Produced by Paul Murray, Brownfox and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
_THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND._
_Seventy-five years have passed since Lingard completed his_ HISTORY OF
ENGLAND, _which ends with the Revolution of 1688. During that period
historical study has made a great advance. Year after year the mass of
materials for a new History of England has increased; new lights have
been thrown on events and characters, and old errors have been
corrected. Many notable works have been written on various periods of
our history; some of them at such length as to appeal almost exclusively
to professed historical students. It is believed that the time has come
when the advance which has been made in the knowledge of English history
as a whole should be laid before the public in a single work of fairly
adequate size. Such a book should be founded on independent thought and
research, but should at the same time be written with a full knowledge
of the works of the best modern historians and with a desire to take
advantage of their teaching wherever it appears sound.
The vast number of authorities, printed and in manuscript, on which a
History of England should be based, if it is to represent the existing
state of knowledge, renders co-operation almost necessary and certainly
advisable. The History, of which this volume is an instalment, is an
attempt to set forth in a readable form the results at present attained
by research. It will consist of twelve volumes by twelve different
writers, each of them chosen as being specially capable of dealing with
the period which he undertakes, and the editors, while leaving to each
author as free a hand as possible, hope to insure a general similarity
in method of treatment, so that the twelve volumes may in their
contents, as well as in their outward appearance, form one History.
As its title imports, this History will primarily deal with politics,
with the History of England and, after the date of the union with
Scotland, Great Britain, as a state or body politic; but as the life of
a nation is complex, and its condition at any given time cannot be
understood without taking into account the various forces acting upon
it, notices of religious matters and of intellectual, social, and
economic progress will also find place in these volumes. The footnotes
will, so far as is possible, be confined to references to authorities,
and references will not be appended to statements which appear to be
matters of common knowledge and do not call for support. Each volume
will have an Appendix giving some account of the chief authorities,
original and secondary, which the author has used. This account will be
compiled with a view of helping students rather than of making long
lists of books without any notes as to their contents or value. That the
History will have faults both of its own and such as will always in some
measure attend co-operative work, must be expected, but no pains have
been spared to make it, so far as may be, not wholly unworthy of the
greatness of its subject.
Each volume, while forming part of a complete History, will also in
itself be a separate and complete book, will be sold separately, and
will have its own index, and two or more maps._
Vol. I. to 1066. By Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L., Litt.D., Fellow of
University College, London; Fellow of the British Academy.
Vol. II. 1066 to 1216. By George Burton Adams, M.A., Professor of
History in Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Vol. III. 1216 to 1377. By T. F. Tout, M.A., Professor of Medieval and
Modern History in the Victoria University of Manchester; formerly
Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.
Vol. IV. 1377 to 1485. By C. Oman, M.A., Fellow of All Souls' College,
and Deputy Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford.
Vol. V. 1485 to 1547. By H. A. L. Fisher, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of New
College, Oxford.
Vol. VI. 1547 to 1603. By A. F. Pollard, M.A., Professor of
Constitutional History in University College, London.
Vol. VII. 1603 to 1660. By F. C. Montague, M.A., Professor of History
in University College, London; formerly Fellow of Oriel College,
Oxford.
Vol. VIII. 1660 to 1702. By Richard Lodge, M.A., Professor of History
in the University of Edinburgh; formerly Fellow of Brasenose
College, Oxford.
Vol. IX. 1702 to 1760. By I. S. Leadam, M.A., formerly Fellow of
Brasenose College, Oxford.
Vol. X. 1760 to 1801. By the Rev. William Hunt, M.A., D.Litt., Trinity
College, Oxford.
Vol. XI. 1801 to 1837. By the Hon. George C. Brodrick, D.C.L., late
Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and J. K. Fotheringham, M.A.,
Magdalen College, Oxford, Lecturer in Classics at King's College,
London.
Vol. XII. 1837 to 1901. By Sidney J. Low, M.A., Balliol College,
Oxford, formerly Lecturer on History at King's College, London.
The Political History of England
IN TWELVE VOLUMES
EDITED BY WILLIAM HUNT, D.LITT., AND
REGINALD L. POOLE, M.A.
X.
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE
CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION
1760-1801
BY
WILLIAM HUNT, M.A., D.LITT.
PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1905
_The production of this book, which was ready in April, has unavoidably
been postponed by the Publishers_
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
THE KING AND BUTE.
PAGE
25 Oct., 1760. Accession of George III. 1
National feeling 1
The king's education and character 3
His plan of government 6
His first cabinet 8
Influence of the Earl of Bute 11
The civil list 13
1761. The war in Germany 13
7 June. Capture of Belle Ile 15
The king's covert attack on the whig ascendency 15
Opposing views with respect to the war 17
The general election of 1761 19
25 Mar. Bute secretary of state 20
8 Sept. The king's marriage 21
Bute's unpopularity 22
CHAPTER II.
THE PEACE OF PARIS.
1761. Negotiations for a peace 23
France and Spain act together in negotiation 25
Pitt maintains British honour and interests 26
Pitt and his colleagues 28
5 Oct. Pitt resigns office 31
2 Jan., 1762. The family compact. War declared against Spain 32
Frederick of Prussia offended 33
25 April. Newcastle's resignation. Bute succeeds to
the treasury 34
The war in Germany 35
British conquests: Martinique, Havana, Manila 37
Negotiations with France 38
A majority in the commons secured 39
The terms of peace 40
10 Feb., 1763. Definitive treaty signed at Paris 42
Mar. The cider tax 43
11 April. Bute retires from office 44
CHAPTER III.
THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION.
1763. The new ministers 45
April. The _North Briton_, No. 45, and the general
warrant 46
Aug. The king's attempts to strengthen the
administration 48
Sept. Changes in the administration 49
Nov. Proceedings in parliament against Wilkes 50
19 Jan., 1764. The commons expel Wilkes 51
Violation of the privileges of parliament 52
Grenville's economy 53
Great Britain's colonial policy 54
1763. Defence of the American colonies 58
10 Mar., 1764. The stamp bill proposed 59
22 Mar., 1765. The bill enacted 60
American resistance 60
The right of taxation 62
Unstatesmanlike policy 63
CHAPTER IV.
THE KING, THE WHIGS, AND CHATHAM.
1765. The king and Grenville 64
April-May. The regency bill 65
The weavers' riot 66
16 July. A whig administration formed under Rockingham 67
Its weakness and difficulties 68
Jan., 1766. Pitt on American taxation 69
Burke, his character and political principles 70
Mar. Repeal of the stamp act. The declaratory act 71
July. Pitt forms an administration, and is created
Earl of Chatham 73
His foreign policy 74
Sept.-Nov. "A forty days' tyranny" 76
Feb., 1767. Chatham incapacitated by disease 76
June, 1763. Revolt of Mir Kasim 77
23 Oct., 1764. Battle of Baxar 78
June, 1767. Parliamentary interference with the E. India
Company 79
1767-69. Haidar Ali's invasions of the Karnatic 80
CHAPTER V.
GROWTH OF THE KING'S POWER.
1767. C. Townshend and the new American duties 82
The ministry in Chatham's absence 85
Jan., 1768. Junction with the Bedford party 87
Feb. The _Nullum Tempus_ bill 87
Massachusetts heads resistance to the revenue
acts 88
1 May, 1769. Partial repeal of the new duties decided on 90
1761. Condition of Ireland. Rise of Whiteboyism 91
The government of Ireland 93
1768-69. Octennial act and augmentation of Irish army 94
1768. The general election of 1768 94
Wilkes returned for Middlesex 95
10 May. Riot in St. George's Fields 96
1769. Wilkes and the Middlesex electors 97
French annexation of Corsica. Faltering policy
of ministers 98
Arrears of the civil list 99
The _Letters_ of Junius 99
Chatham in opposition 100
28 Jan., 1770. Grafton resigns. North forms an administration 102
Triumph of the king's policy 103
Discontent with the constitutional machinery 103
Chatham and Burke differ on character of
needful reforms 105
CHAPTER VI.
THE KING'S RULE.
1770. Two parties in the opposition 106
The struggle in parliament 107
April. The Grenville controverted elections act 108
5 Mar. The "Boston massacre" 109
Chatham and his city friends demand a
dissolution 110
They are foiled by the king 111
Dispute with Spain concerning the Falkland
islands 112
England's foreign policy 114
1770-71. Changes in the ministry 115
The law of libel 116
The house of commons and the printers 117
1772. Religious toleration 118
The royal marriage act and C. J. Fox 119
June, 1773. Affairs of E. India Company. North's
regulating act 121
May. Clive's acquittal 122
The king's political predominance 123
CHAPTER VII.
THE QUARREL WITH AMERICA.
1772-73. Resistance to law in America 124
16 Dec., 1773. The Boston tea-riot 126
29 Jan., 1774. Franklin before the privy council 126
The penal acts 128
The Quebec act 129
5 Sept. First meeting of a continental congress 132
The American loyalists 134
The general election of 1774 135
Opinion in England on the American crisis 136
Feb.-Mar., 1775. Bills and resolutions for conciliation 138
The Americans prepare for war 139
19 April. Fighting at Lexington and Concord 140
CHAPTER VIII.
THE COLONIAL REBELLION.
April, 1775. The American army at Cambridge 143
May. Americans seize Ticonderoga and Crown Point 144
English opinion on the outbreak of war 144
15 June. Washington appointed American commander-in-chief 146
17. The battle of Bunker hill 147
The invasion of Canada 151
31 Dec. Defeat of the Americans at Quebec 152
The king hires German troops 153
17. The evacuation of Boston 155
May-June, 1776. The Americans chased out of Canada 155
Spread of the idea of separation 156
28 June. Unsuccessful attempt on Charleston 157
4 July. Declaration of American independence 158
1775. The war generally popular in Great Britain 158
The opposition in parliament 159
The state of the navy 161
Nov. North's prohibitory bill 162
CHAPTER IX.
SARATOGA.
27 Aug., 1776. The battle of Long Island 164
15 Sept. British take New York 165
11, 13 Oct. Carleton's victory on Lake Champlain 166
8 Dec. Washington retreats across the Delaware 167
26. The surprise of Trenton 168
Partial secession of whigs from parliament 169
Impressment for the navy 170
1777. Arrears of the civil list 171
Plan for co-operation between Howe and Burgoyne 172
June-Nov. Howe's campaign. Battle of the Brandywine,
Sept. 11 173
American camp at Valley Forge 175
6 July. Burgoyne captures Ticonderoga 176
His difficulties, distress, and failure 177
17 Oct. The convention of Saratoga 179
Responsibility for the disaster 179
6 Jan., 1778. Alliance between France and the Americans 181
Why England had not yet subdued the Americans 183
CHAPTER X.
WAR WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.
1777-78. The opposition and the war 186
Mar., 1778. The king's refusal to allow Chatham to form a
ministry 187
11 May. Chatham's death 190
Constitutional importance of the issue of the
war 191
Abuses in naval administration 191
27 July. Naval action off Ushant 193
Progress of the war in America 193
Lord Howe and Count d'Estaing 194
Mistaken naval policy of Great Britain 195
Aug., 1779. Combined French and Spanish fleets in the
Channel 196
The war in various parts of the world 196
12 May, 1780. The surrender of Charleston 198
Jan.-Feb. Rodney's relief of Gibraltar 198
17 April. His indecisive action off Dominica 199
Ireland's grievances 200
1779. The volunteers 202
Removal of restrictions on Irish trade 202
1779-80. Activity of the opposition in England 202
2-7 June. The Lord George Gordon riots 205
CHAPTER XI.
YORKTOWN AND THE KING'S DEFEAT.
Mar., 1780. The armed neutrality 208
20 Dec. Dispute with the Dutch: war declared 209
Defence of Gibraltar 210
5 Aug., 1781. Battle of the Dogger Bank 212
1780. General election and the new parliament 212
2 Oct. The fate of Major Andre 215
3 Feb., 1781. Rodney takes St. Eustatius 216
July, 1780. French squadron at Rhode island 218
16 Aug. Cornwallis's campaign in the south: battle
of Camden 219
17 Jan., 1781. Battle of the Cowpens 221
15 Mar. Battle of Guilford 222
May. Cornwallis in Virginia 223
How England lost command in the American waters 224
19 Oct. The capitulation at Yorktown 225
Causes of the disaster 225
Reception of the news in England 226
Events in the war with France and Spain 227
Mar., 1782. The second Rockingham ministry; the king's
defeat 229
CHAPTER XII.
THE ROUT OF THE WHIGS.
1782. Attack on the corrupt influence of the crown 231
May. Legislative independence conceded to Ireland 232
12 April. The "battle of the Saints" 234
Last scenes of the siege of Gibraltar 236
1780-84. War in India and in the Indian waters 236
Quarrel between Fox and Shelburne 238
July, 1782. Shelburne forms a ministry 240
30 Nov. Preliminaries of peace between Great Britain
and America 241
The American loyalists 242
3 Sept., 1783. Definitive treaty of Versailles 242
State of parties in parliament 243
The coalition between Fox and North 244
April. The Coalition ministry 245
May. Pitt's motion for parliamentary reform 246
Warren Hastings in India 247
Nov.-Dec. Fox's India bills 249
Dec. The Coalition ministry dismissed; Pitt prime
minister 251
Struggle on the question of a dissolution 251
25 Mar., 1784. Parliament dissolved 254
General election: "Fox's martyrs" 254
CHAPTER XIII.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS, 1760-1801.
General character of the period 255
Amusements, gambling, racing, the drama, etc. 256
Travelling and the state of the roads 258
Literature: poetry, fiction, and serious prose
works 259
The arts, architecture, painting, etc. 262
Natural science 263
Voyages of discovery 263
Religion 264
The criminal law 265
The prisons and transportation 266
The police system 267
Increase of trade and manufactures 268
The mercantile system and _laissez-faire_ 269
Steam and water power: iron manufacture 270
Canals 271
Manufacture of textile fabrics 271
Failure of domestic industries 272
Wages of agricultural labourers 273
Regulation of corn trade 273
Improvements in agriculture 274
Enclosures 275
Combinations of workmen to raise wages 277
The poor law 277
Sufferings of the poor and specially of factory
children 278
CHAPTER XIV.
EARLY YEARS OF PITT'S ADMINISTRATION.
1784. Significance of Pitt's victory 280
Change in office of prime minister and in
house of lords 281
Pitt's character and management of parliament 282
The Westminster election 283
1784-85. Pitt's finance 284
Aug., 1784. His bill for the government of India 286
18 April, 1785. His bill for parliamentary reform 287
May. His resolutions on Irish trade 288
1786. Establishment of the sinking fund 291
26 Sept. Commercial treaty with France 293
1787. Consolidation of customs and excise 294
Bill for relief of dissenters 295
1788. The slave trade question 295
Foreign policy 296
1785. Austrian aggression 297
1786-87. French influence in the United Provinces 298
Oct., 1787. Restoration of the stadholder 300
April, 1788. Triple alliance--Great Britain, Prussia, and
the United Provinces 301
CHAPTER XV.
THE REGENCY QUESTION.
1785. Return of Hastings to England 302
1786. Pitt and the charges against Hastings 303
13 Feb., 1788. Trial of Hastings begun 304
1788-93. Cornwallis as governor-general of India 305
Feb., 1788. Pitt's (India) declaratory bill 305
May, 1787. The Prince of Wales's debts paid 307
5 Nov., 1788. The king's insanity 309
10 Dec. Fox asserts the prince's right to the regency 311
Pitt's resolutions 312
10 Mar., 1789. The king's recovery announced 314
The Irish parliament and the regency 314
The French revolution begins 315
English opinions on events in France 317
1790. Dispute with Spain relating to Nootka Sound 319
28 Oct. Convention with Spain 321
CHAPTER XVI.
DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.
1790. General election 322
1795. Acquittal of Hastings 323
1791-92. Struggle for the abolition of the slave trade 323
1792. Fox's libel bill 324
Pitt's foreign policy 324
1791. The Russian armament 326
Nov., 1790. Burke's _Reflections on the French Revolution_ 328
May, 1791. Rupture between Burke and Fox 329
27 Aug. The Declaration of Pilnitz 331
Revolutionary propaganda 331
1792. Dismissal of Thurlow 332
A whig scheme of coalition 333
French proposals 333
21 May. Proclamation against seditious writings 335
Aug. British ambassador recalled from Paris 336
French conquest of Flanders 337
The provocations received by England 338
Dec. Disruption of the whig party 340
21 Jan., 1793. Execution of Louis XVI. 342
1 Feb. France declares war on England 342
War necessary for the safety of Great Britain 342
Conduct of C. J. Fox 343
CHAPTER XVII.
THE FIRST COALITION.
1793. Change in Pitt's domestic policy 345
Pitt as a war minister 346
Loans raised by Pitt 348
Formation of the coalition 349
April. The conference at Antwerp 349
Success of the allies 350
Their discordant aims 351
Aug. The surrender of Toulon 352
8 Sept. York before Dunkirk: the battle of Hondschoote 353
Dec. Attempted co-operation with the Vendeans 354
Siege and evacuation of Toulon 355
Mar. Traitorous correspondence bill 357
1793-94. Repressive proceedings 357
1794. The opposition in parliament 359
Selfish conduct of Prussia and Austria 360
The British retreat through Holland 362
The coalition in a shattered state 363
Aug. British conquest of Corsica 363
28 May-1 June. Naval victory: the glorious First of June 364
Portland whigs coalesce with government 366
1791. Ireland. Society of United Irishmen founded 367
1793. Catholic relief act 368
1794. Catholic emancipation question 368
Feb., 1795. The recall of Fitzwilliam 370
CHAPTER XVIII.
ENGLAND'S DARKEST DAYS.
1795. A desire for negotiation 372
8 April. Marriage of the Prince of Wales 373
Difference between Pitt and Grenville 373
5 April. Treaty of Basle 374
Treaties with Austria and Russia 374
Feeble conduct of war in the Mediterranean 375
June. The expedition to Quiberon 376
War in the West Indies 377
Scarcity, riots, and democratic agitation 378
Nov. Repressive legislation 379
1796. Bonaparte's campaign in Italy 380
British fleet evacuates the Mediterranean 381
Overtures and unsuccessful negotiations for
peace 382
Financial difficulties: the Loyalty loan 384
Ireland--United Irishmen adopt a military
organisation 386
Dec. French attempt an invasion of Ireland 386
27 Feb., 1797. Suspension of cash payments 387
14. Battle of Cape St. Vincent 388
18 April. Preliminaries of peace between France and
Austria signed at Leoben 390
The mutinies in the navy 391
Negotiations at Lille 396
17 Oct. Treaty of Campo Formio 397
11. Battle of Camperdown 398
A partial secession of whigs from parliament 399
Nov. The triple assessment 400
CHAPTER XIX.
IRISH REBELLION AND NAVAL SUPREMACY.
1798. Threatened invasion of England 401
The Irish peasantry look to France for help 404
1797-98. Rebellion in Ulster averted by severities 405
12 Mar., 1798. Arrest of rebel leaders in Dublin 407
Cruel measures adopted in midland and southern
counties 407
23 May. Outbreak of rebellion in Kildare 408
Rebellion in Wexford 409
21 June. Rebels routed on Vinegar hill 411
20 Aug. French under Humbert land in Killala bay 413
27. "The race of Castlebar" 413
Other attempts at invasion 414
1 Aug. The Battle of the Nile 416
Mar.-May, 1799. The defence of Acre 418
4 May. Storming of Seringapatam and death of Tipu 420
1798. Paul of Russia proposes a coalition 421
Dec., 1798.} The second coalition formed 423
Jan., 1799.}
1798. British troops withdrawn from San Domingo 424
CHAPTER XX.
ISOLATION IN EUROPE AND THE IRISH UNION.
1799. Campaign of Suvorov 425
A French fleet in the Mediterranean 426
June. Nelson and the Neapolitan jacobins 427
Aug.-Oct. The expedition to the Helder 429
Paul of Russia deserts the coalition 431
9 Oct. Bonaparte returns to France 432
Jan., 1800. The convention of El Arish 432
25 Dec, 1799. Bonaparte's letter to the king 433
April. Payment of the income tax 434
Scarcity of wheat 435
April, 1800. Investment of Genoa 436
14 June. The battle of Marengo 437
Bonaparte proposes a naval armistice 438
Unprofitable expeditions 439
9 Feb., 1801. The Treaty of Luneville: isolation of England 440
Paul's anger against England 440
Dec., 1800. The armed neutrality 441
Great Britain's maritime supremacy 443
Scarcity and desire for peace 443
Irish independence a source of weakness 445
Oct., 1798. Pitt contemplates union on a protestant basis 446
1799. Hopes of the catholics excited 447
How the government secured a majority 448
1 Aug., 1800. The union enacted 450
Sept. Pitt proposes catholic emancipation 451
Feb., 1801. The king refuses his assent: Pitt will resign 452
20. The king's insanity 453
Mar. Pitt's promise to the king 454
14. Pitt resigns office 455
APPENDIX I. On Authorities 459
II. Administrations of Great Britain, 1760-1801 470
III. The Grenvilles 476
MAPS.
(AT THE END OF THE VOLUME.)
1. Great Britain, showing the parliamentary representation.
2. The United States of America (northern section) {illustrating the War
3. " " " (southern section) {of Rebellion and the
{Treaty of Sept. 3,
{1783.
ERRATA.
[Transcribers' Note: These corrections to errata have been applied to
the e-book]
Page 4, line 25, _for_ "George" _read_ "William".
" 10, note, _for_ "From about 1760" _read_ "From the
Revolution".
" 49, line 23, _for_ "of state in Egremont's place" _read_ "and took
the northern department".
" 55 " 4, _for_ "1657" _read_ "1660".
" " " 9, _for_ "cotton" _read_ "grain".
" 71, lines 8, 9, _omit_ comma after "matters," and _for_ "including
taxation. The court party" _read_ "whatsoever. Some
of the king's household".
" 115, line 23, _for_ "northern" _read_ "southern".
" " " 24, _for_ "southern" _read_ "northern".
" 121 " 3, _for_ "cousin" _read_ "aunt".
" 130, lines 11, 12, _for_ "French laws and customs were swept away"
_read_ "The administration of the law was confused".
" 135, line 7, _for_ "astride on iron rails" _read_ "to ride
upon a rail".
" 144 " 29, _for_ "up" _read_ "down".
" 220 " 29, _for_ "stony" _read_ "strong".
" 245 " 36, _for_ "1788" _read_ "1778".
" 259 " 33, _for_ "1774" _read_ "1770".
" 263 " 5, _for_ "steel" _read_ "copper".
" 282 " 12, _for_ "than" _read_ "to".
" 351 " 31, _for_ "1,500 (Austrians)," _read_ "11,000".
" 394 " 27, _for_ "Commander" _read_ "captain".
" 467 " 40, _for_ "Karl von Martens" _read_ "F. de Martens".
" 468 " 41, _for_ "Clerque" _read_ "Clergue".
" 470. Newcastle's administration, _secs. of state_, E. of Egremont,
_for_ "_succ._ March, 1761," _read_ "_succ._ Oct.,
1761"; _for_ E. of Bute, "_succ._ Oct., 1761," _read_
"_succ._ March, 1761". _Ld. privy seal_, _after_ "E.
Temple" _read_ "D. of Bedford _succ._ Nov., 1761".
" 471. Grenville's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ _for_
"E. of Sandwich" _read_ "E. of Halifax, _succ._ Sept.,
1763"; _n. dept._ _for_ "E. of Halifax" _read_ "E. of
Sandwich, _succ._ Sept., 1763".
Rockingham's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ after
Conway _read_ "D. of Richmond, _succ._ May, 1766";
_n. dept._ _for_ "D. of Richmond" _read_ "H. S. Conway,
_succ._ May, 1766".
" 473. North's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ _for_ "E. of
Sandwich, E. of Halifax, E. of Suffolk, Visct.
Stormont" _read_ "E. of Rochford, _succ._ Dec, 1770,
Viscount Weymouth, _succ._ Nov., 1775, E. of
Hillsborough, _succ._ Nov., 1779"; _n. dept._ _for_
"Viscount Weymouth, E. of Hillsborough," _read_ "E. of
Sandwich, _succ._ Dec, 1770, E. of Halifax _succ._
Jan., 1771, E. of Suffolk _succ._ June, 1771, Viscount
Stormont _succ._ Oct., 1779".
" 475. Pitt's administration, _admiralty_, _for_ "Hood" _read_ "Howe".
" 478, col. 1, line 32, _for_ "afterwards" _read_ "previously".
" " " 2 " 50, Bridgewater, _for_ "Earl of" _read_ "Duke of".
" 481 " 1 " 27, Cumberland, _for_ "George" _read_ "William".
" 482 " 1 " 26, Emmet, _for_ "Robert" _read_ "Thomas".
" 487 " 1 " 51, Lincoln, _for_ "Earl of (Clinton), 195, 197,
198" _read_ "American general, 195, 198".
" 491 " 2 " 25, Queensberry, _for_ "Earl of" _read_ "Duke of".
CHAPTER I.
THE KING AND BUTE.
George III. was in his twenty-third year when he succeeded his
grandfather, George II., on October 25, 1760. His accession caused
general satisfaction. The jacobite schism had come to an end; no one
imagined that a restoration of the exiled house was possible, or
seriously wished that it might take place. The remembrance of the rising
of '45 strengthened the general feeling of loyalty to the reigning
house; the Old Pretender had lost all interest in public affairs, and
his son, Charles Edward, was a confirmed drunkard, and had alienated his
friends by his disreputable life. Englishmen were determined not to have
another Roman catholic king, and they were too proud of their country
willingly to accept as their king a prince who was virtually a foreigner
as well as a papist, and whose cause had in past years been maintained
by the enemies of England. It is true that their last two kings had been
foreigners, but this was so no longer; their new king had been born and
brought up among them and was an Englishman to the backbone. He
succeeded an old king of coarse manners and conversation and of openly
immoral life, and his youth and the respectability of his morals added
to the pleasure with which his people greeted him as a sovereign of
their own nation.
National feeling was growing in strength; it had been kindled by Pitt,
and fanned into a flame by a series of victories which were largely due
to the inspiration of his lofty spirit. He had raised Great Britain from
a low estate to a height such as it had never reached before. The French
power had been overthrown in North America and the dominion of Canada
had been added to the British territories. In India the victories of
Clive and his generals were soon to be crowned by the fall of
Pondicherry, and French and Dutch alike had already lost all chance of
successfully opposing the advance of British rule by force of arms.
Great Britain had become mistress of the sea. Her naval power secured
her the possession of Canada, for her ships cut off the garrison of
Montreal from help by sea; it sealed the fate of the French operations
in India, for D'Ache was forced to withdraw his ships from the
Coromandel coast and leave Lally without support. In the West Indies
Guadeloupe had fallen, and in Africa Goree. In every quarter the power
of France was destroyed, her colonies were conquered, her ships captured
or driven from the sea.
The naval supremacy of England is attested, strange as it seems at first
sight, by her losses in merchant shipping, which were far heavier than
those of France, more than 300 in 1760, more than 800 in 1761, for many
English merchantmen were at sea while the French dared not send out
their merchant ships for fear of capture. Nor was this all, for the ruin
of the commerce of France led the shipowners of St. Malo to fit out many
of their ships as privateers and corsairs, and the ruin of her navy sent
many a fine seaman aboard them. Skippers of English traders who
straggled from their convoy, or sailed ahead of it in order to be first
in the market, were often punished for their obstinacy or greediness by
these fast-sailing privateers.[1] In spite of these losses, England's
supremacy at sea caused a rapid increase in her wealth and commerce, and
she took full advantage of her power, seizing French merchandise carried
in neutral vessels. The wealth acquired through her naval supremacy
enabled her to uphold the cause of her allies on the continent.
England's purse alone afforded Frederick of Prussia the means of keeping
the field, and the continuance of the war depended on her subsidies. The
continental war, in which our troops played a secondary part, was by no
means so popular as the naval war, yet under Pitt's administration it
had helped to rouse the spirit of the nation. A new militia had been
created and the old jealousy of a standing army was weakened. It was,
then, at a time when national feeling was strong that Englishmen were
called upon to welcome a king of their own nationality, and they
answered to the call with enthusiasm.
[Sidenote: _THE YOUNG KING._]
George was in many respects worthy of their welcome. Moral in his
conduct and domestic in his tastes, he set an example of sobriety and
general decency of behaviour. He was kind-hearted and had the gift of
pleasing. On public occasions his demeanour and words were dignified. In
private he talked in a homely way, his words following one another too
quickly and sometimes showing a confusion of thought and excitability of
brain. To the poor he would speak with familiar kindness, chatting with
them like a good-natured squire. Yet simple as he was in his habits and
private talk, he always spoke and acted as a gentleman; the coarseness
of the old court was a thing of the past. He was deeply and unaffectedly
pious, and was strongly attached to the Church of England; his religion
was of a sober kind and was carried into his daily life. He was
constantly guided by the dictates of his conscience. His will was
strong; and as his conscience was by no means always so well-informed as
he believed it to be, his firmness often deserved the name of obstinacy.
Nor, in common with the best of men, did he always clearly distinguish
between his personal feelings and conscientious convictions. He had
great self-control, and was both morally and physically courageous.
Though as a youth he had been idle, he was never addicted to pleasure;
his accession brought him work which was congenial to him, he overcame
his natural tendency to sloth and, so long as his health allowed,
discharged his kingly duties with diligence. His intellectual powers
were small and uncultivated, but he had plenty of shrewdness and common
sense; he showed a decided ability for kingcraft, not of the highest
kind, and gained many successes over powerful opponents. The welfare of
his people was dear to him; he was jealous for the honour of England,
rejoiced in her prosperity, and strove with all his strength to save her
from humiliation. In religion, tastes, and prejudices he was in sympathy
with the great mass of his people; and in matters in which his policy
and conduct seem most open to censure, he had the majority of the nation
with him.
He had, however, some serious failings which brought trouble both on his
people and himself. They were largely the results of his training. His
father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, a fool, a fribble and worse, died
when George was twelve years old. His mother, the Princess Augusta, was
a woman of strong will, ambitious of power, unamiable in temper,
thoroughly insincere, narrow-minded, and full of petty feelings. She was
strict in all religious matters, had a high sense of duty, and was a
careful mother. When her son became king, she acted as though she had a
right to direct him in his political work. Her interference was
mischievous: she was unpopular and incapable of understanding the
politics of a great country; for she had the prejudices of a little
German court, and regarded politics merely in a personal light. George
grew up completely under her influence. Jealous of her authority and
influence over her sons, she was quick to suspect their governors and
preceptors of trying to act independently of her, and thwarted them
continually. They had no chance of gaining George's confidence or of
giving him the benefits which a lad may derive from the society of men
experienced in the ways of the world. Do what they would, the princess
was always too strong for them, and Lord Waldegrave, one of the prince's
governors, records as his own experience that "the mother and the
nursery always prevailed". Nor had George the opportunity of learning
anything from companions of his own age; his mother was afraid that his
morals would be corrupted by association with young people, and kept him
in the strictest seclusion. He had no friend except his brother Edward.
Her jealousy extended to her children's nearest relations. They had
little intercourse with the court, and William, Duke of Cumberland,
whose upright character and soldierly qualities might well have endeared
him to his nephews, complained that as children they were taught to
regard him with the most unworthy suspicion.
Brought up among bed-chamber women and pages, in an unwholesome
atmosphere of petty intrigue, and carefully kept from contact with the
world, George had the failings which such a system might be expected to
produce. His mother certainly succeeded in implanting in his heart
religious principles which he preserved through life, and she turned him
out a pure-minded and well-bred young man; but the faults in his
character were confirmed. He was uncharitable in his judgments of others
and harsh in his condemnation of conduct which he did not approve. His
prejudices were strengthened; he put too high a value on his own
opinions and was extremely stubborn. In dealing with men, he thought too
much of what was due to himself and too little of what was due to
others. As a lad he lacked frankness, and in later life was disingenuous
and intriguing. When he was displeased his temper was sullen and
resentful. He was always overcareful about money, and in old age this
tendency developed into parsimony. His education was deficient; it had
not been carried on steadily, and he had been allowed to indulge a
constitutional inertness. Though he overcame this habit, the time which
he had lost could not be made up for, and ideas which might have been
corrected or enlarged by a more thorough education, remained firmly
fixed in his mind.
[Sidenote: _THE EARL OF BUTE._]
Among these ideas were an exaggerated conception of the royal
prerogative and the belief that it was his duty as king to govern as
well as to reign. His mother's constant exhortation to him, "George, be
a king," fell upon willing ears, and appears to have been enforced by
his tutors. A more powerful influence on the mind of the young prince
than that of any of his tutors was exercised by John Stuart, Earl of
Bute, his mother's chief friend and adviser. He was a fine showy man,
vain of his handsome person, theatrical in his manners, pompous, slow
and sententious in his speech. His private life was respectable; he had
literary and scientific tastes, and a good deal of superficial
knowledge. His abilities were small; he would, George's father used to
say, "make an excellent ambassador in any court where there was nothing
to do".[2] He lacked the steadfast self-reliance necessary to the part
which he undertook to play, and had none of the dogged resolution of his
royal pupil. His enemies freely accused him of falsehood; he was
certainly addicted to intrigue, but he was probably too proud a man to
utter direct lies. The friendship between him and the princess was close
and lasting. It was generally believed that he was her paramour, but for
this there is no real evidence. It would have been contrary to the
character of the princess, and the assertion seems to have been a
malicious scandal. George liked him, and when he was provided with a
household of his own in 1756, he persuaded the king to put the earl at
the head of it as his groom of the stole. Though utterly incompetent for
the task, Bute instructed the prince in the duties of kingship; he
encouraged him in the idea that a king should exercise a direct control
over public affairs, and is said to have borrowed for him a portion of
Blackstone's then unpublished _Commentaries on the Laws of England_ in
which the royal authority is magnified.
George's political system was, it is evident, largely based on
Bolingbroke's essay _On the Idea of a Patriot King_. In this essay
Bolingbroke lays down that a king who desires the welfare of his people
should "begin to govern as soon as he begins to reign," that he must
choose as his ministers men who "will serve on the same principles on
which he intends to govern," and that he must avoid governing by a
party. Such a king will unite his people, and put himself at their head,
"in order to govern, or more properly subdue, all parties". This
doctrine seemed specially appropriate to the state of affairs at
George's accession. During the last two reigns the power of the crown
had dwindled. Neither George I. nor George II. had cared for, or indeed
understood, domestic politics, and the government had fallen into the
hands of the whig party which became dominant at the Revolution. The
whigs posed as defenders of the Hanoverian house and of the principles
of 1688. Those principles limited the exercise of the prerogative, but
they did not involve depriving the crown of all participation in the
government. The whig party exaggerated them, and while the fortunes of
Hanover and continental affairs absorbed the attention of the king, they
completely usurped the government of the country. They were strong in
the house of lords, and secured their position in the commons by
employing the patronage of the crown, the money of the nation, and their
own wealth and influence to control the borough elections. For nearly
fifty years a small number of whig lords shared the government of the
country among themselves. During Walpole's administration the whigs
became split into sections. Several of the more powerful lords of the
party had each his own following or "connexion" in parliament, composed
of men bound to him by family ties, interest, or the gift of a seat.
These sections, while they agreed in keeping the crown out of all part
in the government, and the tories out of all share in the good things
which the crown had to bestow, struggled with one another for office.
[Sidenote: _THE KING INTENDS TO RULE._]
Meanwhile the tories were left out in the cold. So long as jacobitism
was a danger to the state, this was not a fair cause of complaint, for
many tories had corresponded with the exiled princes. By 1760, however,
tories had become as loyal as whigs. George was fully determined to put
an end to this state of things: he would be master in his own kingdom;
he and not the whigs should govern England. He naturally rejoiced to see
the tories, a large and important body of his subjects, reconciled to
the throne; and as he had been brought up in tory principles, he
welcomed with peculiar pleasure the support of the party of prerogative.
The tories were no longer to be neglected by the crown; the whig
monopoly was to be brought to an end. He did not contemplate taking
political power from one party in order to vest it in another. He
designed to rule independently of party; no political section was
necessarily to be excluded from office, but no body of men, whether
united by common principles or common interest, was henceforth to
dictate to the crown. To be willing and able to carry on the government
in accordance with his will was to be the sole qualification for a share
in the administration. Ministers might or might not be agreed on matters
of the first importance; all the agreement between them which was
necessary was that each in his own sphere should act as an agent of the
king's policy.
The system was not so impossible as it would be at present. The idea of
the cabinet as a homogeneous body, collectively responsible to
parliament, was not yet established. Government was largely carried on
by ministers working more or less independently of one another. In 1760
the cabinet, an informal committee of the privy council, was an
institution of a different character from that of to-day. During the
last two reigns it had included, along with the ministers holding the
chief political offices, whether of business or dignity, certain great
court officials, and some other personages of conspicuous position whose
assistance might be useful to the government. Nominally the "lords of
the cabinet" were fairly numerous. They did not all take an equal share
in government. The king's "most serious affairs" were directed by not
more than five or six of them, who formed a kind of inner cabinet, the
first lord of the treasury, the two secretaries of state, one or more of
the principal supporters of the administration, and generally the lord
chancellor. They discussed matters privately, sometimes settling what
should be laid before a cabinet meeting, and sometimes communicating
their decisions to the king as the advice of his ministers, without
submitting them to the cabinet at large.[3] Outside this small inner
circle the lords of the cabinet held a position rather of dignity than
of power, and some of them rarely attended a cabinet meeting.[4] This
arrangement was mainly due to the long predominance of Sir Robert
Walpole and to the overwhelming political influence of a few great whig
houses. The strife among the whigs which followed Walpole's retirement
and the critical character of foreign affairs tended to increase the
number of councillors who commonly took part in cabinet business.
[Sidenote: _THE CABINET._]
The first cabinet of George III. as settled with reference to a meeting
held on November 17, consisted of the keeper of the great seal (Lord
Henley), the president of the council (Lord Granville), the two
secretaries of state (Pitt and Holdernesse), the Duke of Newcastle
(first lord of the treasury), Lord Hardwicke (ex-chancellor), Lord Anson
(first lord of the admiralty), Lord Ligonier (master-general of the
ordnance), Lord Mansfield (lord chief-justice), the Duke of Bedford
(lord-lieutenant of Ireland) and the Duke of Devonshire (lord
chamberlain). If Lord Halifax (president of the board of trade) pleased,
he might attend to give information on American affairs; and Newcastle
suggested that Legge (the chancellor of the exchequer, whose office, as
finance was then largely managed by the first lord of the treasury, was
of less importance than it soon became) and the "solicitor" (Charles
Yorke, solicitor-general) should also be summoned.[5] Soon afterwards
Bute was appointed groom of the stole to the king and entered the
cabinet.[6] After 1760 the cabinet began to assume its later form;
questions of the highest importance were debated and decided on in
meetings of eleven or twelve councillors, and in 1761 Hardwicke
complained that the king's "most serious affairs" were discussed by as
many as would in earlier days have formed a whole cabinet.[7] From 1765
the existence of an inner circle becomes less distinct, though at all
times a prime minister naturally takes counsel privately with the most
prominent or most trusted members of his government. Non-efficient
members of a cabinet appear more rarely until, in 1783, they disappear
altogether. The old inner cabinet becomes expanded into a council
consisting generally of high political officers, and the members, ten or
twelve in number, discuss and settle the weightiest affairs of state.
With the critical negotiations with France in 1796 came a new
development; the prime minister, the younger Pitt, and Lord Grenville,
the foreign secretary, arranged that the British ambassador should write
private despatches for their information, and others of a less
confidential character which might be read by the cabinet at large.[8]
Here a new inner cabinet is foreshadowed. It differed from the old one:
that arose from the small number who were entrusted with an actual share
in the government; this, from the fact that the number of the king's
confidential servants was so large that it was advisable that certain
matters of special secrecy should only be made known to and discussed by
two or three. The subsequent increase of the council promoted the
development of an inner cabinet, and such a body is understood to have
existed for many years during which cabinets have been of a size
undreamt of by ministers of George III.
The solidarity of the cabinet is now secured by the peculiar functions
and powers of a prime minister.[9] It was not so at the accession of
George III. That there should be an avowed prime minister possessing the
chief weight in the council and the principal place in the confidence of
the king is a doctrine which was not established until the first
administration of the younger Pitt; and though the title of prime
minister had come into use by 1760, it was still regarded as invidious
by constitutional purists. According to George's system he was himself
to be the only element of coherence in a ministry; it was to be formed
by the prime minister in accordance with his instructions, and each
member of it was to be guided by his will. The factious spirit of the
whigs, the extent to which they monopolised power, and the humiliating
position to which they had reduced the crown, afford a measure of
defence for his scheme of government. Yet it was in itself
unconstitutional, for it would have made the ministers who were
responsible to parliament mere agents of the king who was not personally
responsible for his public acts. And it was not, nor indeed could it be,
carried out except by adopting means which were unconstitutional and
disastrous. It necessarily made the king the head of a party. He needed
votes in parliament, and he obtained them, as the whig leaders had done,
by discreditable means. If his ministers did not please him he sought
support from the members of his party, "the king's friends," as they
were called; and so there arose an influence behind the throne distinct
from and often opposed to that of his responsible advisers.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S SCHEME._]
Since 1757 the strife of the whig factions had been stilled by
coalition. At the king's accession the administration was strong. It
owed its strength to the co-operation of the Duke of Newcastle, the
first lord of the treasury, and Pitt, secretary of state.[10] Newcastle,
the most prominent figure among the great whig nobles, derived his power
from influence; he had an unrivalled experience in party management and
as a dispenser of patronage, and though personally above accepting a
bribe of any kind, he was an adept at corrupt practices. He would have
been incapable of conducting the war, for he was ignorant, timid, and
vacillating, but he knew how to gain the support of parliament and how
to find the supplies which the war demanded. Pitt was strong in the
popular favour which he had gained by his management of the war; he was
supremely fitted to guide the country in time of war, but he was too
haughty and imperious to be successful in the management of a party. He
did not care to concern himself about applications for bishoprics,
excisorships, titles, and pensions, or the purchase of seats in
parliament. All such work was done by Newcastle. For his attack on the
whig party George needed a scheme and a man--some one to act for him in
matters in which as king he could not appear personally to interfere.
The man was ready to his hand, his friend and teacher, Bute. His scheme
of attack was to create a division between Newcastle and Pitt, to make
peace with France, and force Pitt to leave the ministry, Pitt's
resignation would weaken the whigs, and the king would be in a position
to give office to Bute and any other ministers he might choose.
Newcastle and Pitt were not really in accord, for not only was Newcastle
jealous of Pitt, but he was anxious to bring the war to an end while
Pitt wished to continue it. George therefore started on his work of
sowing dissension between them with something in his favour. He disliked
Pitt's war policy. He and Bute desired peace, no doubt for its own sake,
as well as because it would forward their plan, for when the war ended
the great war minister would no longer be necessary to the whigs.
On the day of his accession George privately offered to make Bute a
secretary of state.[11] He refused the offer, for to have stepped into
the place of Holdernesse while the whig party was still united would
have been premature. The council was immediately summoned to Carlton
house, a residence of the princess-dowager. George at once showed that
he would take a line of his own. After a few gracious words to Newcastle
in private audience, he closed the interview by saying, "My lord Bute is
your very good friend and will tell you my thoughts at large". The duke,
Pitt, and Holdernesse were called into the closet to hear the
declaration he was about to make to the privy council; it is said to
have been written by the king himself with the help of Bute. When it had
been read George merely asked if anything was "wrong in point of form".
Pitt could scarcely believe his ears; the war was described as "bloody
and expensive". He had an interview with Bute in the evening and
insisted on a change in the sentence. He carried his point, and the
words in the council-book with reference to the war are: "As I mount the
throne in the midst of an expensive, but just and necessary war, I shall
endeavour to prosecute it in a manner most likely to bring about an
honourable and lasting peace in concert with my allies". The last five
words were dictated by Pitt.[12] Bute having been sworn of the privy
council, and having entered the cabinet as groom of the stole, assumed
"a magisterial air of authority," and was universally recognised as the
king's confidant and mouthpiece.
The king opened parliament on November 19, wearing his crown. His speech
was settled by his ministers, and was sent to Bute for his perusal,
Newcastle intending himself to lay it before the king, as it was his
right to do.[13] Bute, however, took it to the king, and Newcastle to
his amazement received it back from the earl with an additional clause
written by the king's hand, and a message that the king would have it
inserted in the speech which was to be laid before him next day in
cabinet council.[14] The clause began: "Born and educated in this
country, I glory in the name of Britain" [_sic_], and went on to express
the king's confidence in the loyalty of his people and his desire to
promote their welfare.[15] The words were unexceptionable, but the
absolute command to insert them in the speech for which the ministers,
not the king, were responsible, was unwise. The use of the word Britain
was attributed to the Scotsman Bute. In later life the king declared
that he had written the clause without suggestion from any one.[16] His
command was obeyed, and the manner in which his words were received
illustrates the adulation then customarily rendered to the sovereign.
Hardwicke, who was in the habit of composing addresses for his
colleagues, seems to have taken "Britain" for "Briton," as indeed it
usually appears in print, and inserted a clause in the lords' address
ending with--"What a lustre does it cast on the name of Briton when you,
Sir, are pleased to esteem it among your glories!" When whig lords could
adopt such words as these, a young king might well be encouraged to
think over-highly of the royal prerogative. The incident has a special
interest. The cabinet council of the 17th, in which the speech was read
in its final form, was held by the king in person. By the end of the
last reign it had become unusual that the king should preside at cabinet
meetings. With one doubtful exception, George III. never again presided
at a meeting, and so the absence of the sovereign from the deliberations
of the cabinet became an established constitutional usage. Thus at the
time when the king was preparing to assume a preponderance in the
government, the crown finally abandoned one of the few remaining customs
which indicated a right to govern as well as to reign.
[Sidenote: _THE CIVIL LIST._]
A like contrast is afforded by the arrangement of the civil list. George
was the first sovereign who entirely surrendered his interest in the
hereditary revenues of the crown in England, and placed them at the
disposal of parliament. In return parliament voted him a civil list, or
fixed revenue, "for the support of his household and the dignity of the
crown". The sum voted was L800,000 a year, which was at first charged
with some pensions to members of the royal family. By this arrangement
the control of parliament over the king's expenditure was asserted at a
time when the king was relying on his prerogative to enable him to
become independent of ministerial control. Besides this income George
had the hereditary revenues from Scotland, a civil list in Ireland, the
duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and certain admiralty and other dues,
the whole amounting to "certainly not much short of a million
annually".[17] If the value of money at the time is considered, it may
be allowed that the crown was amply provided for, and that so thrifty a
king as George would always have found his revenues sufficient for his
needs, if he had not spent large sums in supplying pensions and places
of profit for his political adherents, and in other methods of
corruption. The good impression made by the young king was heightened by
a speech from the throne on March 3, 1761, recommending that in order to
complete the independence of judges, their commission should not for the
future be terminated by the demise of the crown, and that sufficient
salaries should be assigned to them. An act to that effect was
accordingly passed. On the 19th the king closed the session, and
parliament was dissolved shortly afterwards.
The war was going on gloriously under Pitt's direction. Our ally,
Frederick of Prussia, was, indeed, in distress in spite of his
hard-earned victory at Torgau, for his resources were exhausted, and
half his dominions were occupied by his enemies. During 1761 Prince
Henry made no progress in Saxony. Frederick himself lost Schweidnitz,
and, with it, half Silesia, while the fall of Colberg left the Russians
free either to besiege Stettin in the following spring, or to seize on
Brandenburg. In Western Germany, however, where a British army was
serving under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick in the defence of Hanover
against the French, a signal success was gained. Early in the year the
allies entered Hesse, and forced the French to retreat almost to the
Main. Nevertheless they failed to take Cassel, the chief object of the
campaign, and were obliged to retire from Hesse. In June two French
armies, under Marshal de Broglie and Prince Soubise, effected a junction
at Paderborn, advanced to Soest, and threatened Lippstadt. Ferdinand
took up a position between the Lippe and the Ahse at Vellinghausen. On
July 15 he was attacked by the French. The enemy engaged his left wing,
formed by the British troops under their commander, the gallant Marquis
of Granby. The attack was splendidly met and finally repulsed. The
battle was renewed the next morning at daybreak, and the allies gained a
complete victory. The British troops, who formed about a fourth part of
the allied army, highly distinguished themselves; Maxwell's grenadiers
alone captured four French battalions. This victory, won against heavy
odds, foiled the most serious attempt of the French against Hanover; it
saved Lippstadt, which would have been exceedingly useful to them as a
depot; and, more than that, it caused a quarrel between Broglie and
Soubise, which ended in the recall of Broglie, by far the abler of the
two generals. Meanwhile they parted company; Soubise did much mischief
in Westphalia, and Broglie campaigned to the east of the Weser. The
French kept their hold on Gottingen and Cassel, and were therefore in a
position to renew their attacks on Hanover the following year.
[Sidenote: _CAPTURE OF BELLE ILE._]
News came from India of the fall of Pondicherry on January 15, 1761, and
this was the end of the French power in that land. Few were the French
ships which put out to sea during the year, and they were all taken. In
the West Indies Dominica, one of the so-called neutral islands, of which
the French had taken possession, was reduced by Lord Rollo, then holding
a command in New York. About the same time the French received a more
galling blow. On March 29 a fleet under the command of Keppel, carrying
a land force of about 9,000 men under General Hodgson, sailed for Belle
Ile, a small and barren island with a population of 5,000, mostly
fisher-folk. It was fortified and well garrisoned. A first attempt to
land was repulsed with nearly 500 casualties. Tidings of the repulse
were brought to Pitt; he sent reinforcements and ordered the commander
to persevere. A second attempt, carried out with remarkable daring, was
successful, and siege was laid to Palais, the strong place of the
island. It was gallantly defended by the governor, who in a night attack
surprised the British in their trenches and inflicted a heavy loss upon
them. The lines which covered the town were taken by storm and the place
was abandoned, but the fortress still held out. As, however, the British
ships cut off all supplies, the garrison was at last, on June 7, forced
to capitulate. They marched out with the honours of war and were
conveyed to the mainland. By the capture of Belle Ile England gained far
more than the barren island; it was French soil, and France would be
prepared to surrender possessions of greater value in exchange for it.
For Pitt the success of the expedition was a special triumph, for he had
insisted upon it in spite of the opposition of Newcastle and the adverse
opinion of the admirals Hawke and Boscawen.
While Pitt was laying down and carrying out plans of victory, the king
and Bute were exciting discord between him and Newcastle. For a few days
after the accession Newcastle seemed more in favour than Pitt, who was
justly displeased because Lord George Sackville, one of Bute's friends,
was received at court in spite of his recent disgrace. Before long,
however, Newcastle found himself slighted and became violently jealous
of Pitt. If Bute were to ally himself with Pitt and adopt his policy,
the old minister knew that his own day would soon be over. He received a
hint that a change was contemplated. At the end of six months, Bute
said, the king "will declare whom he will call to his cabinet
council".[18] The alliance between Pitt and Bute seemed complete. In
January, 1761, the Spanish ambassador wrote: "there is no better voice
in council than his [Pitt's], which joined to that of my Lord Bute seems
to decide matters".[19] Pitt could work well with the rising star so
long as Bute did not oppose the continuance of the war, for he heartily
approved of breaking down party distinctions, and, like the king, hated
government by connexion. While, however, the king desired to destroy
factions in order to establish personal government, Pitt desired that
they should give place to a system of government by the best men,
supported by the king and the nation. Tories were graciously received at
court, and among them many of Bute's fellow-countrymen. In November,
1760, six tory lords and grooms of the bed-chamber were appointed
without any intimation having been given to Newcastle.[20] The whigs
were amazed, and the duke's mortification was keen.
The king's determination to break down the system which had so long
secured the whig power was set forth and commended in a remarkable
pamphlet written by Douglas, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, and
probably inspired by his patron, Lord Bath.[21] It urged the king to be
on his guard against "the pretensions of a confederacy of ministers,"
and to exercise the full extent of power allowed him by the
constitution. He must not let his patronage go by the advice of
ministers. Let him rely on his people; let him be master. Proscription,
the writer says, is ended, and he expresses his belief that if the king
will pursue the line marked out in his pamphlet, corruption also will
disappear; for so long as a minister disposes of places, he has the
means of corrupting parliament, whereas if the crown dispenses its own
patronage it will gain strength, and the independence of parliament will
be restored. For Newcastle, the veteran dispenser of the royal
patronage, such a system meant political extinction. Its meaning was
already brought home to him by an intimation that he was not to have
"the choice of parliament," the management of the coming general
election in boroughs under government influence, nor to purchase seats
with the treasury money. Anson was reproved by Bute for having,
according to custom, provided members for the admiralty boroughs.
Newcastle believed, with good reason, that Pitt and Bute were agreed on
this matter. He was deeply distressed, and told his friend Hardwicke
that he thought he must resign office.[22] That, however, was the last
thing he was likely to do.
[Sidenote: _OPPOSING VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO THE WAR._]
While Pitt may have welcomed the co-operation of his new ally from a
belief that they had a common policy as regards government by connexion,
and as a means of checking the opposition with which his plans were
often received by Newcastle and his friends, it is certain from later
events that the king and Bute were not sincere in their dealings with
him. They designed to raise dissension between him and his
fellow-ministers, and so prepare a way for Bute's assumption of office
and for the termination of the war. As early as January 18, 1761, when
Newcastle was sufficiently frightened and humbled, the Sardinian
minister, Count de Viri, one of Bute's tools, had a secret interview
with him, and proposed that the earl should be made a secretary of
state. Newcastle, who was mortally afraid of Pitt, said that the
appointment must be made with his concurrence, for otherwise Pitt might
blame him, and might perhaps resign office and leave him and Bute
saddled with the conduct of the war.[23]
Bute intended when in office to make a peace which would immortalise his
name. He saw that this would soonest be obtained if England withdrew
from the war on the continent and confined her operations to the sea.
France would then be induced by the loss of her colonies to make a
separate peace. Pitt was determined not to assent to any peace which was
not made in concert with our allies and did not insure England a full
return for her victories. Bute would have had the country stand apart
from continental politics; Pitt desired that it should have continental
allies and make itself felt in the politics of Europe. The two opposing
views are characteristic of the two men. Pitt maintained that the
continental war was profitable because it had hindered France from
putting forth her full strength in defence of her colonies.
Statesmanlike as his position was, there was much to be said on the side
of the tories and others, who held that England should confine herself
to a naval war. We have, they argued, no interest in a war for Silesia.
Why should we pay Frederick L670,000 a year, the amount of the subsidy
again granted to him soon after the accession, for fighting in his own
quarrel? What profit do we derive from the L340,000 paid to the
Landgrave of Hesse for the hire of troops? The naval war has brought a
rich return; on the continent we have nothing to gain by victory. As for
the argument that the German war is one of diversion, why should we
divert a war from the sea, where we are supreme, to land, where we must
necessarily be inferior to France? To fight in Germany for Hanover is to
surrender the advantages of an insular position. Better let France
overrun Hanover, for, as we shall possess her colonies, we can force her
to surrender it again.
These arguments are ably stated in a pamphlet entitled _Considerations
on the German War_, written by one Israel Mauduit, and published at the
end of 1760. It had a strong effect on public opinion, and was followed
by other pamphlets more or less on the same lines, and probably written
at the instigation of Bute, for he employed and largely rewarded the
services of pamphleteers. Their arguments were enforced by the growing
expenses of the war and the difficulty of obtaining men for the army.
The supplies granted for the year 1760 were L15,503,563; for 1761 they
amounted to L19,616,119, the interest on which was to be paid by the
continuance of the old taxes and a new tax of three shillings per barrel
on beer and ale. The national debt of Great Britain and Ireland, which
in 1755 was L72,505,572, entailing a charge for interest and expenses of
a little over L2,500,000, amounted in 1760 to L102,000,000, with a
charge of L3,500,000.[24] In 1761 the British troops serving abroad were
thirty-nine regiments of foot and thirty-one of horse and dragoons; in
all, 110,000 men, besides 60,000 German auxiliaries in British pay. In
Germany we had about 25,000 men. At the same time sea-pay was drawn for
288 ships of various kinds and 80,675 men, the navy then consisting of
378 vessels, of which 285 were first to sixth rates.[25] Of these, 121
ships of the line with about 70,000 men were in active service. The call
for men was very heavy in proportion to the population, and high
bounties were offered for enlistment. Balloting for the new militia
caused some riots in the north, specially at Hexham, where the miners
fiercely attacked the militia, and forty-two men were killed and
forty-eight wounded.
[Sidenote: _A GENERAL ELECTION._]
Before the king and Bute opened their campaign they insured support in
parliament. Early in 1761 preparations were made for the general
election. The court spread the idea that it was for purity of election;
it was known that Newcastle's hands were tied, and it was expected that
no money would be issued from the treasury. Nothing was less true.
Corruption was rampant and the treasury issued large sums. George
personally named candidates for boroughs belonging to the crown, to
which the ministry had hitherto appointed, and otherwise took an active
share in the arrangements. For the most part he worked through Bute, to
whom Newcastle was forced to submit his lists of candidates that he
might compare them with his own and decide who should be brought in.
This was galling to the old minister, but he had already done much to
forward the whig interest in the coming election, and flattered himself
that "they [the court] had left matters too late for them to do any
mischief".[26] In former elections the whigs used the resources of the
crown to secure power for themselves; in this election the crown itself
used its own means of corrupt influence. Private men followed its
example. A new class of candidates appeared, men without party connexion
or local interest, who had lately become rich, West India merchants,
"nabobs" gorged with the spoils of the East, shareholders of the East
India Company, admirals and others who had reaped a splendid harvest
from the destruction of the commerce and shipping of France. The
competition for seats was extraordinary; at Andover there were nine
candidates. Constituencies which had long obeyed the orders of great
landlords were no longer to be reckoned upon. No political question was
exciting public interest, and the borough elections were decided rather
by money than by measures. Bribery was carried to a preposterous height,
and the new-rich bought seats as openly as they bought their horses. The
borough of Sudbury went so far as to advertise itself for sale. Those
who without political aims or connexions forced themselves into
parliament by their wealth were peculiarly open to court influence.
Newcastle's belief that the elections would secure his position was
ill-founded; many members on whom he relied were ready to desert him at
the bidding of the court. By the beginning of March, before the
elections were over, the king and Bute were sure of the support they
desired.
Bute was in a position which enabled him to take office and to begin to
carry out the designs cherished by his master and himself, to bring the
war to an end and to encourage the jealousy of Pitt's colleagues to such
an extent that they would force him to leave them. He could be dispensed
with as soon as peace was made, and without him the whig ranks could
easily be broken up, for Newcastle could be crushed at any time. With
Bute as an ally Pitt dominated over his fellow-ministers, who bore his
yoke with rebellious feelings. If Bute came over to their side they
could make a stand against him. Viri's secret negotiations on Bute's
behalf gave them a chance not to be neglected. Newcastle, Hardwicke, and
the Duke of Devonshire took counsel together, and Newcastle went to the
king with a proposal that Bute should accept office. To this George, of
course, readily assented. Pitt knew nothing of all this until the matter
was settled.[27] On March 12 Holdernesse was dismissed. It was not a
creditable business; four months before he had signified his readiness
to make room for Bute,[28] and he received a present pension of L4,000 a
year and the reversion of the wardenship of the Cinque Ports, which was
at least equally valuable, as a reward for his complaisance. He was
succeeded by Bute as secretary of state on the 25th.
At the same time Legge, the chancellor of the exchequer, who had refused
to accede to Bute's wishes with regard to two elections, and was much
disliked by the king,[29] was dismissed, and was succeeded by Lord
Barrington, an honest man, with no strong political convictions, who was
always ready to carry out the king's plans. Barrington was succeeded as
secretary-at-war by Charles Townshend, a brilliant wit and orator, "the
delight and ornament" of the house of commons,[30] a reckless and
unstable politician, who was destined to bring evil on his country. A
month earlier, one of Bute's adherents, George Grenville, the treasurer
of the navy, a brother of Earl Temple, lord privy seal, and a
brother-in-law of Pitt, was rewarded by a seat in the cabinet. He had
considerable ability, great aptitude for business, and a thorough
knowledge of parliamentary affairs, was a statesman of unsullied purity,
public-spirited, hard-working and ambitious;[31] he was deficient in
tact, had no generosity of mind, and was harsh, formal, and impatient of
opposition. Newcastle's perfidy increased the ill-feeling between him
and Pitt, against whom the new alliance was avowedly directed,[32] for
at the time that Newcastle sold himself to Bute in order to gain his
support, Pitt was becoming aware that the king was probably about to
oppose his policy with respect to the war. Newcastle was delighted with
the success of his trick, but he soon found that Bute slighted him, and
that his power was going from him, for he was no longer allowed to
control the patronage of the crown.[33] By treating him in this way the
king and Bute kept him subservient. Bute aggravated the division between
the ministers, and used Pitt's colleagues against him in the conflict
which was impending on the question of peace and war. The history of
that conflict is for convenience' sake deferred to the next chapter.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S MARRIAGE._]
The satisfaction caused by the young king's gracious manners and
respectable life was increased by his marriage. In 1755 his grandfather
had proposed that he should marry a princess of the house of Brunswick,
but abandoned the project in consequence of the opposition of George's
mother. About a year before his accession George fell in love with Lady
Sarah Lennox, a daughter of the late Duke of Richmond and sister-in-law
of Henry Fox, a young lady of remarkable beauty. His attentions to her
were continued after his accession. Fox and his wife, Lady Caroline,
took care that he should have every opportunity of seeing her; and
George, as he rode through Kensington, was charmed to find her in a
fancy dress playing at hay-making in front of Fox's residence, Holland
House. He went so far as to signify plainly to her that he meant to make
her a formal offer of marriage.[34] Most inopportunely Lady Sarah broke
her leg, and while she was laid up, the princess-dowager and Bute
persuaded George to change his mind. They at once arranged a marriage
for him with the Princess Charlotte, a daughter of the Duke of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and the marriage took place on September 8. The
queen did not meddle in affairs of state; she bore fifteen children, and
had many domestic virtues. On the 22nd the king and queen were crowned.
George's popularity was impaired by the influence exercised over him by
his mother and Bute, which excited the ridicule of the higher class of
society and the bitter feelings of the London populace. Bystanders
sneered when they saw him on his way to visit his mother, and it is said
that on one occasion he was insulted with a coarse jest. In Bute's case
the idea that he was the royal favourite would alone have sufficed to
make him hated. The term was generally applied to him. Yet he was not a
favourite in the more odious sense of the word, for though the king
showed him signal favour, their relations were rather political than
personal. His nationality strengthened the dislike with which he was
regarded. The jacobite troubles had increased the prejudices of the
English against the Scots; they looked down upon them as a
half-barbarous people, poor, and greedy to enrich themselves with the
wealth of England. Scorn and indignation were aroused by the grants of
honours and employments made to Bute's Scottish followers who came in
great numbers to the court under his patronage. Bills were posted in
London with the words: "No petticoat government! No Scotch minister! No
Lord George Sackville!" Any unpopular measure was set down to Bute's
advice. The beer-tax was believed to have been suggested by him, and
provoked a disturbance in the theatre in the king's presence, which
caused Bute much annoyance. He was yet to rise higher in the state, and
to arouse more violent feelings of hatred and contempt.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mahan, _The Influence of Sea Power upon History_, pp. 318-19.
[2] Earl Waldegrave's _Memoirs_, p. 36.
[3] See, for example, "Memorandum of what past at Sir R. Walpole's
house," Sept. 9, 1725, Add. MS. 32,687 (Duke of Newcastle's Papers), f.
155.
[4] _Engl. Historical Rev._, xvii. (1902), 678 _sqq._, an interesting
article by Mr. Winstanley to which I am indebted.
[5] Add. MS. 32,914, ff. 171, 189; the order in the text is that of the
manuscript, the names and offices within parentheses are supplied.
[6] His appointment about Nov. 16, Add. MS., _u.s._, f. 369; he appears
as a "lord of the cabinet," Jan. 8, 1761, Add. MS. 32,917, f. 180.
[7] Add. MS. 32,929, f. 143; see also _Engl. Hist. Rev._, _u.s._
[8] _Dropmore Papers_, iii., 337-38, 341-43 (Hist. MSS. Comm.); Earl of
Malmesbury, _Diaries_, etc., iii., 465.
[9] J. Morley, _Walpole_, p. 157.
[10] From the Revolution the two principal secretaries of state took one
the southern, the other the northern department. Both were responsible
for home affairs. Foreign affairs were divided between them, the
southern department including France, Spain, etc., the northern,
Germany, the Low Countries, Denmark, Sweden, and Russia. A third
secretaryship was established for the colonies in 1768, and abolished in
1782, when the distinction between northern and southern was
discontinued and the secretaryships were divided into home and foreign.
[11] Newcastle to Hardwicke, March 6, 1764, Add. MS. 32,919, f. 481.
[12] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Oct. 26, 1760, quoted in Harris's _Life of
Hardwicke_, iii., 215-16.
[13] Memoranda, Nov. 13, 1760, Add. MS. 32,914, f. 277.
[14] Bute to Newcastle, Nov. 16, _ibid._, f. 345.
[15] Add. MSS. 32,684 (Royal family), f. 121, and 32,914, f. 359.
[16] G. Rose, _Diaries and Correspondence_, ii., 189.
[17] Burke, "_Present Discontents_," _Works_, iii., 143, ed. 1852; May,
_Constitutional History_, i., 236.
[18] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Nov. 7, 1760, Add. MS. 32,914, ff. 171-72.
[19] _Chatham Correspondence_, ii., 90.
[20] Newcastle to Duke of Manchester, Dec. 14, 1760, Add. MS. 32,916, f.
173; see also f. 322.
[21] _Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man_, 1761.
[22] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Dec. 7, 1760, Add. MS. 32,915, f. 332.
[23] Secret Memorandum, C. V. [Count de Viri], Add. MS. 32,917, f. 461.
[24] Parliamentary Paper, xxxiii. (July, 1858), 165, National Debt.
[25] MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, The Progress of the Navy, R.O.
[26] Albemarle, _Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham_, i., 61-64.
[27] _Secret Memoranda_, C. V., Add. MS. 32,919, f. 285; see also ff.
314, 400, 402 _sq._, 477 _sq._, and 32,920, f. 66.
[28] Dodington's _Diary_, p. 416.
[29] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Feb. 10, 1761, Add. MS. 32,919, f. 43.
[30] Burke, "_On American Taxation_," Works, iii., 214.
[31] Burke, "_On American Taxation_," _Works_, iii., 197.
[32] Memoranda, Add. MS. 32,920, f. 65.
[33] Newcastle to Devonshire, July 11, 1761, Add. MS. 32,925, f. 10; see
also ff. 155-56, 185, 235, Add. MS. 32,926, ff. 189-93, 284, 352.
[34] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox_, i., 13, ed. Lady
Ilchester.