Chapter IV: , VII (16)

James Adair, M. P.;
Captain Allen;
Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
Mr. Bickerton;
Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
Edmund Burke;
William Burke;
John Butler, Bishop of Hereford;
Lord Camden;
John Lewis De Lolme;
John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton;
Samuel Dyer;
Henry Flood;
Sir Philip Francis;
George III.;
Edward Gibbon;
Richard Glover;
Henry Grattan;
William Greatrakes;
George Grenville;
James Grenville;
William Gerard Hamilton;
James Hollis;
Thomas Hollis;
Sir George Jackson;
Sir William Jones;
John Kent;
Major-General Charles Lee;
Charles Lloyd;
Thomas Lyttleton;
Laughlin Maclean;
Rev. Edmund Marshall;
Thomas Paine;
William Pitt, Earl of Chatham;
the Duke of Portland;
Thomas Pownall;
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich;
John Roberts;
Rev. Philip Rosenhagen;
George, Viscount Sackville;
the Earl of Shelburne;
Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield;
Richard Suett;
Earl Temple;
John Horne Tooke;
Horace Walpole;
Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
John Wilkes;
James Wilmot, D. D.;
Daniel Wray.

ALSO IN:
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 6._

_C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2._

_Lord Macaulay,
Warren Hastings
(Essays, volume 5)._

_A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770.
Fall of the Grafton Ministry.
Beginning of the administration of Lord North.

"The incompetency of the ministry was ... becoming obvious. In
the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime
Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants
of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The
rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's
party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently
explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder
of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence
suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named
party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which
had brought discontent in England to the verge of open
outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying
along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point
the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own
Cabinet.
{934}
France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was
beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven
Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the
Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again
to the necessities of party, made a public profession of
friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there
was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between
the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first
session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of
public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the
murrain among 'horned beasts,'--a speech not of a king, but,
said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an
amendment when the address in answer to this speech was
proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the
fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he
blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America,
which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed
strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of
Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be
taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's
voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent.
Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the
persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked
and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby,
one of the most popular men in England, followed the same
course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General,
also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up
by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of
the nation. ... Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet
the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and
much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in
his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion.
The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands,
but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. ...
The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain
his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected
in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one
of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime
Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so
that while the different sections of the Opposition were still
unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to
find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity
gone. The new Prime Minister ... had great capacity for
business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a
first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of
temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep,
during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn
aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his
accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the
Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more
than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the
support of all royal influence from whatever source derived,
North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill
effects of such a system of government, and of the King's
policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really
responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is
closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
the reign--the struggle of the King, supported by the
unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of
those who were represented, against the domination of the
House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels
which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the
great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the
Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that
struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not
recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He
did not understand that the people had other objects much
beyond his own."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages 1057-1060._

ALSO IN:
_Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
volume 1._

_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 10-13 (volume 1)._

_J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 17 (volume 1)._

_E. Burke,
Thoughts on the Present Discontents
(Works, volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.

"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which
still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought
desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors.
It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the
publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It
had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other
periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament,
under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the
'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of
respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an
article which purported to be a report of the debates in
Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared
by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and
derived his information from persons who could seldom give him
more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each
of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the
composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired
oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius.
Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without
the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify,
the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of
which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was
no order of either House specifically prohibiting the
publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been
resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the
privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely
be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting,
therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent
disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the
proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
session.
{935}
There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a
right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses,
had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a
conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in
the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they
would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow,
member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which
wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash
meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he
could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House
had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had
even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable
members."

_William Massey,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 15._

"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the
bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after
receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker.
Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who
failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead
of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger
into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were
both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr.
Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had
recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic
magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a
peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not
backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from
custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful
arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had
been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively
apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and
Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of
having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought
the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of
London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both
members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in
their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower.
Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one
long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their
release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards,
the publication of debates has been pursued without any
interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of
privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of
the main sources of its influence--its censure being reserved for
wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued
beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was
prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the
power of a single member of either House to require the
exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously
employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until
1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present
could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."

_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 17._

ALSO IN:

_R. F. D. Palgrave,
The House of Commons,
lecture 2._

_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1772.
The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1773.
Reconstitution of the Government of British India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress in America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made
efficient by James Watt.

See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
War measures against the colonies.
The drift toward American independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
relations to the American War.

"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first
stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the
latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its
maximum. ... The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that
the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and
with the King. ... The Declaration of Independence, and the
known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to
English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around
the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness.
... In every stage of the contest the influence of the
Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. ... The
statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue
were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of
Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other
writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that
the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of
Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success
to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs.
... While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified
the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did
the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by
examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully
realise how completely at this time he assumed the position
not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending,
directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of
the Government. ... 'Every means of distressing America,'
wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly
supported the employment of Indians. ... It was the King's
friends who were most active in promoting all measures of
violence. ... The war was commonly called the 'King's war,'
and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King.
The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most
culpable in this matter, was Lord North. ...
{936}
The publication of the correspondence of George III. ...
supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of
the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears
from this correspondence that for the space of about five
years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
judgment and to his own wishes. ... Again and again he
entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again
and again he yielded to the request of the King, who
threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne.
... The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat
with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of
Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable,
that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for.
... He consented, too, though apparently with extreme
reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the
Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three
Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in
the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment
was one of the most terrible in English history. England had
not an ally in the world. ... England, already exhausted by a
war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to
confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few
months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. ...
There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and
consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were
turned. . . . If any statesman could, at the last moment,
conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and
kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly
existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other
hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a
moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord
North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send
for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
the ship would assuredly go down. ... The King was unmoved. He
consented indeed--and he actually authorised Lord North to make
the astounding proposition--to receive Chatham as a
subordinate minister to North. ... This episode appears to me
the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my
own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led
Charles I. to the scaffold."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 14 (volume 4)._

"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins
which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed,
was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not
shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired
under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is
difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable
mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the
natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance
and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally
unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."

_J. Morley,
Edmund Burke: a Historical Study,
page 135_.

"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt
to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than
rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let
us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that
he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation.
And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had
the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let
the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and
no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George
and the British nation were simply not wiser than other
people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from
the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when
any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without
compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even
mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real
power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the
acknowledgment of American independence, King George still
called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title
was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up.
Remember that some people in our own day regretted the
separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If
they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."

_E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 183-184._

ALSO IN:
_Correspondence of George III. with Lord North._

_Lord Brougham,
Historical Sketches of Statesmen
in the Reign of George III._

_T. Macknight,
History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
chapters 22-26 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1778.
War with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Catholic penal laws.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774],
establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier
have been impossible, and it was justly considered a
remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such
a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should
have created no serious disturbances in the country. ... The
success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later,
to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some
part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still
subject. ... The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of
£100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic
priest performing his functions in England, and there were
occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to
the utmost in order to defeat them. ... The worst part of the
persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III.,
and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal
those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending
of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these
and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment,
and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing
land. ... It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was
carried without a division in either House, without any
serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the
concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to
England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing
session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
{937}
It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate
and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity
through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the
country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians
perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first
signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of
Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established
Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending,
and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a
remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an
agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly
through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary
resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills,
newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant
Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. ... Furious
riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and
Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the
Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The
shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods
scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were
compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of
many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the
Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of
Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to
suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not
suffered to fire in their defence. ... The flame soon spread
southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery
had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many
murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and
many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how
easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent
the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. ... The fanatical
party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the
person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a
melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very
ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his
connection with the ducal house of Gordon. ... A 'Protestant
Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics,
was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and
presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that
20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a
petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about
half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three
great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing
blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have
been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different
roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to
have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to
actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the
scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an
aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around
the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of
the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted,
compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No
Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and
many of them, but especially the members of the House of
Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. ... In the
Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and
demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with
much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192
to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George
Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery,
and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed
him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in
the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of
his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of
the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the
body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers'
gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other
ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said
at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North
succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many
anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were
made to force the doors. ... At last about nine o'clock the
troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to
disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further
outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in
Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried
away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in
the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The
Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was
next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could
intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some
slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were
captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force,
for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little
disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in
Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided.
Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels
utterly ruined."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 13 (volume 3)._

"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. ...
Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were
adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as
might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On
Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were
perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military
force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of
Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and
maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this
time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the
interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day
was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the
prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also
broken open ... and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks
were likewise made upon several ... private houses. ... But
the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which
they closed the day of madness and crime--the entire
demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable
Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. ...
{938}
The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more
dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town
indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was
felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it
was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter
destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in
all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the
infuriated multitudes who braved their power. ... The King's
Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey
Bridewell, were all burned today. ... The Mansion House, the
Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the
other buildings which it was intended to attack were
circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice
assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was
guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not
without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned
the fire of the military. ... Among other houses which were
set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr.
Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. ... The worst
consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional
excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the
quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many
indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had
rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of
the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this
night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in
different quarters of the town. ... By Thursday morning ...
the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had
succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force
of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that
the rioters would be speedily overpowered. ... The soldiers
attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with
complete success. ... On Friday the courts of justice were
again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the
evening. ... On this first day after the close of the riots,
'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many
places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' ...
Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the
remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a
distant land. ... Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the
part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots,
was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to
trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.

_Sketches of Popular Tumults,
section 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 34 (volume 2)._

_H. Walpole,
Journal of the Reign of George III.,
volume 2, pages 403-424._

_Annual Register, 1780,
pages 254-287._

_C. Dickens,
Barnaby Rudge._

_W. J. Amherst,
History of Catholic Emancipation,
volume 1, chapters 1-5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
Declining strength of the government.
Rodney's great naval victory.
The siege of Gibraltar.

"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow
of the personal government of George III., was now close at
hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour.
In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina
had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of
that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king
complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had
been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was
scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one.
Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North
and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had
told upon Ireland. ... For more than a year there had been war
in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying
everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost
foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and
insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests
except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire
tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of
Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir
Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola,
thus driving the British from their last position in Florida.
In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the
siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three
years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter
the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to
Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British
possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and
Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous
watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all
the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a
single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however,
impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West
Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships
encountered the French near the island of
Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued,
and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the
most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before
the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and
Grasse was taken prisoner,--the first French
commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an
enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to
Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do
nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was
eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the
course of the summer the English achieved another great
success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a
struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in
modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in
the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded
the other parties to the war."

_J. Fiske,
American Revolution,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._

"Gibraltar ... had been closely invested for nearly three
years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the
place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced
by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and
commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of
1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in
the month of November, the enemy were driven from their
approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by
a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the
fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of
Gibraltar.
{939}
De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez,
assumed the chief command. ... The garrison of Gibraltar
comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the
allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense
train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well
acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it
from the land side, but relied with confidence on the
formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it
from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and
shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the
action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient
to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which
ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates
was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from
sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were
consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not
until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade
took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great
attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered
fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day,
the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail
of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were
drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb
ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within
close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with
strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the
land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with
the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in
at the first practicable breach. ... The grand attack was
commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400
pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely
anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant
storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to
the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the
most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other
quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the
floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were
silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long
time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous
masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless
from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not
penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless,
the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed
against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of
red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it
was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles,
which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning
to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns
from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which
issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire,
and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue
the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent;
and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal
floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. ... Eight
of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night;
and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames
and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible
flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with
annihilation. . . . The loss of the enemy was computed at
2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted
to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to
repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and
Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the
appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and
relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal,
they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might
enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having
been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits
until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior
array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an
engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the
combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his
stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed
this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish
Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line,
venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the
great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been
regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she
had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had
been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies.
After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."

_W. Massey,
History of England, Reign of George III.,
chapter 27 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 62-66 (volume 7)._

_J. Drinkwater,
History of the Siege of Gibraltar._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783.
Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.

See INDIA: A. D. 1780--1783.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783.
War with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782.
Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.
Fall of Lord North.
The second Rockingham Ministry.
Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations.
The Shelburne Ministry.
Coalition of Fox and North.

"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an
unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party
allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the
surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November,
1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his
hands, when he heard of it. ... On February 7, a vote of
censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a
majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost
a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one
vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a
resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).

Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's
resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he
seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to
Hanover. ... Indeed, if it had not been for his large family,
and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well
known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried
this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of
which he was no longer master.
{940}
By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the
game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to
Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him
with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you
who desert me, not I who desert you.' ... Even when the
long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no
more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still
flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from
among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would
be able to restore peace without granting independence, and
Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in
this scheme. ... Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall
into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence
of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox,
and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's
phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was
not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of
permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the
supplanter, of Rockingham. ... His game was to wait. He
respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. ... Before
Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct
pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon
American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on
the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed
by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the
old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform,
and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment
of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by
being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took
charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself
went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord
Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of
the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At
the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as
Chancellor. ... The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into
the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway,
and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and
Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. ... Few
Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the
Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence,
and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to
Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a
change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that
ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is
said never to have touched a card during either of his three
short terms of office. ... By the division of work among the
two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the
colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those
relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of
Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two
Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American
colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved
in order to form part of the general treaty of peace.
According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at
once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain
at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and
Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and
England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her
side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme,
but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she
ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and
the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his
control into the hands of Fox. ... Shelburne at once threw his
whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great
effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the
trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be
required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to
make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was
wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and
the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the
isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace
was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the
treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782
(SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and
Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly
have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of
friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed
to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that
important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin
were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the
Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the
Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and
despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then
because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon
earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July
Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the
King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined
to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not
make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord
Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the
Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and
the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt
[Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into
the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to
smile on Shelburne. He ... might well look forward to a long
and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration
lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust
and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in
February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had
concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was
succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry
formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland
succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became
the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the
Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the
Paymastership, the followers of Lord North ... were rewarded
with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of
political parties have been received by historians and
posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the
coalition of 1783. ... There is no evidence to show that at
the time it struck politicians in general as being specially
heinous."

_H. O. Wakeman,
Life of Charles James Fox,
chapters 3-5._

ALSO IN:
_Lord J. Russell,
Life of Fox,
chapters 16-17 (volume l)._

_W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
pages 307-317._

_Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
volume 3, chapters 3-6._

{941}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783.
The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of
America signed at Paris.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787.
Fall of the Coalition.
Ascendancy of the younger Pitt.
His extraordinary grasp of power.
His attempted measures of reform.