Chapter IV: , VII (15)

"Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State,
with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme
direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man
who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was
silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the
continuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place
in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was
tempting. … The first acts of the new administration were
characterized rather by vigour than by judgment. Expeditions
were sent against different parts of the French coast with
little success. … But soon conquests of a very different
kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succession
of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought,
not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the
minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted.
{926}
In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton
was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had
confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The
captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensington
Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church,
amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an
immense multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all
the great towns of England. Parliament met only to decree
thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur,
supplies more than double of those which had been given during
the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the
conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe; then Ticonderoga;
then Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated by
Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year
was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The
news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached
London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy
and triumph. Envy and faction were forced to join in the
general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in
extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were
never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the
nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes
fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument
to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings.
The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to
sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke.
Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French
coast. The shore was rocky: the night was black: the wind was
furious: the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had
infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had
long been unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on
the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack
could not be made without the greatest danger. 'You have done
your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer
for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French
admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were
destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany.
The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph.
Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was
subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of
disasters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime
conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in
magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in
the East. In the space of three years the English had founded
a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of
India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to
Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the
authority of the East India Company was more absolute than
that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of
Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important
ally, the King of Prussia; and he was attacked, not only by
France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the
Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all difficulties.
Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising
foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than
Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and
able Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance
as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against
his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with
so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the
Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show
of reason, that it would be unworthy of the English people to
suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in
an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen that they should
be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in
Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost
no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such
was the ascendeney which his eloquence, his success, his high
situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for
him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had
been no example, and which have never since been imitated. …
The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of
Hanover] were driven out. … In the meantime, the nation
exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. … The
success of our arms was perhaps owing less to the skill of his
[Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the
national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the
emergency, that the national resources were contributed with
unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The
ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. … The
situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of
George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any
public man in English history. He had conciliated the King; he
domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the
people; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first
Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first
country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he
was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets
and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride."

_Lord Macaulay,
First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
(Essays, volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 33-36 (volume 4)._

_Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4._

England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Seven Years War.
Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.

Early in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military
and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have
thought the proper means by which England should assist in a
continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of
little value. St. Malo, against which it was directed, was
found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping
and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached
Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their
boats ready to land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the
fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent
out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore
Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar
assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The
army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while
engaged in re-embarkation, it was attacked by some French
troops which had been hastily collected, and severely
handled."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, page 1027._

{927}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg
and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758-1761.
Breaking of French power in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759.
Great victories in America.
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
British naval supremacy established.
Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.

"Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make
preparations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large
scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other
places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large
fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small
squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at
Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc
d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by
the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the
flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the
channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron,
under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a
diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The
design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably
have succeeded three or even two years before, but the
opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate
state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a
landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with
the support of the newly created militia, would probably have
been equal to the emergency; but a more effectual bulwark was
found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast,
ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his
ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made
by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet,
under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was
compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in
water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon
M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast,
passed the straits without molestation. Boscawen, however,
though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase,
and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of
Portugal, where an engagement took place [August 18], in which
three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt.
The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded
till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the
coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The
discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was
even more complete. On November 9 Admiral Sir Edward Hawke,
who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven
from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put
to sea with 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same
day, Hawke, with 22 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay,
where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay,
judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet
of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by
a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the
morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff
in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English,
recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action; but on
their nearer approach changed his mind, and ran for shelter
among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running
mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little
known to the English, who had no pilots; but Hawke, whom no
peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all
sail after them. Without regard to lines of battle, every ship
was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy,
the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of
fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence
many of the English ships never got into action at all; but
the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was
needed if the enemy were not to escape. … As long as
daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the
coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad
spectators of the white flag's disgrace.' … By nightfall two
French ships, the Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two,
the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil
Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did
that of the Héros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore
in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and
four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the
river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in
the shallow water; the rest got away and took shelter in the
Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever
got out again. With two hours more of daylight Hawke thought
he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with
the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the
Essex 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and
could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the
victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded.
The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had
succeeded in getting out from Dunkirk, and for some months was
a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the
following year an end was put to his career. For the rest of
the war the French never ventured to meet the English in
battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly
while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their
rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval
and commercial supremacy of England was assured."

_F. W. Longman,
Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
chapter 12, section 3._

ALSO IN:
_C. D. Yonge,
History of the British Navy,
volume 1, chapter 12._

_J. Entick,
History of the late War,
volume 4, pages 241-290._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760.
Completed conquest of Canada.
Successes of the Prussians and their allies.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

{928}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
Accession of George III.
His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship.
Retirement of the elder Pitt.
Rise and fall of Bute.
The Grenville Ministry.

"When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had
been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig
families which had been brought into the foreground by the
revolution of 1688. … Under Walpole's wise and powerful
sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than
the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition
to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of
Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been
impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this
simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his
education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant
king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as
general culture is concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly
correct. … Nevertheless … George III. was not destitute of
a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in
this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate
end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the
dogged industry with which he pursued it. In an age where some
of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong
wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in
scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in
personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no
banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of
business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent
for administration, and he devoted this talent most
assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human
sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied
manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an
adept in gaining men's confidence by a show of interest, and
securing their aid by dint of fair promises; and when he found
them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton
insult. Anyone who dared to disagree with him upon even the
slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural
enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred.
As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and
short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad
views and independent character he nursed the bitterest
rancour. … Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in
1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down
the growing system of cabinet government in England."

_J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
chapter 1 (volume 1)._

"The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession,
afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary
connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting
while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the
court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their
return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the
ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even
encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to
be in his interest. … Lord Bute, the originator of the new
policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful
promotion. He was not connected with the great families who
had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no
parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a
courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with
the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above
all, he was a Scotchman. … Immediately after the king's
accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted
into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards
concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with
a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State.
It was now the object of the court to break up the existing
ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among
the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the
chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been
difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies
amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of
fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most
powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He
desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had
concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war
with this country.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues
except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council,
—declared that he had been called to the ministry by the
voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for
measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met
with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender
his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister
with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of
Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a
year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal
favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his
popularity. … The same Gazette which announced his
resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension,
and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite.
On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most
influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief
management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole
direction of the House of Lords. … His ascendency provoked
the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister,
the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the
patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. … At
length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements
in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign.
And now, the object of the court being at length attained,
Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as
First Lord of the Treasury. … The king and his minister were
resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their
arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents
disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative.
Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been
agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was
aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who
ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having
declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the
peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his
office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king,
with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of
privy councillors. … No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of
the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he … resigned
his place in the household. A more general proscription of the
Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton,
and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of
Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were
dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. …
Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of
the Whig party.
{929}
All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of
peace, were dismissed. … The preliminaries of peace were
approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in
the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of
England.' But her exultation was premature. … These
stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an
organised opposition. … The fall of the king's favoured
minister was even more sudden than his rise. … Afraid, as he
confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his
royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7,
1763],—to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king
himself,—before he had held office for eleven months. … He
retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more
securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated
the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and
arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry
of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the
king's personal views, and was expected to be under the
control of himself and his favorite."

_T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 1-10 (volume 1)._

_The Grenville Papers,
volumes 1-2._

_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._

_G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The conflicting theories of their relations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
War with Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762.
Capture of Havana.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
"The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.

"The popular dislike to the new system of Government by
courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance
of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the
minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of
opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John
Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are
indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of
political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him
far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and
shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world,
with the manners of a gentleman, were among the
accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely
illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he
engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his
debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested
the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon
religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not
in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a
patriot. … Wilkes' journal, which originated with the
administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was
happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and
personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed
in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the
political press of the present day; but at a time when the
characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public
estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from
the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. … It
had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now
acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat
the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as
the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it
had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders
of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes
presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree
which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken
to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought
necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of
the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary
of State to seize—not any person named—but 'the authors,
printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the
North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons
were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as
it was found that none of them could be brought within the
description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of
the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for
false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these
actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff
under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a
Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to
justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the
legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by
name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the
presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of
King's Bench. … The Court of King's Bench … intimated a
strong opinion against the Crown upon the important
constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed
the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case
came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined
any further agitation of the questions. … These proceedings
were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765,
long after the administration under which they were instituted
had ceased to exist. … The prosecution of Wilkes himself was
pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of
Parliament, which extends to every case except treason,
felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the
vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a
servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative,
advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception,
as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this
perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought
before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary
demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of
State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been
proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the
Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was
brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. … The argument
which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct
which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once
rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result
was the liberation of Wilkes from custody.
{930}
But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this
disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was
immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he
was deprived of his commission as colonel of the
Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided
the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from
the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy
Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first
business brought forward by the Government was this
contemptible affair—a proceeding not merely foolish and
undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and
decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged
libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is
manifest that the Government should have left the law to take
its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now
required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry
which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and
this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister,
readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant
and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by
the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of
the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the
question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner,
insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On
the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel
with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who
had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of
provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place;
but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question
of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they
resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to
the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought
to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in
the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and
dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public
spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus
officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically
futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this
very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a
member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of
this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was
consistent with the loftiness of his character. … The
conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower
House. … The session was principally occupied by the
proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the
unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament
had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name
was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner
appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon
'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who
rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their
hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its
stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems
which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his
supposed royal patroness. … Wilkes himself, however, was
forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of
Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not
the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend
in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after
the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was
eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately
followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for
Aylesbury."

_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_J. E. T. Rogers,
Historical Gleanings,
volume 2, chapter 3._

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 41-42 (volume 5)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War:
The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg.
America to be English, not French.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination to tax the American colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1764.
The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its
consequences.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765.
Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.
Grenville dismissed.
The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries.
Repeal of the Stamp Act.
Fresh trouble in the American colonies.

"Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the
people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of
their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the
king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George
afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he
recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency
Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a
Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers,
however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry,
persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's
name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the
Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult
on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration.
Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name
by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his
Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some
time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of
them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make
overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost
any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king
was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He
was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's
following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no
underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a
burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he
determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the
Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ
again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland
opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the
Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. … The new
Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord
of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. …
{931}
Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power
of language or government. … He was totally free from any
suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than
talent in the Ministry altogether. … The back-bone of the
party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke
was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was
not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its
own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to
effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far
accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act
[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused
so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time
passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. … The
king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his
Ministers. … The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them
was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with
them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance
with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely
party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on
whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to
form a coalition, in which were included men of the most
opposite views—'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the
few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any
office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of
following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this
Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the
leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham.
Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The
Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington,
Barrington, Camden, Granby—all men of the most opposite
views. … This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the
very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage.
… As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an
uncongenial atmosphere. … His name, too, had lost a great
deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to
conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and
humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' … There
were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had
increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout,
that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His
disease later almost approached madness. … The Ministry
drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of
opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want
of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking
entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with
America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's
repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet,
and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had
always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought
forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and
paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and
1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. …
This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its
author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry
became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable,
some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition
was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords
Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord
Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded
Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first
Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number
of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst
that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the
short period of its existence was marked by a succession of
arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that
it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed
to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal
connection with it was not severed for some time"—that is,
not until the following year, 1768.

_B. C. Skottowe,
Our Hanoverian Kings,
pages 234-239._

ALSO IN:
_The Grenville Papers,
volumes 3-4._

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

_E. Lodge,
Portraits,
volume 8, chapter 2._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769.
The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
The Middlesex elections.

In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned
to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but
his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved
and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a
candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247
votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this
decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex.
The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At
the close of the poll the numbers were—Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr.
Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which
astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was
in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to
illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.'
It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom
they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. … A
month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though
relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in
your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly
expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes
appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the
sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his
expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having
surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal;
consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the
offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000,
and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he
was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of
the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself
into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench.
Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that
he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense
multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its
purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House,
became furious, and commenced a riot.
{932}
Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired,
wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they
butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house,
and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the
inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against
the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did
the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier
was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a
reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A
general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington
conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed,
assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to
them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve
it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in
the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and
protection that the law can authorise and this office can
give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the
necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent
before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used
without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His
observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth
of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext
for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days
afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five
votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John
Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament
expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a
member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election
was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned
him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At
another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court
tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for
Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been
elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had
been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a
subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not
hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal
resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of
'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very
name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident
that not the law only had been violated in his person, but
that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound.
Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In
the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his
debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at
length done what was right between him and one of the
Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the
other having been removed by death beyond the reach of
justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages.
These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed
out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had
exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the
ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs
of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of
April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid
succession to the offices—then much sought after, because
held in high honour—of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of
London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member
for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting
the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally
expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the
City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post
till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the
latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has
generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by
several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and
energetic opponent of the war with America."

_W. F. Rae,
John Wilkes
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10)._

ALSO IN:
_W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
part 1._

_G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapters 5-6, and 8._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.
The Letters of Junius.

"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the
'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson
Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the
day; and he readily received any contributions of a like
tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a
writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767,
continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was
the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of
signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and
Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters
(excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were
published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public
attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in
ability, or still less in acrimony. … Such was the state of
these publications, not much rising in interest above the
common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of
January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same
hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ
greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or
superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce
and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places,
including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its
predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and
respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army
and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows
which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for
himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed
with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of
Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew
his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William
himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of
the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than
once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay
him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir
William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends
could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned
the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the
controversy. … These victories over a man of rank and
station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of
Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly
expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author.
{933}
He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names;
sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the
signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main
and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before
he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a
series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton.
Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which
he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a
false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,—an
attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants
to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by
the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture
was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known
statesmen or well-known writers—Burke or Dunning, Boyd or
Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton—flew from mouth to
mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere
hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground.
Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a
little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and
eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries
Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance
by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of
August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and
Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are
forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the
popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was
supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall
was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others
for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The
verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and
publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to
ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that
period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the
Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During
the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued
with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against
the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who
had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into
the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen
controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke.
The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it
commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to
69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those
of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. … Besides the
letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many
others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending
them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham
appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to
Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript
among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written
in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same
initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made
known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important
of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr.
Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed
in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in
length; but many of great value towards deciding the question
of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the
letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser
were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by
an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly
they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the
streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply
was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to
him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at
the bar of some coffee-house. … It may be doubted whether
Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. … When
dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he
declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it
shall perish with me.'"

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 47 (v. 5)._

The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the
letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by
different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and
Pseudonyms":