THE KING, THE WHIGS, AND CHATHAM.
Both for public and personal reasons George was anxious to get rid of
his ministers. Unlike them, he appears as early as the spring of 1765 to
have considered the discontent of his American subjects a serious
matter, and he blamed them for it.[68] In other respects, too, he was
dissatisfied with their public conduct, and he complained bitterly of
their behaviour towards himself. In spite of some outward agreement in
action, he and Grenville, who without the name retained nearly all the
authority of prime minister, pursued fundamentally different systems.
Grenville, though not less ready than the king to meet opposition with
violent measures, was imbued with whig theories. While George sought to
rule by securing the support of parliament, Grenville tried to use that
support to enable him to rule the king. He was a pedant, and lectured
the king on his duty like a schoolmaster. Bute stood in his way as the
king's ally and secret counsellor. His victory over him was partial and
short-lived. While Bute was in the country the king corresponded with
him, and he returned to London in the spring of 1764. His return made
the ministers uneasy, and Grenville's lectures became intolerable. "When
he has wearied me for two hours," George complained, "he looks at his
watch to see if he may not tire me for an hour more." Bad as their
public conduct was, he and his colleagues owed their fall chiefly to
their unbecoming behaviour to their sovereign.
[Sidenote: _THE REGENCY BILL._]
Early in 1765 the king had a severe illness and showed signs of the
insanity from which he suffered later. He recovered in March, and as he
believed that his life was not likely to be prolonged, he was anxious to
provide for a possible regency. Constitutional usage pointed to the
queen as the proper person to be regent during the infancy of her son.
George, however, wished to have the power to nominate a regent by an
instrument revocable at pleasure. Grenville dissuaded him from this
idea, and, with his ministers' consent, he announced from the throne
that a bill would be laid before parliament restricting the regency to
the queen and other members of the royal family usually residing in
England. When the bill was proposed in the lords the question was raised
whether the king's mother was a member of the royal family, or only
those in the order of succession. If the Princess of Wales became
regent, Bute would probably regain power. In order to prevent this dire
possibility, Bedford sacrificed decency and common sense by successfully
opposing a motion that the princess's name should expressly be included
in the bill. While the matter was pending, on May 3, Halifax and
Sandwich went to the king and persuaded him that the bill would not pass
the commons unless the princess was excluded. Anxious to save his mother
from insult, George authorised Halifax to move an amendment that only
the queen and those descended from George II. should be capable of the
regency. Halifax, in moving the amendment, announced that he did so with
the king's sanction, and it was adopted by the lords.
George soon learnt that he had been deceived, that people were
scandalised at his appearing to cast a slur upon his mother, and that
the opposition in the commons would move to include her name. In great
agitation he appealed to Grenville to help him by announcing a message
from the crown to the commons recommending the inclusion of the
princess. Grenville, though he had had no part in the trick of the two
secretaries, refused his request on the ground that it would stultify
the ministers, nor would he give way though the king actually wept with
mortification. An amendment to insert the princess's name was proposed
in the commons, was carried by 167 votes to 37, and was accepted by the
lords. George determined to shake off Grenville's yoke. He called on his
uncle, Cumberland, to find him new ministers, and the duke, though he
had been treated unkindly by his nephew, loyally came to his help.
Evidently by Bute's advice, the king authorised him to treat with Pitt
and Temple. Pitt was living in retirement, and in October, 1764, told
Newcastle that he intended to remain unconnected. He was willing to
accept office in a comprehensive administration on the understanding
that the officers who had been dismissed for their votes in parliament
should be restored, that the new ministers should be at liberty to
propose a resolution declaring general warrants illegal, and that a
continental alliance should be formed against the Bourbon powers.
Temple, however, refused office, and Pitt would not come in without him.
As Temple was on the eve of a reconciliation with his brother Grenville,
with whom he had quarrelled over the Wilkes affair, it was thought that
his refusal was due to an ambitious idea of a family administration of
himself, his brothers, and Pitt. Be this as it may, he probably
suspected that Bute would have an influence in the proposed
administration. Pitt allowed himself to be swayed by gratitude for help
which Temple had given him in the days of his poverty. During this
negotiation a riot broke out in London. The silk manufacture was
depressed owing to foreign competition, and thousands were consequently
almost starving. A bill to check the importation of silk by the
imposition of fresh duties was laid before the lords; it was opposed by
Bedford, who was averse from restraints on commerce, and it was
rejected. On this a large number of Spitalfields weavers went to
Richmond, on May 14, to seek help from the king in person. They met him
on Wimbledon common. He received them kindly, but could not, of course,
give them the help they wanted. The next day many thousands gathered in
Spitalfields and Moorfields at beat of drum, marched to St. James's and
Westminster, and stopped members on their way to parliament. Bedford was
assaulted and wounded, and on the 17th a determined attack was made upon
his house on the north side of Bloomsbury Square. It was garrisoned by
soldiers and others, but the attack was only defeated by the arrival of
fresh troops. When the disturbances were at last quelled, a large
collection was made for the relief of the immediate distress, which was
further mitigated by a sudden fall in the price of bread.[69] The affair
increased the king's discontent with his ministers and embittered the
feelings of anger between the Bute and Bedford factions.[70]
[Sidenote: _THE FIRST ROCKINGHAM MINISTRY._]
On Pitt's refusal to take office, Cumberland tried Lord Lyttelton and
Charles Townshend, but they declined the king's offer because they
believed that no strong administration was possible without Pitt. George
was forced to beg his ministers to continue. They took full advantage of
his humiliation. Pitt had asked for assurances on matters of public
policy; they made stipulations which chiefly concerned persons. The king
must promise never again to consult Bute, and must deprive his brother
Mackenzie of the office of privy seal of Scotland. As regards Bute,
George at once gave the required promise, and though he was afterwards
constantly suspected of consulting with him, there is good reason to
believe that he loyally kept his word, and that Bute never again offered
him any advice.[71] He had promised Mackenzie his office for life, and
declared "that he should disgrace himself" if he took it from him.
Nevertheless Grenville forced him to give way. His relations with his
ministers were naturally strained; they complained that he did not
support them, and on one occasion Bedford remonstrated with him in
insolent terms. Again George requested Cumberland to treat with Pitt,
who had two interviews with the king and was anxious to accept his
offer, but Temple peremptorily refused to take any office, even the
treasury, and Pitt with deep regret again followed his lead. The king
found no way of escape, save by authorising Cumberland to turn to the
great whig families. Grenville was dismissed, and an administration
formed under the leadership of the Marquis of Rockingham took office on
July 16. It must have been a bitter humiliation to George after all that
had passed. Yet, though for the moment he was defeated, he did not mean
to give over the rule of his kingdom to the whigs, and for the present
anything was better than Grenville's tyranny. George respected his
character, but said he, "I would rather see the devil in my closet than
Mr. Grenville".
The weakness of the Rockingham administration was patent from the first.
Charles Townshend, who succeeded Holland as paymaster, called it "a
lutestring ministry, fit only for summer wear"; Pitt was expected to
supply one of more durable material before the winter. The old phalanx
of the whigs, tried hands at political business, was broken up by death
and desertion; their successors lacked experience and authority.
Rockingham, a man of thirty-five, a prominent figure on the turf, of
vast wealth and irreproachable character, was a wretched speaker, and
had neither genius, knowledge, nor industry. The Duke of Grafton, the
secretary of state for the northern department, was even younger, and,
like Rockingham, a great racing man. His public spirit made him a
politician, but he cared so much more for pleasure than for politics
that he was apt to be content so long as any immediate difficulty was
tided over, and he suffered in public estimation from the scandal caused
by his dissolute life. The southern department was taken by Conway.
Dowdeswell, the chancellor of the exchequer, was a sound financier, but
a dull man. Newcastle, who was privy seal and again had charge of church
patronage, was no longer so powerful as in earlier days. Nor were the
ministers unanimous in feeling. Grafton was far more at one with Pitt
than with the Rockingham party; and the chancellor (Henley) Lord
Northington, Egmont the first lord of the admiralty, and Barrington the
secretary-at-war were included to please the king. Another cause of
weakness was George's notorious dislike of his new ministers, which
encouraged his "friends," the court party, to intrigue against them.
[Sidenote: _PITT ON COLONIAL TAXATION._]
Most serious of all was the attitude of Pitt. He was pressed to join the
government; its policy was in many respects such as he could approve,
and in other matters he could almost have made his own terms.
Nevertheless he refused to take office and openly declared his lack of
confidence in the ministers, though they tried to satisfy him in various
ways, such as by obtaining a peerage for Pratt, who was created Baron
Camden. Magnificent as he had shown himself as a dictator, he was
unfitted by temperament to work with others, and his natural defects
were aggravated by his constant attacks of gout. At the same time his
present attitude was to a large extent also a matter of principle. He
would willingly have taken office if he could have simply been the
king's minister, unconnected, without belonging to any party. The
Rockinghams, as they were called, were a party connexion, and under
Rockingham's leadership would remain so, and their character was
emphasised by the inclusion of Newcastle, the chief representative of a
system which Pitt hated, government based on the influence of the whig
houses and not on the good-will of the crown and the people. Pitt
plainly declared that he would not sit at council with Newcastle. Nor
would he take office under Rockingham. Without him the ministry had
neither an original policy nor a chance of permanence. Called into
existence by Cumberland, it leant on him for support; he was present at
all cabinet meetings, and they were sometimes held at his house. His
sudden death on October 31 was a severe shock to the stability of the
government. Pitt would not advise the ministers. Grafton urged that he
should again be invited to take office, but the king would not enter on
a fresh negotiation with him, for he had refused his former overtures
and held very different views from his regarding the American stamp act.
For months the ministers paid no heed to American discontent, save that
Conway wrote rather feebly to some of the colonial governors with
reference to the disorders. Parliament was not summoned until December
17, and though the king's speech directed attention to the late
occurrences in the colonies, the ministers had not decided on a policy.
They ascertained Pitt's opinion, and so gained a lead. When parliament
assembled in January, 1766, after the recess, Pitt spoke warmly against
any attempt to enforce the stamp act. He avowed his distrust of the
government in a characteristic fashion: "Pardon me, gentlemen," said he,
bowing towards the ministers, "confidence is a plant of slow growth in
an aged bosom; youth is the season of credulity". He thought that he saw
"traces of an overruling influence," a dark saying which probably
referred to Newcastle.[72] While he asserted the sovereignty of Great
Britain over the colonies in legislation, he maintained that parliament
had no right to tax them; taxation, according to him, was "no part of
the governing or legislative power". He regarded the tax as an
infringement of constitutional liberty, and rejoiced that the Americans
had resisted it. Such a matter, he urged, was not to be decided by
text-books; he had not come down to the house "armed with the
statute-book, doubled down with dog's-ears, to defend the cause of
liberty". America might be crushed, but if she fell, she would fall like
Samson, embracing and pulling down the pillars of the state, the
constitution, along with her. Let them bind her commerce and restrict
her manufactures, but abstain from demanding money without the consent
of her people. His words had a great effect; they put enforcement out of
the question.
A few days later Edmund Burke made his first speech in parliament,
recommending the house to receive a petition from the colonies, and was
at once recognised as a new power. He was an Irishman, and was already
known as a writer. He became Rockingham's secretary in 1765, and a seat
was provided for him. Unsurpassed in his mastery of English prose, he
exhibits to the full the splendour of the English language in his
speeches and pamphlets. Nor is his thought unworthy of the gorgeous
attire with which it is invested. His power and constant habit of
discerning and expounding the principles which were involved in
questions of the moment, give him a supreme place as a teacher of
political wisdom. In character he was pure, generous, and
tender-hearted. His fervid imagination extended the area of his
sympathies, and sometimes prejudiced his opinions. As a speaker he was
eloquent, and now and again carried his audience completely with him,
but he never caught the tone of the house of commons; his longer
speeches were too much of the nature of exhaustive treatises to be
acceptable to its members; he had little tact, an impatient temper, and
often spoke with execrable taste. The chief article in his political
creed was his belief in the excellence of the constitution. He was an
ardent reformer of abuses, but with the constitution itself he would
have no meddling. Unlike Pitt, he saw that the only effectual check to
corrupt influence was to be found in government by a party united for
the promotion of national interests upon some common principle. Such a
party might, he believed, be based on the whig families, if only they
would keep themselves free from court intrigue and selfish jealousies.
He was a whig of a different type from Newcastle and Bedford; he built
his hopes on the Rockinghams and inspired their policy. That he never
sat in a cabinet was chiefly because in those days such a distinction
was confined to men of higher birth.
[Sidenote: _REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT._]
Decided action with regard to America was a pressing necessity. The
measures of retaliation adopted by the colonists were depressing trade
at home. Petitions against the stamp act were presented from the
merchants of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and other towns, setting forth
the loss inflicted on manufacturers and their work-people by the
stoppage of the American trade, and the difficulties arising from the
non-payment of debts due from America, which amounted to L4,000,000. The
ministers resolved on the repeal of the act, and on a bill declaring the
right of parliament to legislate for the colonies on all matters
whatsoever. Some of the king's household having voted against the
government, Rockingham went to the king to remonstrate with him. George
told him that he was for repeal, and that Rockingham might say so. Two
days later the ministers heard that Lord Strange, one of the court
party, was saying that the king was against repeal, and wished it to be
known. This made a great stir, and the "ministerial lives were thought
not worth three days' purchase". Rockingham went to the king for an
explanation. George acknowledged that he had told him that he was for
repeal, but said that they had been speaking only of the choice between
the repeal and the enforcement of the act, that of the two he was for
repeal, but that he desired that the act should be modified and not
repealed. The ministers had therefore "to carry on a great public
measure against the king's declared sentiments, and with a great number
of his servants acting against them".[73] Nevertheless the bill for the
repeal of the act was carried in the commons on March 11 by 275 votes to
167, and a week later in the lords by 105 to 71. It was a signal
victory; but, apart from the interests of commerce, it was due rather to
Pitt than to the government. The declaratory bill also passed; its chief
opponents being Pitt and, in the upper house, Lord Camden, who on this
question, as well as on that of repeal, talked much trash about a
fundamental law of nature and the limits of the power of parliament,
more in place in the mouth of an American demagogue than of an English
judge. An address was also carried recommending that the colonial
governors should be instructed to require compensation to be made to
those who had suffered during the late disturbances.
Both in England and America the repeal of the stamp act was hailed with
rejoicing. American discontent was hushed, and the public manifestations
of gladness were accompanied by expressions of loyalty and affection for
the mother-country. The colonists, however, knew that they had won a
victory over parliament, and they did not forget it. Their substantial
grievance, the commercial regulations, still remained; they soon saw
that they must go further, and that Pitt's distinction between a direct
money-tax and duties on merchandise, though it had served their
immediate purpose, would no longer be useful. The declaratory act was
regarded as a menace, and kept alive their feelings of suspicion and
irritation. Their temper was shown by the delay of many of the colonies
to vote the required compensation. In Massachusetts, where the vote was
passed in December, it was insolently accompanied by a vote of indemnity
to all concerned in the riots. The repeal of the stamp act needs no
defence; a mistake had been made which was leading to serious
consequences, and in such a case it is a statesmanlike policy to retrace
the false step. The declaratory act was passed to save the dignity of
parliament. In spite of Burke's admiration for this act, it may be
suggested that the assertion of a right by a party which at the same
time declines to enforce it, is neither a dignified nor a wise
proceeding. Its only, and sufficient defence is that without it the
repeal of the tax would have been impossible. The Americans' denial of
the right of parliament, accompanied as it was by violence of word and
action, roused much indignation in England and involved every supporter
of the repeal in the imputation of betraying its dignity. If repeal was
to be carried it was necessary to satisfy men's minds by a declaration
of the right of parliament to tax the colonies.
[Sidenote: _THE CHATHAM MINISTRY._]
Some good work was done in other directions; the cider-tax was repealed,
a commercial treaty was made with Russia, and the house of commons came
into agreement with the judges on the question of general warrants by
resolving that general warrants being illegal, except in the cases
provided for by act of parliament, the arrest of any of its members on
such a warrant would be a breach of privilege. The administration,
however, was enfeebled by the unconcealed dislike of the king, the
hostility of Pitt, and the general belief that it was keeping him out of
office. Pitt was extremely anxious for office, but would not accept it
unless a "transposition of offices" was made; unless, in fact,
Rockingham was got rid of. To this Rockingham would not consent; he
wanted Pitt to take office as his ally, not as his successor. There were
differences in the cabinet on the matter. The king's section wished to
gain Pitt for their master; Rockingham was upheld by his friends;
Grafton wanted Pitt as prime minister, and Conway, though less decided,
agreed with him. Pitt became querulous and unreasonable, and in April
violently attacked the ministers, specially excepting Grafton and
Conway.[74] All attempts at negotiation having failed, Grafton made his
choice for Pitt and resigned office. It was not easy to fill his place,
for the ministry was regarded as moribund, and finally the king was
forced to give the seals to Rockingham's friend, the young Duke of
Richmond. The chancellor, Northington, a strong supporter of the king,
saw that the end was not far off, and apparently determined to make sure
of a place in the next administration by sacrificing his colleagues. He
quarrelled with them in the cabinet on a question relating to the
administration of law in Canada, and early in July told the king that he
must resign office, and that the ministry was too weak to go on. George
eagerly seized the opportunity for getting rid of it and replacing it by
a more comprehensive ministry with Pitt at its head. The difficulties
which had stood in Pitt's way were removed; the American question seemed
to be settled; he had made it known that he would not again be guided by
Temple, and he was delighted to be the king's minister, avowing his
determination "to defend the closet against every contending
party"--against, that is, the great whig houses and their connexions.
The satisfaction consequent on Pitt's accession to power faded at the
news that he had accepted a peerage as Earl of Chatham. It was unjustly
considered as a bribe, and lost him much of his popularity. A more
serious consequence was that it left the leadership of the house of
commons to weaker hands. Though prime minister, he took for himself the
unimportant office of privy seal. His course was probably determined by
a consciousness of failing health. Conway became northern secretary of
state, with the leadership of the commons, and Shelburne secretary for
the southern department. In spite of Temple's opposition to the repeal
of the stamp act, Pitt offered him the treasury, but that vain man
would not enter the cabinet except as Pitt's equal, and a quarrel ensued
between them. The treasury was then accepted by Grafton; and,
unfortunately, by his advice, Charles Townshend was made chancellor of
the exchequer. Camden was appointed chancellor, Northington president of
the council, and they, with Granby as commander-in-chief, and Sir
Charles Saunders, who succeeded Egmont at the admiralty, completed the
cabinet. Besides Conway and Saunders, some other Rockinghams had
inferior offices, but Rockingham himself and most of his party
considered that Chatham had treated them badly, and repelled his
advances. The ministry was unfortunate in being represented in the house
of commons by the irresolute Conway and the unprincipled Townshend.
Worse still, Chatham, whose arrogance increased with his disease,
alienated adherents, and treated his colleagues with reserve and
disdain.
Chatham at once pursued the foreign policy which he had consistently
recommended by seeking a continental alliance to counterbalance the
alliance of the Bourbon powers. The family compact did not lose its
importance at the peace of Paris. Choiseul in France and Grimaldi, who
succeeded Wall in Spain, worked together heartily in promoting a Bourbon
policy, and looked forward to the reconquest of the lost possessions of
France and Spain. The allies were strengthened by the good-will of
Austria. Schemes of aggrandisement were formed, which included the
acquisition of Corsica by France and of Portugal by Spain. There were
unsettled causes of dispute between them and England touching the
fortification of Dunkirk and the Manila ransom, and Spain was also
aggrieved by a British settlement in the Falkland islands. Against
France the natural ally of England was Russia, for she had a strong
interest in opposing French influence in Denmark and Sweden; while on
the side of England a Russian alliance would, in the event of war,
secure her Baltic trade and enable her fleet to act elsewhere, and would
be a defence for Hanover. An alliance with Russia had already been
discussed, but Catherine II. had far less interest in the matter than
England, and insisted that any alliance should include her Turkish war,
to which England would not consent. Catherine was in alliance with
Frederick of Prussia, and Chatham, hoping that the adhesion of England
would be welcomed, designed a defensive alliance between Great Britain,
Prussia, and Russia, which might take in Denmark, Sweden, the
States-General, and any other power interested in withstanding Bourbon
aggrandisement. To Catherine her alliance with Prussia was much more
important than anything which she could obtain from England, and
Chatham's design therefore depended on Frederick's good-will. He
declined the proposal of Great Britain: he had not forgiven the
ill-treatment which he believed he had received from Bute; he admired
Chatham, but had no assurance that he would remain in power; and he
considered any possible danger to himself from the Bourbon alliance to
be too remote to make it advisable for him to join in a concert to
prevent it. He was already meditating the partition of Poland, and the
proposed combination would have been contrary to his policy. Chatham's
great design was consequently defeated.
[Sidenote: _CHATHAM'S DIFFICULTIES._]
His arbitrary temper soon brought him into difficulties. He desired to
reward a new adherent with the office of treasurer of the household,
then held by Lord Edgcumbe, and on Edgcumbe's refusal to vacate the
office, he deprived him of it. Edgcumbe was connected with the
Rockingham party, and, with the exception of Conway, all the more
important members of it who had joined the new ministry, the Duke of
Portland, Saunders, and others, resigned office. Conway was almost
persuaded to follow their example, for Chatham treated him with haughty
coldness, but he yielded to the urgent advice of his friend Horace
Walpole, and remained in the ministry, uneasy and vacillating. Any
alliance with the Rockinghams being out of the question, Chatham was
driven to make overtures to the Bedford party, which failed because they
asked more than he would grant. Finally, Saunders's place at the
admiralty was supplied by the famous admiral, Sir Edward Hawke, and the
other vacancies were filled by tories and courtiers.
The harvest of 1765 was bad, and that of the present year promised to be
no better. The price of wheat rose rapidly, and in July reached 44s. a
quarter. The poor were distressed, worse times seemed to be ahead, and
the dealers were believed to be keeping back supplies in the expectation
of higher prices. Riots of a more or less serious character broke out in
some fifty places; bakers' shops were pillaged, mills and barns were
fired, and dealers and tradesmen were forced to sell provisions at
prices fixed by the people. It was not until September 10, when wheat
had again risen, that the ministers, in accordance with the economic
ideas of the time, issued a proclamation against forestalling and
engrossing. It had no effect; the price reached 49s., and on the 26th
the council laid an embargo on exportation. By law the ministers had no
right to take such a step until wheat was at 53s. 4d. As, however,
prices were rising, all parties agreed that the embargo was in itself a
justifiable measure. It was, however, objected that the ministers should
have summoned parliament to meet at an earlier date, and have acted with
its authority. When parliament met on November 11, the opposition
insisted that the ministers needed a bill of indemnity for having set
aside the law by a proclamation of council. Chatham defended their
action on the constitutional ground of necessity. His colleagues and
supporters were not all equally wise. Northington declared that the
proclamation was legally, as well as morally, justifiable; and the
chancellor, Camden, the assertor of popular liberties, that "it was at
most a forty days' tyranny". His foolish speech was severely handled by
Mansfield. In the commons Alderman Beckford, a hot-headed admirer of
Chatham, said that "if the public was in danger the king had a
dispensing power," and was forced by Grenville to retract his words. The
debates on this matter injured the reputation of the ministry though
they did not endanger its stability.
[Sidenote: _REVOLT IN BENGAL._]
When parliament rose in December Chatham went to Bath for the sake of
his health. In February, 1767, he had a severe attack of gout, and in
March the disease began to affect his mental powers. For the next two
years he was unable to take any part in politics. His effacement left
the ministry without a head. Before his retirement a difference arose in
the cabinet on the affairs of the East India Company. From a simple
trading company it had been raised by the victories of Clive and his
generals to the position of a territorial power. Its affairs were
managed by a court of directors elected annually, and consequently under
the control of the court of proprietors in which every holder of L500
stock had a vote. It proved itself unequal to its new position. Clive
returned to England in 1760, the possessor of a princely fortune, and in
1762 was created Baron Clive of Plassey in the Irish peerage. He was
opposed in the court of directors by a party headed by Sullivan. In
India he was succeeded by Vansittart, and there troubles soon arose,
chiefly from the greed of the company's servants. Mir Jafar, the Nawab
of Bengal, a self-indulgent and unpopular ruler, was deposed by the
council in 1761, and his son-in-law, Mir Kasim, was made nawab in his
place. It was a profitable business, for Mir Kasim spent L200,000 in
presents to the council and ceded to the company the revenues of three
districts, amounting to some L500,000 a year. Yet the exchange of nawabs
proved an unwise step, for Mir Kasim was able and active. He moved his
court from Murshidabad to Monghyr, at a greater distance from Calcutta,
organised an army, and showed that he was ready to resist oppression.
The revenues of the Indian princes were largely derived from tolls on
the transit of merchandise. The company, which had the right of free
exportation and importation, passed its goods free inland under the
certificate of the head of a factory. The system was abused. The company
paid its servants insufficient salaries, and they made up for it by
engaging in private inland trade, using the company's passes to cover
their goods. Armed with its power, they forced the natives to deal with
their native agents, to buy dear and sell cheap; they monopolised the
trade in the necessaries of life, and grew rich upon the miseries of the
helpless people. Private trade and extorted presents enabled many a man
who as a mere youth had obtained a writer's place to return to England
after a few years with a handsome income. Mir Kasim saw his people
starving, his officers ill-treated, and his treasury robbed, and
prepared for revolt. Conscious of the impending danger, Vansittart made
an agreement with him as to tolls. The council at Calcutta indignantly
repudiated the agreement, and Mir Kasim was furious. Open hostilities
began in June, 1763. One of the council, who was sent on an embassy to
Kasim, was killed by his troops. Patna was seized by the English; it was
retaken, and some 200 English were made prisoners. A little army under
Major Adams, routed the nawab's forces, and on October 11 Monghyr was
taken. Mir Kasim caused all his prisoners, save five, to be massacred,
and fled for refuge to Shuja-ud-Daula the nawab wazir of Oudh. Patna was
taken by storm and Bengal was completely subdued.
Mir Jafar was again made nawab, and paid large sums both to the company
and its servants as compensation for their losses. The war, however, was
not over, for the nawab wazir espoused the cause of Mir Kasim, and, in
conjunction with the Mughal emperor, Shah Alam, threatened Bengal. Major
Hector Munro took command of the British army, and found it in a
mutinous condition; desertions to the enemy were frequent. He captured a
large body of deserters, caused twenty-four of the ringleaders to be
blown from guns, and by his dauntless conduct restored discipline among
the troops. With about 7,000 men, of whom only some 1,000 were
Europeans, he inflicted a crushing defeat on the allied forces, 50,000
strong, at Baxar on October 23, 1764. The enemy lost 6,000 men and 167
guns. Oudh lay at the disposal of the English, and Shah Alam sought
refuge with the conquerors. Early in 1765 Mir Jafar died, and the
council at Calcutta, without consulting the emperor, appointed his son
to succeed him, receiving in presents from him L139,357, besides money
unaccounted for. These revolutions and wars cost the company much money,
and, while its servants were enriching themselves, it incurred heavy
debts. Clive was called upon to put an end to the maladministration of
Bengal. He refused to return to India while Sullivan was chairman of the
court of directors. After a sharp contest, in which large sums were
spent, the proprietors put his party in power. He was invested with full
authority as commander-in-chief and governor of Bengal to act in
conjunction with a select committee.
He landed in India in May, 1765. During his administration of about
eighteen months he secured for the company the virtual sovereignty over
its conquests without dispossessing the nominal rulers, and he took
measures for the reformation of the company's service. Averse from a
forward policy of conquest, he restored Oudh to the nawab wazir on
payment of L500,000. Allahabad and Kora were assigned to the emperor,
together with a tribute from Bengal, and in return Shah Alam granted to
the company the right of levying and administering the revenues of
Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, together with jurisdiction in the Northern
Circars. The nawab of Bengal received an annual pension of L600,000, and
surrendered all his power to the company, except the right of criminal
jurisdiction. Clive reorganised the army, and stopped the double
_batta_, or allowance, granted by Mir Jafar after the battle of Plassey.
He forbade illicit trade and the receipt of presents, and secured the
company's servants increased salaries. These reforms were effected in
the face of violent opposition, both in civil and military quarters. Two
hundred officers conspired to resign their commissions on the same day.
Clive faced the mutiny successfully; he cashiered the leaders and
accepted the submission of the younger men. Ill-health obliged him to
return to England in January, 1767.
[Sidenote: _AFFAIRS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY._]
The enormous private fortunes made in India led people to believe that
the company was far richer than it really was. During the late wars the
dividend was 6 per cent. In 1766 the proprietors urged an increase. To
this the directors objected that the debts of the company were heavy,
and that a premature increase would raise the price of stock to a point
at which it could not be maintained, and might end in a disaster like
that of the South Sea Company. The ministers sent a message of warning,
announcing that the affairs of the company would probably be considered
in parliament. They concerned the public, for the company enjoyed
protection and privileges granted by the nation. Nevertheless the
proprietors carried their point, and a dividend of 10 per cent. was
declared. Chatham held that the time had come for parliament to inquire
by what right the company administered its territorial revenues. He
considered that it had no right to its new position of a virtually
sovereign power, that the sovereignty of the crown should be asserted,
and that in return for the privileges which it enjoyed it should
contribute a portion of its revenues to the national treasury. The
company should apply to parliament to make good its defective title, and
parliament should then settle what portion of its revenues should be
assigned to it by way of favour. His ideas were based on an imperial
policy. As early as 1759 he held that the territorial acquisitions of
the company should be claimed for the nation. With him it was a matter
not merely of revenue but of government, and though his ideas are
indistinctly indicated, and were perhaps vaguely formed, it is probable
that he had in his mind some idea of making the government of India an
imperial matter. Yet, sharing as he did the general belief as to the
wealth of the company, he certainly attached much importance to the
possibility of obtaining from it an increase of the public revenue.
A special reason may be discerned for his desire to obtain such an
increase at the end of 1766. The government wanted money; there was a
heavy debt on the civil list, and the navy needed a large grant. An
increase of taxation was inadvisable, for corn was dear. Various schemes
for the increase of revenue were in the air. Many members of parliament,
the court party, the country interest, and the Grenville and Bedford
connexions were regretting the repeal of the stamp act. "We must look to
the East and not to the West," wrote Beckford to Chatham,[75] and he
spoke the mind of his leader. The cabinet was divided. Grafton and
Shelburne agreed with Chatham that the question of the company's rights
should be decided by parliament. Townshend declared that it would be
"absurd" to force the company to share its power with the crown, and
both he and Conway desired that the question of right should be waived
and that its relations with the government should be settled by amicable
arrangement. In May, 1767, the proprietors insisted on a dividend at the
rate of 12-1/2 per cent. A motion was carried to bring the affairs of
the company before parliament. Townshend, as Chatham said, "marred the
business"; he managed to open the door for negotiation, and to make it a
mere matter of money. In June, 1767, a bill was passed, based on an
agreement with the company, which in return for the confirmation of its
territorial revenues, bound itself to pay the government L400,000 a year
for two years; and parliament prohibited a higher dividend than 10 per
cent. The bill was violently opposed, specially by the Rockingham party,
on the ground that it was an unjustifiable interference with the rights
of property. In 1769 the agreement with the company was renewed, and
permission was given for a dividend of 12-1/2 per cent, on certain
conditions. The company was then in debt over L6,000,000.
[Sidenote: _HAIDAR ALI._]
A new and formidable enemy had arisen in Southern India. In 1767 Haidar
(Hyder) Ali, the ruler of Mysore, made war upon the English in
conjunction with the Nizam of Haidarabad. The allies were defeated, and
the nizam made peace. Haidar, however, continued the war. He had a large
force of cavalry which he brought to great perfection, and, as the
English were deficient in that arm, he was able to do much mischief in
the Karnatic. In April, 1769, having previously drawn the English army
away from Madras by skilful manoeuvres, he suddenly appeared in the
immediate neighbourhood of the town. The English were forced to make a
treaty with him on his own terms. The news sent the company's stock down
60 per cent. The same year the crops failed in Bengal, and in 1770 there
was a grievous famine which is said to have carried off a third of the
inhabitants. Yet in spite of the decreasing revenue and the heavy debts
of the company, the proprietors were receiving dividends of 12 and
12-1/2 per cent.
FOOTNOTES:
[68] _Newcastle's Narrative_, p. 11.
[69] _Annual Register_, viii. (1765), 92.
[70] _Bedford Correspondence_, iii., 281; Walpole, _Letters_, iv.,
365-66.
[71] _Annual Register_, xxi. (1778), 256.
[72] Lord Charlemont to Flood, Jan. 8, 1766, _Letters to Flood_, p. 5.
[73] Conway to Lord Hertford, Feb. 12, 1766, in a MS. collection of
Conway's letters, to which Messrs. Sotheran kindly gave me access.
[74] Conway to Hertford, April 29, 1766, MS. Sotheran, _u.s._
[75] Beckford to Chatham, Oct. 15, 1766, MS. Pitt Papers, 19; _Grenville
Papers_, iii., 336.