THE ROUT OF THE WHIGS.
The new ministers at once attacked the sources from which the crown
derived its corrupt influence over parliament. They carried bills
preventing contractors from sitting in parliament and depriving revenue
officers of the franchise. As these officers, who were dependent on the
ministers of the crown, numbered according to one computation nearly
40,000, and to another 60,000, out of an electorate of about 300,000,
their disfranchisement was an important step towards freedom of
election. A message to parliament recommending economy was extorted from
the king as an introduction to a plan of economical reform which was
brought forward by Burke. It was not so drastic as his earlier plan, for
the king acting in the cabinet through Shelburne and Thurlow objected to
many of the proposed retrenchments. Nevertheless, in spite of
mutilations, the bill, which became law, effected a saving of L72,000 a
year, chiefly by abolishing useless offices. The act also again provided
for the payment of arrears of the civil list, amounting this time to
L296,000. Burke nobly continued his work by a bill for the reform of his
own office, preventing the paymaster from gaining the enormous profits
appropriated by nearly all his predecessors. Another declaration in
favour of freedom of election was made by the commons, for they at last
accepted Wilkes's annual motion for expunging from their journals the
resolution of February, 1769, declaring him incapable of re-election.
The corrupt influence of the crown would, Pitt declared, be checked most
effectually by a reform of parliament. Acting on his own account, he
proposed an inquiry into the state of the representation, without
bringing forward any scheme of reform. He pointed out that some boroughs
were in the hands of the treasury, that others had no actual existence,
and that many were merely the property of purchasers, the nawab of
Arcot, for example, returning seven or eight members. His motion, though
supported by Fox, was rejected by 161 to 141.
[Sidenote: _IRISH INDEPENDENCE._]
Most memorable of the changes effected during the Rockingham
administration is the establishment of the legislative independence of
Ireland. When Carlisle went over as viceroy in December, 1780, he was
instructed that the government would not oppose the demand for a _habeas
corpus_ act, but that he was to prevent parliament from declaring for
legislative independence, or for a limitation of the perpetual mutiny
act which kept the army beyond its control. The Irish parliament for a
while steadily supported the government. The small party in opposition
included Flood, who, after holding a lucrative office for six years,
found himself unable to influence the government, adopted a hostile
line, and was dismissed, and, above all, Grattan who had become leader
of the party after Flood took office. But the force which was to enlist
parliament on the national side was outside its walls. The volunteers
grew in strength, and reviews of large bodies of them were held during
the summer of 1781. They remained loyal, and when in September the
fleets of France and Spain threatened the coast of Munster, they eagerly
prepared to meet the enemy. At the same time the impending success of
the American revolution encouraged them to demand independence for their
own country, and as they were nearly 100,000 armed and disciplined men,
while less than 5,000 regular troops were left in Ireland, their voice
could not be disregarded. It soon made itself heard. On the invitation
of Charlemont's regiment a meeting of delegates from the Ulster
volunteers assembled in the church of Dungannon on February 15, 1782.
They passed resolutions condemning the claim of the British parliament
to legislate for Ireland, and the control which, in accordance with
Poyning's act, the privy councils of England and Ireland exercised over
Irish legislation, and they demanded the limitation of the mutiny act,
and the independence of the judges.
Before the Irish parliament met after the Easter recess the Rockingham
ministry came into office; Carlisle was abruptly removed, and the Duke
of Portland was appointed to succeed him. Rockingham, Fox, and Burke
were anxious to satisfy Ireland, but the ministry seems not to have
determined its exact line of policy. An attempt was made to embarrass
the ministers by Eden, Carlisle's chief secretary, apparently in revenge
for their discourteous treatment of Carlisle. Without consultation with
them, he proposed the repeal of the act of 9 George I. which asserted
the right of the king and parliament of Great Britain to legislate for
Ireland. Fox opposed the motion and it was withdrawn. The next day,
April 9, the ministers brought a royal message to parliament
recommending to its consideration means of satisfying Irish discontent.
The spirit manifested in the Dungannon meeting overcame the resistance
of the Irish parliament, and the nation was united in its demands.
Rockingham and Fox tried in vain to persuade Grattan to give them time
for consideration.[165] On the 16th he moved an address to the king in
the Irish parliament asserting independence, and it was carried
unanimously. The ministers, misled by Portland, believed that the Irish
demands might be modified, and proposed negotiation. Grattan refused,
and they yielded everything. On May 17 resolutions, afterwards followed
by statutes, were carried without division in both houses, conceding
legislative independence to Ireland, restoring the appellate
jurisdiction of the Irish house of lords, and limiting the mutiny act.
Ireland thus became almost an independent state. It remained connected
with Great Britain by the tie of the crown, it had no executive
dependent on its parliament, and its legislation was subject to a
ministerial veto. The revolution of 1782, pressed on by Grattan, set up
relations between the two kingdoms which were anomalous and fraught with
danger.
[Sidenote: _THE "BATTLE OF THE SAINTS"._]
Negotiations for peace were in progress, but the war still went on, and
its last great events were glorious. The navy was far stronger than in
1778; the dockyards were busy during the war, and the number of ships
was much larger. Improvements of various kinds were adopted; ships were
coppered, the rapidity and accuracy of their fire was increased by new
inventions, and carronades--light guns with a large bore mounted on the
upper deck, for use at close quarters--not yet adopted by the French,
were added to their armament. The discipline and ardour of the
_personnel_ of the navy reached a high pitch. The British sailor was
keen to fight the Frenchman, and 93,168 seamen and marines are entered
as borne during the present year. We left the French and Spanish fleets
in the West Indies preparing to conquer Jamaica (p. 227). Grasse was at
Fort Royal, and was to join the Spaniards on the coast of San Domingo,
and Rodney, whose fleet was raised by his junction with Hood and the
arrival of reinforcements to thirty-seven ships of the line, lay on the
watch at St. Lucia. On April 8 the French stood out to sea, and the next
day Rodney found them off Dominica. An indecisive action took place in
which, owing to baffling calms, only the British van was engaged. Grasse
then beat to windward between Dominica and the Iles des Saintes, but in
consequence of various accidents made little way. The British followed
him, and early on the 12th Sir Charles Douglas, the captain of the
fleet, awakened Rodney with the stirring tidings that "God had given him
the enemy on the lee-bow".
The English fleet was numerically the stronger, but the French had finer
ships and heavier batteries. The action began about 7.30 A.M. At first
it seemed likely to be as indecisive as usual, the two fleets passing
each other on opposite tacks and cannonading, the French being to
windward. As they sailed slowly with a light breeze, and at a short
distance from each other, the British guns and especially the carronades
were highly effective, for the enemy's ships were crowded with soldiers
for the attack on Jamaica. Before long the battle took a form which
rendered it memorable in the annals of naval warfare, for Rodney,
without previous design, practised the manoeuvre known as breaking the
enemy's line, and by that means was enabled to bring the engagement to a
decisive issue, such as he hoped for in the battle of April 17, 1780.
This manoeuvre, afterwards deliberately adopted with triumphant
success by Howe, Nelson, and other great captains, though often
practised in the naval battles between the English and the Dutch in the
seventeenth century,[166] had fallen into complete oblivion, so firmly
did admirals believe in the necessity of keeping their line of battle.
By cutting through the enemy's line an admiral could concentrate his
attack on any portion of it which could least easily receive help from
the rest, and could throw the line into confusion; the ships to the rear
of the point of penetration would be stopped, massed up, and might be
caught together, while those ahead pursued their course. This mode of
attack was worked out by a landsman, Clerk of Eldin, and though his
_Essay_ was not fully printed until 1782, parts of it were privately
circulated in 1780.
As Rodney's flagship, the _Formidable_ (98), which was half way down the
British line, was coming up with the _Glorieux_ (74), the fourth from
Grasse's flagship, the _Ville de Paris_ (104), a slight change in the
wind opened a gap between the _Glorieux_ and the ship next astern of
her. Douglas urged Rodney to steer through the gap. He refused, then
yielded; and as the _Formidable_, firing right and left from every gun
at the ships on either side of her, passed round the stern of the
_Glorieux_, and within pistol-shot of her, the French _canonniers_ could
be seen throwing down their sponges and handspikes and running below to
escape the storm of shot which she poured upon them. This time Rodney's
captains were quick to understand what he was at. The next five ships
followed the _Formidable_, and like her engaged on the windward side of
the enemy. Almost at the same time the ship sixth astern of her also cut
the enemy's line, passing through a gap abreast of her. The French line
was thus cut into three divisions, and its central portion, consisting
of five ships, was thrown together and exposed to a deadly attack. By
noon the enemy was scattered in various groups, the English, who had
gained the wind, attacking at will and without any order. Grasse fought
his ship, the splendid offering of the city of Paris to its king, with
conspicuous gallantry, and the slaughter on board her was awful. At
last, about 6 P.M., he hauled down the flag of France with his own
hands, and surrendered himself to Hood on the _Barfleur_ (90). Rodney
then stopped the fight. Four other prizes were taken. Twenty more, Hood
declared, might have been taken if Rodney had followed up his victory.
He certainly lost a fine opportunity, probably because disease and
suffering had robbed him of some of his former vigour. As it was, the
"Battle of the Saints" saved Jamaica from invasion, seriously damaged
the French fleet, and shed glory on the navy of Britain.[167]
The concluding scenes of the siege of Gibraltar were not less glorious.
Vast preparations were made to take the fortress, which in September was
besieged on the land side by nearly 40,000 men, under the Duke de
Crillon. The combined fleets, forty-nine ships of the line, lay at
Algeciras, and ten floating batteries were constructed which, it was
believed, could neither be sunk nor burned. The garrison consisted of
7,000 men fit for duty. Lord Howe, who on the change of ministry was
appointed to command the channel fleet, sailed to its relief on the 11th
with thirty-four ships of the line and many store-ships and transports.
On the 8th, when the enemy's works were not completed, Eliott opened
fire upon them and did them much damage by using red-hot balls. During
the next four days the enemy replied by a terrific bombardment from
their heavy ordnance and gunboats. Early on the 13th a general attack
was made by land-batteries and sea-batteries, and a perpetual fire was
poured upon the fortress from over 300 pieces of the heaviest artillery.
Eliott directed his red-hot shot chiefly against the battering ships,
and at last during the night two of them caught fire. In the confusion
which ensued Captain Curtis, commanding a small naval brigade, brought
out his gunboats and completed the enemy's discomfiture. Nine of the
battering-ships blew up, and the tenth was burnt by Curtis's boats. Some
1,500 of the enemy perished, and 400 were saved from death by the
British seamen. After the failure of their great attempt, the enemy
could only hope to reduce the place by blockade. Howe's fleet had a
troublesome voyage, and did not come in sight until October 11. He
effected the relief of the garrison with admirable skill. As he repassed
the straits the combined fleet followed him, and on the 20th engaged him
at a distance, but he brought his fleet off with little damage. The
siege was raised on February 6, 1783, when the war had ceased. Eliott,
to whom the successful issue of the defence, one of the finest feats of
the British arms, was principally due, was created Baron Heathfield.
[Sidenote: _WAR IN INDIA AND INDIAN WATERS._]
In India the outbreak of war with France encouraged the Marathas, who
dominated the country from Mysore to the Ganges, in the hope of
expelling the British, by acting in conjunction with Haidar Ali.
Hastings found that a French agent was intriguing with them, and took
prompt measures against them. An expedition from Bombay failed
miserably, but Colonel Goddard, who was sent by Hastings from Bengal,
captured Ahmadabad, and drove Sindhia over the Narbada. His fortress,
Gwalior, was stormed by Major Popham in August, 1780. Nevertheless, the
war strained Hastings's resources. His difficulties were terribly
increased by the invasion of the Karnatic. Haidar and his son, Tipu,
practically took the English by surprise, overran the country with an
army of some 75,000 cavalry and 15,000 infantry, instructed by 400
Frenchmen; defeated the Madras troops, captured Arcot, and threatened
Madras. Sir Eyre Coote, who had come out to conduct the Maratha war, was
despatched to Madras, and in 1781 negotiations were opened with Sindhia,
and his former possessions were restored to him. Peace was made with the
Maratha confederacy in May, 1782, by the treaty of Salbai, which was
ratified seven months later. While Coote was forcing Haidar to raise the
siege of various British fortresses in January, 1781, a French fleet
appeared at Pondicherry. Haidar called upon it to help him, for his own
fleet had been destroyed by Admiral Hughes; but Coote prevented the
French from obtaining supplies, and they sailed away without effecting
anything. He gained a splendid victory over Haidar at Porto Novo on July
1, met him with doubtful success at Pollilur, completely routed him at
Sholinghar, and, in January, 1782, though suffering from serious
illness, skilfully relieved Vellore.
Hughes had already taken the Dutch settlements, Negapatam and
Trincomali, when in February a French fleet appeared off Madras to
protect them. It was commanded by M. de Suffren, an admiral of
remarkable ability. Suffren sailed from France in March, 1781. He fell
on an English squadron, on its way to seize the Dutch colony at the
Cape, in the neutral water of Porto Praya harbour in the Cape de Verde
islands. The fight was indecisive, but he arrived first at the Cape and
prevented the projected attack. His fleet was superior to that of
Hughes, whose principal object was to prevent him from gaining a port as
a place of supply and for landing troops. Hughes fought four indecisive
battles with him, and was unable either to prevent the French from
acting with Haidar, or from taking Cuddalore, which gave them a good
naval and military station, or from reducing Trincomali. In this long
and famous naval duel Hughes, though a capable and gallant captain,
showed himself far inferior to Suffren in strategical and tactical
skill. The French admiral, however, was constantly thwarted by the
misconduct of his subordinates, while the English captains gave Hughes
loyal support.[168] Coote carried on the war with vigour, but his
victory over Haidar and his French allies at Arni was rendered fruitless
by his lack of cavalry and supplies. Haidar died in December, leaving a
message bidding his son make peace with the English, which Tipu did not
obey. Coote died in April, 1783. The peace with the Marathas enabled the
English to invade Tipu's country on the Malabar side, where they met
with some success and one signal disaster. Meanwhile Coote's successor,
Stuart, was attacking the French in Cuddalore. A fifth indecisive battle
with Suffren on June 20 compelled Hughes to withdraw his fleet to Madras
to refit. Stuart's army, weakened by disease and in sore need of
supplies, was saved from probable disaster by the news of the treaty of
Versailles. Deprived of his French allies, Tipu was at last, March 11,
1784, persuaded by Lord Macartney, the governor of Madras, to make
peace. By this treaty, which Macartney made against the commands of
Hastings, both parties surrendered their conquests. A renewal of war was
certain, for Tipu's arrogance was unabated.
[Sidenote: _FOX AND SHELBURNE QUARREL._]
Although the government carried some highly beneficial measures it was
not free from the usual whig failings. Led astray by party spirit, the
ministers sent Admiral Pigot, a mere nonentity, to supersede Rodney.
Scarcely had they done so when the news of Rodney's victory reached
them. A messenger was at once despatched to stop Pigot, but it was too
late. Rodney was created a baron, a rank which some thought unequal to
his deserts. While the ministers virtuously curtailed the expenditure of
the civil list, they burdened the country with pensions of L4,000 a year
to Dunning and L3,200 to Barre, both members of Shelburne's party. And
they quarrelled amongst themselves. That was the inevitable result of
the existence of two parties in the cabinet. Between Shelburne and Fox
there was much ill-feeling, which came to a head over the negotiations
for peace. Until the independence of the American colonies was
acknowledged, negotiations with them belonged to Shelburne's
department. The arrangement of a peace with foreign enemies was Fox's
business, and he would also be responsible for negotiations with the
Americans as soon as the colonies were recognised as forming an
independent state. In addition to the difficulties naturally arising
from this division of responsibility, the two secretaries differed on
policy. Fox desired an immediate recognition of American independence,
in the hope of detaching the Americans from the French alliance, and so
putting England in a better position for dealing with her other enemies;
Shelburne agreed with the king that the acknowledgment should be a
condition of a joint treaty with France and America, for England would
then have a claim to receive some return for it.
Shelburne with, it is said,[169] the consent of the cabinet, sent one
Oswald to Paris to open informal negotiations with Franklin. Oswald, who
was wholly unfit for diplomatic work, favourably received Franklin's
monstrous proposition that England should cede Canada to the Americans,
though they had been driven out of the country, and the Canadians
themselves desired to remain attached to England. He gave Shelburne a
paper containing this proposition. Shelburne, who would certainly not
have assented to it, treated the paper as confidential and did not show
it to his colleagues. The cabinet agreed that Oswald should return to
treat with Franklin, and that Thomas Grenville, the second son of George
Grenville, who was nominated by Fox, should negotiate with Vergennes.
Rodney's victory gave the ministers ground for believing that, if they
could separate America from France, they would be in a good position to
resist French demands; and they therefore instructed Grenville to
propose to Vergennes that England should acknowledge American
independence directly, and not through France. This Fox held gave him
the whole conduct of the negotiations. As, however, Franklin was anxious
not to lose so pliant a negotiator as Oswald, the cabinet agreed that
Oswald should continue to confer with him. On June 4, Grenville
complained to Fox that the separate negotiation between Oswald and
Franklin rendered it impossible for him to make any progress, and
further told him that he had learned from Oswald that Shelburne had seen
the paper containing Franklin's proposition with respect to Canada. Fox
was indignant, for he considered that Shelburne was carrying on a
clandestine negotiation, and that the concealment of the Canada paper
was a proof of his duplicity. On the 30th he proposed in the cabinet
that the independence of America should be acknowledged without a
treaty, which would have given him the entire charge of the
negotiations. He was outvoted and declared that he would resign office.
In this matter Shelburne does not appear to have been guilty of
intrigue. The two secretaries mistrusted and were jealous of one
another, and Fox was too ready to believe that Shelburne was secretly
working in league with the king to counteract his negotiations, which
was not the case. In concealing the Canada paper from his colleagues,
Shelburne behaved with characteristic lack of openness, but as
Franklin's proposition was informal and required no answer, the matter
was trivial, and did not warrant the indignation which was expressed by
Fox and his friends.[170]
[Sidenote: _THE SHELBURNE MINISTRY._]
On July 1, the day after Fox declared his intention to resign,
Rockingham died. His death delivered George from the domination of the
whigs. He at once bade Shelburne propose a plan for a ministry. The
Rockingham party in the cabinet objected, declaring that they had a
right to advise the king as to his choice, and pressed him to send for
Portland, whose position as a whig magnate constituted his chief claim
to office. George refused to yield to their dictation. Fox would not
serve with Shelburne and resigned the seals. He was followed by only one
member of the cabinet, Lord John Cavendish, by Portland, Burke,
Sheridan, and a few more. Richmond, Keppel, and the rest of the party
remained in office. Shelburne took the treasury, Pitt became chancellor
of the exchequer, and Thomas Townshend succeeded Shelburne, and Lord
Grantham Fox, as secretaries of state. Barre was made paymaster of the
forces, and Lord Temple, afterwards Marquis of Buckingham, the eldest
son of George Grenville, lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Fox was
disappointed to find that so few followed him. Distrusting Shelburne as
he did, he could not do otherwise than resign rather than serve with
him. As, however, the new ministry was a whig ministry, as Shelburne
professed many of the Rockingham principles, and as Pitt, who virtually
had the leadership of the lower house, was at that time a whig, he
should have taken up a neutral position, supporting the government when
he approved of its measures and opposing it when he disapproved of them.
He took another course; at once went into opposition, declared the new
ministers could not be bound either by promises or honour, and
prophesied--after events make his words worth remembering--that they
would soon "be joined by those men whom the house had precipitated from
their seats".[171] Parliament was prorogued on July 11.
The chief business before the new ministry was to arrange terms of
peace. England wished to free the Americans from French influence and to
establish good relations with them by a separate negotiation. Vergennes
hoped to delay the acknowledgment of independence until a general peace,
intending that France should compensate Spain for her disappointment
with respect to Gibraltar by securing for her the sole navigation of the
Mississippi and that the United States should be enclosed by the
Alleghanies. The American commissioners found that France regarded the
success of the revolution, the result of her own work, with jealousy,
and wished to shut them out from the Newfoundland fishery and from
extension on the west and north. On the other hand, England acknowledged
American independence on September 27, and showed herself inclined to
meet their demands in a friendly spirit. Accordingly, without consulting
the French ministers, they signed preliminaries of peace on November 30,
the treaty to be concluded when terms were arranged between England and
France. England acknowledged the sovereignty of the United States; the
Mississippi was recognised as their boundary on the west, and on the
north a line passing through the great lakes; and they secured a right
to fish on the banks of Newfoundland and in the gulf of St. Lawrence.
The American revolution was accomplished. Englishmen of all parties
believed that the day of England's greatness was over. Yet the
separation, bitter and humiliating as it was, taught her a lesson in
colonial government which has rendered her empire strong as well as
vast, while in place of discontented colonies with cramped energies, it
laid the foundation of a mighty power bound to her by bonds which will
grow in strength so long as the affairs of both Great Britain and the
United States are wisely directed. It was a happy beginning of the
relations between the two powers that it was through England, and not
through their foreign allies, that the Americans obtained the
gratification of their legitimate ambitions, and that from the peace
with the United States England gained some advantage in treating with
her continental foes.
The treaty did not protect the loyalists. Shelburne did his best for
them, but Franklin was bitter against them, and his feelings were those
of the victorious party generally. The American commissioners would only
agree that there should be no further confiscations and prosecutions,
and that congress should recommend the several states to revise their
laws concerning them. These articles were nugatory. Nothing short of a
renewal of the war could have induced the Americans to forego their
revenge, and if the war had gone on longer, the loyalists' fate would
have been no better. Everywhere, with the exception of South Carolina,
they were treated with barbarity. Some 60,000 persons left the country
before Carleton evacuated New York, taking refuge either in Great
Britain or her colonies. At least 25,000 of both sexes settled in the
British maritime provinces of North America, and helped to establish the
province of New Brunswick which received representative institutions in
1784; 10,000 others, United Empire Loyalists as they were afterwards
called, in the valley of the St. Lawrence. England did what she could
for her unfortunate friends; liberal grants of land were made to them,
some had half-pay as military officers, and between 1783 and 1790
L3,112,455 was distributed among them, besides L25,785 granted in
pensions.[172] Relief, however, was slow in coming, and many, reduced
from wealth to penury, died in the utmost distress.
[Sidenote: _THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES._]
Preliminaries of peace with France and Spain were signed on January 20,
1783, and were followed by the definitive treaty of Versailles concluded
on September 3. The war brought France into financial difficulties, and
for that reason England, though forced to cede some of her conquests in
the last war, obtained as good terms as she had a right to expect. In
the West Indies she restored St. Lucia to France, ceded Tobago, and
received back Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Kitts, Nevis, and
Montserrat. In Africa Senegal and Goree went to France, and Gambia and
Fort St. James were guaranteed to England. France received back her
commercial establishments in India; her right to participate in the
Newfoundland fishery was clearly defined; England ceded to her the
islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre in sovereignty, and the old
stipulation for the demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk was
given up. France and Spain pressed the government to agree to some
exchange for Gibraltar. The king, Shelburne, and the majority of the
cabinet would have let it go if a sufficient compensation had been
offered; Richmond and Keppel objected to its cession on any terms. The
signature of the American preliminaries strengthened the position of
Great Britain and the question was dropped.[173] Spain retained Minorca
and West Florida, and England ceded East Florida to her. On the other
hand, Spain restored by treaty Providence and the Bahama isles, which
were surrendered without bloodshed in 1782, and had already been
recovered not less easily by England; and she guaranteed the right of
the English to cut logwood in the bay of Honduras. A truce with Holland
led to a treaty providing for a mutual restoration of conquests, with
the exception of Negapatam which was retained by England.
When parliament met on December 5, it was evident that the terms of
peace would be sharply criticised by both the parties in opposition, the
followers of North and of Fox. Shelburne was disliked and distrusted by
his colleagues, who considered him secretive and inclined to act alone,
and the government soon showed signs of dissolution. Richmond retired
from the cabinet in January, 1783, though he kept his office; the next
day Keppel resigned the admiralty because he was dissatisfied with the
preliminaries, and Carlisle, the lord steward, also resigned for the
same reason. Shelburne was prevented by his colleagues from making
overtures to North, and Pitt, who stood by him, tried to persuade Fox to
re-enter the ministry. Fox asked if Shelburne would remain, and Pitt
having answered that he would, at once declined. On this Pitt closed the
interview with, it is said, the words: "I did not come here to betray
Lord Shelburne". From that time Pitt and Fox were political enemies. The
Duke of Rutland having succeeded Carlisle as lord steward with a seat in
the cabinet, Grafton declared that Shelburne had no right to make an
addition to the cabinet without consulting its members, and that he was
making himself a "prime minister," and he too resigned the privy seal.
According to the whigs the cabinet was to dictate to the king whom he
should direct to form a cabinet, and was then to control its own
composition. Their constitutional ideas were warped by their desire to
perpetuate their own power.
The government was not in a case to speak with its enemies in the gate.
In the commons 140 members were known to be supporters of Shelburne, 120
were followers of North, and 90 of Fox; the intentions of the rest were
unknown or uncertain. With this division of parties and with the
government in a state of dissolution, Fox, if he had exercised a little
patience, might soon have formed a strong and united whig party. He
chose another course, and, on February 14, formed an alliance with North
on the basis of "mutual good-will and confidence"; they agreed that
enough had been done to reduce the influence of the crown, that though
the king should be treated with respect, he should have only "the
appearance of power," and that on the question of parliamentary reform
each should act as he chose. This coalition decided the fate of the
government. The preliminaries of peace were discussed in parliament on
the 17th, and almost every article was adversely criticised. In the
lords the government address was carried by 13; in the commons it was
rejected by 224 to 208. Fox was reproached for his "unnatural junction"
with North, and his answer showed that he was prepared to act with him
further than in that night's debate. On the 21st a vote of censure on
the terms of the peace was carried by 207 to 190. The coalition was
avowed. Fox defended it with ability on the ground that the country
needed a broad and stable administration, and declared himself a
candidate for office in the future ministry. Pitt, in a speech of great
dignity, taunted "the self-made minister," contended that the objections
to the peace were simply an attack on Shelburne, and in a fine
peroration spoke of himself as caring more for his own honour than for
the emoluments of office. Shelburne resigned on the 24th.
[Sidenote: _THE COALITION MINISTRY._]
The coalition was triumphant. It was condemned by the public, and the
verdict has been endorsed by posterity. Though it is true that North
carried on the war with America only to please the king, that was not
then known, and his conduct in that, and almost every important matter,
was utterly opposed to the principles which Fox professed. What ground
was there for mutual confidence? For eight years Fox had reviled North
with extraordinary bitterness. If his words were just he had no business
to ally himself with him. "My friendships," he said, with a Latin
quotation, "are perpetual, my enmities are not so," a good reason for
reconciliation with a private enemy; but political quarrels should be
founded on differences of principle. Fox's words illustrate his
adherence to the whig notion that the politics of the nation might be
treated by the members of a few great families as their personal
concerns. Of the two, North was at first more blamed than Fox, for it
seemed pusillanimous in him to forgive Fox's treatment, but neither
escaped censure. The king was furious. He had no love for Shelburne, but
he hated Fox, and determined if possible to avoid falling into the hands
of the coalition. He offered the treasury to Pitt, who with admirable
discernment saw that his time was not yet come, and refused it. He tried
Gower; he tried to detach North from the coalition; he even offered
terms to the coalition; then again he pressed Pitt to take the treasury,
and failing in all these attempts, sought help from Chatham's nephew,
Thomas Pitt, and failed to obtain it. From February 24 to April 2 the
country was without an organised government. George was almost in
despair, talked of retiring to Hanover, and spoke bitterly of the
ingratitude of North, whose past subservience to him had been largely
rewarded. At last he was forced to accept the coalition ministry, to
give Portland the treasury, and to submit to the exclusion of Thurlow,
who had been chancellor since 1778 in the ministries of North,
Rockingham, and Shelburne.
The new cabinet consisted of Portland, who was little more than a
figure-head; North and Fox, secretaries of state; Stormont, president of
the council; Carlisle, privy seal; Lord John Cavendish, chancellor of
the exchequer; and Keppel, first lord of the admiralty. All except
Stormont belonged to the party of Fox, the dominant partner in the
coalition. The great seal was placed in commission. Burke again became
paymaster, and Sheridan was secretary to the treasury. George was
determined not to give his confidence to the ministers who had thus
thrust themselves upon him, and to get rid of them as soon as possible.
Fox applied himself assiduously to the duties of office, as indeed he
did during the Rockingham administration, and strove in vain to overcome
the king's dislike by deferential behaviour. George's hostility was
strengthened by the friendship between Fox and the Prince of Wales. The
prince's habits were dissolute and extravagant; he was an undutiful son,
and the king a somewhat unforgiving father. He violently espoused the
cause of the coalition, and George is said to have called the government
"my son's ministry". It was time to provide him with a separate
establishment, and Fox promised him that he would ask parliament for
L100,000 a year. The majority of the cabinet thought the sum too large.
The king was of the same opinion, and did not wish his son to be
independent of all parental control. He therefore offered him an
allowance of L50,000 from the civil list. Fox was unwilling to
disappoint the prince, and the dismissal of the ministers seemed
certain. They were saved by the prince's acceptance of the king's offer,
in addition to the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall which amounted to
L12,000 a year; and parliament had only to vote him L60,000 for his
debts and present expenses. The question of parliamentary reform was
again brought forward by Pitt. As before, he urged that reform would
prevent the crown from again exercising corrupt influence in parliament.
He proposed as resolutions that the number of county and metropolitan
members should be increased, suggesting an increase of at least a
hundred, and that for the future any borough which was found by a
committee of the house to be grossly corrupt should be disfranchised.
This, he believed, would gradually reduce the number of members to what
it then was, and would purify elections. North opposed the motion, Fox
spoke in favour of it, though he wished that it had gone further. It was
lost by 293 to 149. The public was no longer so eager for reform as in
1780.[174] Sawbridge's annual motion for shortening the duration of
parliament was lost by 121 to 56.
[Sidenote: _WARREN HASTINGS IN INDIA._]
Indian affairs demanded immediate legislation. The company's charter was
renewed in 1781; a new arrangement was made as to its dividends and its
payments to the state, and its political transactions were placed more
completely under ministerial control. Two committees were also appointed
by the house of commons to inquire into its administration. Of one of
these Burke was the most active member, and Dundas, then holding office
under North, was chairman of the other. In 1782 Dundas moved resolutions
condemning the company's administration; the Rockingham ministry took
the matter up, and the house voted that Warren Hastings, the
governor-general, should be recalled. The directors agreed, but on
Rockingham's death the proprietors refused their assent. North's
regulating act of 1773 worked badly. From 1774 to 1780 Hastings was
thwarted in council by three of the four councillors sent out by the
ministers, and specially by Francis, the reputed author of the Junius
letters, who opposed him with extreme rancour. Hastings fought a duel
with him in 1779 and wounded him; he returned to England, and Hastings
gained a majority in the council. The Madras council also quarrelled
with their governor, Lord Pigot; he was arrested by their order and died
in confinement. Other difficulties arose from the independent action of
the minor governments of Bombay and Madras, and from the indefinite
character of the powers of the supreme court of judicature.
Administrative abuses existed, and the extreme financial difficulties
caused by the wars with the Marathas, Haidar Ali, and the French, drove
Hastings to adopt some high-handed measures. The Rockingham whigs were
adverse to him, and Burke, whose generous emotions were roused by any
tale of oppression, applied himself to collecting evidence against him,
which his fervid imagination magnified and distorted.
Hastings guided the affairs of India through a period of extreme danger;
preserved the empire, brought order out of anarchy in every branch of
the administration, and won the esteem and confidence of the subject
people, the army, and the civil service. His task was not merely to
govern well, but to provide dividends out of revenue, and his work was
criticised by the company with reference to its pecuniary results as
well as its political wisdom. In Bengal he abolished Clive's mischievous
dual system, and administered the province through English officials; he
reformed the collection of the revenue, and he effected large economies
by reducing the enormous pension of the nawab, who under his new system
was spared the expenses of government, and by withholding the tribute to
the emperor, who was a mere puppet in the hands of the Marathas. While
governor of Bengal he allied himself with the Muhammadan states on the
frontier, and specially with Oudh, which he wished to make a barrier
against Maratha invasion. He took Allahabad and Kora from the emperor,
or rather from the Marathas, and made them over to Shuja-ud-Daula, the
wazir of Oudh, and partly to raise money for the company, and partly as
a matter of policy he accepted the wazir's offer of forty lakhs of
rupees for the loan of British troops to help him conquer the Rohillas,
an Afghan tribe which had lately settled in those districts and was
intriguing with the Marathas. The conquest was carried out in Eastern
fashion in 1774, and the wazir's cruelties, which were grossly
exaggerated, were laid to Hastings's charge. The overthrow of the
Rohillas was advantageous to the British rule; but though the council at
Calcutta thought the bargain highly profitable to the company, the
hiring out of British troops to serve as subsidiaries to an Asiatic
potentate was a deplorable mistake. Another charge brought against
Hastings concerned the execution of Nanda-Kumar (Nuncomar), a rascally
Brahman, who, after Hastings was appointed governor-general, helped his
opponents in the council by bringing charges against him. Nanda-Kumar
was hanged for a private forgery, after a patient trial in the supreme
court. His death was highly convenient to Hastings, but there is no
evidence that he had anything to do with the prosecution or
sentence.[175]
[Sidenote: _FOX'S INDIA BILLS._]
During the Maratha war, a tributary chief, Chait Singh, raja of Benares,
neglected to perform the demands made upon him, and showed a dangerously
independent spirit. In 1781 Hastings imposed an enormous fine upon him;
he revolted and was defeated, and his estates were confiscated and given
to a kinsman. Though the raja's conduct was contumacious, Hastings seems
to have acted with undue severity. He was pressed for money, and left
the raja no choice between paying a very large sum and losing his
estates. Difficulties increased, and he called on Asaf-ud-Daula, then
nawab wazir of Oudh, to pay his heavy arrears of debt to the company.
The begams, the mother and widow of the late nawab, had a vast treasure
which should have belonged to the state. Hastings was informed that
these powerful ladies were helping Chait Singh; it was necessary to get
money from the wazir, and he bade him force the ladies to give up their
treasure. The resident at Lucknow brought up some troops; the begams'
palace at Faizabad was blockaded, and their eunuch-ministers imprisoned
and maltreated until the resident obtained enough to liquidate the
wazir's debt. The wazir threw the odium of this transaction on the
English. Hastings defended his conduct as just and politic. He was not
directly responsible for the severe measures adopted by the wazir, but
it was certainly not a matter in which the British governor-general and
his officers should have taken any part. His conduct in this matter as
well as towards the Benares raja was misrepresented and used against him
in England.
The refusal of the proprietors to recall Hastings was highly displeasing
to the commons, and a petition from the company for relief from some
obligations imposed in 1781 gave occasion to parliament again to
interfere in its affairs. In April, 1783, Dundas, who was then in
opposition to the coalition ministry, proposed a bill for the government
of India. His plan was to render the governor-general more independent
of his council, to subordinate more completely the inferior governments
to the government of Bengal, to change the uncertain tenure of the
zamindars into hereditary possession, to recall Hastings, and to appoint
some noble, like Cornwallis, as his successor. As the government
promised to bring in an India bill the next session, he allowed his bill
to drop. When parliament reassembled in November, Fox brought in two
bills, which were largely prepared by Burke, one affecting the
constitution of the company, the other its administration in India. The
first vested the management of the territories, revenue, and commerce
of the company in seven commissioners, named in the bill, for four
years, with power to appoint and remove all officers of the company.
After that term Fox suggested that the crown should nominate the
commissioners, and meanwhile was to appoint to vacancies. Commercial
transactions were to be managed by a subordinate board chosen by
parliament from among the larger proprietors. The second bill abolished
all monopolies in India, prohibited the acceptance of presents, and gave
native landlords an hereditary estate. The objections urged against the
first bill by the opposition, and chiefly by Pitt, Grenville, and
Dundas, were grounded on its violation of the company's charter, and its
tendency to vest the patronage of India in the existing ministry. Fox
ably defended the bill, and Burke, in an eloquent speech, depicted, with
much exaggeration, the injustice which, he maintained, the millions of
India had suffered during Hastings's administration, and argued that the
delinquencies of the company justified the violation of its charter.
It was, however, the political side of the bill which chiefly roused
opposition. All seven commissioners belonged to Fox's party. For four
years it vested in his nominees "all the patronage of the East". Pitt
declared that it created "a new and enormous influence"; Grenville that
"the treasures of India like a flood would sweep away our liberties".
Fox was accused of making himself "King of Bengal," and a caricature
represents him as Carlo Khan entering Leadenhall street on an elephant
which has the face of North and is led by Burke. All this was party
exaggeration; the bill was a genuine attempt to benefit the natives of
India, and would not probably have had any really serious consequences
in England, though the control of the Indian patronage for four years
would have strengthened Fox's party, and, if it had afterwards been
vested in the crown, would have given some opportunity for the exercise
of corrupt influence by ministers. The king was waiting for an
opportunity to get rid of the coalition ministry, and Thurlow and Temple
easily excited his jealousy for the prerogative by telling him that the
bill would deprive him of half his power and disable him for the rest of
his life. His influence in the commons was diminished by recent
legislation, and there the bill was carried by two to one. Before the
second reading in the lords he gave Temple a card authorising him to
say that, whoever voted for the bill "would be considered by him as an
enemy". This soon became known, and, on December 17, the commons voted
by 153 to 80 that it was now necessary to declare that to report the
king's opinion on any question pending in parliament with a view to
influence votes is a high crime and misdemeanour. Nevertheless the
king's unconstitutional move was successful; the lords rejected the
bill. The next night George ordered the secretaries of state to send
back their seals, for he would not receive them personally, and the
coalition ministry was dismissed. Pitt at once accepted the offices of
first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer.
[Sidenote: _PITT FORMS A MINISTRY._]
He was then in his twenty-fifth year. Extraordinary difficulties faced
him: the opposition of a large majority of the commons, led by Fox, a
master of debate, and strong in men of ability and experience, and the
discredit attaching to the king's unconstitutional action to which he
owed his position. He found it difficult to form a ministry, for few
were willing to join him in a struggle in which victory seemed hopeless.
Shelburne, his former leader, he would not invite, for he could not
endure his habitually enigmatic conduct. Temple, an instigator and the
agent of the king's action, became secretary of state, but immediately
resigned owing apparently to a personal offence. The new cabinet
consisted only of Lords Sydney (Thomas Townshend) and Carmarthen,
secretaries for the home and foreign departments; Gower, president of
the council; Rutland, privy seal; Thurlow, chancellor; and Howe, first
lord of the admiralty; besides Pitt who alone among them sat in the
commons. Richmond again became master of the ordnance and a little later
re-entered the cabinet. Dundas was treasurer of the navy. Pitt's
acceptance of office was regarded by the opposition as a "boyish freak";
his ministry was "a mince-pie administration which would end with the
Christmas holidays".[176]
Pitt had a majority of the commons against him; but in those days the
cabinet was not so wholly dependent on the commons as it became after
1832.[177] Supported by the king and the lords, Pitt determined to do
battle with the majority in the hope that he would overcome their
opposition, discredit his enemies, and win the confidence of the country
before he appealed to it. Fox should have urged an immediate
dissolution. If Pitt had tried to avoid it, he would have incurred the
odium of hesitating to accept the will of the nation. Fox, however, used
every effort to prevent a dissolution. The will of the commons had been
thwarted by the king's unconstitutional interference, and he was
determined to vindicate the authority of the house. Besides, he had a
substantial majority, and though it might have been maintained by a
general election, he knew that his coalition with North was unpopular,
and that his India bill had aroused the hostility of some powerful
corporations which felt that their privileges were endangered by his
attack upon the company's charter. The affairs of India were at once
made a pretext for an address to the crown deprecating a dissolution;
the house was engaged upon them, and a dissolution would frustrate its
endeavours. The king replied that he would not interfere with its work
either by dissolution or prorogation.
[Sidenote: _PITT'S VICTORIOUS CONTEST._]
The house reassembled after the Christmas recess on January 12. Fox
relying on the authority of Lord Somers, one of the leading statesmen of
the revolution, questioned the right of the crown to dissolve parliament
during the business of a session; James II., he said, had done so and
put an end to his reign. His contention was unsound; the will of a house
of commons is not conclusive: the crown has a right to dissolve in order
to ascertain the will of the nation. Pitt replied that he "would not
compromise the royal prerogative or bargain it away in the house of
commons". He was in a minority of 193 to 232. On the 14th, he brought in
his India bill, which proposed to place the political concerns of the
company under a board of control in England to be appointed by the
crown, and to leave to the company its commerce and patronage. Fox
attacked it as incomplete, and it was negatived though only by eight
votes. A fierce struggle followed, a struggle, Dr. Johnson called it,
"between George the Third's sceptre and Mr. Fox's tongue". Fox tried
every means to force the ministers to resign; he put forth all his
wonderful powers of debate and attacked Pitt with great bitterness;
addresses to the crown and resolutions hostile to the ministers were
adopted, and the supplies and the mutiny act were postponed. Through it
all Pitt exhibited wonderful courage, sagacity, and self-control. A body
of independent members proposed a compromise, and the king reluctantly
assented. Fox declared himself willing to work with Pitt, but,
determined to assert the authority of the house, insisted that the
ministers should resign before arrangements were discussed. To this Pitt
haughtily refused to assent. George upheld him: during the late
administration he would not create any peers; on Pitt's recommendation
he created four, and almost daily sent his young minister encouraging
little notes. The lords too were on his side; they condemned as
unconstitutional a resolution of the commons suspending certain
statutory powers of the treasury, which was adopted in order to
embarrass the ministry, and sent an address to the king assuring him of
their support in the just exercise of the prerogative.
Pitt won general admiration by granting the valuable sinecure office of
clerk of the pells to Barre in exchange for the pension secured to him
by the whigs. His private means were only L300 a year, and, as such
matters were then regarded, he might have taken the office himself
without scandal; but uncertain as his position seemed to be, he
preferred saving the country L3,200 a year to putting it into his own
pocket. Feeling outside the house ran strongly in his favour; addresses
were sent up thanking the king for dismissing the late ministry, and
Pitt was presented with the freedom of the city of London. As on his
return from the city on February 27 his carriage was being drawn by
workmen in triumph up St. James's street, it was attacked opposite
Brooks's, the meeting-place of Fox's party; he was assaulted and escaped
with difficulty into White's club. Members of Brooks's were believed to
be concerned in the outrage, which increased Pitt's growing popularity.
The opposition began to waver. On March 1 a fresh address to the king
for the removal of the ministers was carried by only twelve votes.
George again refused his assent. Fox shrank from attempting the extreme
measure of refusing supplies; it would, indeed, have been useless, for
his suggestion that the house should pass a mutiny bill for a brief
period met with no encouragement. He made one more effort; on the 8th he
moved a representation to the king, drawn up by Burke, which was carried
only by one vote. The struggle was over; the next day the usual mutiny
bill passed without a division; the supplies were voted, and on the 23rd
Pitt saw that the time had come for a dissolution. A difficulty suddenly
arose, for the great seal was stolen from Thurlow's house. A new one was
promptly made, and on the 25th parliament was dissolved.
Of his coalition with North, Fox said that it could be justified only by
success. For a second time he put his political fate to the touch. He
attempted to give absolute authority to one branch of the legislature,
to enable an existing house of commons to restrain the constitutional
exercise of the prerogative, to prolong its own existence, and to hinder
an appeal to the will of the nation. Both moves were disastrous to him.
The coalition was condemned as unprincipled; whigs were offended at his
alliance with North, whom they held responsible for the American war,
tories by the alliance of North with the opponent of prerogative. His
attempt to hinder the expression of the national will by a general
election perplexed the whigs, his attack on the prerogative disgusted
the tories. His India bill alarmed chartered bodies, and was held,
unjustly it is true, but with some show of reason, to be inspired by the
wish to perpetuate the power of the whig oligarchy through corrupt
influence. Feelings of personal loyalty and of admiration for the
youthful minister who dared to fight, and was able to win, the king's
battle against such tremendous odds, combined to destroy the effect of
George's unconstitutional proceeding and to rouse enthusiasm for Pitt.
The opposition candidates were defeated in almost all the larger
constituencies; 160 of them--"Fox's martyrs" they were called--lost
their seats. The rout was complete; even Yorkshire, so long faithful to
the great houses, returned Pitt's friend, Wilberforce, the son of a
banker. One consolation they had. After an exciting struggle Fox was
re-elected for Westminster, though only as second member, and, as we
shall see, even this triumph was disputed. Fox's conduct caused the
overthrow of the whig party, and gave the government into the hands of a
minister whose high principles, not less than his supreme ability,
commanded and preserved the confidence of the nation.
FOOTNOTES:
[165] H. Grattan, _Life of Grattan_, ii., 216-20.
[166] Hoste, _Naval Tactics_, i., 153-55, ed. Boswall.
[167] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp. 480-500; Hannay, _Rodney_,
pp. 179-213, and _Hood's Letters_, pp. 101-21, 123-30; Mundy, _Life of
Rodney_, ii., 222-50; _Ann. Reg._, xxv. (1782), 252-57.
[168] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp. 420-56.
[169] _Life of Shelburne_, iii., 175.
[170] _Life of Shelburne_, iii., 174-221; _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, i.,
330-87, 468-80; Lewis, _Administrations of Great Britain_, pp. 31-49;
Lecky, _History_, iv., 226-35.
[171] _Parl. Hist._, xxiii., 163, 177.
[172] Jones, _Hist. of New York_, ii., 241-55, 497-509, 645-63; Sabine,
_American Loyalists_, pp. 70, 86, 107-12.
[173] _Life of Shelburne_, iii., 305, 312-14; Anson, _Grafton_, pp.
346-50.
[174] _Ann. Reg._, xxvi. (1783), 176.
[175] Forrest, _State Papers, India_, i., Introd., xxxiii-xlviii; ii.,
298-414; Sir A. Lyell, _Warren Hastings_, pp. 60-74; Sir J. F. Stephen,
_Story of Nuncomar_.
[176] Lady Minto, _Life of Lord Minto_, i., 90; Wilberforce, _Life of
Wilberforce_, i., 48.
[177] Anson, _Law of the Constitution_, ii., 129.