of mildness and indulgence in their case.
As for Wilkes, he counselled them earnestly to introduce a paragraph
into their Address to the king, stating their conviction that the chief
discontents of the nation arose from the violation of the rights of
representation in his expulsion from the Commons. "I am," said the
eloquent earl, "neither moved by his private vices nor by his public
merits. In his person, though he were the worst of men, I contend for
the safety and security of the best; and God forbid that there should
be a power in this country of measuring the civil rights of the subject
by his moral character, or by any other rule than the fixed laws of the
land."
This was going to the very heart of the question with that clear,
searching sense for which Chatham was so distinguished. Lord Chancellor
Camden, who had himself a strong and honest intellect, but not
the moral courage of Chatham, had retained the Great Seal, though
disapproving of the measures of his colleagues. Emboldened by the words
of his friend, he now rose and expressed his regret for having so long
suppressed his feelings. But, he added, "I will do so no longer; I will
openly and boldly speak my sentiments. I now proclaim to the world
that I entirely coincide in the opinions expressed by my noble friend,
whose presence again reanimates us, touching this unconstitutional and
illegal vote of the House of Commons.... By this violent and tyrannical
conduct Ministers have alienated the minds of the people from his
Majesty's Government--I had almost said from his Majesty's person!"
After these words Camden could no longer remain Lord Chancellor.
The Marquis of Granby resigned his posts as Paymaster-General of the
Ordnance and Commander-in-Chief of the Army, much to the annoyance and
against the entreaties of the king and the Duke of Grafton. Camden
would have done the same, but as the Ministers were anxious to be rid
of him, Chatham and his friends counselled him to remain, and put the
Ministry to the odium of dismissing him. This was done, and thus two of
the men most popular with the public--Granby and Camden--were lost to
the Administration. The Seals, as Lord Shelburne had predicted, went
a-begging. Charles Yorke, second son of the former Lord Chancellor,
Hardwicke, had all his life been hankering after this prize, but
as he was closely pledged to the party of Lord Rockingham, he most
reluctantly declined it. Three days subsequently, however, the king,
after the levee, suddenly called him into his closet, and so pressingly
entreated him to accept the Seals and rescue his sovereign from an
embarrassment, that he gave way. This was on the 18th of January. He
was to be raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Morden, but, on
encountering the keen reproaches of his party at Lord Rockingham's,
he went home and committed suicide. The Seals were then successively
offered to Mr. de Grey, the Attorney-General, to Sir Eardley Wilmot,
and Lord Mansfield, who refused them, and they were obliged to be put
in commission, Lord Mansfield consenting to occupy the woolsack, as
Speaker to the House of Lords, till that was done. After some time,
Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe, one of the barons of the Exchequer, the
Honourable Henry Bathurst, one of the justices of the Common Pleas, and
Sir Richard Aston, one of the justices of the King's Bench, were named
the commissioners.
In the House of Commons, too, the Speaker, Sir John Cust, was removed
by death at the same moment, and Sir Fletcher Norton was elected in his
place. On the 22nd of January, the same day that Sir Fletcher Norton
was made Speaker of the House of Commons, the Marquis of Rockingham
moved in the Lords for an inquiry into the state of the nation. The
crumbling down of the Cabinet continued. James Grenville resigned;
Dunning, the Solicitor-General, and General Conway, followed; and on
the very day of Lord Rockingham's motion, the Duke of Grafton himself
laid down the Seals. The whole of his administration had thus vanished,
like a mere fog ministry, at the first reappearance of the luminary,
Chatham.