Chapter IV: {george III. 1771–1773} (2)

This session closed on the 10th of June, when the king expressed his satisfaction at the temper and moderation displayed by the members during their sitting, and thanked them for the additional security which they had provided for the honour and welfare of his family: thanks which chiefly referred to the royal marriage act. The supplies voted for this year were £7,860,250; and the national debt amounted to £127,500,000. In the course of the session, it may be remarked, that the ancient and barbarous custom of _peine forte et dure_, by which felons refusing to plead, were stretched on their backs and pressed to death by heavy weights, was abolished by an act, which declared that all who acted thus contumaciously were to be adjudged guilty of the crimes laid to their charge. At the close of the session Lord North seemed firmly seated in office, and this conviction brought over many waverers, and time-servers to his side. Nevertheless, he was soon after doomed to lose the support of one of the best of his debaters, in the person of Charles Fox, who was suddenly converted to Whig principles, and who consequently resigned the admiralty.

FATE OF THE QUEEN OF DENMARK.

Carolina Matilda, the king’s youngest sister, was married in her sixteenth year to Christian VII., king of Denmark. This monarch was addicted to licentious and degrading pleasures, and was a prince of weak intellect, irritable and capricious, open to flattery, and easily deceived by the crafty. Soon after his marriage he visited England, France, and Germany, where he might, if he had possessed intellect, have obtained such knowledge as would have made him a better man. He returned, however, to his dominions the same character as when he left it—vicious in his private life, and despotic in his rule. During his travels he had been accompanied by a physician named Struensee, and this man had acquired such an absolute ascendency over his mind, that he obtained the supreme direction of affairs, with a title of nobility. Struensee was endowed with considerable abilities, and was possessed of a handsome person and engaging manners. He appears to have ingratiated himself as much in the favour of the queen, as of the king, being allowed to converse with her in very familiar terms. Apart from this, however, there appears to have been no connection between the queen and the favourite. But Matilda was watched by unfriendly eyes. Juliana Maria, the queen-dowager, had from her first arrival taken a dislike to her, and this aversion was increased when she saw that Matilda, Struensee, and Brandt, a young nobleman, exercised complete authority over the imbecile monarch, and directed the affairs of government at their pleasure. The queen-dowager had numerous and powerful friends, and these were likewise incensed at seeing Struensee at the head of the government, and a strong party was formed against him; Juliana Maria being at the head of the faction. The queen, also, was an object of their malice from her supposed influence over the king, and her encouragement of a man who thus lorded it over the old nobility. By their intrigues they soon obtained an order from the king for her removal from Copenhagen, and for the apprehension of Struensee and Brandt: it being represented that they had plotted together and were about to depose him. It was on the night of the 16th of January that the faction put their conspiracy into execution. Struensee and Brandt were suddenly seized, cast into prison, and after undergoing the greatest indignities, were beheaded. At an early hour, also, the queen, who had just retired to rest from a masked ball, received a written order to remove instantly from Copenhagen. It was in vain that Matilda sought to see her husband: she was dragged half naked into a carriage, and driven to Cronborg castle, where she was immured with an English lady of her suite, and her infant daughter, the princess Louisa, whom she was then suckling. A project was set on foot to try her on a capital charge of adultery, for the purpose of rendering her offspring illegitimate, in order that Prince Frederic, son of the queen-dowager, might become presumptive heir to the throne. A secret commission had, indeed, found her guilty, and had pronounced a divorce, as a preparatory step to her trial on a capital charge. Matilda, however, was the sister of one of the greatest sovereigns of Europe, whose arm was to be dreaded, and the Danish court was compelled to agree that she should quit the kingdom, and live under the protection of his majesty of England. An English squadron repaired to Cronborg to receive her, but she was not allowed the consolation of bringing her infant daughter away with her. She was conveyed to the vessel in an agony of despair, and she sat on the deck with her eyes fixed on the walls of the castle where she had left her only earthly solace, till the darkness of night concealed them from her view. She was conveyed to the castle of Zell, in Hanover, where a cheap little court was provided for her; the expenses being paid out of the Hanoverian revenue, or out of the English privy purse. But her days of light-heartedness were over: her heart was stricken with grief which weighed her down. Portraits of her infant-son and daughter were procured, and these she hung in her chamber, where she would frequently talk to them, as though the images had been the originals—the shadows, the substance. She did not, however, long survive her misfortunes. She died at the age of twenty-four in the month of May 1775; less than three years after her release from Cronborg. Yet after all the machinations of the queen-dowager of Denmark, the son of the ill-fated queen afterwards ascended the throne: being first associated with his father Christian VII. as a sort of joint monarch. This, at least, proves that the king himself was convinced of the innocence of his unhappy consort.

DEATH OF THE PRINCESS DOWAGER OF WALES.

Before her daughter was hurled from the throne of Denmark, her mother, the Princess-dowager of Wales, was no more. She died suddenly on the 8th of February, in the fifty-fourth year of her age. Although she had endured much popular clamour, the accusations of her enemies were never satisfactorily substantiated. At all events she appears to have possessed many good qualities. It tends greatly to her honour that she gradually liquidated her husband’s debts out of her own private income.

REVOLUTION IN SWEDEN.

In the beginning of this year a sudden revolution took place at Stockholm. About half a century before, the nobility of Sweden had limited the prerogative of the crown, and had erected themselves into an absolute and oppressive oligarchy. Since then the country had been split into two factions, which were called the Hats and Caps. Encouraged by this division, as well as by the venality of the aristocratical senate, Gustavus III. resolved to erect the old monarchical despotism. His plans were matured with extreme secrecy and precaution. The mass of the army was gained over to his cause; the affections of the brave people of Dalecarlia, who had established the dynasty of Gustavus Vasa, were secured; and the services of the citizens and burgher-guard of the capital were enlisted. All were ready, and the king, having assembled the troops within the walls of Stockholm, under the pretext of providing against an insurrection, then threw off the mask. He harangued the troops; telling them that he was about to save the nation from degradation and misery, to put an end to the insolence and venality of the nobles, and to restore the crown to its ancient splendour. The soldiers applauded; the senators were made prisoners; the obnoxious members of the secret committee of the states fled for their lives; the army, colleges, and citizens took the oath of allegiance in the absolute form; and the revolution was achieved. It was achieved gloriously; for not one drop of blood was shed. The states of the kingdom underwent no change—the council only was overturned, and the factions of the aristocracy, led on by family interests and supported by foreign influence, repressed.

PARTITION OF POLAND.

Sweden was more fortunate than Poland. At this time that country presented a melancholy aspect. It was torn by civil wars, harassed by religious discord, and wasted by the famine and the plague. But these were only the accessories to still greater misfortunes. Crippled by them, Poland had no power of resisting the spoilers who were now casting their eyes upon her as their prey. These spoilers were the rulers of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, whose armies entered the country under false pretences, in order to appropriate the fairest portion to themselves. And what made the condition of that unhappy country the more deplorable was, that she had not a single friend who could lend a willing ear to her call for aid. Turkey was at this period almost prostrate at the feet of Russia; Sweden and Denmark were engaged in revolutions of their own; Choiseul no longer directed the affairs of France, or was able to advocate war; and England was embarrassed by domestic commotions and the violent remonstrances of her rebellious colonies. It was in vain that the King of Poland published refutations to the claims of the co-partitioners, and in vain that they made an appeal to all the states that had ever guaranteed the integrity of the country. Before the spirit of Europe could be roused, violent hands were laid upon the kingdom, and the work was done. The three powers, indeed, proceeded to the dismemberment of Poland, with no other check or impediment than such as arose from their own clashing interests, where each one strove to obtain as much as they could. But the agreement was made marvellously quick. The treaty of partition was signed between the spoliators on the 2nd of August, in 1772, and it was followed in the month of September by declarations, manifestoes, and specifications of the territories which each of he powers was to possess Austria and Prussia claimed their portions as their rights; Russia represented that she was entitled to hers for expenses incurred in keeping Poland in order. All the powers agreed that it was to put an end to anarchy, and the frequent troubles of Poland, that induced them to take this step; and they asserted that it was their intention of placing the ancient constitution of Poland and the national liberties upon a sure foundation. But their assertions ill agreed with their actions: all the world knew their motives, and that it was self alone which made them take such deep interest in the affairs of Poland. Nay, their very manifestoes declared their real designs. Cities, towns, provinces, rivers, and Mountains were to be taken from her, and placed under their own fostering care. But then it was stated by them, this was only done out of mercy to the nation. Having limited their kingdom thus, they promised that they would discharge the Poles from all other debts, dues, and demands, and for ever respect the integrity of the remnant of their dominions. Thus preaching peace, though war was in their hearts, the three powers invited the Poles of all ranks and orders to put up their swords, and to banish the spirit of discord and delusion, in order that a diet legally assembled might co-operate with their imperial majesties and the King of Prussia in re-establishing tranquillity, and at the same time ratify, by public acts, the titles, pretensions, and claims of the three powers; and the partition agreed upon and effected. The diet met, and although for a long time they opposed the dismemberment of the country, yet they were overcome by large presents and larger promises. The king was more firm, but he was menaced with deposition, his family with ruin, and his capital with pillage, and he signed the fatal instrument. The territory taken and divided among them was almost the third part of Poland, and it comprised some of the richest provinces in the kingdom. Thus to Russia was assigned the greater part of Lithuania, with all the vast country between the livers Dwina and Dneister; to Prussia the whole of Pomeralia, part of Great Poland, the bishopric of Warmia, and the palatinates of Marienberg and Culm, with the complete command of the lower part of the Vistula; and to Austria the country along the left bank of the Vistula, from Vielicza down to the confluence of the river Viroz, the whole of the country called Red Russia, the palatinate of Belz, and a portion of the province of Volhynia. But even this did not satisfy the spoliators. The treaty was scarcely signed when Frederick extended the limits of his acquisitions in the neighbourhood of Thorn, and to the east of the Devenza, while Austria seized on Casimir, part of the palatinate of Lublin, and some lands lying on the right bank of the Bog. Were not these three powers actuated by a spirit of revenge and envy, as well as by a spirit of cupidity, in this spoliation of Poland? Prussia was formerly in a state of vassalage to that country; Russia once saw its capital and throne possessed by Poles; and Austria was indebted to a sovereign of this country for the preservation of its metropolis, if not for its very existence. Stanislaus could scarcely be persuaded that this dismemberment was intended to be perpetual; and when he was convinced of it, he addressed prayers and protests to France, Spain, and England, and to all the powers of Europe. These prayers and protests were useless; and yet it was the wisdom of the powers to vindicate his cause. Professor Heeren remarks:—“What were the consequences to Poland, in comparison with those which threatened the political system of Europe? The potentates themselves had begun its subversion. Politicians flatter ed themselves, indeed, and so did Frederick, that the balance of power would be upheld in the north by the nearly equal division; so fearfully had the error taken root, that this balance is to be sought in the material power of the state, and not in preserving the maxims of international law. What dismemberment could be illegal if this should be regarded as lawful? and what state could be more interested in maintaining the law of nations than Prussia—a state which was established by conquests piecemeal, and brought together by compacts and treaties of peace?” The dismemberment of Poland was in truth an outrage committed upon the law of nations. And this outrage was rendered tenfold more iniquitous by the new constitution imposed upon Poland. This constitution excluded all reform; perpetuated the elective monarchy with the _liberum veto_, the exorbitant privileges of the nobles, and every other inherent defect; and contracted the regal power, by appointing a co-operative council, and depriving the sovereign of more than half his patronage. The delegates who had been appointed to adjust the claims of the partitioning powers, and to settle this new constitution, long resisted these regulations, but their consent was finally extorted by threats, and a general diet was assembled which formally confirmed their acts. All things, therefore, were put into a proper train for future spoliation; nor did a long time elapse before another opportunity occurred of making inroads into the law of nations, and dissolving those ties which connect governing powers among themselves. The ambassadors of the three powers, indeed, continued to dictate to the council in which the executive power was vested, as they had done to the diet, and the king was only king in name. Some there were in the nation who dared to resist the spoliators, but they were soon compelled to leave the country with no fortune but their swords. Some of these afterwards fought under George Washington, in America, when the English colonies raised the standard of independence.

INVESTIGATION OF THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.

During this year the dispute concerning the Middlesex election was revived in a new mode of investigation. An action was brought by Mr. Alderman Townshend against the collector of the land-tax for distraint in default of payment, which was refused, on the plea that Middlesex was not represented in parliament. Sergeant Glynn was retained for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wallace was employed for the defendant—the former of whom argued, that the county was not represented, and the latter of whom contented himself with producing the act of parliament under which the collector had acted. Lord Mansfield, in his charge to the jury, said, that the sole question for them to consider was, whether at the present time there was any legislative power in the county or not—if they thought there was, they must find for the defendant. The jury thought there was, and gave a verdict accordingly.

CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

During the month of August several changes occurred in the ministry which had a tendency to strengthen the administration. Lord Hillsborough resigned his post of secretary for the colonies and first lord of trade; the Earl of Harcourt succeeded Lord Townshend in Ireland, the latter being appointed master-general of the ordnance; General Conway obtained the government of Jersey, and was succeeded as lieutenant-general of the ordnance by Sir Jeffery Amherst; and Lord Stormont was sent as ambassador to Paris. Moreover, later in the year, Charles Fox, whose services were of value to the ministers, and who was in want of ministerial pay, again changed sides, and was made a lord of the treasury; while Mr. Jenkinson was created vice-treasurer of Ireland.

THE MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 26th of November. The speech of his majesty contained no topic of importance, and the addresses of both houses did little more than echo the speech. It was expected that some allusion would have been made in it to the partition of Poland, but not a word was said about that flagrant act, and the members who spoke on the addresses were equally silent upon the subject. Mr. Burke appears to have felt deeply concerning it, but he reserved his eloquence for a future period.

EAST INDIA AFFAIRS.

On the first clay of the session hostile language was uttered by the retainers of government in the commons against the East India Company, and Lord North moved for a secret committee of thirteen to examine certain points, independently of the committee appointed last session, which was carried. In the course of seven days a report was made by this secret committee, recommending a bill to prevent the company from sending out certain supervisors whom it had selected to settle matters in India. It was at once seen that such a bill was only a preparatory measure for the interference of government in the administration of India, and therefore it excited the warmest opposition of many members. Several of the directors, sitting in parliament, declared that the report was hurried, irregular, and unconstitutional; and Burke, who was a holder of East India stock, maintained that the proposed bill would be a violation of the company’s charter, and the law of the land. “If,” said he, “we suffer this bill to pass we shall become the East India Company; the treasury bench will be the buyers, and on this side we shall be the sellers. The senate will become an auction-room, and the speaker an auctioneer.” The recommendation of the secret committee was, notwithstanding, adopted, and the bill was introduced.

During the progress of this bill, the East India directors petitioned against it, representing it as subversive of those rights and privileges which they held under their charter, which were purchased by their predecessors for a valuable consideration, and were confirmed to them by acts of parliament. The petition also complained of an erroneous calculation of expenses made by the committee, and stated that those of the commission would be defrayed by savings meditated, to the great benefit of the creditors. The petitioners, moreover, suggested that injurious consequences would arise from their being prohibited to transact their own affairs, in the want of means to fulfil their engagements with the public; claimed the benefit of the law; appealed to the faith of the nation for their chartered rights; and prayed to be heard by counsel. This latter prayer was granted, and it appeared from evidence that government had received nearly £2,000,000 annually from the company, while the company had received little more than six per cent, on their capital. The evidence given at the bar also served to establish the great delinquency of the company’s servants, and the need that existed of their being subject to supervision. At the same time it did not show that the company of itself was competent to redress these abuses, and the question was, whether the incompetency of the company warranted the interposition of parliament. Ministers acknowledged it to be a stretch of authority, but they justified it on the plea of cogent necessity—a necessity which took precedence of all other law. The company’s battle was fought in the commons by Burke, whose speech on this occasion attracted great attention. After observing that parliament took the state of the company’s trade into consideration, in 1767 for the maintenance of the public faith and public credit; for the increase of its commerce and revenues, and for the security of its stockholders—a bargain with which the eyes of the house were dazzled—he thus descanted on the distress of the company and the iniquity of the bill:—“The distress of the company,” said he, “arises from the improvidence of administration and the short-sightedness of parliament, in not forming for it a system of government suitable to its form and constitution. Or am I mistaken? Were the directors left without any effectual control over delinquent servants? Was the collection of the revenue left without any check? Was the tyranny of a double government, like our double cabinet, tolerated with a view of seeing the concerns of the company become an absolute chaos of disorder, and of giving to government a handle for seizing the territorial revenue? I know that this was the original scheme of administration, and I violently suspect that it never has been relinquished. If the ministry have no sinister view, if they do not mean by this unconstitutional step to extend the influence of the crown, they will now speak out, and explicitly declare their intentions: their silence may be justly construed into a confession of such a design, and they will thenceforth be considered as the determined enemies of the liberty of their country. God knows, that the places and pensions, and expectancies, furnished by the British establishment, are too powerful for the small remains of patriotism and public spirit that remain in our island. What then will become of us, if Bengal, if the Ganges, pour in a new tide of corruption? Should the evil genius of British liberty so ordain it, I fear this house will be so far from removing the corruption of the East, that it will be corrupted by it: I dread more from the infection of that place than I hope from the virtue of this house. Was it not the sudden plunder of the East that gave the final blow to the freedom of Borne? What reason have we to expect a better fate? I conjure you, by everything which man ought to hold sacred—I conjure you by the spirits of your forefathers, who so nobly fought and bled for the cause for which I now plead—I conjure you by what includes everything, by your country, not to yield to the temptations which the East, in the hands of the crown, holds out: not to sink into the gulf of corruption, and to drag after you your posterity and your country. I obtest heaven and earth, that in all places, and at all times, I have hitherto shoved by the gilded hand of corruption, and endeavoured to stem the torrent which threatens to overwhelm this land. On the whole, the bill is dangerous in itself, as being the first step towards the total invasion of the company’s territories in Bengal; and should we admit the motives which lead to it to be good, yet such a step is dangerous as a precedent. I do not, however, deny that the house has power to pass it, but you have not the right. There is a perpetual confusion in gentlemen’s ideas from inattention to this material distinction, from which, properly considered, it will appear that this bill is contrary to the eternal laws of right and wrong—laws that ought to bind all men, and, above all men, legislative assemblies.” Notwithstanding Burke’s eloquence, the bill was carried in the commons by an overwhelming majority, and it was also carried through the lords with little or no opposition. The two houses then adjourned for the Christmas recess.