THE KING'S RULE.
It was generally thought that North's administration would be
short-lived. The opposition was strong and apparently united, and it had
a large part of the people at its back. The public expectation was
ill-grounded. The king's influence in parliament was not to be
overborne; as many as 192 members of the house of commons held office
under government.[82] North was a first-rate leader and the king was
industrious and determined. Yet the strength of the ministry was largely
derived from the conduct of their opponents. The violence of the extreme
section of the popular party led to a revulsion of feeling in the
country. In parliament Chatham was not effective, for his declamatory
speeches and dictatorial manner were out of place in the lords; and in
the commons Burke was apt to weary the house, and lost ground through
constant breaches of good taste. Above all, the two parties in the
opposition, the extreme section, with which Chatham had much sympathy,
and the Rockingham whigs, did not work well together. In the spring of
1770 Burke published his _Thoughts on the Causes of the Present
Discontents_, a masterly exposition of the existing political abuses and
of the remedies appropriate to them. Its rejection of proposals for
organic changes in the constitution annoyed Chatham, who declared that
it had done much harm to the cause. He was soon irritated with the whigs
generally. "Moderation, moderation," said he, "is the burthen of their
song;" he would be "a scarecrow of violence to the gentle warblers of
the grove, the moderate whigs and temperate statesmen". He tried to
force the whigs to follow his lead, but Rockingham had no mind to court
Chatham's loud-voiced supporters in the city, or to adopt violent
measures in order to assure the people that he was true to their cause.
Chatham thought it possible that it might be expedient to separate
himself from "so unorthodox a congregation" as the whig party, and
accused Burke and the Rockinghams of a spirit of connexion. So bitter
were his feelings, that he and his friends rejoiced when Dowdeswell and
Burke, "those positive gentlemen," were defeated in an attempt to
vindicate the rights of juries, because they adopted a method of
procedure of which he did not approve; they were, his friend Calcraft
wrote to him, "completely disgraced," and Chatham styled their bill "a
compound of connexion, tyranny and absurdity".[83] While the opposition
was in this distracted state the ministerial party was united. In three
years' time at most opposition in parliament was practically dead, and
the ministry was thoroughly popular in the country.[84]
[Sidenote: _A DIVIDED OPPOSITION._]
During the remainder of the session of 1769-70 the opposition made a
good fight. In the lords Chatham and Rockingham co-operated in attempts
to persuade the house to condemn the action of the commons with
reference to the Middlesex election, and in debates on American affairs;
but Rockingham refused to join in moving an address to the king to
dissolve parliament. Chatham's motion was avowedly made in order to
stimulate popularity out of doors, and Rockingham, who disliked his
demagogic arts, thought it uncalled for and refused "to be sworn every
day to keep his word" to the people. Chatham persevered, and the motion
received little support. In the commons George Grenville, Dowdeswell,
who as Grenville's health declined became virtually leader of the
opposition, Burke, Barre, Wedderburn, an able and ambitious Scottish
lawyer, and others, aided by the extreme section of which Beckford and
Alderman Sawbridge were conspicuous members, caused the ministry much
trouble. North was the chief speaker on the ministerial side. The court
party, or king's friends, so far as they may in any degree be regarded
as distinct from the rest of his supporters, seem to have been headed by
Rigby, who since 1768 had lived in luxury on the vast profits of the
paymaster's office. Dowdeswell's motion that in matters of election the
house is bound to judge according to the law of the land was so
threatening an attack that North met it by tacking to it an amendment to
the effect that the declaration of Wilkes's incapacity was agreeable to
that law, and the minority reached 180 against 244. The king, anxiously
watching all that passed in parliament, felt that even this majority was
satisfactory. "A little spirit," he wrote to North, "will soon restore
order in my service."
The opposition were encouraged, and proceeded to attack two of the
sources from which the crown derived its influence. As the expenses of
the customs, amounting to nearly L600,000 a year, gave ministers a large
amount of patronage which was used for political purposes, Dowdeswell
proposed to disqualify the inferior revenue officers from voting at
elections. Again, Grenville urged that parliament had paid the debts of
the civil list without receiving any assurance that further demands of
the same kind would not be made upon the country, and moved for the
accounts of the past year as the only means of preventing the revenues
of the crown from being spent on corruption. On both these motions the
ministerial majority was substantially larger than on the Middlesex
question. Nevertheless, the opposition succeeded in carrying one measure
which removed an abuse of the representative system and raised the
character of the house of commons. The custom, which had lately become
usual, of trying the validity of controverted elections by the whole
house, and determining it by vote, placed the rights of electors in the
hands of the minister who commanded a majority. During the hearing of an
election petition the house would be thin, for the evidence was of
little consequence; the decision was a trial of strength between
political parties, each side would muster its full force, and a seat
would be secured or taken away merely in order to swell a triumphant
majority. Grenville proposed to transfer the right of hearing and
determining these cases from the whole house to a committee of fifteen
members, thirteen of whom were to be chosen by ballot, and the other two
nominated by the two candidates. The fifteen were to be sworn to decide
impartially, and to have power to examine witnesses on oath. An effort
to postpone the bill, though supported by North, was defeated by 185 to
123, the country gentlemen on this occasion voting with the opposition;
the bill was carried, passed the lords, and became law on April 12. The
measure reflects lustre on the memory of Grenville, who devised it and
carried it through when suffering from mortal sickness. The act, which
was limited in committee to seven years, was found so useful that it was
made perpetual in 1774.
[Sidenote: _THE "BOSTON MASSACRE"._]
The decision to abandon all the new duties levied in America, except
that on tea, was brought before the house of commons by North on March
6, 1770. The idea of making the Americans pay for their own defence was
dropped, and the tax, which brought in only a trifling sum, was to be
maintained as an assertion of right. Grenville pointed out that a
partial repeal would not conciliate the colonists, that the troubles in
America had been caused by vacillation, and that what was wanted was a
plan of government steadily pursued and enforced. The opposition desired
complete repeal, and the ministerial majority was only 62. On the
evening before this debate an event took place at Boston which
strengthened the spirit of resistance. The cowardly insults to which the
soldiers were exposed after the reduction of their number led to various
scuffles; but their discipline prevented them from effectually
retaliating on their persecutors, and baiting the soldiers became a
popular pastime. On the evening of the 5th Captain Preston of the 29th
regiment and about a dozen soldiers went to the rescue of a sentinel who
was being ill-treated by the mob. After some provocation his men fired
without orders, three of the mob were killed on the spot, two others
were mortally and several more slightly wounded. The next day the
townspeople, led by Samuel Adams, insisted on the removal of the troops.
Hutchinson yielded to their demand, and both regiments were withdrawn to
Castle William. Preston and his men were brought to trial, and were
treated with remarkable fairness. All were acquitted except two
soldiers, who were slightly punished. The decision of parliament with
reference to the new duties reached the colonies when the temper of the
people was excited by this untoward event, the "Boston massacre" as it
was called, and was regarded rather as a partial acknowledgment of
defeat than as an attempt at conciliation. Disputes, however, arose over
the non-importation agreements. Self-interest proved stronger than
political feeling: the agreements were constantly broken; indeed, the
imports to New England and Pennsylvania increased to one-half more than
their usual amount. In October the agreements were everywhere definitely
abandoned, and new agreements were made against the importation of tea
only. With that exception, commerce with England again revived.
Outside parliament a strong party in the city, led by Beckford and
supported by Chatham, was clamorous against the government. In spite of
the disapproval of nearly all the aldermen, Beckford held a meeting of
the livery to complain that the petition of the city with reference to
the Middlesex election had not been answered. The meeting adopted an
arrogantly worded remonstrance to the king, declaring that "a secret and
malign influence" deprived the people of their dearest rights, and
desiring the dissolution of parliament and the removal of evil
ministers. In accordance with a prescriptive right, this remonstrance
was received by the king in person on March 14. George replied to it
with a severe rebuke; the remonstrance was, he said, disrespectful to
himself, injurious to his parliament, and irreconcilable with the
principles of the constitution. The court party was much excited, and at
the Cocoa-tree Tavern, the meeting-place or club of the supporters of
the ministry, talked loudly of impeachments. North wisely held them
back.[85] The house of commons could not allow the insult to itself to
pass unnoticed, and a copy of the remonstrance was moved for. Beckford
and his friends in the house defended it, and Burke passionately urged
the folly and injustice of quarrelling with the city for exercising the
right of petition and remonstrance. North calmed down the heat of the
debate, and pointed out the unconstitutional character of the
remonstrance, which virtually denied the authority of the existing
parliament. The motion was carried, and further debates took place. The
whigs, though firm in asserting the right of petition, disliked the tone
that had been adopted by the city, and an address to the king condemning
the remonstrance was carried by 248 to 94. Chatham was furious. With his
warm approval a remonstrance to the king was sent from Westminster, and
Middlesex and Kent followed suit; but Rockingham's refusal to support
his motion in favour of a dissolution plainly showed him that he could
not force the whigs to adopt violent measures.
[Sidenote: _THE KING AND THE CITY OF LONDON._]
The city would not endure the king's rebuke in silence, and another
remonstrance was adopted to the same effect as the former, though it
addressed the king in more dutiful language. George received it on May
23, and replied that his sentiments on the subject of the first address
were unchanged. As soon as he ceased speaking, Beckford made a harangue
to which the king returned no answer. The words attributed to Beckford,
and afterwards inscribed in gilt letters in the Guildhall, were that
whoever alienated the king's mind from his people in general and the
city of London in particular was his majesty's enemy and "a betrayer of
our happy constitution as it was established at the glorious and
necessary revolution". Brave words which, as there is reason to believe,
were invented for him and never spoken.[86] Beckford's friends believed
that he had got the better of the king, and Chatham in a grandiose
letter to him declared that "the spirit of old England spoke that
never-to-be-forgotten day". Nevertheless, Beckford's conduct was highly
indecorous. The sovereign never performs a public act on his own
responsibility, and accordingly all addresses on public affairs which
are to be answered in person are sent beforehand to the proper officer
that the king may receive the advice of his ministers as to his reply.
Beckford tried to entrap the king into entering into a personal
altercation and replying without consultation with his constitutional
advisers. George, who in public never fell short of his kingly part,
defeated his purpose by silence and afterwards ordered that his
unexpected speech was not to be looked upon as precedent.
He prorogued parliament a few days before this incident. For some months
his mind had been tried severely. His power, which he loved so well and
conscientiously believed himself bound to maintain, was at stake in the
political conflict. His letters to North prove how eagerly and anxiously
he watched the progress of that conflict in which he was really, though
not ostensibly, engaged in person. If Chatham and the city had succeeded
in forcing him to dissolve parliament on the ground that its authority
was vitiated by the nomination of Luttrell as a member for Middlesex, he
would have suffered a defeat which even his dogged perseverance would
have failed to retrieve. Rather than that, "I will," he said to Conway,
"have recourse to this," and he laid his hand on his sword. The
opposition had a good cause, but, as we have seen, they played their
part badly. Among the reasons of their failure a conspicuous place must
be assigned to the displeasure excited by the attacks made on the king
by the more violent section, the vile letter of Junius, the rudeness of
the city, and the like. The constant references which were made to some
secret influence, presumably that of his mother or Bute, which was
supposed to guide him were as foolish as they were rude, for George's
policy was his own. His anxieties and troubles were almost more than he
could bear. "At the [royal] gardening (_sic_) party" on June 2 he burst
into tears and talked somewhat strangely; he had, it was believed, "for
some time been much agitated and lived (as usual when he is so) on
vegetables and fruit".[87] The symptoms happily passed away. He had,
indeed, cause for cheerfulness, for the ministry was in a far stronger
position at the end of the session than when North took office.
[Sidenote: _SPAIN AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS._]
The next session began early, on November 13, for a war with Spain
seemed imminent. Choiseul was anxious to make the Family Compact the
means of humbling England and of regaining for France the territories
she had lost. He patiently built up a new navy, until France had afloat
sixty-four ships of the line and fifty frigates; and he organised the
naval artillery. Grimaldi, the foreign minister of Spain, shared his
hopes and followed his example; the Spanish navy was increased, and the
dockyards well stocked, though as usual the seamen were few. For some
time both powers showed an inclination to treat England with contempt;
they believed her to be enfeebled by domestic discord, and her conduct
with reference to the Manila ransom, the annexation of Corsica, and some
other matters, strengthened this opinion. In 1770 the ministers of the
two Bourbon courts went a step too far. The Falkland islands, to the
east of the straits of Magellan, though in reality only fit for
sheep-farming, were generally believed to be fertile. Acting on this
belief, France took possession of the eastern island in 1764, and
shortly afterwards handed it over to Spain. Meanwhile, in 1765, England
took possession of the western island and formed a settlement on it,
which was named Port Egmont, after the first lord of the admiralty. In
November, 1769, Captain Hunt of the _Tamar_, sloop of war, observed a
Spanish schooner hovering off this settlement and warned her to depart.
The Spanish captain asserted that the island belonged to his master, and
two Spanish frigates arrived soon afterwards and repeated the claim.
Hunt gave them a decided answer, and as it was agreed that both parties
should refer the claim of right to their governments, sailed for England
leaving a small garrison in Port Egmont. During his absence Buccarelli,
the governor of Buenos Ayres, took forcible possession of the island,
and, in order to ensure being the first to send the news to Spain, had
the impudence to remove the rudder of a British ship of war, and
detained her for twenty days.
Harris, afterwards first Earl of Malmesbury, the British _charge
d'affaires_ at Madrid, at once made a suitable remonstrance, but, as
Grimaldi expected support from France, received no satisfaction. The
British government, which had not bestirred itself on receiving Hunt's
report in June, at once prepared for war, and the king's speech declared
that proper reparation would be required. The navy in that year numbered
337 ships, only forty-two less than in 1763, of which three were
first-rates, fifteen second-rates, and 100 third-rates, besides
forty-four sloops.[88] Some of these, however, were thoroughly rotten,
and many more in bad repair, and the dockyards were short of seasoned
timber. For some years the navy had been neglected, and, though the
votes for the service had been large, much money had been eaten up by
abuses. Hawke, however, had done something in breaking-up worn-out
vessels, repairing, and building. Forty ships of the line besides
frigates were soon nearly ready for sea. There was some difficulty in
manning them, for the peace establishment was only 16,000 men. North
said that 9,000 additional seamen were wanted at once, and raised the
land tax to four shillings. Bounties were offered and press-gangs were
busy. The new lord mayor, Trecothick, one of the violent party in the
city, refused to sign the press-warrants. Chatham praised his
"firmness," but disapproved his action, for impressment was, he said,
constitutional and in times of emergency necessary. Grimaldi looked to
France in vain. Louis, who was then under the influence of Madame du
Barri, was determined not to go to war; "my minister," he wrote to
Charles of Spain, "would have war, but I will not". Choiseul was
dismissed in disgrace, and was succeeded by the Duc d'Aiguillon. Spain
had no choice but to yield to the demands of Great Britain, and on
January 22, 1771, disowned Buccarelli's action, and agreed to deliver up
Port Egmont as it was before it was seized. Throughout the whole
progress of the affair the opposition attacked the government, alleging
that it was careless of the honour of England, had exhibited a lack of
promptitude, and had made a secret agreement with Spain to abandon the
island; they even insinuated that the minister had truckled to France in
order to prevent her from taking part with Spain. Their attacks were
factious. The government had no desire to rush needlessly into war, but
it acted with vigour and decision, and carried the matter through with a
sufficiently high hand. The islands were soon afterwards deserted as
unprofitable, but the British right to them was not abandoned.
The dispute with Spain caused a temporary increase in the manning of the
navy, and in 1771 the number mustered was 25,836. Though the condition
of the navy was unsatisfactory, the sea-power of Great Britain was an
important factor in European politics. With regard to them the guiding
principle of England was the maintenance of a good understanding with
Russia. Commercially this was of first-rate importance, while
politically it counterbalanced the alliance of the Bourbon courts.
During the war between Catherine of Russia and the Turks which began in
1769, Russia owed much to the good-will of England; a Russian fleet was
allowed to refit at Spithead and soldiers to land for refreshment, an
English admiral and other officers were employed by the empress, and one
of her ships of war was docked and altered at Portsmouth. A Russian
fleet for the first time appeared in the Levant and inflicted a severe
defeat on the Turks. France was anxious to interfere on the side of the
Turks, but was held back by the declaration that the appearance of
French ships in the Archipelago would bring British ships thither also.
A revolution effected in Sweden by Gustavus III. in 1772 opened the way
for the increase of French influence in that kingdom. This displeased
Russia, and D'Aiguillon made naval preparations for the defence of
Sweden against any attack from Russia and Denmark. Lord Stormont, the
nephew and afterwards successor of the Earl of Mansfield, who was then
ambassador at Paris, insisted that if a French fleet sailed for the
Baltic, so too would a British fleet. The government was ready to
support his words. In view of the increasing signs of the desire of
France to push her interests in Europe, North in December, 1772,
obtained a vote for 20,000 men for the navy. In the end France
discontinued her preparations. Her attitude was closely connected with
the arrangement by which, in 1772, Austria, Russia, and Prussia divided
a large part of Poland between themselves. This act of spoliation, the
first partition of Poland, drew forth no remonstrance from England; in
itself it did not concern us, and its effect on the balance of power in
Europe was regarded with complacency as lowering to France and as an
aggrandisement of powers which would act as a counterpoise to the
Bourbon alliance.
[Sidenote: _MINISTERIAL CHANGES._]
During the winter of 1770-71 some changes took place in the ministry.
Weymouth, finding himself unequal to meet the Spanish crisis, resigned
the seals, and Rochford took the southern and Halifax the northern
department. Hawke was succeeded at the admiralty by Sandwich, who worked
hard, though he appears to have applied his industry and abilities too
largely to personal arrangements. Bathurst, an insignificant person,
became lord chancellor, Thurlow attorney-general, and Wedderburn,
hitherto a bitter opponent of the ministry, solicitor-general; he ratted
disgracefully, and was perhaps insincere from the first. Determined to
attain the chancellorship, he may have intended to force North to give
him office, by showing himself dangerous in opposition. George Grenville
died in November, 1770, and several of his friends, headed by the Earl
of Suffolk, a man of small ability, went over to the ministerial side.
Suffolk was made privy seal and, on the death of Halifax in the
following June, became secretary of state. He was succeeded as privy
seal by Grafton, who, in accepting the office, showed his lack of
confidence in his colleagues by stipulating that he should not be
summoned to cabinet meetings. Besides the serious blow which the
opposition at large sustained in the death of Grenville, Beckford's
death, soon after his egregious performance at St. James's, deprived
Chatham of an eager follower and the city party of its leader. Later in
the year, too, died Granby, who a few months before repented of the
support he had given to the ministry and had joined the opposition.
The violent language employed by the newspapers on the opposition side
laid them open to reprisals. Constant resort to indictments by the
attorney-general, and the exception of seditious libels from privilege
of parliament, indicate the desire of the king's party to treat press
offences in a special way. They were gratified by a ruling of
Chief-justice Mansfield in the case of Almon, a bookseller, who was
tried on an _ex officio_ indictment for selling Junius's _Letter to the
King_. Mansfield laid down that in cases of libel the jury could only
deal with the facts of printing and publishing; it belonged to the judge
to decide the character of the statement. This was not a new doctrine;
it had been declared and acted upon by many earlier judges. The
newspaper press, however, had by this time become important, and
Mansfield's ruling infringed on the liberties of those engaged upon it,
for, while that was the law, a man after being indicted by the
attorney-general, who held office by, and at the pleasure of the crown,
was deprived of his right to be judged by his peers on the substantial
point at issue. Indignant juries refused to convict in libel cases, and
Mansfield's ruling was attacked by the opposition in parliament. Chatham
and Camden denied its legality. In the commons, though a proposal to
abolish _ex officio_ informations received little support, a motion for
a committee of inquiry into the rights of juries was only defeated by
184 to 176. Dowdeswell and Burke believed that the question of law was
likely to hinder a satisfactory settlement, and in March, 1771,
Dowdeswell moved for an act to give juries the powers denied to them. A
section of the opposition, however, held with Chatham and Camden that
the matter should be settled by a bill declaring that the law gave them
these powers. They would not support the motion, which was lost by an
overwhelming majority; and Mansfield's ruling was received as law until
1792.
[Sidenote: _HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE PRINTERS._]
Another matter connected with the press engaged the house of commons for
the most part of the remainder of the session of 1771. Parliament, as
we have seen, was so constituted that occasions might and did arise on
which the will of the people was not fairly represented. This
constitutional difficulty was increased by the secrecy in which
parliament shrouded its proceedings. Once useful as a means of securing
freedom of debate, this secrecy was maintained as a matter of privilege
after it had become useless and, indeed, pernicious. It was carried to
an extreme point by the present parliament, the "unreported parliament"
as it was called. Strangers were constantly made to withdraw from both
houses, specially when a popular member of the opposition rose to speak.
This caused a silly quarrel between the two houses in 1770, and either
shut its doors against the members of the other. The publication of
reports, forbidden by a standing order of 1762, had for some time been
carried on under various disguises, and the reports, which were founded
on scanty information, were often unfair and scurrilous. In February,
1771, Colonel Onslow complained of two newspapers which misrepresented
his conduct in the house, and held him up to contempt by describing him
as "little cocking George". Disregarding a warning from Burke as to the
folly of entering into a quarrel with the press and attempting to keep
its proceedings from the public, the house ordered the printers, Wheble
and Thompson, to attend at the bar. The serjeant-at-arms failed to find
them, and was jeered at by their workmen. A proclamation was then issued
for their arrest. While this affair was pending several newspapers
commented on the proceedings of the house, and attacked various members,
and specially Onslow, describing him as "a paltry insignificant insect"
and so on. On March 12 he moved to proceed against six other printers.
The opposition, led by Dowdeswell, Burke, and Barre, made a determined
stand. They divided the house twenty-three times, and it sat till 5 A.M.
"Posterity," said Burke, "will bless the pertinaciousness of that day."
Onslow's motion was carried; some of the printers were reprimanded, one,
Miller, refused to attend.
The city reformers seized the opportunity of renewing their quarrel with
the house. Wheble and Thompson were collusively arrested and were
discharged, Wheble by alderman Wilkes and Thompson by alderman Oliver,
as not being accused of any crime. Worse was to come. Miller was
arrested by a messenger of the house, and gave the messenger in charge
for assaulting him. Both were brought before Brass Crosby, the lord
mayor, Wilkes, and Oliver; Miller was discharged, the messenger held to
bail. The house ordered Crosby and Oliver, who were both members of it,
to attend in their places, and Wilkes, who was at the bottom of the
affair, at the bar. Wilkes refused to attend unless as member for
Middlesex, and the house, with more discretion than valour, shrank from
another conflict with him. The king, who was deeply interested in the
quarrel, approved; he would, he said, "have nothing more to do with that
devil Wilkes". Crosby and Oliver defended their conduct, and were
committed to the Tower. During the proceedings an angry crowd
interrupted the business of the house, pelted several members, roughly
handled North and Charles Fox, who was conspicuous as a defender of
privilege, and broke their carriages. The lord mayor and Oliver were
visited in the Tower by Rockingham, Burke, and other members of the
opposition. On their release, at the end of the session, on May 8, they
were saluted by the cannon of the artillery company and by vociferous
applause, and the city was illuminated. Proceedings against the
messenger were stopped by the attorney-general. Though the house was
victorious, its dignity suffered so greatly in the conflict that it
forbore to follow up its victory. Burke's words proved true; for though
the publication of debates was still held to be a breach of privilege,
no further attempt was made to punish it. Soon after this dispute with
the house of commons the city reformers quarrelled amongst themselves,
and the party was split up.
[Sidenote: _THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT._]
Though political disputes dulled the interest excited by theological
questions in the earlier half of the century, the house of commons was
invited on February 6, 1772, to abolish the subscription to the
Thirty-nine Articles which was demanded of all clergymen and of all
students matriculating at Oxford and Cambridge. The movement was
connected with a tendency towards unitarianism, which, besides
attracting many dissenters, exercised an influence within the Church.
Some churchmen seceded; others, less decided, sought to be relieved of
an unwelcome obligation. An association which met at the Feathers
Tavern, in the Strand, sent a petition to the house signed by about two
hundred and fifty men, clergy, doctors, and lawyers, praying to be
relieved of subscription. The king was hostile to the petition, and
North opposed it in moderate terms. Burke spoke against it with
remarkable ability, pointing out that a standard of faith was necessary
to insure order in the Church, and that subscription to the Bible would
not, as the petitioners maintained, afford any criterion of belief. The
petition was rejected by a large majority, though several members on
both sides expressed a dislike to requiring subscription at the
universities from youths who were not of an age to judge of such
matters. The house, though it refused to allow clergymen to evade the
formularies of their Church, was not averse from toleration. A bill to
relieve dissenting ministers and teachers from subscription to certain
of the articles, which was indeed rarely exacted, was carried in the
commons with little opposition, but the king and the bishops were
strongly opposed to it; the royal influence was used against it in the
house of lords, which threw out the bill both in 1772 and 1773, and it
did not become law until six years later.
The opposition was moribund. An annual motion was made for shortening
the duration of parliaments; but it attracted little attention, and
other questions which had lately agitated men's minds fell equally out
of date. A momentary revival of political excitement was caused by a
bill which affected the king personally. George had family troubles. His
sister Caroline, Queen of Denmark, was accused of adultery and
imprisoned; she was allowed to retire to Hanover, and remained there
until her death. Soon after hearing of her daughter's disgrace the
king's mother died of cancer. She had long ceased to have any political
influence and was eminently charitable, yet the sufferings of her last
days were exulted over by scribblers opposed to the court, and her
funeral was hailed with the cheers of the city mob. About the same time
one of George's brothers, the Duke of Cumberland, after disgracing him
by his flagrant immorality, married Mrs. Horton, the widowed daughter of
Lord Irnham, and sister of Luttrell, the Middlesex member; and the
private marriage of another brother, the Duke of Gloucester, to the
widow of Lord Waldegrave, a bastard daughter of Horace Walpole's
brother, was publicly announced. George was deeply annoyed by these
marriages and forbade the offenders to appear at court. At his wish the
royal marriage bill was laid before parliament. By this act no
descendant of George II. under the age of twenty-six can enter into a
valid marriage without the sovereign's consent; nor above that age,
should the sovereign's consent be withheld, except by giving a year's
notice to the privy council, so that parliament may, if it chooses,
forbid the marriage. The doctrine implied in this act, that the whole
royal family forms a class apart from the rest of the nation, was
foreign to English ideas and smacked rather of German than English
royalty. Yet, whatever the effects of the act may have been on those
most nearly concerned, they have been beneficial to the nation.
The bill excited much disapproval and was vigorously opposed in
parliament. In the commons the preamble, which acknowledged the
prerogative asserted by the crown, was passed only by a majority of
thirty-six, and the bill was finally carried by 165 to 115. Among its
opponents were Burke and Charles Fox, by that time a power in the house.
No man probably has ever enjoyed greater popularity than Fox. His
disposition was amiable and generous, his good nature inexhaustible, his
heart full of warm and humane feelings. As a mere lad he had been
initiated into vice by his father's folly; he drank, lived loosely,
dressed extravagantly, and was an inveterate and most unlucky gambler;
his losses were indeed too constant to be wholly due to ill-luck. At
twenty-five he owed L140,000, which his father paid for him. He was a
keen sportsman, and he cared for higher things than sport. He was
accomplished, a lover of learning and art, and found unfailing pleasure
in the masterpieces of Greek, Latin, English, French, Italian, and, in
later days, Spanish literature. In parliament he had hitherto opposed
all popular measures, sometimes with insolent flippancy. He was
appointed a lord of the admiralty in 1770. He gradually came under
Burke's influence and showed signs of remarkable talents in debate. His
speeches were unprepared, his statement of a case was often made
confusedly, but he was splendid in reply. His career as a statesman was
marred, like his private character, by an utter lack of principle. His
opposition to the royal marriage bill seems to have been a matter of
private feeling. His father had united the plebeian family of Fox with a
house descended from a royal bastard by a runaway marriage with Lady
Caroline Lennox; and Charles was hot against a bill which annulled a
marriage made without legal consent, and must have derived special
satisfaction in opposing the wish to preserve the royal family from
derogatory marriages on the part of the faithless lover of his favourite
aunt, Lady Sarah. He resigned office, but re-entered the ministry the
following December.
[Sidenote: _NORTH'S REGULATING ACT._]
The strength of the ministry caused a stagnation in matters of domestic
policy, and parliament turned its attention towards a settlement of the
government of India. In 1772 the East India Company was on the verge of
bankruptcy, owing chiefly to expensive wars, large pensions to native
rulers, and the greed of the proprietors. The successes of Haidar in the
Karnatic and the famine in Bengal sent down the price of stock, as we
have seen, 60 per cent. The company applied to government for a loan of
at least L1,000,000. North, with statesmanlike decision, seized the
opportunity of asserting the right of the crown to the territorial
revenue and of placing the government under the control of its
ministers. The king upheld his policy. Select and secret committees were
appointed by the commons to inquire into the condition of the company
and of the British affairs in India. Acting on the recommendation of the
secret committee, North foiled an attempt of the company to keep its
affairs in its own hands by carrying a bill to restrain it from
appointing supervisors in India. Burke violently opposed this and every
step by which the territorial power of the company was brought into
subjection to parliament. It was, indeed, with some justice that he
urged that the violation of the royal charter held by the company was a
dangerous precedent, that the claim to the territorial revenue was
arbitrary, and that parliament had increased the company's distress by
extorting from it the payment of L400,000 a year, and had done nothing
for it in return. The case for the company was supported in both houses
by the Rockingham party generally.
North was supreme in both houses, and, in June 1773, carried his
regulating bill. The company received from government a loan of
L1,400,000 at 4 per cent., its annual payment of L400,000 was remitted
until the loan was repaid; its future dividends were restricted in
amount, and its authority in accepting bills from India curtailed; it
was to submit its accounts to the treasury, and to export British goods
to a certain yearly value. In order to assist the company which had a
large stock of tea on hand, it was agreed that it might export this tea
direct and duty free to America, a decision which proved of momentous
import. A court of supreme jurisdiction was created, consisting of a
chief justice and three puisne judges, appointed by the crown and with
fixed salaries. The governor of Bengal was made governor-general of
British India and was to act with a council of four. The first
governor-general, Warren Hastings, then governor of Bengal, and his
council were appointed by the act; their successors were to be appointed
by the directors and approved by the crown. All military and civil
matters which came before the directors were to be submitted to the
crown. No officer of the crown or of the company was to accept any
presents. The act transferred the government of India from a trading
company to the crown. Constitutionally, its weakest point was the
appointment of executive officers in parliament; for all officers should
be appointed by the crown, and its action should be subject to
parliamentary check. As regards the arrangement of government, the act
should have defined the relations between the supreme court and the
council, and between the governor-general, the directors, and the crown,
and should not have left the governor-general in a position to be
overruled by his council.
During the debates on these measures the publication of the report of
the select committee excited public feeling against the "nabobs," and
specially against Clive, and a parliamentary inquiry was held into his
conduct. Before the select committee he admitted and defended the deceit
which he had practised on Omichand in 1757, and declared that he was
justified in accepting enormous sums from Mir Jafar. They were as
nothing compared to what he might have had; "Mr. Chairman," said he, "at
this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation". Resolutions
condemning his conduct were moved by Burgoyne. He defended himself with
force and dignity. Finally, after many debates, the house voted that he
had through the power entrusted to him possessed himself of L234,000,
refused to vote that he had abused his power, and voted instead that "he
did at the same time render great and meritorious services to this
country". The matter was not made a party question, and the decision was
worthy of the assembly which pronounced it. The king, while fully
acknowledging Clive's services, thought him guilty of "rapine," and
disapproved of his virtual acquittal. Thurlow attacked, Wedderburn
zealously defended him. The court party voted different ways. Physical
suffering together with the strain of these proceedings affected Clive's
mind, and he died by his own hand on November 22, 1774.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S POLITICAL PREDOMINANCE._]
In 1773 the king's political predominance was firmly established. His
will was law to his ministers, and they commanded overwhelming
majorities in both houses of parliament. The country was satisfied that
it should be so, for the quarrel between the people and parliament had
died out. It was a time of political apathy. The balance of power, which
during Walpole's administration had shifted from the lords to the
commons, was shifting from parliament to the crown. The house of commons
was losing its spirit of independence, and the control which it should
have exercised on the executive was endangered by the growth of the
king's personal authority. So long as George ruled the country
successfully this danger was likely to increase. He had so skilfully
strengthened his position that he had triumphed over domestic agitation.
The just working of the constitution was finally restored through
national calamity. American discontents were to lead to a revolt which
the enemies of England used as an opportunity for attacking her. Their
attacks were formidable in themselves, and had the humiliating result of
forcing Great Britain to give up the struggle with her revolted colonies
and acknowledge their independence. George had chosen to be his own
prime minister, and his policy was to suffer defeat. A period of storm
was ahead, and as the ship of state passed through it, the king's
personal rule, and much else besides, went overboard. All this was still
far off. From 1770 to 1774 the affairs of the American colonies excited
little attention in England, though, as we shall see in the next
chapter, they were tending towards open revolt.
FOOTNOTES:
[82] _Annual Register_, xiii. (1770), 72.
[83] _Life of Shelburne_, ii., 221; Calcraft to Chatham, March 8, 1771,
MS. Pitt Papers, 25.
[84] _Speeches of Barre_, March 23, and Burke, April 6, 1773, _Parl.
Hist._, xvii., 826, 836.
[85] Calcraft to Chatham, March 12, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.
[86] _Letters of H. Walpole_, v., 238-39 _n._; Mitford, _Gray and Mason
Correspondence_, pp. 438-39; Stephens, _Memoirs of J. H. Tooke_, i.,
157.
[87] Calcraft to Chatham, June 10, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.
[88] The State of the Navy, MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, R.O.