GROWTH OF THE KING'S POWER.
While Chatham was suffering from gout and Conway from indecision,
Townshend had opportunities for mischief. His brilliant wit and oratory
gave him extraordinary influence in the house of commons, which he used
merely for his own ends, for he was unprincipled and greedy for
popularity. Whatever it might be that the majority in the house wished
to have done, he was anxious to be the doer of it. This desire to lead
the house by carrying out its wishes was probably the true reason of his
opposition to Chatham's Indian policy. It led him to take a more
disastrous line with reference to America. The colonies were irritated
and suspicious. Massachusetts was encroaching on the royal prerogative
by passing an amnesty bill, and was quarrelling over it with its
governor, Bernard, and the New York assembly was defying the authority
of parliament by refusing to provide the troops with certain articles
specified in the mutiny act. An equally unconciliatory spirit prevailed
in England, where the repeal of the stamp act had become unpopular. It
was necessary to keep a permanent force in America, and the colonists
should have been willing to contribute to the defence of the empire by
paying for it. Their refusal was attributed to a desire to save their
pockets, which to some extent was the case, and Englishmen were angry at
the prospect of being called upon to meet expenses which should have
been borne by others. Even warm friends of the colonies held that a
military establishment should be paid for out of colonial revenues, and
Shelburne was considering how a fund might be raised without
taxation.[76] Unfortunately, Townshend chose to pander to the feelings
of the majority of the commons. In a debate on the army supplies on
January 26, 1767, he boasted, without any previous consultation with his
fellow-ministers, that he could raise a revenue from America nearly
sufficient to maintain the troops there. The house received his words
with applause, his colleagues with dumb dismay. Grenville and Lord
George Sackville took them up and forced him to pledge himself to make
them good.
[Sidenote: _AMERICAN REVENUE ACTS._]
Money was wanted for the service of the country, and specially for the
maintenance of the navy, and a month later Townshend proposed that the
land tax should be continued at four shillings in the pound. A strong
opposition was expected, for the country gentlemen reasonably contended
that the tax had been raised from three to four shillings as a war-tax,
that it was time to lower it, and that if the stamp act had not been
repealed it might be reduced to its normal amount.[77] The whigs, whose
economic policy was directed by their desire to increase the wealth and
power of the nation by promoting trade, held that the larger share of
taxation should be drawn from the land, and fostered the agricultural
interest in order to enable it to bear the disproportionate burden they
laid upon it. Nevertheless, the Rockingham and Grenville parties took
advantage of the dissatisfaction of the landed gentry, acted together in
a factious spirit, and defeated the government proposal by 206 votes to
188. This was a serious blow to the government, and was the first
occasion on which a minister had been defeated on a money-bill since the
revolution. The defeat was due to Townshend's neglect. Chatham would no
longer bear with him, and one of his last acts before his retirement was
to invite Lord North, the eldest son of the Earl of Guilford, to take
his place as chancellor of the exchequer. North refused, and Townshend
remained in office. He had to raise money somehow, and he was kept in
mind of his pledge with regard to America; for parliament was indignant
at the conduct of the New York assembly, and the court party urged him
on by representing that the king was humiliated by the repeal of the
stamp act. In June he carried two bills affecting the colonies, one
providing for the execution of the trade laws, the other imposing duties
on the importation of glass, paper, paints, and tea. The produce of
these duties was to be applied, first, to the cost of administering
justice and of the civil government, and the surplus was to be paid into
the exchequer and appropriated by parliament to the defence of the
colonies. The bills passed without opposition and the acts came into
operation on November 20. A bill was also passed suspending the
legislative power of the New York assembly, until it should comply with
the mutiny act.
The new duties were external taxes, taxes on trade, such as the
colonists had professed themselves prepared to pay, and they were
trifling in amount, their produce being estimated at less than L40,000.
But they were imposed for purposes of revenue, not for the regulation of
trade, which would in Chatham's eyes have rendered them a rightful
imposition. And the colonists' position had changed. They demanded to be
taxed only by their own assemblies, and regarded the new acts as laying
the foundation of a fiscal system which would probably be as liable to
abuse as the Irish civil list. A renewal of the rumour concerning a
colonial episcopate increased their suspicion as to the height to which
demands on their purse might grow. Their discontent was originally
founded on their impatience of control and on the restraints placed upon
their industry and commerce; their resistance was roused by the fear of
future ill-government rather than by actual grievances. The quarrel
became embittered by faults on both sides. By denying the authority of
parliament and contemning the prerogative, the Americans took up a
position which could not be conceded to them without national
humiliation; they irritated the English by violent words and actions,
and treated the loyalists with injustice and cruelty. On the other hand,
England, besides imposing restrictions on their industry and commerce,
made demands upon them which, though just, were galling to their spirit.
As they had representative assemblies, they argued that they should be
taxed only by their authority. The king and the nation generally had no
sympathy with their complaints and were unconciliatory.
[Sidenote: _CHATHAM'S ILLNESS._]
Yet while there were faults on both sides, both alike showed a spirit
worthy of their common stock, the colonists by their insistence on
self-government, the mother-country by its steadfast adherence to the
imperial idea as it then existed. Massachusetts again took the lead in
resistance; the merchants renewed the non-importation agreements, and
the assembly sent a petition to the king, and on February 11, 1768, a
circular letter to the other provincial assemblies condemning the late
acts and inviting co-operation. This letter, the work of Samuel Adams,
did much to remove the jealousies between the provinces and to arouse a
spirit of union. It evoked expressions of sympathy from Virginia and
other colonies, and the merchants of New York at once joined the
Bostonians in a system of non-importation. Of almost equal importance
were _The Farmer's Letters_ by Dickinson, which appeared in a
Pennsylvania paper in 1767-68, and contained an able statement of the
claims of colonies, recommending a firm but peaceable attitude of
resistance. Meanwhile the condition of the ministry was unfavourable
alike to any chance of conciliation or to a consistently vigorous
policy.
George was grievously disappointed by Chatham's illness. Between them
they had put together an administration which Burke aptly compared to a
piece of mosaic, formed of men of various parties; and with it George
not unreasonably hoped to be able to carry out his ideal system of
government, to destroy party distinctions and establish his rule over
his people for their benefit and with their good-will.[78] In Chatham's
absence, Grafton became his principal minister, though he had no
authority in the cabinet. For a time Chatham's speedy recovery was
expected, and both the king and Grafton made constant appeals to him at
least to express his opinion on public affairs. No help was to be had
from him; he would only entreat Grafton to remain in office. The
disorganised ministry was confronted by a strong opposition composed of
the Rockingham, Bedford, and Grenville connexions. Chatham became
incapable of transacting any business; and when it was evident that his
illness would be prolonged, Grafton advised the king to enter into
negotiations with them. In July, 1767, George invited Rockingham to draw
up a plan for an administration. He did not intend to admit the
Rockinghams to office; he wanted a ministry, formed on non-party lines,
which would be strong enough to hold its ground in parliament, and all
he wished Rockingham to do was to submit a scheme of such a ministry for
his approval, including in it some of the present ministers.
Rockingham, however, held the modern doctrine that a prime minister
should form his own administration, and assumed that the existing
ministry was at an end.
He yielded to the king's wish, but was determined not to take office
except with a comprehensive ministry united on the basis of opposition
to that court influence which had wrecked his former government. With
this idea he attempted to form a union with the Bedford party. The
negotiation failed, for Grenville and Temple, who were then united to
the Bedfords, represented to their allies that no union was possible
without agreement as to American policy. This ended the matter, for the
Grenville and Bedford parties were strongly in favour of American
taxation. Rockingham therefore told the king that he was unable to act
upon his invitation. Grafton remained in office. A man of pleasure and
of culture, in some points a true descendant of Charles II., he was out
of his proper element in political life. He grudged leaving his kennels
at Wakefield Lodge or the heath at Newmarket to transact public business
in London, and preferred reading a play of Euripides at Euston to being
bored by a debate at Westminster. On no other English minister have the
responsibilities of office had so little effect; he would put off a
cabinet meeting for a race meeting, and even in the presence of the king
and queen appeared at the opera by the side of his mistress, Nancy
Dawson, afterwards Lady Maynard.
[Sidenote: _ACCESSIONS TO THE MINISTRY._]
Yet, uncongenial as official work was to him, Grafton was unwilling to
desert the king and disappoint Chatham. He fully intended to carry out
Chatham's policy. He failed to do so, for he allowed himself to be
swayed by the king; and he let things slide in a wrong direction,
because he would not take the trouble to make any strenuous effort to
check their course. In Chatham's absence the king gradually gained
complete control of the ministry, and on every important question the
ministers followed a line wholly contrary to that which Chatham would
have adopted. Townshend died in September and North became chancellor of
the exchequer. North was an able financier, personally popular, and a
successful leader of the house of commons. He was a strong tory and was
prepared to uphold the king's policy whether he approved it or not. At
the end of the year an agreement was made with the Bedford party. The
duke, whose sight was failing and who was mourning the loss of his only
surviving son, would not himself take office, but bade his followers do
as they pleased. Lord Gower became president of the council in place of
Northington; Conway resigned the seals of secretary, though he remained
in the cabinet, and Lord Weymouth was made secretary of state for the
northern department. Lord Hillsborough was appointed as a third
secretary of state for the colonies which, in consequence of the
increase of colonial business, were removed from Shelburne's department,
and other members of the "Bloomsbury gang" received minor offices. These
changes were held to amount to the formation of a fresh administration.
George did not at first like the junction with the Bedfords, which
seemed contrary to his policy of destroying connexions, but the new
ministers were so ready to carry out all his wishes that he was soon
delighted with them.
The ministry showed its bias by its action with reference to a dispute
between the two chief magnates in Cumberland and Westmorland, the Duke
of Portland, a prominent member of the Rockingham party, and Sir James
Lowther, Bute's son-in-law, who commanded nine seats in the house of
commons. The duke's estate in the north came to him by a grant from
William III. to the first Earl of Portland, in virtue of which he held
the forest of Inglewood and the socage of Carlisle, valued at about
L30,000, as appurtenances to the estate expressly granted. Lowther
contended that the grant did not convey these appurtenances and applied
to the treasury for a lease of them. Without officially informing the
duke of his claim, the treasury granted the lease. As between subject
and subject the duke's title would have been indisputable, for his house
had had undisturbed possession for over sixty years, but as regards
claims of the crown there was an ancient maxim: _Nullum tempus occurrit
regi_--"Time does not bar the king's rights". The attempt of the
treasury to revive this maxim was considered oppressive, and was
generally attributed to the influence of Bute and the court, and to a
desire to injure a political opponent and gratify a powerful supporter.
The feeling was strengthened by the characters of the two disputants,
for Portland was a man of high reputation, Lowther a cynical tyrant. On
February 17, 1768, Sir George Savile, a great Yorkshire landowner and a
member of the Rockingham party, whose integrity and wealth gave him
weight in the house, brought in a bill called the _Nullum tempus_ bill,
to make sixty years' possession a bar to claims of the crown. It was
opposed by the ministry, and North succeeded in adjourning the motion,
though only by 134 to 114. Parliament was dissolved in March, and the
new parliament passed the bill.
The union with the Bedford party lessened any chance of American
conciliation. Hillsborough ordered the Massachusetts assembly to rescind
its circular letter. It refused, and, acting on Hillsborough's
instructions, Bernard dissolved the assembly. Other colonies rejected
the command to disregard the letter; they would stand or fall with
Massachusetts. In New York, however, the "whig party" was defeated at
the elections, the assembly complied with the mutiny act, and its
legislative authority was restored. Bernard sent home disquieting
reports; the revenue laws were openly defied, and the officers forcibly
prevented from executing them; he was himself insulted by the mob, and
had not, he wrote, "the shadow of authority". There were no troops
nearer than New York. Bernard, an upright and fairly able man, though
too apt to dispute with his disputatious opponents, was extremely
unpopular, for it was known that he advised the ministers to take strong
measures. It was his duty to represent the royal authority and to
maintain the laws, and he told them that he could do nothing unless he
was supported. He was right. Between a frank surrender and a vigorous
and consistent policy there should have been no middle way. The
ministers found one. They irritated the Americans without attempting to
crush the fomenters of disturbance; they threatened and retreated, made
a demonstration of force and shrank from employing it; their threats
made the British government hated, their lenity brought it into
contempt.[79] Bernard, of course, wrote as a partisan, but with this
allowance his reports may be accepted as trustworthy.
Acting on these reports, Hillsborough, early in June, 1768, ordered Gage
to send troops to Boston to protect the king's officers. It was full
time. On the 10th a sloop belonging to Hancock, a merchant of Boston,
arrived in the harbour laden with wine from Madeira. The tide-waiter
who boarded her was forcibly detained, and an attempt was made to
defraud the revenue by a false declaration. On this the commissioners
seized the sloop and laid her under the stem of the _Romney_, a
man-of-war, in the harbour. A riot ensued; the revenue officers were
mobbed, one of their boats was burned, and they were forced to take
refuge in the castle. On September 29 seven ships carrying the 14th and
29th regiments, and a company of artillery, in all about 1,000 men,
arrived in the harbour. The Bostonians refused to assign quarters for
the troops, and they suffered some hardships. On receiving the news of
the riot in June the ministers despatched the 64th and 65th regiments to
Boston. These reinforcements arrived in January, 1769. The people were
indignant; but in the face of so large a force remained quiet.
[Sidenote: _CHATHAM RESIGNS OFFICE._]
On American, as well as on other measures, Shelburne, who desired
conciliation, differed from his colleagues. In the autumn of 1768 the
king and the Bedford party urged his dismissal, and Grafton acquiesced.
Chatham was annoyed by this decision, and still more by the dismissal of
Sir Jeffrey Amherst, governor of Virginia. He resigned the privy seal in
October, and Grafton was thenceforward considered as head of the
ministry. A few days later Shelburne resigned. He was generally disliked
and distrusted. He had acted as a go-between in the early days of his
career, and while in office was believed to be false to his colleagues;
his face answered to the popular idea of a Jesuit, and his manners were
artificial. He was given the nickname of Malagrida, a Portuguese Jesuit
who had been executed for conspiracy in 1761. Weymouth took his place in
the southern, and Lord Rochford became secretary of state for the
northern department. When parliament met in December, Bedford moved a
petition to the crown to apply to Massachusetts an act of 35 Henry
VIII., by which offenders outside the kingdom were liable to be brought
to England for trial. This motion and eight resolutions on American
affairs moved by Hillsborough passed both houses without a division,
though not without opposition, the cause of the colonists being
advocated in the commons by Pownall, an ex-governor of Massachusetts,
Burke, and others.
To recommend the revival of an obsolete statute, made in a tyrannical
reign and to meet different circumstances, in order to enable a
government to deport offenders from a distant colony and try them by
juries certain to be prejudiced against them, was so contrary to the
spirit of the constitution as to be defensible only on the ground of
necessity. That it would have been impossible to secure a verdict in the
province against a rioter can scarcely be doubted. The government,
however, advocated this measure, not because it was necessary, but
merely to frighten the colonists. This became known in America, and the
colonists learned that England had made an empty threat, and was about
to adopt a conciliatory policy. The only effect of the threat was to
excite Virginia and North Carolina to non-importation. The
non-importation agreements, which were enforced by advertising the names
of offending tradesmen, caused heavy loss to British trade. Between
Christmas 1767 and 1769 the value of exports to America decreased by
about L700,000. The cabinet inclined to conciliatory measures, and the
Massachusetts assembly was again summoned, though it professed no regret
for its past conduct. On May 1, 1769, the cabinet resolved to bring in a
bill during the next session for taking off all the new duties except
that on tea. Grafton proposed to give them all up, and was supported by
Camden, Conway, and Granby. North was inclined to a total repeal, but
yielded to the king's influence, and declared for retaining the tea duty
as a manifestation of right; Gower, Hillsborough, Weymouth and Rochford
voted with him. Grafton, though outvoted in the cabinet, remained in
office; he desired to resign, but found no "good ground for retirement,"
for though the king henceforward dictated his orders to him rather than
asked his advice, he did not, so Grafton writes, withdraw his personal
favour. So completely was the position of a prime minister of our own
day unknown at that time.
Hillsborough informed the colonies of the partial repeal of the duties,
and of the intention of the government not to lay any further taxes on
America for the purpose of revenue. In its amount, namely, threepence on
the pound, the tea duty was not a grievance, for the duty of one
shilling paid in England was returned on re-exportation, so that the
Americans could buy their tea ninepence per pound cheaper than in
England. The colonial agitators, however, denied the right of taxation
and the authority of parliament, and these the king and the English
people generally were determined to maintain. Hillsborough's letter was
ungracious, but its tone was probably of no consequence; the quarrel was
not of a sort to be allayed by smooth words. Further attempts at
conciliation were made. In compliance with a petition from
Massachusetts, Bernard was recalled, and his place was taken by
Hutchinson. Boston complained bitterly of the presence of the troops,
and half of them were moved away. So long as the British force was
strong the town was fairly quiet. When it was reduced the people began
to abuse and irritate the soldiers, until the insults heaped upon them
led, as we shall see, to an untoward encounter. Thus did the ministry
strengthen the spirit of resistance and bring contempt upon Great
Britain. For its refusal to make its concessions complete, the king is
mainly responsible. A complete surrender would have humiliated him and
his realm in the eyes of the world. Whether such humiliation, surely not
tamely to be accepted by a great nation, would in the end have prevented
the Americans from finding cause for quarrel and separation may possibly
be matter for discussion. It is certainly not so with the policy of the
ministers, that, if it can be called a policy at all, was clearly the
worst they could have adopted.
[Sidenote: _THE CONDITION OF IRELAND._]
In Irish, not less than in American, affairs the policy of the ministry
was decided by the king. Ireland was governed as a subject country. Shut
out from the benefits of the navigation laws, she was only allowed such
commerce as would not bring her into rivalry with England. Since the
beginning of the century the condition of her people had slightly
improved, but in Munster and Connaught there was much terrible misery.
Though the severest provisions of the penal code were obsolete, the
protestants still remained a dominant caste. Roman catholics were shut
out from the bar and the army, and the sons of catholic squires for the
most part either spent their youth in idleness or served in foreign
armies. The great landowners were generally absentees and their estates
were rented by middle-men; the lands were let three or four deep, and
the peasants were crushed by exorbitant rents and unjust dealing. Their
burdens were increased by the tithe paid to an alien Church which was
still rather a secular than a religious power and, though more Irishmen
held preferments in it than formerly, had no place in the affections of
the people and neglected its duty, while the catholic priests, mostly
poor and ignorant men, were active, were adored by their flocks, and
ruled them with benevolent despotism. The tithe was specially burdensome
to the poor, both because the rich pasture-lands of the wealthy were
exempt from payment, while it was levied on little plots worked by the
plough or spade of the peasant, and because it was constantly farmed out
to men who made their bargains profitable by oppressing the needy with
unfair exactions. Chief among the causes of the misery of the peasants
was the extent to which arable land was converted into pasture. Commons
were unjustly enclosed, villages were depopulated, the starving peasants
were forced to flee to the mountains, and black cattle roamed at will
round the ruins of their deserted dwellings.
The despair of the wretched found expression in violence. In 1761 a
secret society called the Whiteboys was organised in Munster and parts
of Leinster to resist, or exact vengeance for, the enclosure of commons,
and unjust rents or tithe. The movement was agrarian, not religious,
though the Whiteboys were catholics, nor political. It was formidable,
for there was no Irish constabulary or militia. The Whiteboys would
gather in obedience to some secret mandate, march by night in large and
ordered companies, some to the land of one offender, others to that of
another, and, making the darkness hideous with their white smocks, fall
to houghing cattle, destroying fences, and spoiling pastures. Many cruel
deeds were done, though the murders were few. Stern acts were passed
against Whiteboyism; volunteers put themselves at the disposal of the
magistrates, and the rising was at last crushed, not without cruelty and
an unfair administration of the criminal law. The outbreak is a notable
event in Irish history, for from that time until now secret societies
which have attempted to gain their objects by lawless and bloody means
have constantly existed in Ireland. In protestant Ulster the Oakboys, as
they called themselves, rose in 1763 against an increase in the demands
for tithe and the burdens laid upon them for making and repairing roads.
Their rising was not accompanied by the cruelties which disgraced
Whiteboyism, and was speedily pacified. Some years later the greediness
of Lord Donegal, who for the sake of gain evicted over 6,000 protestant
families and replaced them by new tenants, many of them catholics,
caused a rising in Antrim and Down. Already numerous presbyterians of
Ulster, men of Scottish and English descent, had been driven by the
destruction of the woollen trade and the disabilities imposed by the
test act to emigrate to America, and many of Donegal's evicted tenantry
followed their example. Ireland lost men who should have defended
British interests, and America gained some of her best soldiers in the
revolutionary war. The feud between the protestants and catholics of
Ulster arising out of Donegal's evictions bore bitter fruit in later
troubles.
[Sidenote: _THE IRISH PARLIAMENT._]
The Irish house of commons was composed exclusively of protestants,
elected exclusively by protestants. Of its 300 members sixty-four were
returned for counties and were in some measure elected by the people.
Two were returned for Trinity College, Dublin. The remainder sat for
cities and boroughs, and of these 172 were nominated by borough-owners.
The duration of parliament was only terminated by the demise of the
crown. The house was the representative of the protestant aristocracy
and was completely out of touch with the mass of the people. It had
little control of finance, for the Irish establishments were large. The
civil list was burdened with pensions and sinecures, distributed either
as a means of parliamentary corruption, or among the supporters of the
castle policy and the hangers-on of the English court. By Poyning's law
the Irish parliament was subordinated to the English privy council, and
could not be summoned until the bills which it was called upon to pass
had received the assent of the council. A desire for greater
independence was growing up in parliament, and a patriotic party eagerly
pressed for reforms, for the extension of the _habeas corpus_ act to
Ireland, for securing the judges in office, and for shorter parliaments.
The government was in the hands of a party called the "Irish interest"
which worked harmoniously with the English ministers. Its chiefs, the
"undertakers," undertook the king's business in parliament, administered
the country, and dispensed patronage, for the lord-lieutenant only
resided in Ireland during the session of parliament, that is for six
months every other year. They answered roughly to the whig oligarchy in
England at the beginning of the reign, and in spite of some extravagance
and corruption used their power not altogether ill.
George, who was sincerely anxious for the good government of the
country, desired, as a matter of general policy, to break down the power
of the undertakers, as he had broken down the power of the whigs in
England. He also had a special point to carry; he wanted to obtain the
consent of parliament to an augmentation of the Irish army from 12,000
to 15,000 men. As the peace establishment of Great Britain was only
about 17,000 men, the crown certainly needed a larger force, but it was
unfair to lay the burden of providing it on Ireland. With these objects
the ministry sent the Marquis Townshend, Charles Townshend's brother, to
Ireland as viceroy in 1767, ordering him to reside there throughout his
term of office. After much difficulty Townshend obtained the
augmentation, with the proviso that 12,000 troops should be kept in the
country, and the patriotic party, Lord Charlemont, Lucas, Flood, and
others, were gratified by the octennial act limiting the duration of
parliament to eight years. When the new parliament met, the commons
acting under the influence of the undertakers, renewed an attempt made
at the beginning of the reign to establish their authority over supply
by rejecting a money bill which, according to custom, had been prepared
by the government and returned by the English privy council. Townshend
prorogued parliament; and before its next meeting secured a majority by
wholesale corruption, such as had been employed in England by Fox and
Bute, and overthrew the power of the undertakers. His want of tact and
his indecorous conduct rendered his victory fruitless, and he was
recalled in 1772.
The general election of 1768 was even more corrupt than that of 1761.
Again both the court and the nabobs came well to the front.
Borough-mongers did a business in seats much as house-agents did in
houses. One of them laughed when Lord Chesterfield offered L2,500 for a
seat for his son; the nabobs, he said, had raised prices to at least
L3,000; some seats had fetched L4,000, two as much as L5,000. George
Selwyn took L9,000 for the two seats for Ludgershall. The city of Oxford
offered to return its two sitting members if they would pay the city's
debts, L5,670. They informed the house of commons of the offer, and ten
of the leading citizens were confined for five days in Newgate, and
afterwards knelt at the bar of the house and were reprimanded by the
speaker--a solemn farce, for they sold the seats to two neighbouring
magnates, and are said to have arranged the transaction while they were
in prison. Holland bought a seat for his second son, Charles James Fox,
then a youth of nineteen. As was natural in his father's son, Fox
supported the ministers, and was soon distinguished in parliament by his
opposition to all liberal measures, and outside it by reckless gambling
and extravagance.
[Sidenote: _WILKES RETURNED FOR MIDDLESEX._]
Wilkes, who made a short visit to England in 1766, when he remained
quiet and was not disturbed, was brought back again by the election. He
stood for the city of London, was at the bottom of the poll, and
announced that he would stand for Middlesex. His proceedings caused much
excitement, for the country was discontented and disturbed. The price of
bread was high, and during the early part of the year there were many
strikes and much rioting, especially in London. The Spitalfields weavers
made several riots and broke the looms of those who refused to join in
their demands. The sailors struck, and detained all outward-bound
vessels in the Thames. The coal-heavers also struck, and fought fierce
battles with the sailors in which many lives were lost. Though some of
these riots broke out a little later, they explain the excitement and
enthusiasm with which Wilkes was received by the London mob. He was
returned for Middlesex by a large majority. The mob which had passed out
from London to Brentford, the polling-place, came back in triumph,
forced people to illuminate their houses, and smashed many windows. If
on Wilkes's return to England George had granted him a free pardon, the
demagogue would probably have subsided into a peaceable member of
parliament. Unfortunately he could not overlook Wilkes's insults to
himself and to his mother. Grafton came to London as seldom as possible,
but George found a willing instrument in Weymouth. On April 17 Wilkes
surrendered to his outlawry. In anticipation of disturbances Weymouth
wrote to the Lambeth magistrates, bidding them, if need arose, to be
prompt in calling in the aid of the military.
On the 26th Wilkes was committed to the king's bench prison. The
populace drew him along in a coach to Spitalfields, where he escaped
their further attentions and voluntarily went to the prison. An excited
crowd daily assembled outside the prison, and the riots of the sailors,
coal-heavers, and sawyers grew formidable. Parliament was to meet on
May 10, and the king, believing that a serious riot would probably take
place on that day, recommended firmness and a prompt employment of
troops. The tone of his letters at this crisis is unpleasant and shows
personal animosity; yet neither he nor Weymouth can justly be blamed for
urging prompt and decided measures, for they were necessary for the
preservation of order and for the protection of life and property. As
George had foreseen, a riot broke out on the 10th. A vast mob gathered
round the king's bench prison and in St. George's Fields, and demanded
that Wilkes should be liberated in order to take his place in
parliament. The riot act was read, the troops were severely pelted, and
some soldiers killed a young man named Allen, whom they mistook for a
ringleader of the rioters. The order to fire was given; five of the mob
were killed and several wounded. Though for the moment the mob was
mastered, this untoward event exasperated the malcontents, and much
indignation was excited by an order signed by Barrington, which assured
the troops that they would be protected if "any disagreeable
circumstance" should arise in the execution of their duty. On June 8
Lord Mansfield, the lord chief-justice, reversed Wilkes's outlawry and
sentenced him on the verdicts brought against him in 1764 to fines of
L1,000, and twenty-two months further imprisonment.
While in prison Wilkes obtained Weymouth's letter of April 17, and
published it with libellous comments, charging him with having
deliberately planned "the massacre" of St. George's Fields. These
comments were voted a seditious libel by the commons. Wilkes's petition
for redress of grievances was rejected; he was brought to the bar of the
house and avowed the authorship of the comments on Weymouth's "bloody
scroll," as he called it. On the next day, February 3, 1769, Barrington
proposed his expulsion from the house, and supported his motion by
recapitulating his various misdeeds. Grenville, Burke, and others urged
that it was unfair to go back to past offences and accumulate the
charges against him, and Grenville warned the house that the course on
which it was embarking would probably lead it into a violation of the
rights of the electorate. Nevertheless, the house lent itself to the
wishes of the king and voted the expulsion by 219 to 137. Grenville's
warning was justified. Wilkes was re-elected on the 16th, and the next
day the house annulled the election and declared him incapable of being
elected to serve in the present parliament. That the house, whether
acting justly or not, has a right to expel any member whom it judges
unworthy to sit, is indisputable, but to declare an incapacity unknown
to the law was an unconstitutional and arbitrary proceeding. In spite of
this declaration Wilkes was again returned on March 16. The election was
again annulled. An address in support of the king was prepared by the
court party in the city, and on the 22nd hundreds set out in coaches for
St. James's to deliver it. They were pelted by a vast mob, and only a
third of them reached the palace. Meanwhile another mob gathered at St.
James's and tried to force a hearse bearing a picture of Allen's death
into the court-yard. They were foiled by the courage of Talbot, the
lord-steward, and were dispersed after some scuffling. Throughout the
whole day the king exhibited perfect composure, though the riot was
serious and might easily have become formidable.
[Sidenote: _THE RIGHTS OF ELECTORS VIOLATED._]
A new writ was issued for Middlesex, and Colonel Luttrell, one of the
court party, resigned his Cornish seat in order to oppose Wilkes. In the
previous December at the election of Serjeant Glynn, Wilkes's counsel,
to the other seat for the county, one of his supporters lost his life.
Two men were found guilty of murdering him, and received a royal pardon,
for, though they assaulted him, the man's death was due to natural
causes. Luttrell was believed to be risking his life, and bets were
freely made as to his probable fate. The election, however, passed off
quietly on April 13, when Wilkes polled 1,143 votes and Luttrell 296. On
the 15th, the house, after a hot debate, carried by 197 to 143 a motion
that Luttrell "ought to have been returned". This decision, which set at
nought the rights of electors, was the inevitable outcome of the vote of
expulsion. The king was victorious, and was delighted at his victory.
His satisfaction was soon alloyed, for the means which he had employed
to gain his end roused widespread indignation. He had brought himself
into conflict with his people and had blunted his weapons. He had
gradually got together a set of ministers through whom he could rule;
for some of them were his willing instruments, and the rest, though
uneasy at their position, forbore to oppose him. At great cost to
himself and the nation he had secured a majority in the house of
commons, and he had strengthened his cause by enlisting on his side the
jealousy with which the house regarded all matters of privilege. Neither
his ministers nor the house failed him, not even when called upon to
violate the constitution, but his policy rendered both alike odious to
the nation. Wilkes was a gainer by his own defeat. Thousands who had
little or no sympathy with him personally espoused his cause when they
found it justly associated with liberty. A large subscription was made
for him: L17,000 was spent in paying his debts; his long-deferred suit
against Halifax was at last heard, and he obtained L4,000 damages; he
was again enabled to live in comfort, and while still in prison was
elected an alderman of London.
Other causes contributed to the unpopularity of the ministers, among
them the French annexation of Corsica. The island rebelled against the
Genoese; and they, finding themselves unable to subdue it, agreed to
sell it to France. The bravery of the insurgents excited sympathy in
England; and there was a strong feeling that the acquisition of the
island by France would increase her naval strength, which was reasonably
regarded with jealousy. "Corsica," said Burke, "as a province of France
is terrible to me;" and Sir Charles Saunders, who had commanded in the
Mediterranean, held that to prevent the proposed annexation would be
well worth a war. There was, however, something to be said on the other
side. The ministers might have pursued either one of two courses. They
might have given France to understand that they would make the
annexation of the island a cause of war, and in that case France would
probably have drawn back; or they might, without loss of dignity, have
passed the matter by as no concern of theirs. Unfortunately, a decided
course was impossible to the divided cabinet. They remonstrated
vigorously, and France wavered. Then the Bedford section made it known
that England would not in any case go to war, and France despised their
remonstrance. Grafton allowed the Corsicans to hope for British help,
and secretly sent them arms. This was worse than useless. The Corsican
general, Paoli, was forced to flee; the island was annexed to France in
1769, and, as Burke said, "British policy was brought into derision".
[Sidenote: _ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST._]
Again, in the midst of the struggle with the Middlesex electorate,
parliament was asked for L513,500 to pay the debts on the civil list.
The civil list was sufficient to meet the legitimate expenses of the
crown; the king was personally frugal; how had the deficiency arisen?
Beyond all question the money had been spent in augmenting the influence
of the crown by multiplying offices and pensions, by the purchase of
votes at elections, and other corrupt means. The ministers were
responsible to the nation for the way in which the public money had been
spent. The opposition, and specially Grenville, Burke, and Dowdeswell,
urged that before the house made the grant, it should inquire into the
causes which rendered it necessary. Their demand was resisted: the house
decided not to consider the causes of the debts, and the ministers
carried the grant without inquiry. By this evil precedent the commons
abandoned the constitutional means of checking the expenditure of the
public money by the crown, and proved themselves unfaithful to their
duty towards the nation.
Violent attacks were made on the ministers by the press. The most famous
of these are the letters signed "Junius," and others attributed, some of
them with little probability, to the same author, which appeared first
in the _Public Advertizer_, a London daily paper. Their fame is partly
due to the mystery of their authorship. For that doubtful honour more
than thirty names have been suggested. On strong, if not perfectly
convincing grounds, Junius is now generally believed to have been Philip
Francis, then a clerk in the war office and later a member of the East
India council and a knight, though, if he was the author, he probably
received help from some one of higher social position, possibly from
Temple.[80] As literature the letters are remarkable for clearness of
expression and for a polish of style so high as to be artificial and
monotonous; their chief literary defect is violence of language.
Occupied almost exclusively with personal vituperation, they deal with
events as opportunities for abuse rather than for thoughtful comment,
with constitutional doctrines as weapons of attack rather than as
bulwarks of liberty. The writer's political opinions are based on narrow
grounds; he exhibits no power of generalisation or philosophic thought.
Sheltered by his carefully guarded anonymity, he exercised a vile
ingenuity in devising how he might wound most deeply persons whom he
dared not attack in his own name. Without regard to decency or truth he
mocks with devilish glee at the vices, failings, and misfortunes of the
objects of his hatred. His attacks on the chief ministers of the crown,
on Grafton, Bedford, North, Weymouth, and Sandwich, on Mansfield, and on
the king himself, excited intense curiosity. Before long their violence
defeated their purpose and the disgraceful "Letter to the King,"
published in December, 1769, excited general disgust.
The anger caused by the issue of the struggle with the Middlesex
electors found voice in petitions to the throne. Middlesex sent up a
manifesto, which was virtually adopted by London, accusing the ministers
of treason; Westminster prayed for a dissolution of parliament, and some
counties and boroughs followed its example, arguing that the presence of
Luttrell, who had not been duly elected, invalidated every act of the
existing parliament. London further declared itself against the court
party by electing Beckford, a prime mover in promoting the Surrey
petition, as lord mayor. The country, however, was not all on the same
side; the petitions were not, as a rule, signed by many of the larger
freeholders, and by the end of the year the movement seemed at a
stand.[81] In July Chatham appeared at court restored to health. The
king received him kindly, but must have been vexed to hear that he
disapproved of the policy of the ministers, specially with regard to the
Middlesex election. He treated Grafton with extreme coldness, and
Camden, who had sneered at him in his absence, at once followed his
lead. He allied himself with the opposition, with Temple, Grenville, and
their following, and with the Rockingham party, so far as measures were
concerned. With the Rockinghams, however, he was never wholly at one;
his violence, and habit of looking beyond parliament to the people
itself, and of seeking political strength in popular good-will,
separated him from them in feeling and methods of action. Yet his
alliance with them was never formally broken. He entered into it
because, he said, former differences should be forgotten when the
struggle was _pro aris et focis_. He was eager for the fray. Parliament,
said he, "must, it shall, be dissolved". With him as leader and with a
united opposition, backed by a large part of the nation, victory seemed
almost certain. He reckoned without the king. An ostensible minister
might be forced to resign; but the king was a permanent official, and
George was hard to beat.
[Sidenote: _CHATHAM IN OPPOSITION._]
Parliament met on January 9, 1770. It was a critical time: at home
discontent was widespread; the American colonies were disaffected; war
with France and Spain seemed not far off. The king's speech recommended
attention to American affairs and hinted at the unfriendly attitude of
foreign courts, but took no notice of domestic discontents, and gave
prominence to an outbreak of distemper among "horned cattle". The cattle
plague was a matter of serious national concern; yet the speech was
insufficient for the occasion; it was, Junius declared, the speech of "a
ruined grazier". It showed that the ministers intended to ignore the
signs of popular indignation. Chatham moved, as an amendment to the
address, that the lords would inquire into the causes of the prevailing
discontents and specially into the matter of the Middlesex election.
"The people," he said, "demand redress, and depend upon it, my lords,
that one way or other they will have redress;" and he attributed their
discontent to the action of the commons in Wilkes's case. Camden
followed, and declared that he had beheld the arbitrary acts of the
ministry with silent indignation, that he would no longer keep silence,
and was of the same opinion as Chatham. Mansfield opposed the amendment
on the ground that it infringed upon the right of the commons to be sole
judges of elections and might lead to a quarrel between the two houses.
Chatham said that he reverenced the constitutional authority of the
commons, but they had gone beyond it, they had betrayed their
constituents and violated the constitution. He ended with a declamation
exhorting the peers to act as became descendants of the barons of Magna
Charta (how many of them could trace descent from so noble a source?)
and like "those iron barons, for so," said he, "I may call them when
compared with the silken barons of modern days," to defend the rights
of the people at large. His amendment was negatived. The address was
carried in the lords by 203 to 36, and in the commons after a hot debate
by 254 to 138.
Camden's conduct was discreditable. It is true that the maxim that a
member of the cabinet should either acquiesce in the decision of the
majority or resign his seat in it, was not then universally accepted,
and that Camden had made it plain that he disapproved of the policy of
his colleagues with respect to the vote of incapacity. He had not,
however, opposed it with any show of determination. His alliance with
Chatham made it certain that he could not retain the chancellorship, yet
he would not resign it, because he could inflict a harder blow on the
ministry as a member of it than he could when out of office. Decency
demanded that he should resign before he appealed to the lords against a
decision made by the cabinet in which he sat. He was dismissed from
office on the 17th. Granby at once threw up the ordnance and the command
of the army, and Dunning, the solicitor-general, and some others also
resigned. It was difficult to find a new chancellor, for the ministry
was believed to be moribund. Grafton offered the great seal to Charles
Yorke, the second son of the famous chancellor, Hardwicke, who died in
1764. He had twice been attorney-general, and was an ambitious man. His
brother, Lord Hardwicke, and Rockingham, to whose party he had attached
himself, urged him not to accept the offer, and he declined it. On the
17th, George told him that if he did not accept the great seal then, it
should never be offered to him again. He yielded, and his brother and
Rockingham reproached him bitterly for his compliance. He was in
ill-health and his malady may well have been increased by his agitation.
In any case, he died on the 20th, perhaps by his own hand. His death
defeated Grafton's one hope of strengthening the administration; he had
no one in the cabinet on whose support he could rely except Conway; for
Weymouth and the rest constantly acted contrary to his opinions. He
resigned office on the 28th.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S POLICY SUCCESSFUL._]
George was undaunted; he turned to the one man of eminence among his
remaining ministers and appointed North to the treasury, to be held
along with the chancellorship of the exchequer. Few changes were made in
the ministry; the great seal was put in commission, and Mansfield, who
remained in the cabinet, took the speakership of the house of lords.
Conway retired from the cabinet. Thurlow, a strong advocate of
prerogative, coarse, blunt, yet insincere, became solicitor-general, and
the other vacant places were filled. Yet these changes mark an important
epoch. During Grafton's administration the king became master of the
government, but was forced to employ unsatisfactory instruments for the
exercise of his power. Though differences of opinion still arose in the
cabinet, the ministry gained in solidarity and strength by the loss of
its dissentient members. Above all, George at last found a first
minister after his own heart. North had ability, tact, knowledge, and an
unfailing good temper; he was well educated and of high moral character.
Though ungainly in appearance and with no oratorical talent, he was
witty and formidable in debate. In intellect he was the king's superior,
but he allowed George's prejudices to override his convictions. He would
never be called prime minister. George was his own prime minister, and
he merely his manager and representative. His submission to the king at
the cost of his duty to the country did not proceed from selfish
motives; it was the result partly of personal attachment and partly of
the action of the stronger upon the weaker will. George repaid his
devotion by giving him his full confidence and constant support. North
was lazy, yet this defect added strength to the combination of king and
minister. Behind the scenes George was active and anxious, while in
parliament the weapons of indignation and sarcasm with which North was
assailed failed to pierce the impenetrable wall of his amiable
insouciance. The king's policy was triumphant. The combination between
the obedient responsible minister and the imperious irresponsible king
lasted for twelve years, during which George ruled as well as reigned.
Again, the point we have reached marks an epoch, because the rise of
modern radicalism has with fair reason been traced to the struggle over
the Middlesex election in 1769, though in accepting this judgment we
must not forget that the radicalism of 1819 was affected by events of
later dates. In 1769, however, as in 1819, the representatives of the
people were opposed to the will of the people. Where was sovereignty to
reside? In the nation as represented in parliament, or in the nation
external to it? When this question arises it can only be set at rest by
making parliament truly representative of the nation. Accordingly
popular discontent in 1769 was not merely directed against ministers and
measures, it demanded radical changes in the constitutional machinery,
and its demands were expressed by means which, though not
unconstitutional, were not recognised by the constitution, such as
public meetings and associations. Meetings to express discontent and
urge reforms were constantly held, and an association for promoting the
popular demands, called the Bill of Rights Society, was formed by a
clerical demagogue named Horne (afterwards Horne Tooke), Wilkes, Glynn,
and others. Among the changes which they demanded as remedies for the
unsatisfactory state of the representation were annual parliaments, the
exaction of an oath against bribery, and the exclusion from parliament
of holders of places and pensions. At this time, too, constituencies
began to assert a right to control their representatives by sending them
instructions as to their conduct in parliament.
[Sidenote: _CHATHAM AND BURKE AS REFORMERS._]
The movement found support in parliament. A few of the minority were
among its leaders; and others, though not disposed to go so far,
maintained the necessity for constitutional reforms. Whig tactics were
changed since the beginning of the reign. Beaten by the king and his
friends at the game of corruption, the whigs had become the advocates of
purity of election. The fact need not reflect on personal characters.
Some of the whigs of 1769 were consistent in their opposition to
corruption. As regards others, it must be remembered that abuses seldom
shock a man who gains by them; they become intolerable if they are
turned against him. Chatham himself once sat for Old Sarum, was elected
for Seaford apparently through bribery, and as minister was content that
Newcastle should gain him support by corruption. Chief among the abuses
which prevented the house of commons from representing the people were
the defects in its constitution. While the elections in counties and
some large boroughs were comparatively pure, the representation of the
smaller boroughs was a matter of nomination or corruption. Out of the
513 members for England and Wales, 254 sat for constituencies which,
taken together, numbered only 11,500 voters, and fifty-six boroughs had
each less than forty voters. Forty-four members sat for Cornish seats;
Middlesex, London and Westminster together only returned eight. Chatham
at one time seemed to think that the corrupt boroughs might be got rid
of, but finally feared that such a change would cause a "public
convulsion," and proposed to counteract their effects by adding one
member to each of the county constituencies. After much hesitation he
also advocated a return to triennial parliaments.
Burke, on the other hand, and the Rockingham party generally were
opposed to any change in the constitutional machinery. The constitution
was altogether admirable in Burke's eyes; all that was wanted was the
removal of abuses, which hindered it from working well. Shorter
parliaments would, he argued, only lead to more frequent disorders and
increase the opportunities for corruption; he would have no change in
the system of representation, and held that a place bill would lower the
character of parliament by excluding from it many men of wealth, weight,
and talent. He strongly objected to the growing custom of sending
instructions to members, pointing out that members of parliament should
not be regarded as mere local delegates, but as representatives of the
nation, chosen by various constituent bodies. While he was opposed to
changes in the constitution, he laboured to bring parliament into a
sound state by reforms which allowed the publication of its proceedings,
improved the system of deciding the lawfulness of elections, and checked
the multiplication of places and pensions, as well as by other measures
of a like tendency. The opposition then differed amongst themselves:
Chatham and his followers held that some organic changes in the
constitution were necessary, and more or less sympathised with what
(though the name was not yet invented) may be called the radical party;
Burke and those under his influence railed at the bill of rights men,
deprecated organic changes, and advocated conservative reforms.
FOOTNOTES:
[76] Lord E. Fitzmaurice, _Life of Shelburne_, ii., 31-37.
[77] James Grenville to Lady Chatham, Feb. 23, 1767, MS. Pitt Papers,
35.
[78] _Chatham Corr._, iii., 21, 134, 229-30.
[79] Burke's speeches on Jan. 9 and May 8, 1770, _Parl. Hist._, xvii.,
674, 1004-5.
[80] The ablest advocacy of the Franciscan authorship is in Sir L.
Stephen's article on "Francis" in the _Dictionary of National
Biography_; see also _English Historical Review_, iii. (1888), 233 _sq._
A claim is advanced for Temple in the _Grenville Papers_, iii.; his
co-operation is suggested by Sir W. Anson, _Grafton Memoirs_, Introd.
xxxi.-xxxiii. It may be noted that Temple's letters in the Pitt Papers
show that he had a peculiarly coarse mind.
[81] _Annual Register_, xiii. (1770), 58.