WAR WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.
The surrender of Burgoyne's army was eagerly used by the opposition as
an opportunity for harassing the government. The nation at large showed
a worthier spirit by seeking to repair its loss. Manchester, Liverpool,
Edinburgh, and Glasgow each raised a regiment; and other regiments and
companies were raised in the Highlands and in Wales. In London and
Bristol the corporations refused to join the movement, but large sums
were subscribed by private persons for raising troops. The opposition
absurdly maintained that these levies were unconstitutional, and Fox
accounted for the zeal displayed by Manchester and Scotland by observing
that they were "accustomed to disgrace". The ministers were bitterly
reproached for employing Germans and Indians. "If," said Chatham, "I
were an American, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I
would never lay down my arms--never--never--never." He condemned the
employment of Indians in the war in words of fiery eloquence. It was
certainly deplorable that they should have been employed. In that
matter, however, England had no choice. They would have taken part in
the war on one side or the other. They had fought in every war between
the English and French in America, and while Pitt himself was conducting
the war in 1760 Amherst used them with the authority of government.[135]
In the present war the Americans were the first to employ them, and in
1776 congress resolved that it was expedient to do so and authorised
Washington to enlist 2,000 of them. They were more ready to fight for
the king than for the Americans, who had treated them badly; and as they
caused the insurgents trouble and committed many shocking acts of
barbarity, the Americans inveighed against us for employing them. If we
had not done so they would have fought for the Americans, as some of
them did. Otherwise we should have been better without them, for no
dependence could be placed upon them.
[Sidenote: _THE OPPOSITION DISUNITED._]
Energetic as the opposition was in attack, it was not united in policy.
Chatham, zealous for England's imperial position, declared that he would
never consent to American independence. There was yet time to make peace
with the people of our own blood and so be ready to meet our foreign
foes. He proposed a cessation of hostilities and an immediate offer of
terms. All that the Americans could demand as subjects should be
granted, and overtures made to them on the basis of political dependence
and the navigation act; that is, their trade should still be regulated
by duties. They would, he was sure, accept these terms. If not, they
must be compelled to obedience. The Americans would certainly not have
treated on his basis. Chatham had repeatedly declared that it was
impossible for us to conquer them; yet he proposed that if his basis
were rejected we should use coercion after putting ourselves at a
disadvantage by withdrawing our army. Still, as there were many
Americans besides the loyalists who would have welcomed conciliation,
and as the proposed French alliance was unpopular, it is just possible
that had Chatham himself been prime minister some way might have been
found which, while securing to America virtual independence such as
England's self-governing colonies now enjoy, might have prevented the
severance of the bond. On the other hand, the Rockingham party held that
we should prevent the alliance between France and America by
acknowledging American independence. This division between the two
sections of the opposition set them in hostile camps.
When people were convinced that the alliance was certain the nation
became uneasy, and a strong feeling prevailed, which was shared by some
of Chatham's opponents, that at such a crisis England needed him at the
head of affairs. In February, 1778, it was believed that he and Bute
were engaged on some scheme of coalition which might again put him in
power. The report was merely the outcome of the officious meddling of
his physician, Addington, and one of Bute's friends.[136] No one was
more anxious than North for a change of ministry. He begged the king in
vain to accept his resignation. On the 17th he brought in two bills for
a scheme of conciliation to which George had at last given his sanction.
He proposed an express repeal of the tea duty, the surrender of all
taxation except for the regulation of trade, and the appointment of
commissioners to be sent to America with full powers to put an end to
hostilities, grant pardons, and treat with congress on any terms short
of independence. His proposals did not materially differ from those made
by Burke three years before. He declared that he was not responsible for
American taxation, that it was the work of his predecessors, and that he
had always desired conciliation. He was heard with general
consternation: his own party felt that he was turning his back on the
policy which they had supported under his leadership; the opposition,
that he was, as it were, stealing their thunder. The bills were carried
and the king appointed the commissioners. They arrived in America in
June. Congress refused to listen to any offers short of independence;
the commissioners appealed to the American people, and their manifesto
was treated with contempt.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S CONDUCT EXAMINED._]
When the Franco-American alliance was announced, North was urging the
king to invite Chatham to take office and to allow him to retire, and
Shelburne was sounded as to the terms on which Chatham would come in. He
replied that he would insist on "an entire new cabinet". George, who had
unwillingly agreed to this negotiation, was prepared to accept any men
of talent with a view of strengthening the existing ministry, but not of
forming another in its place, or of changing its measures. He would not
commission Chatham or any opposition leader to form a new ministry: "no
advantage to this country nor personal danger to himself" would, he
wrote to North, induce him to do so; he would rather "lose his crown".
"No consideration in life," he wrote again, "shall make me stoop to the
opposition;" he would not give himself up "to bondage". His
determination has been pronounced equally criminal with the acts which
brought Charles I. to the scaffold.[137] According to our present ideas
he should certainly have been guided by the assurance of his first
minister that the government was unequal to the situation, have
accepted his resignation, and allowed his new ministers to act as they
thought best. These duties, however, were not, as we have seen, so
clearly settled in those days. The prime minister of our time was not
then fully invented, and George's plan of personal government through
ministers was not yet rejected by the country. He could still rely on
the support of parliament. A proposal to request the king to dismiss his
ministers was defeated at that very time by 263 to 113 in the commons
and by 100 to 36 in the lords. Chatham's return to office would
doubtless have been hailed with satisfaction by the nation. Yet, though
a change in public sentiment with regard to the American war was
beginning, and was soon to spread rapidly, the king's policy was still
popular with the larger part of his subjects.[138] When therefore his
conduct in March, 1778, is compared with that of Charles I. it should be
remembered that George had parliament and the mass of the nation at his
back.
The personal light in which he regarded the question is inexcusable. He
had been disappointed and deeply offended by Chatham's political
conduct, and he had cause to fear that a whig government would rob him
of the power which he loved. As a king he had no right to allow his
private feelings to affect his public action. That he did so was the
result partly of his system of personal rule, partly of serious defects
in his character, his implacability of temper, and his habit of
regarding all things as they affected himself. North struggled in vain
against his determination, and gave way before it. It is a mistake,
however, to regard the king as solely responsible for the continuance of
the war. If he is to be blamed because, rather than submit to the loss
of the colonies, which nearly all men believed would be the end of
England's greatness and prosperity, he determined to carry on the
struggle, the blame must be shared by others. Had North been true to his
convictions George could not have formed another administration willing
to act on the same system. Had the majority of the commons refused to
support the king, the constitution afforded the means of over-ruling his
will.[139]
Questions as to Chatham's return to power were soon to be brought to an
end. On April 7 he appeared in the lords after a severe attack of
illness, and, in faltering sentences, though with some remains of his
peculiar fire, protested against the surrender of the sovereignty of
America, "the dismemberment of this ancient and most glorious monarchy".
He urged that England should refuse to bow before the house of Bourbon;
"if we fall let us fall like men". Richmond answered him by dwelling on
the expediency of acknowledging American independence; otherwise, said
he, "instead of Great Britain and America against France and Spain, as
in the last war, it will now be France, Spain, and America against Great
Britain". Chatham rose to reply and fell back in a fit. He died on May
11. Parliament voted him a public funeral, the stately statue which
stands in Westminster Abbey, L20,000 for the payment of his debts, and a
perpetual pension of L4,000 a year annexed to the earldom of Chatham.
Throughout his long career he was invariably courageous and
self-reliant; his genius was bold, his conceptions magnificent, his
political purity unsullied. His rhetoric was sublime. He did not excel
in debate or in prepared speeches. His spirit burned like fire, and his
speeches were the outpourings of his heart in words which, while they
owed something to art, came spontaneously to his lips, and were not less
lofty than his thoughts. As a statesman he had serious defects; he was
haughty, vain, and overbearing, his opinions were unsettled, his
far-reaching views often nebulous; his passion was stronger than his
judgment, and he was immoderately given to bombast. In spite of his true
greatness he lacked simplicity, and he imported the arts of a charlatan
into political life. Yet Englishmen must ever reverence his memory, for
he loved England with all the ardour of his soul, and, as Richmond said
as he praised him to his face on the day that he was stricken for death,
"he raised the glory of the nation to a higher pitch than had been known
at any former period".
In 1778 the losses and expenses of the war and disappointment at its
results began to work a change in the feeling of the country. In
parliament tories sometimes voted with the opposition. North continued
to strive in vain to be released from office. He made some overtures to
the opposition. Fox, in spite of the violence of his attacks, was
anxious for a coalition, which would have given him office, though he
held first that Germain only, and in 1779 that North himself and
Sandwich, must be excluded.[140] He was restrained by Rockingham, and
North's efforts failed. The death of Chatham, though it united the
opposition, on the whole strengthened the ministry, and in June, 1778,
it gained in ability by the appointment of Thurlow as chancellor and
Wedderburn as attorney-general. Burgoyne, who was unfairly treated by
Germain, was defended by Fox, and on his return joined the opposition.
The struggle in parliament had a constitutional importance not
overlooked by either party. On the issue of the American war, "the
king's war" as it was called, depended the question whether George would
be able to establish his system of government by influence. The
opposition reckoned on failure in America, and hoped that, by exposing
the errors and corrupt practices of the government, they would so rouse
public feeling that, when the war ended in national humiliation, the
king would be forced to accept a minister imposed on him by his people.
No party can reckon on national humiliation as a means of attaining its
ends, however praiseworthy they may be, without serious consequences to
its own character. When England was in extreme peril, the opposition,
and Fox above all, magnified her losses, encouraged her enemies by
exposing her weakness, and, not content with insisting on the
maladministration of the government, cavilled at every measure proposed
for the defence of her empire. Their conduct irritated their
fellow-countrymen, for the spirit of the nation was roused by the
intervention of France in the war with the colonies.
[Sidenote: _ADMIRALTY ABUSES._]
Ample grounds existed for dissatisfaction with the government.
Unfortunately, this was specially the case with respect to the navy. Its
expenses had greatly increased. During the eight years of the late war,
1755 to 1762, the money spent upon it, exclusive of ordnance and votes
for men, amounted to no more than L3,390,000; during eight years of
Sandwich's administration, 1771 to 1778, it was stated in parliament to
have been L6,472,000.[141] During the latter period there had been voted
for repairing and building ships L2,900,000, and for extra stores for
them L600,000, in all L3,500,000, enough, it was said, to build 100
men-of-war and as many frigates. Nothing is so destructive to efficiency
as corruption. Under Sandwich abuses of all kinds flourished. Many
existed before his time, and things grew worse under him. When in 1778
the naval estimates for the year were laid before the commons, it was
stated that though L27,000 had been voted between 1771 and 1775 for the
repair of the _Dragon_ (74), and L10,273 for her stores, the ship was
lying untouched and rotting at Portsmouth, and so in various degrees
with other ships. In reply, Welbore Ellis, the treasurer of the navy,
said that though estimates were the usual way of raising money, the
money once raised was spent at the discretion of the admiralty.
Indignant at this amazing statement, Burke flung the smart book of
estimates at the treasury bench. Ships were built of foreign oak of an
inferior kind and needed constant repair; contracts were jobbed; stores
were wasted, stolen, and sold. The country paid for many more seamen
than it got; for example, in September, 1777, the number returned as
victualled was 51,715, though the seamen actually serving were only
47,407. Greenwich hospital, with a revenue of L70,000, was a hot-bed of
abuses.
What was the result of this corrupt system? How did our navy stand in
1778 in comparison with the navies of France, then at war with us, and
Spain, which was on the eve of joining against us? Choiseul's policy of
naval reform was steadily pursued, and in 1778 France had eighty ships
of the line in good order and 67,000 seamen. Spain followed the lead of
France and, when she entered the war in 1779, had about sixty ships of
the line. In 1778 we had 119 first, second, and third rates; of this
number there were, on Sandwich's showing, in November, 1777, excluding
ships on foreign service, only thirty-five manned and ready for sea, and
seven which he said were nearly ready, but some of the thirty-five were
short of their full complement of men, and there was a great scarcity of
frigates. By July, 1778, the number ready was stated as forty-five. But
when Keppel put to sea in June, it was with difficulty that twenty-one
could be got ready to sail with him.[142]
[Sidenote: _BATTLE OFF USHANT._]
Keppel, though an opponent of the government, was appointed to command
the "grand," or, as it was called later, the channel fleet, apparently
at the king's wish. On July 27 he engaged the French fleet from Brest
under Count d'Orvilliers, westward of Ushant, both having thirty ships
of the line. An indecisive action took place, the two fleets passing
each other on opposite tacks and exchanging broadsides. Sir Hugh
Palliser, the third in command and one of the lords of the admiralty,
was blamed for the resultless issue of the engagement. A quarrel ensued
between him and Keppel, which was made a matter of party politics; the
government upheld Palliser, the opposition Keppel, and violent speeches
were made in parliament. A court-martial in 1779 honourably acquitted
Keppel of the charges which Palliser brought against him, and he
received the thanks of parliament. London was on his side; the mob
gutted Palliser's house and broke the windows of the admiralty and of
some official residences. Another court-martial acquitted Palliser
though with a slight censure. Keppel was annoyed by the position taken
up by the admiralty, notified his wish not to serve again under the
present ministry, and struck his flag. The rot of faction, which was
infecting political life, laid some hold on the navy. Other naval
officers declared that they would not serve under Sandwich; the spirit
of insubordination affected the seamen and symptoms of mutiny appeared
in the channel fleet.
The intervention of France forced England to contract her operations in
America. The project of isolating the northern provinces was dropped,
and thenceforward her efforts were mainly directed towards the recovery
of the southern colonies, in order to secure their trade, and the
suppression of privateering expeditions from the New England coast. Howe
was recalled at his own request, and the chief command was given to
Clinton, who was ordered to withdraw from Philadelphia and concentrate
upon New York, where a French attack was expected. Philadelphia was
evacuated on June 18, 1778. Of its loyalist citizens 3,000 embarked for
New York; those who remained behind were harshly treated and two quaker
gentlemen were hanged for adhering to the enemy. As Clinton's army was
marching through New Jersey, the Americans tried to cut off his
rear-guard near Monmouth, but after an indecisive engagement failed in
their attempt. Clinton reached New York without further molestation,
and soon afterwards Washington encamped at White Plains. The Toulon
fleet under Count d'Estaing arrived off Sandy Hook on July 11, and Lord
Howe with a far inferior force prepared to defend the entrance to the
port. While D'Estaing lay outside, the wind rose; he was afraid to risk
his ships by an attempt to cross the bar, and sailed away southwards,
for Washington persuaded him to attack Newport in conjunction with an
army under Sullivan. Lord Howe followed him, and arrived at Point Judith
on August 9, the day after the French ships passed the batteries.
D'Estaing stood out to sea to meet him. Howe's fleet, though reinforced,
was still much the weaker, but "Black Dick," as the sailors called him,
was master of his profession and out-manoeuvred D'Estaing who was a
cavalry officer turned admiral. A storm dispersed both fleets and
D'Estaing, after collecting his ships, sailed off to Boston to refit.
Sullivan retreated and got away from Rhode Island a day before Clinton
arrived with 4,000 men. Lord Howe soon afterwards resigned his command,
declaring that he would not serve again under the present ministers.
D'Estaing sailed from Boston to the West Indies, leaving the American
populace furious at his departure from Rhode Island.
Clinton was called upon to send 5,000 men to the West Indies, Washington
was badly supported by congress, and neither was in a position to act
against the other. Successful expeditions were made in the autumn
against the privateering haunts of the insurgents, Buzzard's bay,
Martha's Vineyard, and on the New Jersey coast; many ships were taken
and much damage was done. The western frontiers were raided by the tory
troops of Johnson and Butler and by our Indian allies. Shocking
barbarities were committed, specially in the Wyoming valley, where the
prisoners were massacred by the Indians, though there the women and
children were spared, and at Cherry Valley, where there was a general
massacre during the attack. In 1779 the Americans retaliated on the
Indians with fearful severity, and cruelly wasted the lands of the
Senecas and Cayugas and the settlements in the Alleghany.
[Sidenote: _MISTAKEN NAVAL POLICY._]
Neither the operations on the coast nor the border fighting had any
material influence on the progress of the war. By the end of 1778,
however, the war entered on a new and, as it proved, decisive phase; it
became a struggle for the southern provinces. In November Clinton sent
a small force by sea under Colonel Campbell to invade Georgia. Campbell
routed the Americans and took Savannah; and General Prevost, who joined
him from Florida, easily obtained possession of the province. Lincoln's
attempt to regain it was defeated at Briar creek on March 3, 1779, and
Prevost penetrated into South Carolina. He finally retired to Georgia,
leaving a garrison at Port Royal, which secured his access to the sea
and gave him a footing in South Carolina, as well as a base for covering
Georgia. The campaign was a promising opening of operations in the
south.
When news of the outbreak of the war reached the West Indies, the French
governor of Martinique seized Dominica, while Admiral Barrington, in
command of a small squadron at Barbadoes, was waiting for orders. As
soon as Barrington received the reinforcements sent by Clinton, he
attacked St. Lucia. D'Estaing came over from America with a fleet of
twice the size, but failed to engage our ships closely, and, after some
fighting on the island, in which the French lost heavily, sailed off to
Martinique. St. Lucia was surrendered on December 29. Nothing further of
importance took place in those parts until the summer of 1779, when
D'Estaing seized St. Vincent while Byron, who was then in command, was
engaged in guarding a convoy. D'Estaing then sailed with all his fleet
to Grenada and forced the garrison to surrender. Byron, though
encumbered by a number of transports and with a smaller fleet, engaged
him in the hope of relieving the island. Some of Byron's ships suffered
badly, and when he found that the garrison had surrendered, he sailed
off. D'Estaing did not press his advantage, for his sole object was to
secure his conquest, and only one transport ship was taken. England was
no longer supreme by sea. The fault lay not with her admirals, who were
still skilful, nor with her seamen, who were as bold as ever. Her
weakness was due to her government, which first allowed the navy to fall
into an inefficient condition and then adopted a wrong system of naval
warfare. She began the contest unprepared, and instead of preventing the
fleets of the enemy from reaching the ocean, had to fight in distant
parts with inferior forces. As the war went on strenuous efforts brought
her navy to a higher pitch; yet she still neglected her first line of
defence, did not concentrate her forces off the ports of the enemy, and
strove to defend the distant parts of her empire with fleets of
inadequate strength.[143]
After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on
April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that
Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting
powers should invade England; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and
Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of
the English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain
desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that
the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action. England
received the news of the combination with spirit; volunteers enlisted
for defence and large sums were subscribed for raising troops, equipping
privateers, and other patriotic purposes. The Spaniards at once
blockaded Gibraltar, then under the command of General Eliott, and began
that three years' siege which is one of the most honourable incidents in
our military history. Though the home fleet, under the command of Sir
Charles Hardy, lay in the Bay of Biscay on the look out for the allied
fleets, they effected a junction, got between him and Plymouth, and in
August sixty French and Spanish ships of the line and a crowd of smaller
vessels paraded before the town. English pride was deeply wounded, and
the landing of the enemy was daily expected. But the vast fleet
accomplished nothing save the capture of one ship of the line. Its crews
were wasted by sickness, and when a change of wind enabled Hardy to
enter the Channel, the enemy did not follow him into its narrower waters
and early in September left our shores.
[Sidenote: _VARIOUS INCIDENTS OF NAVAL WARFARE._]
The war was carried on in many parts of the world, and was full of
incidents which, as they had little or no effect on its issue, must only
be noticed briefly. In October, 1778, Pondicherry was taken by the East
India Company's troops, and the French lost all their settlements in
India. One of them, Mahe, was claimed by Haidar as tributary to him, and
its capture afforded him a pretext for making war on us. He overran the
Karnatic in 1780, defeated a British force, took Arcot, and reduced
Madras to great straits. In the spring of 1779 the French made a feeble
attack on Jersey, and were repulsed by the 78th regiment and the
militia of the island. The British factories at Senegal were seized by
the French, and Goree by the English. The Spaniards expelled our logwood
cutters from Honduras in August, and about the same time the Spanish
governor of Louisiana reduced West Florida, which was thinly inhabited
and almost undefended. The enemies of England hoped to break her power
by destroying her commerce, but it was too large and various to be
ruined by casual losses, and too carefully protected to incur a series
of them. While the trade of France with the West Indies was almost
ruined, the English Jamaica fleet reached home in safety a few days
after the enemy left the Channel. Privateers and king's ships did so
much damage to the commerce of France and Spain in 1779 that it was held
to counterbalance the loss of St. Vincent and Grenada. American cruisers
were still troublesome. Paul Jones, a Scottish sailor, who held a
commission from congress, infested the coasts of Scotland and Ireland,
and in 1779 received a ship from the French government, which he called
the _Bonhomme Richard_. With her and four smaller vessels he sailed from
Brest, and fell in with the homeward-bound Baltic fleet convoyed by the
_Serapis_, Captain Pearson, and a sloop of war. Pearson engaged the
_Bonhomme Richard_, and after a desperate fight the two English ships
were forced to strike. His gallant conduct saved the convoy, and the
_Bonhomme Richard_ was so severely mauled that she sank the next day.
The Americans suffered at least as heavily as the English from this
desultory warfare, and their privateering ventures were checked by
operations on their coast.
While Washington was encamped in the high lands north of New York,
guarding his position by forts on the Hudson, and specially by the
fortification of West Point, Clinton took two posts which commanded the
passage of the river, and, in conjunction with Admiral Sir George
Collier, distressed the enemy by various expeditions. The New England
coast was thoroughly scoured by Collier's squadron, some towns on the
Chesapeake were invaded, a great quantity of stores seized, and about a
hundred and twenty vessels taken or destroyed. Partly in the vain hope
of drawing Washington down from his position, and partly in order to cut
off one of the main sources of his supply, a force from New York was
landed in Connecticut, some towns on the coast were destroyed, and
stores and shipping burnt or carried off. Further operations there were
stopped by an expedition from Boston against a British post established
in Penobscot bay, to check the incursions of the enemy into Nova Scotia.
As soon as Collier appeared in the Penobscot river the Americans burnt
most of their ships; he captured the rest, and the whole naval force of
Massachusetts was destroyed.
In the autumn Lincoln persuaded D'Estaing to bring his fleet from the
West Indies and join him in driving the British out of Georgia. The
French and Americans, about 10,000 strong, laid siege to Savannah, which
was defended by Prevost with a force of only 2,500 men. An assault was
made on the place on October 9, and was repulsed with heavy loss. The
siege was abandoned; D'Estaing with most of his ships sailed for France,
and the American army retreated into South Carolina. D'Estaing's arrival
on the coast warned Clinton of the necessity for concentration, and he
ordered the evacuation of Rhode Island. When the French fleet had
departed he prepared to attack Charleston, and on February 11, 1780,
landed his army on the coast of South Carolina. The town, which was
defended by Lincoln, was besieged on April 1, and surrendered on May 12.
More than 5,000 prisoners were taken, including seven general officers,
besides about 1,000 French and American seamen, 400 guns, and the whole
naval force in the harbour. Cornwallis obtained further successes in the
province; South Carolina was cleared of the enemy, and the inhabitants
generally professed submission. After striking this great blow Clinton
was forced to return to New York, for a French fleet was bringing over
troops to act with Washington, and Cornwallis was left with only 4,000
regulars, besides provincials, to carry on the war in the south.
[Sidenote: _FIGHTING IN LINE OF BATTLE._]
By the end of 1779 the garrison of Gibraltar was reduced to great
straits. The West India command had lately been given to Rodney, already
a distinguished officer and destined to take a high place among
England's sea-captains. Before he proceeded to his station he sailed
with a large convoy for Gibraltar and Minorca. On his way he captured a
Spanish convoy, sent the sixty-four-gun ship which protected it to
England with the merchandise, and carried the provisions destined for
the besiegers off Gibraltar to the besieged garrison. Off Cape St.
Vincent he came on a Spanish squadron of inferior strength under the
command of Don Juan de Langara, cut the Spaniards off from Cadiz, took
six of their ships, and destroyed another. He carried out the relief of
Gibraltar and on February 13 sailed for the West Indies, where Count de
Guichen was commanding in place of D'Estaing. Down to this time the
naval battles of the century had generally been inconclusive, except
when one fleet was much stronger than the other. Admirals kept strictly
to the formation known as the line of battle in which one ship followed
another in regular order. If both the admirals of opposing fleets were
willing to bring matters to a decided issue, the fleet to windward would
attack, and the ships go at one another at close quarters all along the
line. English admirals, with sufficient force, always hoped to bring
this about. They were seldom successful, for the French admirals were
unwilling to fight at close quarters, not because they were afraid to
meet the British, but partly because they generally had some other
object in view than the destruction of the enemy's fleet, some conquest
to make or some place to protect, and partly because the French having
fewer ships were indisposed to make free use of them in battle.
Accordingly a French admiral preferred the leeward position. This
enabled him to avoid a decisive action, for when a British fleet bore
down on him, he could cripple our leading ships in their rigging, and
then break off the action by running before the wind.
Rodney made the destruction of the enemy's fleet his first aim. There
was only one way of accomplishing it. That was by deserting the old
system of fighting in line, van to van, centre to centre, rear to rear.
He sighted Guichen's fleet on April 16 as it was sailing northwards and
well to leeward of Dominica. Guichen was convoying merchantmen, and
intended ultimately to attack Barbadoes. The two fleets were nearly of
equal strength. Rodney gained the windward position, and engaged the
next morning. He planned to bring the whole of his force to bear on the
French centre and rear. After much manoeuvring the opportunity came.
Unfortunately his captains, accustomed to the old routine, did not
understand his signal. His well-devised plan was defeated and the battle
was as inconclusive as its predecessors. Rodney was bitterly
disappointed, for a decisive victory seemed within his grasp.[144] He
considered that some of his captains did not behave with sufficient
promptitude and set himself to bring his fleet to a high pitch of
efficiency. Guichen was joined by a Spanish fleet which gave him a great
numerical superiority. It was no profit to him; the Spanish ships were
hot-beds of disease and he had to convoy them to San Domingo. Then he
sailed off for France with the larger part of his force. By that time
the hurricane season was at hand and Rodney divided his fleet, leaving
about half in the West Indies, and sailing with the remainder to New
York, where he arrived on September 12. England had full command of the
sea in the American waters, and Rodney did little there and,
unfortunately, as we shall see in our next chapter, less than he might
have done. At New York his squadron escaped the hurricane which swept
over the West Indies on October 10. As Rodney was a tory his
distinguished services were peculiarly gratifying to the king and the
government. He was created a Knight of the Bath and received a pension
with remainder to his children.
[Sidenote: _RESTRAINTS ON IRISH TRADE._]
The war brought Ireland an opportunity for insisting on a redress of
grievances. By 1773 the prodigality of government raised the national
expenditure far above the revenue. Lord Harcourt, the viceroy,
recommended a tax of 10 per cent. on the rents of absentees. The
proposal was popular in Ireland, and North was willing to agree to it.
The great Irish landlords of the Rockingham party were strongly opposed
to the tax, and Burke argued that it would hinder Irishmen from taking
part in the political life of Great Britain and would imply that England
was a foreign land. A strong feeling against the tax was excited in
England. North gave way and, in obedience to instructions, Harcourt
procured the rejection of the bill. The grievances of the country
increased. The American war was unpopular with the presbyterians, the
peace and safety of the land were imperilled by the withdrawal of its
troops, its finances were burdened by pensions and by grants for the
war, and the public debt which in 1770 was L669,230, entailing a charge
of L26,631, stood in 1778 at L939,323, with a charge of L82,711. The
restrictions on Irish trade were rendered specially grievous by the war.
An embargo laid on the export of provisions from Ireland ruined her
trade in cattle. Debarred from the woollen manufacture in the interest
of English industry, she had been encouraged to manufacture linen, and
her trade in linen prospered. The war with America deprived her of her
principal market. The restraints placed upon her commerce with England
brought her into close commercial connexion with France, and that source
of profit was also cut off in 1778. Many of her people were driven
abroad by want; and the poor who remained were only kept alive by
charity.
In 1778 proposals were made in the English parliament to relax the
restrictions on Irish trade. North approved of the proposals, and they
were powerfully supported by Burke. Liverpool, Bristol, and other
English manufacturing towns protested loudly against admitting Ireland
to compete with them. North yielded to pressure, and the supporters of
the bills were forced to accept a measure which was wholly insufficient
to satisfy the needs of the Irish. The disappointment in Ireland was
bitter. Something, however, was gained; the system of restriction was no
longer intact. The same year saw the beginning of a relaxation of the
penal code. Common wrongs and common aspirations helped to subdue
religious animosity. The cause of the catholics was urged in the Irish
Parliament by the splendid oratory of Henry Grattan. A bill was passed
enabling them to take leases for 999 years and, except in the case of
converts, to inherit land as freely as protestants. The law was no
longer to offer an inducement to a man to abandon his father's faith for
the sake of gain; it was no longer to put the estate of a catholic
father under the power of a professedly protestant son.
The failure of the attempt to obtain relief from commercial restrictions
taught the Irish that England would not sacrifice her own interests to
relieve their distress, and that they must help themselves. Following
the example of the Americans, they formed associations for
non-importation. These associations showed the English manufacturers
that Ireland could retaliate upon them. England was, however, forced to
concession by another means. The assent of the Irish parliament to
England's proposal that drafts should be sent to the war from the 12,000
men who should have been kept for the defence of the country, reduced
the number of troops in Ireland to less than 5,000. The coasts were
infested by privateers and a French invasion was expected. England had
no troops to spare and her fleets were fully engaged. Abandoned by
government, the Irish protestants took up arms to defend their own
country. The Duke of Leinster and Lord Charlemont threw themselves
eagerly into the movement, which was supported by the majority of the
Irish gentry, catholics as well as protestants; though for some time the
catholics did not volunteer because they were disqualified from bearing
arms. Before long 42,000 volunteers were learning military discipline,
arms were purchased and officers chosen. The Irish government regarded
the movement with uneasiness, but took advantage of it as a protection
against invasion, and distributed 16,000 stands of arms among the corps.
The volunteers, while thoroughly loyal, adopted a distinctly national
policy. England was in difficulties and could not withstand the demands
of so powerful a body. In the session of 1779-80 parliament, at North's
instance, abandoned the system of restriction on Ireland's trade; threw
open to her trade with the colonies and repealed the acts restraining
the exportation of her woollens and glass. About the same time the
influence of the volunteers procured the assent of government to a bill
releasing Irish dissenters from the sacramental test. Great as these
gains were, Irish aspirations reached further. On April 19, 1780,
Grattan proposed a declaration of legislative independence. For that the
Irish parliament was not ready. Lord Buckinghamshire, the viceroy,
secured support by lavish promises of recommendations for peerages and
other good things, and parliament deserted the popular cause. In
December, Buckinghamshire was succeeded by Lord Carlisle.
[Sidenote: _AGITATION FOR ECONOMICAL REFORM._]
During 1779 North's government lost ground; the ministers were known to
be divided in opinion, and various parliamentary inquiries into the
conduct of the war revealed much maladministration. Even the king said
that Germain was "of no use in his department," and Fox's vote of
censure on the admiralty was supported by a minority of 170. Some
changes in the ministry failed to strengthen it. In 1778 Jenkinson
succeeded Barrington as secretary at war; he lived to prove himself a
man of ability, but in his new office he, like his predecessor, had
merely to carry out the orders of others. Gower, a strong advocate of
American coercion in 1775, changed his opinions, resigned the
presidentship of the council in November, 1779, and made a violent
attack on the government. He was succeeded by Lord Bathurst the
ex-chancellor. Suffolk died and was succeeded as southern secretary by
Lord Stormont, and Weymouth, the northern secretary, by Hillsborough.
North still urged the king to accept his resignation. George, conscious
of the shortcomings of the ministry, gave Thurlow authority to treat
with Shelburne, as head of the Chatham party, with a view to the
formation of a strong administration, composed of men of different
parties, to be formed without North, and independently of the existing
ministry. Grafton persuaded Shelburne not to act apart from the
Rockingham whigs. The united opposition would have insisted on a
complete change of measures as well as of men, which would have implied
the surrender of America. To this George would not consent, and North
was again persuaded to remain in office. On the meeting of parliament in
November, 1779, the ministers carried the address by 233 to 134, a
majority which bore out the assertion of the king's speech that
parliament was with him, and the speech added "my people at large".
Yet though the declaration of war by Spain called forth a loyal address,
unanimously voted by the commons, assuring the king of their help
against the Americans, many held that it would be well to withdraw the
troops from America and use the whole strength of the country against
its foreign enemies. The expenses of the war were heavy; additions were
made to the public debt of L6,000,000 in 1778, of L7,000,000 in 1779,
and of L12,000,000 in 1780, and many new taxes were imposed. At the same
time large sums were expended on maintaining useless offices, a crowd of
pensioners, and other abuses, the means by which the king kept his hold
on parliament. The whigs determined to take advantage of the demands
made on the nation to strike at the root of that corrupt influence by
insisting on public economy. The attack was begun unsuccessfully in the
lords by Richmond and Shelburne, and in December Burke gave notice that
he would lay a plan of economical reform before the commons. The whigs
sought to bring pressure to bear on parliament by an appeal to the
people and met with a ready response. A county meeting at York, presided
over by Sir George Savile, sent a petition to the commons for public
economy, and formed an association to promote that object and the
restoration of the independence of parliament. Twenty-five other
counties and some cities and towns sent similar petitions and most of
them formed associations. On February 11, 1780, Burke introduced his
plan in a speech of remarkable ability. He proposed a reform of the
king's civil establishment, the abolition of a crowd of court offices, a
reform of certain public departments, the limitation of pensions, the
sale of the crown lands, and the abolition of the jurisdictions of
Wales, Cornwall, Chester, and Lancaster. His bills were destroyed
piecemeal in committee, and the only result of his scheme which, if
fully carried out, would, he calculated, have saved the nation over
L1,000,000 a year, was the abolition of the board of trade.
Meanwhile a sharp struggle went on in the commons. A proposal for an
account of patent places was agreed to, but another for submitting a
list of pensions was lost by two votes. A crowded meeting was held at
Westminster on April 5 and was addressed by Fox who, with vehement
eloquence, recommended annual parliaments and an addition of 100 county
members as a means of freeing parliament from the influence of the
crown. Government apprehended an attempt to overawe parliament and
stationed soldiers in the neighbourhood of Westminster Hall. This step
enraged the opposition, and on the 6th Dunning proposed a resolution in
the commons that "the influence of the crown has increased, is
increasing, and ought to be diminished". This resolution was carried,
with a trifling addition, by 233 to 215, and another that the house was
competent to correct abuses in the civil list was adopted without a
division. On the 10th, however, a resolution that certain officers of
the household should be disqualified from sitting in the house of
commons was carried by two only. So far did pressure from without
combined with the near prospect of a general election carry the commons,
but the majority did not desire reform and would go no further than
general resolutions. An address to the king, praying that he would not
dissolve nor prorogue parliament until measures had been taken to
diminish the influence of the crown, was rejected by a majority of
fifty-one. The struggle was over, and Fox vented his rage and
disappointment in a speech of unmeasured invective. Throughout the
session much heated language was used in parliament, and both Shelburne
and Fox fought duels in consequence of words uttered by them in debate.
On June 2 Richmond, ultra-democratic as a democratic noble is wont to
be, specially on questions not affecting his own order, was urging
annual parliaments and manhood suffrage on the lords when he was
interrupted by an outbreak of mob violence, a bitter answer to his
arguments.
[Sidenote: _THE GORDON RIOTS._]
The earlier half of the reign saw an increase in religious tolerance.
Though the whig movement for relieving dissenting ministers from
subscription to the articles was defeated by the lords in 1772 and 1773,
a bill supported by both parties granted them relief in 1779, the year
in which the Irish dissenters were relieved from the test act. The
whigs, as we have seen with reference to the Quebec act, were opposed to
any measure of relief being granted to Roman catholics, who were by law
liable to cruel oppression. The judges, indeed, and specially the great
chief-justice, Mansfield, did all they could to mitigate the rigour of
the law, yet catholics lived in insecurity, and so late as 1767 a priest
was condemned to imprisonment for life, and was actually imprisoned for
four years, for exercising his office. Whig prejudices gave way, and in
1778 Sir George Savile brought in a bill enabling catholics who abjured
the temporal jurisdiction of the pope to purchase and inherit land, and
freeing their priests from liability to imprisonment. The bill, which
only affected England, was passed without a division in either house,
and the government proposed to bring in a like bill for Scotland the
next year. Violent protestant riots took place in Edinburgh and Glasgow,
and such strong feeling was generally manifested in Scotland against the
proposed measure that it was abandoned. The relief act excited
discontent in England, and protestant fanatics, encouraged by the
success of their party in Scotland, agitated for its repeal. A
protestant association was formed, a crack-brained member of parliament,
Lord George Gordon, was made president, and a petition for the repeal of
the act was signed by nearly 120,000 persons.
On June 2, 1780, some 60,000 persons marched under Gordon's leadership
to Westminster with their monster petition. They violently assaulted
many peers and compelled members of both houses to cry No popery! and to
put blue cockades in their hats. Gordon addressed them, and named Burke
and other members as specially hostile to their cause. The commons
refused to give the petition immediate consideration; the lobbies were
thronged by the mob, and North sent for the lifeguards to protect
parliament. On their arrival the mob left palace-yard and partially
destroyed the chapels of the Sardinian embassy in Duke street, Lincoln's
inn Fields and the Bavarian embassy in Warwick street, Golden square.
The next day was fairly quiet, but on Sunday, the 4th, finding that no
measures were taken to enforce order, they sacked other catholic chapels
and some houses. By Monday the riots assumed a more dangerous character;
the mob passed out of the leadership of religious fanatics and was bent
on plunder and destruction. East of Charing Cross London was almost at
its mercy. There was no efficient police force; military officers and
soldiers had learnt the risk they would incur by firing on a mob without
the order of the civil power, and the magistrates were for the most part
timid and inactive. Wilkes was an honourable exception, and showed
courage and firmness in dealing with the rioters. Virtually unchecked,
the mob sacked chapels and houses, plundered shops, and burnt Savile's
furniture before his door. During the next two days Newgate was partly
burnt and the prison broken open, the other principal prisons either
destroyed or damaged and the prisoners set at liberty. Some magistrates'
houses were plundered and burnt. Mansfield's house in Bloomsbury square
was sacked and his splendid library, pictures, plate, and furniture
destroyed. By Wednesday night thirty-six fires were blazing in different
parts; volumes of flame were rising from the King's bench and Fleet
prisons, the new Bridewell, and the toll gates on Blackfriars bridge,
and the lower end of Holborn was burning fiercely. A great distillery in
Holborn was wrecked; men and women killed themselves by drinking the
unrectified spirits which were brought into the streets, and others who
were drunk perished in the flames or were buried in the ruins. Attacks
were made on the Bank of England and the Pay Office. Both were guarded
by soldiers, and the rioters were repulsed with heavy loss.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S PERSONAL INTERVENTION._]
By that time the general paralysis of authority was ended by the king's
personal intervention. As his ministers seemed afraid of incurring
responsibility, George summoned a meeting of the council by special
command on Wednesday morning. Finding that the council hesitated to
recommend the employment of troops, he said that if they would not give
him advice he would act without it, and that he could answer for one
magistrate who would do his duty. He bade Wedderburn, the
attorney-general, declare the law on the subject. Wedderburn replied
that the king in council could order soldiers to suppress a riot without
the authority of a magistrate. George at once ordered the military to
act, and by Thursday morning the riots were quelled. Seventy-two houses
and four gaols had been destroyed. Of the rioters, 285 were reported as
killed and 173 wounded, but many more lost their lives during the riots.
The trials of the rioters were conducted with moderation; of the 139 who
were tried, fifty-nine were capitally convicted, and of these only
twenty-one were executed. The Surrey prisoners were tried before
Wedderburn, who was made chief-justice of the common pleas and created
Lord Loughborough. Lord George Gordon was acquitted; he was imprisoned
for a libel in 1787, and died in Newgate after having become a jew. When
the lords, who adjourned on the 6th, again assembled, the great jurist
Mansfield, who in his seventy-sixth year retained his mastery of
constitutional law and his facility of expression, authoritatively
declared that soldiers equally with civil persons might, and if required
by a magistrate must, assist in suppressing riots and preventing acts of
treason and felony, and that the red coat of a soldier neither
disqualified him from performing the duty of a citizen nor would protect
him if he transgressed it. The riots seem to have improved the position
of the government, for the appeal to popular feeling and the formation
of associations by which the whigs brought pressure on parliament were
discredited by them, and for the moment common danger allayed political
animosity.
FOOTNOTES:
[135] _Parl. Hist._, xix., 368-70, 409, 411, 509-12.
[136] The Bute Transaction, MSS. Pitt Papers 14; Stanhope, _History_,
vi., 213.
[137] Lecky, _History_, iv., 83.
[138] Rockingham to Chatham, Jan. 21, 1778, _Chatham Corr._, iv., 488;
Burke to Rockingham, Nov. 5, 1777, _Works_, ii., 357.
[139] _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, i., 211-12; Sir G. C. Lewis,
_Administrations of Great Britain_, p. 16.
[140] _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, i., 180, 306-23.
[141] These figures present a difficulty. The votes 1771-78 appear to
have been, for ordinary expenses L3,303,233, for 'extraordinaries'
L2,232,694 = L5,535,927. Clowes, _Royal Navy_, iii., 327.
[142] On this subject generally see _Parl. Hist._, xix., 728-30, 818-34,
874-95, xx., 204-38, 372 _sqq._; Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp.
337-41; MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, R.O.; Keppel, _Life of Keppel_,
ii., 15, 19, 21.
[143] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp. 421 _sqq._, 523 _sqq._
[144] Hannay, _Rodney_, pp. 117-31; Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp.
378-81.