Chapter VI (1)

King’s Speech.--Debates on the impending War.--Speeches of Barré and
Lord Barrington.--Imprudent Declaration of the Latter.--Opposition
of Wilkes to the system of Pressing.--Curious Conduct of Sir
Walter Blacket.--Motion for Papers on the Falkland Islands,
in both Houses, rejected.--News from Spain.--Alleged want of
Preparation of England.--Intemperance of Charles Fox and the Duke
of Richmond.--Lord Chatham attacks the Administration in the
House of Lords.--Preparations for War.--Lord Mansfield delivers
a Copy of his Determination in Woodfall’s Trial.--Remarkable
Scene.--Members of the Lower ejected from the Upper House.--Debate
on Lord Mansfield’s Paper.--Abruptly Terminated.--Why not
Resumed.--Debate on the Ejection of the Commons.--Duel between
Governor Johnstone and Lord George Sackville.--Instance of
Scotch Nationality.--Resignation of Lord Weymouth.--Observations
on his Character and Conduct.--Opinion of Francés the French
Resident.--Downfall of the Duc de Choiseul.--Its Causes.--The Duc
D’Aiguillon and the Parliament of Bretagne.--Persecution of La
Chalotais.--Treachery of the Prince of Condé.--The Duc retires to
Chanteloup in Touraine.

1770.

The King’s speech to both Houses affected firmness, though it betrayed a want of it; for, though it blustered, and called the Falkland Islands _the possession_ of his Crown, and promised not only to support the just rights and interests of his people, but went so far as to say he would not disarm till convinced of the sincerity of other powers (meaning France); yet, by imputing the seizure of the Isle to the Governor of Buenos Ayres, as if not authorized by the Crown of Spain, it openly presented an excuse which the King of Spain might make, if he would be so good as to condescend so far. Nor could the suspicion dropped against the sincerity of France avail much; they knew our Court too well to misinterpret our real disposition. As the Opposition was more in doubt what part the Ministers did actually intend to take, and as Mr. Grenville’s death prevented the appearance of the Lords Temple, Chatham, and Lyttelton, little was said in either House, except a few words by Lord Rockingham and the Duke of Richmond, the former of whom seemed rather to approve war, as did the complexion of both Houses. Lord North spoke prudently, but confessing he did not think the Falkland Islands an adequate occasion of war. Colonel Barré attacked the Ministers on their neglect (and, indeed, the lapse of a year since the first advice of Spain’s hostile intentions was the great blemish of the business); they had, he said, wasted three years in hunting down a wretched scribbler, (Wilkes,) while all the world knew that Gibraltar and Ireland were defenceless (a most indiscreet avowal at the eve of a war!) He did not know who advised in military matters, yet he knew who did _not_, though so very proper; but that person, (Conway,) he heard, had retired from the Cabinet Council. “Yes,” cried he, correcting himself, and turning towards Lord Barrington, “I know who has sometimes commanded” (alluding to the slaughter in St. George’s Fields). The contemptible description of Wilkes was in consequence of Lord Shelburne’s plan of annihilating that demagogue, against whom Parson Horne was now waging open, though anonymous, war in the newspapers. The Court had soon afterwards the satisfaction of seeing them worry one another in print by name.

Barré’s attack called up Lord Barrington, who uttered the most improper, the most impertinent, and most offensive speech, _in every light_, that could be conceived. He did not know, he declared, an officer in England fit to be commander-in-chief. Could any man name one to him? where was any such man? if there was, if anybody would point him out, he would recommend him to his Majesty. “It was said,” continued he, “in Queen Anne’s reign, that Dr. Ratcliffe and an old woman could cure an ague; so, the Adjutant-General (General Harvey) and he (Barrington) could make the best commander-in-chief.” Disgraceful as such a declaration was, if true,--indiscreet to make to the enemy, a war approaching,--indecent to the Duke of Gloucester, who was sitting in the gallery,--to General Conway, on whom all eyes turned, as on one on whom the choice would of course fall,--and insolent as it was to all our other Generals; yet had not absurdity dictated this public affront to the army--an affront offered by the Secretary at War. Knowingly, nay artfully, had the dirty little creature exposed himself to so much resentment. He knew, in short, that the King was jealous of the command of the army; that he trusted to its attachment against any violence from his subjects; that he would not confide even in his devoted brother, nor in the integrity (because founded on constitutional principles) of General Conway. It was an officious declaration that commander-in-chief there was to be none; it was an indirect method of saving the King the pain, or rather the blush, of refusing the command to his brother; and the King’s ensuing silence, and his continued favour to Barrington, left no doubt but the zeal was kindly accepted.[115] The offence grated the chief officers, men of renowned bravery and service, such particularly as the Generals Amherst and Monckton. Lord Waldegrave and General Howard took up the affront warmly without doors, and happy was the officious tool to escape without a personal quarrel. It was not, perhaps, the least part of his elaborate indecency, that, had a war ensued, the soldiery might have been impressed with contemptuous ideas of their leaders; but servility cares not how much it sacrifices national interest when pursuing its own. General Harvey, the King’s real confidant in military business, pretended to lament that Lord Barrington had pointed him out as responsible for the army--a modesty calculated to enforce the impression.

In consequence of Wilkes’s opposition to pressing, Brass Crosby, the new Lord Mayor, one of his most steady partisans,[116] consulted Lord Chatham on the legality of that practice. That lord, not apt to discountenance any measure that tended to carry on war against the House of Bourbon, recommended to the magistrate to consult Dunning, Glynn, and Wedderburne. To his queries, whether the Admiralty were authorized to issue press warrants of themselves, or under the direction of the Privy Council; whether the warrant annexed was legal; and whether the Lord Mayor was compellable to back those warrants, and at what risk if he refused; the three lawyers replied, that the practice was warranted by length of time and national defence, and even in some cases by the legislature; that it had been noticed in courts of law, and without reproof; and that they saw no objection to its being executed by the Admiralty under the direction of the Privy Council; that the form of the warrant did indeed to them seem very objectionable, but that for that very reason the sanction of the magistrate was the more requisite to check and control the abuse; and therefore, though they did not deem the Lord Mayor compellable to sign the warrant, nor liable to punishment for refusing, they referred it to his Lordship’s prudence, whether for the peace of the City and preservation of the subject, he would not conform to the practice of most of his predecessors on such occasions.

This decision not being satisfactory to the party, the City chose to bestow premiums on voluntary enlisters; in which they were followed by Bristol, Edinburgh, and a few other towns. At the same time another remonstrance to the King was voted by the Common Council, though not unanimously, and was presented on the 21st by the Lord Mayor, attended by Trecothick, Townshend, Oliver, Stephenson, and a few more. His Majesty told them, that having seen no cause to alter his opinion expressed in his former answer, he could not comply with their request to dissolve the Parliament.

A strange incident, though of no consequence, deserves to be mentioned, as it will show what deep impression the temper of the times had made on an honest mind, though the general corruption of the age had regarded the constitutional considerations lately agitated, as questions of interest rather than of principle. Sir Walter Blacket, a rich independent gentleman, had, though a Tory, voted the last year that Wilkes was capable of sitting as member for Middlesex,--a vote he had probably given against his opinion to secure his popularity at Newcastle, a town not less remarkable than London or Lynn for its attachment to liberty and to the cause of Wilkes. Sir Walter appeared suddenly in the House of Commons, and rising, _à propos_ to nothing, with much perturbation, told the House that he had laboured under extreme anxiety of mind and repentance for the vote he had given in favour of Wilkes; that he had had no peace since--had gone abroad for his health--was that moment returned, and, getting out of his chaise, would not wait an instant till he had satisfied his conscience; that he hoped this declaration would be for ever remembered, and that the resolution against Wilkes would never be cancelled,[117]--a delicacy of conscience that did honour to the penitent; but, good God! how weak are men, when priests and the partisans of power can infuse such sentiments into their devotees in favour of arbitrary government; and when sense, self-preservation, and tenderness of their posterity’s security, cannot instil equal compunction into those who betray the common rights of mankind! Sir Walter’s scruples were regarded as the effects of a weak head and sick body: Lord Mansfield, Wedderburne, Norton, and an hundred more, were men of strong understandings, and never repented. Even cowardice could not amend the first. He went so far in the coldest fit of his panic as to order a new trial of the printer of Junius, because the jury had inserted the word _only_ in their sentence, pretending it implied a discordance in their verdict.

On the 22nd of November, the Duke of Richmond moved the Lords to address the King for copies of all papers relating to the seizure of the Falkland Islands. Lord Weymouth objected, pleading that the negotiation was actually pending; the demand might, in a week, be proper. Lord Chatham, who supported the motion, turned his fire chiefly against the opposers of pressing, and declared that if any lord would move it, he would second him for bringing to the bar of the House the Alderman who had obstructed the practice. Lord Hillsborough, who was a pompous composition of ignorance and want of judgment,[118] told the House most indiscreetly, that he had seen the Spanish papers, and would venture to say that we should have full satisfaction in three days. The Duke of Richmond (so little connection was there in the Opposition) declared against pressing. Provoked at this contradiction, and glad of an opportunity of worrying inferior capacity, Lord Chatham, at whose desire the motion had been made, broke out against Lord Hillsborough and against the Opposition too. To revenge himself on the Duke, he spoke of the Opposition with contempt, and told them, that though the Ministers might do wrong, their opponents were too weak to force them out of place; that for himself he was connected with nobody (a needless declaration, as all men saw); that he despised popularity, and was not likely, from his age or inclinations, ever to be Minister again (the latter, a fruitless declaration, that all men disbelieved). Of Lord Hillsborough he said, that all our present misfortunes were owing to his tyranny and ignorance; and that, except Lord Rochford, not one of the Ministers had seen six weeks of business before they were raised to the first employments in the State. Gibraltar, he declared, was so weak, that the Spaniards might walk into it when they pleased, and then into England; and that there were not above eleven ships manned in our service. In the City, he said, there was a malevolent party who did nothing but mischief (meaning Wilkes and his adherents--a tribute he paid to his friend, Lord Shelburne); and he abused the rich men there and the Asiatic opulence of Leadenhall Street,--men who thought of nothing but obtaining commissaryships and commissions of remittance; and with his usual pretensions to intelligence, offered to bet a thousand pounds that Spain had already struck some important blow,--an insinuation (though unfounded) that gave an alarm as if Gibraltar were already taken. In answer to the charge on the Ministers of inexperience, Lord Weymouth reminded him that his Lordship himself, and his friend, Lord Shelburne, and ally, Lord Rockingham, had stood in the same predicament of ignorance of business, when they appeared at the head of affairs; and he told the Duke of Richmond, who had threatened their heads, that if the Opposition had no mercy, he would at least confide in their justice. Lord Lyttelton said he was so sensible of our unprovided situation, that he was afraid even to express his fears. Lord Shelburne was severe on the Duke of Grafton. Lord Sandwich boasted of enjoying and liking to enjoy the smiles of the Court, which all Ministers, he said, had ever sought to possess, except a late detestable and insignificant set. Lord Rockingham, at whom the arrow was levelled, asked, if Lord Sandwich and his friends had possessed the smiles of the Court when they were turned out for their insolence on the Regency Bill? At eight at night the motion was rejected by 61 to 25.

The same question moved by Dowdeswell the same day in the other House met with the like fate, being rejected by 225 against 201. But the victim of the debate was Lord Barrington, who was so roughly handled by Colonel Barré and General Howard on his late declaration of the incapacity of the general officers, that his confusion and absurdity augmented each other,--he at once, and in the same breath, adhering to his former opinion, and yet maintaining that he had been misunderstood. The persecution continuing, the Speaker was forced to interpose and bring him off. General Conway, speaking severely of those who endeavoured to alienate the affections of the subjects from the King, was warmly attacked by Burke, who represented the accusation as addressed to the Parliamentary opponents, whom Conway denied he had meant, saying, he had great esteem for some of them, especially for one family (the Cavendishes), and for whom he had great gratitude, too. This was in contradistinction to Lord Rockingham and Burke, one of whom had neglected, and the other attacked him.[119]

The courier from Spain had arrived on the 19th, and it was believed that the Prince of Masserano had at the same time received powers to give us satisfaction. This opinion, and Lord Hillsborough’s declaration, had raised the stocks; which fell again in a few days, when it was known that, though Spain did not refuse to restore the island, yet she insisted on our acknowledging her right to it,--a concession rendered doubly difficult on our part by the King’s speech, in which he had pronounced it the right of his people, and promised as such to maintain it. Whatever latitude was allowed to the Spanish Ambassador, it was no wonder that he was tenacious of his master’s pretensions, when Lord North had acknowledged publicly that he did not think the island worth going to war for, and when Lord Chatham had no less publicly proclaimed our weakness both to Spain and France. Mr. Grenville’s singular declaration on Corsica had encouraged the French to pursue their point against that island; and though the opinion of each might well be defended, neither Lord North nor Mr. Grenville had been driven by a clamour for war to avow their pacific sentiments. Lord Chatham excused his display of our inability by pleading that France and Spain must have known our situation without his avowal of it; but it was an ill-timed modesty in him, who was not ignorant how much haughtiness and defiance from his mouth imposed on both those Courts. There was, in truth, great want of men at this time from many causes. The superior pay given by the merchants, the loss of men in the late war not yet repaired, the draughts for India, and considerable migration from Scotland and Ireland to the Colonies, had drained the country. The navy was in a wretched condition; Lord Egmont, while head of the Admiralty, had wasted between four and five hundred thousand pounds on pompous additions to the dockyards. His successor, Sir Edward Hawke, though so brave and fortunate a commander, had never been a man of abilities, and was now worn out, grown indolent, and was almost superannuated, paying so little attention to the fleet, that the ships were rotted in harbour, and of five ordered to Gibraltar, four had returned as being in too bad a condition to proceed, and the fifth was found rotten before it went to sea. This was as imprudently mentioned in debate by the Duke of Richmond,--an inconvenience resulting from the publicity of our counsels, and a weapon not justifiably, though frequently used by Oppositions. It was more inexcusable that even the newspapers took the liberty of advertising our enemies of our deficiencies, or of what they imagined our intended measures, of which I will quote an instance. The “Swallow” sloop was sheathed with copper. Being the first attempt of the kind, the newspapers concluded, and printed their idea, that she was destined to the West Indies; thus pointing out to the jealousy and enmity of Spain a proper object of their attention.

The suspicions of the public that war must ensue were increased on the 24th at night, all officers being suddenly ordered to their posts, and Lord Howe appointed Commander of the squadron in the Mediterranean. Yet we had not above sixteen ships manned, and the regiments were very incomplete. Happily the navy of Spain was as ill provided with men, and in no condition to profit by our defenceless position. At the same time arrived the new Ambassador from France, the Comte de Guines,--a symptom, at least, that Choiseul, to whom he was attached, was desirous we should believe that France intended peace. The negotiation, however, remained in the hands of Monsieur Francés, as more conversant with the preceding transaction. This was a very shrewd artful man, who had privately, some time before his public appearance, lived here unknown for three years, in which time he made himself master of our language and affairs. He was the confidential creature of Choiseul.

Still was not Wilkes or the Middlesex election forgotten. Mr. Phipps moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill to correct informations _ex officio_. Dunning and Wedderburne supported the motion; but it was rejected by 150 to 70.[120] It was not to the honour of the popular hero (Wilkes) that he was at this time cast in a suit brought against him by a French jeweller whom he had defrauded of jewels at Paris. A season of such warmth naturally produced many personalities in Parliament. Charles Fox, the rising genius of the time, had a gross altercation with Wedderburne on an amendment proposed to Mr. Grenville’s bill for regulating elections, in which the House was forced to interpose, and obliged both to ask pardon for their intemperance. A parallel adventure happened among the Lords in a debate for continuing the prohibition of exporting corn, when the Duke of Richmond saying that their chamber was reduced to sit only for registering the dictates of the Crown, or for concurring with the decrees of the Commons, Lord Halifax rose with much heat, said it was a false accusation, and he would never hear such words. It was true that the Chancellor Hardwicke had governed that assembly with solemn decency, and, by his own authority, and that of the Pelhams, had restrained much of the liberty of debate; yet not long before, John Duke of Argyle, and others at other periods, had not suffered themselves to be manacled by such formality. It is as true, on the other hand, that the House of Lords being an assembly far less numerous than the Commons, is less turbulent and more observant of decorum. The nobility, too, are by principle more devoted to the Crown, and having less occasion to make their fortunes by eloquence and the cultivation of talents (though not less corrupt) than the Commons, acquiesce from inability to the dictates of two or three eminent lawyers, whom the Crown occasionally raises to the peerage, after preferring them to the Great Seal or to the posts of Chief Justices.

Lord Chatham, the same day, not intimidated by Lord Halifax’s passion, who was a proud empty man, and mistook anger for argument, moved to call for Captain Hunt of the “Tamer” sloop, who had been driven off the Falkland Islands by the Spaniards. Lord Chatham made a fine oration, and, though often vexed by the Lords Sandwich and Denbigh, was, when Lord Mansfield was silent, as his fears now made him, far superior to all his other adversaries; they were babies to him. He said the Ministers had bungled themselves into such a situation that they could neither make war nor peace; that he should have arguments against them, of whichever they should make option; that he would insist on restitution and reparation, though he supposed they were then actually begging peace at Versailles. He had been blamed, he said, for indiscretion in divulging the nakedness of his country; but it had been parental kindness to give warning to the Ministers: and what had he divulged that was not known to every coffee-house boy in Portsmouth? He endeavoured to soften his late attack on the City, avowing, at the same time, that he had not, nor ever had had, any connection with Wilkes. But highly he commended the integrity of Sawbridge, whom he was sorry he had not talked with before that Alderman had opposed pressing. It was more remarkable that he paid many compliments to the candour of Lord Weymouth; the other Ministers, in general, he said, were ignorant, futile, and incapable. Lord Weymouth, as if in concert, professed himself ready to resign his post, but declared against Opposition. Neither Lord Temple nor Lord Camden were present at the debate, nor the Lords attached to the late Mr. Grenville. The motion was rejected by 55 to 21, as was, by one less on each side, another motion, likewise made by Lord Chatham, for inquiring at what time the Ministers had received intelligence that the Spaniards intended to seize the Falkland Islands;--they had known it in the preceding December--eleven months! The French had previously settled on a neighbouring little island, but had quitted it to countenance the violence of Spain,--proof sufficient of their co-operation in that hostility; not that Choiseul was circumstanced in a manner that would authorize him to assist them openly in hostilities, but the treaty of Paris had convinced him of the aversion to war in our Cabinet,--a conclusion that now deceived him, and drew him into inextricable perplexity, as I shall show presently. Indeed, considering that, victorious or vanquished, we always make disgraceful treaties, the nation had little cause to prefer war. Forty thousand seamen were now voted.

At this period, died the parent of the approaching war, the Earl of Egmont, a man always ambitious, almost always attached to a Court, yet, from a singularity in his fortune, scarce ever in place.[121]

On the 5th of December, Lord Chatham moved a resolution, (which was rejected by 52 to 20,) the purport of which was, that the capacity of being chosen a member of Parliament was ascertained by law, and could not be set aside by any separate branch of the legislature. Lord Camden supported the motion, but declaring he stood unconnected with, and unattached to, any man.[122] Lord Mansfield, to soften his dreaded adversary, Lord Chatham, paid many compliments to him on his support of pressing; but, on his having urged the necessity of dissolving the Parliament, represented to him the impropriety of such a tempestuous measure at the beginning of a war; yet no war was begun, and, from the long suspense, men began to conclude that no war would be declared. The Spanish Ambassador was assiduous at Court, was affectedly caressed there, and made no preparations for departing.

But, though Lord Mansfield thus deprecated the wrath of Lord Chatham, the indignation of the friends of freedom was not so appeased. Serjeant Glynn moved for an examination into the conduct of the King’s Bench, and Alderman Oliver named Lord Mansfield as the author of the grievances from that Court. The House sat till near one in the morning, but the question was lost by 75 against 180.[123]

The next day, Colonel Onslow complained to the House, and read, from a magazine called the London Museum, a copy of a letter sent by the Society of the Bill of Rights to the Colonies, (signed by Serjeant Glynn amongst others,) which almost invited them to rebel, and was a strong libel on the Parliament.[124] The King, in his speech, had specified parts of the colony of Massachusett’s Bay as guilty of very illegal practices and violences, _though he had confessed[125] that, in most of the other Colonies, the people had begun to depart from their combinations against the mother country. New York, in particular, had refused to concur in them._

The next day, an augmentation of twelve thousand men to the army was voted, a wise measure, as preparation for war is the best preventive. Yet had we reason to depend on the pacific disposition of the French Prime Minister. In a great council held at Versailles, the Abbé du Terray, Comptroller-General, a personal enemy of Choiseul, proposed to join with Spain in the war, (either to sound Choiseul’s intentions, or thinking him not inclined to war,) and engaged to find the necessary funds. He was supported by his instigator, the Chancellor Maupeou; but the Duc de Choiseul, (either suspecting a trap, or to pay court to his master, who was most averse to the war,) with great ability, knowledge, and eloquence, proved so irrefragably the impossibility of finding money sufficient, that the Comptroller-General confessed himself convinced by the Duke’s arguments.

When the army was voted, General Conway took notice that though the House was voting so large an addition, yet no method was taken for raising men. He hinted at several plans, particularly for levying German Protestants; and he observed how much the militia, become the favourite of several Lords, engrossed the best recruits; his own nephew, Lord Beauchamp, often gave thirty or forty pounds for a sergeant from the Guards for his own regiment. Sir Gilbert Elliot, after the debate, remarked that Conway had _only_ clashed with his nephew, his friends, and the Minister. Grenville often said, that he had rather have Conway against him than for him, as then he knew all the hurt Conway could do to him. He was, it is true, too great a refiner; but what he thought right was always his guide, unless when his judgment was warped by paying too much regard to the good opinion of men--blemishes that, like the small spots of ermine, were only striking from the purity of the ground, and from the extreme rarity of ground so pure. The hues of Elliot and Grenville were not of such unsullied white. Conway had now been trying to drive Lord Barrington to embrace some plan, and had hinted many to the King, who never took any further notice of them, it being his Majesty’s rule, as Lord Holland had formerly told me, never to talk to any man but on the business of his department; and Conway, though the deepest master of his profession in the island, happened not to be secretary! That silly caution had been infused into the King by the Princess and Lord Bute, lest it should give the person consulted an opportunity of gaining his confidence, by launching out beyond their province: every audience terminated when each minister had received his orders. To decline receiving information from so able an officer as Conway, and one whom he knew and had declared so disinterested and unambitious, was not the method of rendering himself proper to conduct the army; and Lord Barrington was too ignorant beyond the routine of office to instruct, and too servile to contradict him. General Edward Harvey, the other royal confidant in military matters, was a mere disciplinarian, and not feared by the junto, being of no abilities or importance.

On the 10th of December was great expectation of some solemn scene, Lord Mansfield having given notice to the Lords on the 7th, that he had matter of importance to lay before them. It was supposed that he intended to make his defence against all the late accusations. Though that did not prove entirely the case, the day turned out very remarkable. The House was crowded with members of the Commons, with strangers, and even foreigners. Lord Mansfield produced and delivered to the clerk a paper, containing the determination made by himself and the four other judges of the King’s Bench, on Woodfall’s demand of a new trial, which they had refused to grant, and the reasons for which refusal they had read, as their decree, in court. This decree, he said, having been mentioned in that House with indirect blame, and much misrepresented to the public, he had brought that account to be perused by their Lordships, who, if they pleased, might take copies of it. He made no motion, nor desired any notice to be taken of his paper, which he delivered to the clerk. Lord Chatham, in commending his candour in submitting his conduct to examination, excepted against the mode, and threw out many oblique censures. Lord Camden also, not approving the manner, said, he supposed Lord Mansfield did not mean to have the paper entered in the journals; to which Lord Mansfield answering he did not, the affair broke off, and Lord Camden went away.

The Duke of Manchester then rose to make a motion, and opening on the defenceless state of the nation, mentioned the four ships sent to Gibraltar, and obliged to return from being in too bad condition to proceed. He was going on, but was called to order by Lord Gower, who said those points were not fit to be divulged to the public and to foreign ministers; and insisted on the House being cleared of strangers, which, by the standing orders of both Houses, any member may do in the House to which he belongs, and which cannot be refused; but Lord Gower, entering into debate, which no man may do when he calls another to order, he was called to order himself; the Duke of Richmond adding, that the Ministry did not dare to hear their faults laid open. Prodigious confusion ensued; and Lord Chatham, in a violent emotion of rage, insisted on being heard, which was impossible from the tumult; and he would have distinguished between the occasion and the general standing order, which, he maintained Lord Gower had had no right to call for, as the subject had not been the order of the day; but he was wrong--and the majority called out violently to have the order put in execution: but the members of the other House refused to retire, Dowdeswell declaring he would be the last man that should go out. This resistance was unjustifiable, and without example. Four other commoners, who had brought up a bill from the other House, said they were come with a message, and had a right to be there; but they too were in the wrong, for the rule is, that they should give notice to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and he, acquainting the Lords, is sent to call the messengers to the bar, which had not been done. However, the servants of the House of Lords were forced to thrust out the Commons by violence, while Lord Chatham, roaring in vain and unregarded, walked out of the House in a rage, and the Court Lords continuing to call out “Clear the House! clear the House!” the Duke of Richmond cried out aloud, “So you will of every honest man!” and followed Lord Chatham, as did the Dukes of Bolton, Manchester, Portland, Devonshire, Northumberland, the Marquis of Rockingham, the Earls of Huntingdon, Abingdon, Fitzwilliam, Viscount Torrington, and the Lords Abergavenny, Archer, Besborough, Shelburne, and Milton. Lord Lyttelton was not present: Lord Hardwicke remained with the courtiers.[126]

The members of the Commons went down in a fury to their own House; Burke and the opponents rejoicing in an opportunity of endeavouring to make a breach between the two Houses. George Onslow of the Treasury, a noisy, indiscreet man, who sometimes did well recollect his father’s inflexible maintenance of the dignity of the Commons, but whose connections should not have led him to encourage the opponents in setting the two Houses at variance, made complaint of the injurious manner in which they had been thrust out by force, and moved for a Committee to inspect the journals of the Lords on that occasion, the only regular manner of coming at the proceedings, for the House of Lords being a court of record, their journals are open to the public, which is not the case with the other House. Lord North, to humour the Commons, joined in the blame, but dissuaded the motion. It was battled, however, for two hours; and some Lords who had come thither, were turned out: but the motion was rejected by the influence of the courtiers.[127]

The same day General Conway laid before the House a plan for adding a thousand men to the regiment of artillery on a cheap scheme of 17,000_l._, which, if executed in the ordinary method, would have cost 24,000_l._ Hearing that they would oppose it, he had sent his plan to Lord George (Sackville) Germaine and Colonel Barré, but both returned it with compliments, the first saying he should only make some objections to the mode; the other that he should not oppose it. They both now did make some objections; and others of the Opposition blamed Conway for not having digested more plans for the army. Conway answered that he had done his duty in his office, but was not consulted beyond it, nor in any confidence. This was a declaration they wished. T. Townshend the younger and others exclaimed on _his_ not being trusted! What could the country expect, they said, if such a man, and at the head of his profession, was in no confidence with the Ministers? Conway replied, he had not complained, nor did he complain; he had stated the fact, and was content with the confidence placed in him by his master. His plan was adopted.

On the 11th, the seceding Lords returned to their House, and fourteen entered a protest against their being impeded from proceeding the day before.

Lord Camden then severely resumed Lord Mansfield’s conduct in delivering the paper, which, in fact, was universally condemned as timid, wanting dignity, and narrowed to a single case, when many more accusations were stirring against him. The proceeding itself, Lord Camden said, was most irregular, and the substance of the paper deserving particular reprehension. He had considered the paper with the utmost care, but had found it unintelligible. That if taken in one sense of the words, he understood, and should agree to it: but there was another obvious to which the words were liable; and if taken in that sense, he would pledge himself to the House to prove them illegal and unconstitutional; and therefore he must desire to put to his Lordship some interrogatories.[128]

Lord Mansfield, with most abject soothings, paid the highest compliments to Lord Camden, and declared how much he had always courted his esteem; and therefore from his candour had not expected that treatment. He professed he had studied the point more than any other in his life, and had consulted all the judges on it, except indeed his Lordship: but that he must object to being taken by surprise, nor could he submit to answer interrogatories. “Interrogatories!” cried Lord Chatham, starting up, “was ever anything heard so extraordinary? is it taking that noble lord by surprise who has just declared that he has studied the point all his life, and has taken the opinions of all the judges on it? And of all mankind does it become that Lord to refuse interrogatories, who has so recently imprisoned a man [Brindley] for a year or two, for refusing to submit to them?” But the point, he gave the noble Lord notice should be fathomed, and he would bring it to issue. However, he would give his Lordship time, and would let the matter sleep till after the holidays: but he insisted that Lord Camden’s paper of interrogatories should be left with the clerk, as Lord Mansfield’s had been; which the House could not refuse.

The dismay and confusion of Lord Mansfield was obvious to the whole audience; nor did one peer interpose a syllable in his behalf; even the Court (whom he had been serving by wresting the law, and perverting it to the destruction of liberty, and his guilt in which practices was proclaimed by his dastard conscience) despised his pusillanimity and meanness; for to avert the indignation of the other side, he had declared in his speech that he was not attached to the Ministry, nor had any obligations to the King. Lord Frederic Campbell, his friend, but hurt at his wretched shuffling, told me, the persecution had been stirred up by Mansfield’s own tool and associate Sir Fletcher Norton, who hoped it would drive him to give up the vast post of Chief Justice, to which Norton, despairing of the great Seal, flattered himself he should succeed.

So much consciousness of guilt on Lord Mansfield’s part, with so much inveteracy on Lord Chatham’s, promised a scene worthy of the public attention. Will it be believed that not a word more was said on the subject, either when the Parliament reassembled after the holidays, or during the whole remainder of the session? At the end of April, I asked the Duke of Richmond the meaning of that silence; he gave me this solution:--“Early in the session Constantine Phipps told Mr. Dowdeswell that he intended to move for an inquiry into the conduct of the judges relative to juries. Dowdeswell said it would be best to have a meeting upon it. ‘No,’ said Phipps, ‘I do not like meetings: men are often borne down at them against their opinions. I will give notice of my intention without further concert.’ Serjeant Glynn said he would do the same the next day. Dowdeswell told him there was not time for concert: it would be like the Minister reading the King’s speech at the cockpit, after it has been settled. Glynn, however, gave his notice. On that the Rockingham party determined to act for themselves, and drew up a bill to ascertain what directions judges should give to juries. They showed it to Lord Chatham after he had attacked Lord Mansfield. He disapproved it much, but offered to support it if they would make it more personal to Lord Mansfield. They refused.[129] All they meant, they said, was prospect, not retrospect: as if branding a crime committed, were not a better guard than a provision against committing it. Then he must be against them, said Lord Chatham. They consulted Lord Camden. He told them Lord Chatham had driven him into the attack on Lord Mansfield, which he did not like, and in which at last he declared he would meddle no farther:[130] he did not care to have all the twelve judges against him. When the Rockinghams moved their bill, Dunning, Lord Shelburne, and the rest of Lord Chatham’s connection were strongly against them.”

Some few days after the Duke had given me this account, Lord Chatham’s cause against Sir William Pynsent’s relation, which the Earl had brought by appeal before the House of Lords, and had by them been referred to the judges, came on before their Lordships for the judges to make their report. They were preparing to give their opinions, five on one side, and three on the other, when Lord Mansfield arriving, said a new idea had struck him, and he was sure he could reconcile the sentiments of all the judges. He stated his position (which is not to my purpose to detail), they pocketed their briefs and notes, said they were persuaded they should all return of one opinion the next day, and retired. They did return, and gave the cause for Lord Chatham, not without censure from the public on the two Lords; the one, as men thought, buying his indemnity by the sacrifice of another man’s property; the other waiving justice due to the public to purchase the decision of a suit in his own favour: yet, as the fact happened so late as the 6th of May, _after_ the Duke of Richmond had allowed to me that the pursuit against Lord Mansfield was dropped, servility, to which, as has been seen, he was enough prone, might have no share in this instance. I have anticipated an event of the next year, that I might present the reader with the whole transaction together.[131] I return to the end of the year 1770.

The Duke of Manchester, on the 11th, renewed the interrupted motion of an address to the Crown to station a strong and sufficient naval force to guard Gibraltar, Minorca, and Jamaica. Lord Chatham supported the motion, and said, he knew there was not a Spaniard but would pawn his shirt to recover Gibraltar; and, therefore, he must yet suspect Spain; though he did confess he believed France was in earnest desirous of preserving peace: that though he knew the dismal condition of our navy, half of which was rotten, yet he trusted we had still a force that was a match for all the world; that force lay in the bravery of our land and sea officers. But if there is a war, men, said he, of all parties must be preferred. Lord Gower took this up very injudiciously, asking if Sir Jeffery Amherst had not lately been appointed a Governor, though not attached to the Court? Lord Shelburne replied, Sir Jeffery had lost 4000_l._ a year, and after repeated neglects, had only obtained a government: and the Duke of Richmond more shrewdly observed, that Lord Gower’s own brother-in-law, Lord Dunmore, had just had _two_ governments given to him, New York, and then Virginia. The Duke of Grafton attacked Lord Chatham roughly, who generally bore his severity, perhaps from contempt, as tamely as Lord Mansfield Lord Chatham’s. Lord Sandwich said, all the motion could do, would be to take merit or demerit from the Administration. It was rejected by above 40 to 12. As the Ministers affected to make military preparations, a resolution passed to supply the voted augmentation of the army with Irish or Germans.

It was with more alacrity that the Treasury carried a vote of a fourth shilling in the pound on land, by a majority of 299 to 121. The Bedford squadron, discontented with Lord North, who placed no confidence in them, and leaning with Lord Weymouth and Wood to Lord Chatham, who they feared would be Minister, had whispered objections to the increase of the tax. The Duke of Bedford himself declared openly against it, and Rigby, as if by his order, had some time before in the House of Commons owned he should disapprove it, unless there actually should be a war. He now treacherously advised Lord North to postpone the demand till after Christmas; but the Minister doubting with reason the sincerity of the faction, would not be turned aside from his purpose, but carried it with spirit, Rigby absenting himself for a real or pretended fit of the gout.

On the 13th Lord George Germaine moved for a conference with the Lords on their late expulsion of the Commons. His motive, he said, was to recommend unanimity between the two Houses; insinuating, in order to create variance between them, that they had quarrelled. But the motion was rejected by a large majority; but not till Colonel Barré had drawn a severe picture of the Court-Lords, particularly of the Earls of Marchmont and Denbigh, who had distinguished themselves with most bitterness against the Commons. All had been going on quietly, said Barré, when on a sudden a set of raggamuffins had interrupted the debate, and first turned out the Lords, and then the Commons. They were the most ill-favoured rogues he had ever seen; one with a long meagre face and long nose, whom by his brogue he presently knew for a Scotchman. Another, still worse, with such a villanous aspect, squinting eyes, and features so compressed that his hooked nose could scarce squeeze itself into its place, was so hideous, that he had been persuaded it was not a human face, but a mask. The likenesses were too strong to be misapplied--yet the two Lords took care not to acknowledge their portraits.

The next day Lord George Sackville Germaine, and Lord George Cavendish, moved that no messages should be sent to the other House but by the eldest sons of peers, who alone would not be in danger of being insulted there; and that such eldest sons should be restrained from going thither on any other occasion. Colonel Onslow, alluding to the two Lords, said, the motion ought to have been that no message should be sent but by the younger sons of peers; and alluding to Lord George Sackville, that the motion seemed to imply timidity. Governor Johnstone went much further, and said, he did not conceive _that any man was proper to take care of the honour of that House, who had forfeited his own honour_. The motion was rejected by about 130 to 40.[132]

So gross an insult as Johnstone’s called for chastisement, and did prove how much the world and he had mistaken Lord George Sackville. The latter with temper that became the courage he showed, took four days to settle his affairs and to make provision for an infant of which his wife was just delivered; behaving at the same time with a cheerful indifference that deceived her and his whole family. He then, taking T. Townshend for his second, challenged Johnstone, and met him in Hyde Park. The latter was accompanied by Sir James Lowther. Each fired two pistols; Johnstone’s first struck off the butt-end of Lord George’s. They fired again; both missed, and the affair ended, exceedingly to the honour of Lord George’s coolness and intrepidity. The brutality of Johnstone shocked everybody, especially as his character had as much of the bully as the bravo in it; and as it was presumed he had depended on Lord George’s supposed want of spirit, or trusted to the publicity of the affront for any consequences being prevented, which is always dishonourable in the aggressor. His boisterous reputation, and a vague anonymous challenge given out in the newspapers to the author of a _North Briton_ on the Scotch, had recommended him for this service to his patron, Sir James Lowther, who, in resentment for Lord George’s deserting him on the Cumberland election, had brooded over it till now that he excited that ruffian’s assault. But so odious was Sir James from the whole tenor of his life, that Johnstone seemed the less hateful of the two, especially as Sir James appeared to glut his eyes with revenge.[133] Such unaffected valour in Lord George revived suspicions in some that it was not courage he had wanted at Minden; but so much zeal for his country as should have balanced his hatred of Prince Ferdinand.[134]

At this time, one Robert Morris, Secretary to the Bill of Rights, published an outrageous letter to Sir Richard Aston, a judge of the King’s Bench, who had cast reflections on him in a trial--I think for stealing an heiress.[135] The man was a pretended enthusiast, and offered himself to the Court for a martyr, and to the people for one of their representatives. The Ministers refused him the first honour, and the people the second.

Nor was opposition confined solely to England. The supple, but national Scots, who complained so bitterly of English inveteracy, took a step at this time which proved their rancour greater than that of the southern Britons. It is not uncommon for Scots to be chosen for English boroughs; yet Lord Weymouth having recommended his cousin, the Earl of Dysart, a Scottish peer, for one of the sixteen, on the death of the Duke of Argyle, the Scotch nobility, instigated by the Earl of Haddington, mutinied against the King’s nomination of Lord Dysart, because he had no estate in Scotland, and because Lord Irwin, in the same predicament, was already one of the sixteen. The Duke of Buccleugh, the new Duke of Argyle, and the Earl of March, all zealous courtiers, joined in the revolt; for the Scotch were too quick-sighted not to perceive that opposition was at least as good a path to preferment as servility. They set up the Earl of Breadalbane, and engaged never to vote for any peer who should not support him. To stifle that spirit, Lord Weymouth gave up his cousin Dysart, and the King recommended the Earl of Stair; yet the Opposition persisted, and Lord Stair was chosen but by 28 votes against 19. The young Earl of Buchan a few years before had attempted to make a similar stand, but it being against a landed Scot, was not supported. To soften the sacrifice to Lord Dysart, the King offered him a green riband; but he, who was one of the proudest, and not one of the brightest of men, did not distinguish between the King’s civility and the proscription of himself by his Scottish brethren, and wrote to the Secretary of State that he not only would not accept the riband, but would never serve this King or any other. Next year he asked a military preferment for his brother, and was refused.

The negotiation about the Falkland Islands still continued in suspense. The King of Spain adhered to his declaration of reserving his claim entire, though willing to relinquish the possession; and the public were persuaded that there were different opinions in the Ministry from threats thrown out by the Duke of Bedford that he would go to the House of Lords, and proclaim the necessity of declaring war. Still was the surprise of mankind extreme, when, on the 16th, it was known that Lord Weymouth had resigned the Seals--a mysterious conduct, increased by his own obstinate silence, and by the professions of the Bedfords, that they had not been acquainted with his intention, nor should resign with him. The King, afraid of a breach between the Ministers and him, offered to make any arrangement that might accommodate him with any other place; but he would take none. However,--to show that he did not mean opposition, but would continue to support the Administration, like the Duke of Grafton; and, not ashamed of being obliged to those whom he disserved,--he asked for the lucrative place of postmaster for his brother, which was instantly granted; the weak measures of the Court having reduced them to be afraid of a man who had quitted them only from fear. Such was the complexion of the King’s whole conduct. By aiming at power which he did not dare to exert, he was forced to court the most servile, and buy dear the most worthless, never conceiving that the firmest authority is that founded on character, and on the respect paid to virtue. He bought temporary slaves, who had the power of manumitting themselves the moment they wished to be bought over again. He lost his dominions in America, his authority over Ireland, and all influence in Europe, by aiming at despotism in England; and exposed himself to more mortifications and humiliations than can happen to a quiet doge of Venice. Another feature in his character was, that he could seem to forgive any injury or insult when the offender could be of use to him; he never remembered any service when the performer could be of none.