Chapter IX: {george III. 1778–1779} (1)

Demonstration of Public Spirit in England..... Meeting of
Parliament..... Committee for taking the State of the Nation
into Consideration..... Burke’s Motion relative to the
Employment of Indians..... Committee of Evidence in the
House of Lords..... Lord North’s Conciliatory Bills.....
Intimation of the French Treaty with America.....
Investigation of the State of the Navy..... Motion for
excluding Contractors from Parliament..... Revision of the
Trade of Ireland..... Bill for the Relief of the Roman
Catholics..... Lord Chatham’s last Appearance in the House
of Lords..... Death of Lord Chatham, and posthumous
Honours to his Memory..... The Duke of Richmond’s Motion
resumed..... The Session closed..... Proceedings in
France..... Naval Operations in the British Channel.....
Disgraceful Infraction of the Convention of Saratoga.....
Lafayette’s Expedition to Canada..... Unfortunate Action
under Lafayette..... Sir Henry Clinton takes the Command of
the British Troops..... Arrival of the Commissioners in
America with the Conciliatory Bills..... Evacuation of
Philadelphia by the British, &c. Disgrace of General
Lee..... Unsuccessful Attack, by the Americans and French,
on Rhode Island..... Operations of the British Army.....
Attack of the Savages on the Settlement of Wyoming, &c.
Arrival of the French Envoy at Philadelphia.....
Movements of the British and French Fleets..... Capture of
Dominica by the French..... Capture of St. Lucie by the
British..... Re-capture of the Islands of St. Pierre and
Miquelon..... French Plans regarding Canada counteracted by
Washington..... Capture of Savannah by the British.....
Meeting of Parliament..... Affair respecting Admiral Keppel
and Sir Hugh Falliser.

DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SPIRIT IN ENGLAND.

During the recess, the government party and the opposition were equally zealous in securing the public opinion, and, consequently, the success of its future schemes. The intelligence of Burgoyne’s defeat seems to have had a momentary effect on the minds of the people, which favoured the views of opposition, but while a few politicians declaimed on the necessity of ending a ruinous war by recognising the independence of the United States, and others advised a cessation of arms and conciliation, the vast majority of the nation soon burned with ardour to blot out the recollection of Burgoyne’s disgrace, by deeds of arms, and by reducing the colonies to their original subjection to the mother country. Not only did public meetings of corporate bodies, towns, and counties, display their attachment to the cause of the crown by addresses, but some cities and towns as Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, raised each a regiment of 1000 men at their own expense. Private subscriptions were opened, large sums were given, and 15,000 soldiers were raised in England, Scotland, and Wales, without any cost or charge to government. Many of the maritime towns, also, armed ships to cruise in the Channel, where American privateers and Frenchmen with American colours were now becoming numerous. On the other hand, the opposition party represented that the American prisoners of war were treated with great cruelty in British prisons, and subscriptions were set on foot for their relief. Complaints had been made in the house of lords concerning the sufferings of the American prisoners, and the subject was investigated; but though it was found that their allowance in some instances had been slender, and that in others their keepers had treated them with severity, it could not be shown that this arose from any want of care on the part of government. Everything, however, was tried which could be tried by the opposition, in order to fix an indelible stigma of infamy on the members of Lord North’s administration.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The animus of opposition was exhibited in an unequivocal manner on the reassembling of parliament. On the 22nd of January, Sir Phillip Jennings Clarke moved for an account of the number of troops raised by private subscription, with the names of the commanding-officers. In the debate which followed this motion, ministers were accused of having incorporated 15,000 troops without consent of parliament, and represented their conduct in accepting their aid as most unconstitutional and inimical to the liberties of the country. Lord North, who agreed to the motion, in reply, argued that these spontaneous exertions proved that the people felt the insults and injuries offered to their king and country; and, also, that the country was not in that impoverished state which a jealous and impatient faction had asserted it was. Still the opposition hoped to obtain a vote of censure. In the house of lords the Earl of Abingdon moved that the twelve judges should be consulted as to the legality of raising troops without the authority of parliament. This motion was not pressed to a division; but, on the 4th of February, the same noble lord made another motion more specific, in order to cast blame upon government. He moved for a resolution that the grant of money in private aids or benevolences, without the sanction of parliament, for the purpose of raising armies, was against the spirit of the constitution and the letter of the law; and that, to obtain money by subscription was not only unconstitutional and illegal, but a direct infringement of the rights, and a breach of the privileges of parliament. This motion, after a warm debate, was negatived by ninety to thirty. On the same day in the commons, some money being demanded for the uniforms of these new troops, a still warmer discussion arose upon the subject. The new levies were treated with much discourtesy by the opposition; the two Scotch regiments, especially, being designated vile mercenaries, and willing tools of despotism. The opposition also maintained that such a practice of raising troops was contrary to the oath of coronation, and that all who subscribed were abettors of perjury. Lord North justified himself by precedents: he showed that independent regiments had been raised in 1745, and again in 1759, when Chatham was minister. On the latter occasion, he said, that Chatham had publicly and solemnly thanked those who raised such troops for the honour and service of their country. Yet, “that great oracle with a short memory,” on the very night on which Lord North reminded the lower house of this notable fact, declaimed in the upper house in support of the Earl of Abingdon’s motion against the practice Later in the session Wilkes renewed this subject, but the motion which he made relative to it was negatived by seventy-two against forty.

COMMITTEE FOR TAKING THE STATE OF THE NATION INTO CONSIDERATION.

On the 2nd of February, on the order of the day being read, for the house to resolve itself into a committee to take the state of the nation into consideration, Fox moved that no more troops should be sent out of the kingdom. On the same day, the Duke of Richmond, also, made a similar motion in the house of lords. In both houses the opposition represented that war with France and Spain was inevitable; and that our means of defence were not sufficient in the whole to meet the contingency; and, therefore, it was not prudent to protract an impracticable contest. No answer was made in the commons, but in the lords the motion and the arguments adduced in support of it were denounced as amounting to a public acknowledgment of our inability to prosecute war; as inviting the house of Bourbon to attempt an invasion; and as attacking the prerogative of the crown to raise, direct, and employ the military force of the kingdom. The motions were rejected in the lords by ninety-one against thirty-four; and in the commons by two hundred and ninety-five against one hundred and sixty-five.

BURKE’S MOTION RELATIVE TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF INDIANS.

On the 6th of February, Burke introdued a motion for papers relative to the employment of Indians in America, from 1774 to 1778. On this occasion he made a speech three hours in length, during the whole of which time the attention of the house was fixed on the orator. This speech, however, which is represented as being one of the most splendid efforts of his oratory, is very inadequately reported. From it, notwithstanding, it may be gathered that he drew a striking and ghastly picture of Indian warfare, and of the horrors committed by these savage auxiliaries. It had a greater effect upon the house than Chatham’s denunciations of the practice of employing the Indian tribes in our army, arising from the fact that the orator handled the subject with clean hands. Colonel Barré, excited by it, declared that if it were printed and published he would nail it on every church-door by the side of the king’s proclamation for a general fast; and Governor Johnson said it was fortunate for Lord North and Germaine that the galleries had been cleared before the speech was uttered, as the indignation and enthusiasm of strangers might have excited the people to lay violent hands upon them on their return home. The secret of the excitement occasioned by the speech seems chiefly to have consisted in the fact that it abounded in touching stories and pathetic episodes. Burke especially elaborated the affecting fate of Miss Mac Crea, who was strongly attached to the royal cause, and who, being on her way to marry an officer in Burgoyne’s army, was barbarously murdered by two Indian chiefs sent for her protection. The two chiefs having disputed which of them should be her principal guard and obtain a larger reward, he, from whose hands she was snatched, raised his tomahawk, and in a fit of rage cleft her head asunder. Such stories as these, founded in fact, were well calculated to produce excitement, especially as the murderer was left unscathed. Burke argued that these savage allies were too powerful, or their services too highly valued to run the risk of offending them; but it would rather appear that pardon was extended to the offender through an agreement with his tribe and the British general to abstain in future from indulging in such wanton cruelties, which Burgoyne considered of more importance than to take revenge on a wretch who scarcely knew that what he did was a sin either in the sight of God or man. Such stories as these, however, told upon the feelings of the house, and insured Burke strong-support. Governor Pownall, in taking the same side of the question, declared that there was not so unfair, so hellish an engine of war as savages mingled with civilized troops; and he recommended that terms should be proposed to congress whereby the two countries should mutually agree to break off all alliance with the Indians, and treat them as enemies whenever they should commit any act of hostility against a white person, American or European. He would answer for it, he said, that congress would embrace and execute such terms with good faith; and he suggested that the overture might occasion the happiest effects in producing mutual kind offices, and leading ultimately to a perfect reconciliation. He finally offered to go in person, without any pay or reward, and make the proposal to congress; asserting that he would answer with his life for the success of the negociation. But this noble proposal of Governor Pownall and Mr. Burke’s motion were alike rejected by a ministerial majority.

COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ETC.

On the same day that Burke made this motion in the commons, the lords in committee on the state of the nation were employed in examining witnesses to prove the ruinous consequences of the maritime war. Merchants were called as witnesses by the opposition peers, who proved that they had sustained heavy losses from the war; while, on the other hand, government were provided with other merchants, who showed that new sources of commerce had been opened since the commencement of hostilities; and, that considerable captures had been made. The Duke of Richmond opposed the arguments derived from the testimony of government witnesses. The prizes taken and distributed to British seamen, he said, so far from being a balance in our favour, added to our loss; for if we had not been at war with America, the value of all these cargoes in the circuitous course of trade, must have centred in Great Britain. The propositions were disposed of by the previous question, and other motions made by the Duke of Richmond for ascertaining the number of troops sent to America, as well as the expenses incurred by the war, though they occasioned long and warm debates, were equally unsuccessful. A similar motion was made in the commons by Fox, on the 11th of February, but it was evaded by a motion for leave to report progress. It was, perhaps, judicious in ministers to resist the production of papers called for by the opposition, for in almost every instance it would have let the enemy into dangerous secrets: secrets which they would have turned to their own advantage.

LORD NORTHS CONCILIATORY BILLS.

It is a singular fact that while Lord North sternly advocated war, he was at this time so adverse to a continuation of the contest that he had expressed a wish to the king to resign office. This appears from a letter addressed to him by his majesty on the 31st of January, in which, after appealing to Lord North’s personal affection for him, he writes: —“You must remember that before the recess I strongly advised you not to bind yourself to bring forward any plan for restoring tranquillity to America; not from any absurd ideas of unconditional submission, which my mind never harboured; but from foreseeing that whatever can be proposed will be liable, not to bring America back to her attachment, but to dissatisfy this country, which so cheerfully and handsomely carries on the contest, and has a right to have the struggle continued, till convinced that it is vain. Perhaps this is the minute when you ought to be least in a hurry to produce a plan, from the probability of a declaration of war from France.” It is evident from this letter that Lord North had proposed some plan of conciliation which did not meet with the monarch’s views; and it seems clear, also, that his lordship, in expressing a wish to retire, had urged the impossibility of obtaining unconditional submission, which he erroneously thought was the only ground on which his majesty would listen to terms of peace. But though it was the king’s opinion on the last day of January that no conciliatory measures should be adopted or proposed out of deference to the views of the people, yet his opinion soon changed. On the 9th of February, when a war with France had become inevitable, he wrote to his minister again, urging him not to “delay to bring in his proposition,” before “the veil was drawn off by the court of France.” Lord North lost no time in complying with this his majesty’s command. On the 17th of February, he brought in two bills tending to reconciliation with the colonists: one was expressly designed to remove all apprehension from their minds concerning taxation by the British parliament, whilst it repealed the act imposing a duty on tea; and the other enabled his majesty to appoint commissioners to consult and agree on means of quieting the disorders subsisting in certain colonies, plantations, and provinces of North America. In introducing these bills, Lord North asserted that he had been uniformly disposed to pacific arrangements; that he had tried conciliatory measures before the sword was unsheathed, and would gladly try them again; that he had conceived his former propositions were equitable, and still thought so, though they had been misrepresented both at home and in America; that he never expected to derive any considerable revenue from the colonies; that he had originated none of the American taxes; that he found such as existed when, unfortunately for his own peace of mind, he came into office; and that, as for the act enabling the East India Company to send out teas with the drawback of the entire duty, which led to the Boston riots, it was a relief rather than oppression, since it actually gave the colonists their teas at a cheaper rate than before. Lord North then explained the principles of his two bills. The first, he said, was intended to quiet the minds of the Americans on the subject of taxation—to dispel all fears that parliament would ever tax them again, by a distinct renunciation of the right itself. The second bill, he remarked, would give the royal commissioners far more ample powers than those formerly entrusted to Lord Howe and his brother. They would be authorized to treat with congress as if it were a legal body, and competent by its acts and negociations to bind all the colonies; they would be empowered to treat with the conventions or provincial assemblies, or colonial congresses, and with individuals in their actual civil capacities or military commands, without any cavil as to allowing them and addressing them by the rank they held under congress: and they would have the power of suspending hostilities, intermitting the operation of laws, granting pardons, rewards, and immunities, restoring charters and constitutions, and nominating governors, judges, magistrates, &c., till the king’s pleasure should be known. The stumblingblock of independence was removed very skilfully by Lord North. This act declared that should the Americans make this claim at the outset of the treaty, they would not be required to renounce it until it was ratified by the British legislature. The commissioners were to be instructed to negociate for a reasonable and moderate contribution toward the common defence of the empire when reunited, but they were not to insist even on this slight contribution as indispensable. In conclusion, Lord North contended that these concessions ought not to be deemed the results of defeat or weakness, since they were substantially the same as he should offer in the hour of victory. The events of the war, he frankly acknowledged, had not corresponded to his expectation, but he denied that there was any truth in the representations of a factious opposition. But for faction, England was as fertile in resources as ever: she was in circumstances to prosecute war, raise new armies, and to increase her navy, so as to be enabled to meet her accumulated foes.

Burke says that on hearing these proposals the whole house was overclouded with astonishment, dejection, and fear. This may be exaggeration, but it is certain that the ample concessions proposed by the minister—concessions far outstripping those which had been brought forward by Mr. Burke and Lord Chatham, and which were opposed by government—were highly distasteful to the country gentlemen, and to the whole Tory party. Expressions of loud disapprobation were heard on their side of the house, and some bitterly complained that deception had been practised against them relative to American taxation. On the other hand, while the opposition contended that the season was gone by when such a plan would have succeeded, it was generally approved by them. They yet hoped, they said, that there might be a chance of conciliation, and therefore they would give the minister their support. At the same time, Lord North was severely reprehended by some of the opposition members. Fox said his arguments “might be collected into one point, and his excuses comprised in one apology, or rather in one word, _ignorance_; a palpable and total ignorance of America: he had expected much, and had been disappointed in every thing; necessity alone had compelled him now to speak out.” In the course of his speech, Fox informed the house that there was a report abroad that within the last ten days France had signed a treaty with America, acknowledging their independence, and entering into a close alliance with the colonists. He called on Lord North to afford the house satisfaction on so important a point, and that minister reluctantly acknowledged that such a treaty was in agitation, though as it was not authenticated by our ambassador he could not say that it was concluded. The motion for bringing in the bill was carried by a majority of about two to one, and on the first reading some of the Tory members expressed their disapprobation of our wholly renouncing the right of taxing the colonists. In reply, Lord North declared that the not exacting the renunciation of independence by the Americans did not imply that we intended to yield that point; that the commissioners would not be empowered to concede thus much; and that the Americans would be expected to treat as subjects, and not as a sovereign state. The bills were passed, and when brought up to the lords, the opposition was renewed. The Duke of Richmond read the American declaration of independence, and asked ministers whether they meant to subscribe to assertions such as these:—“That the king is a tyrant,”..... “that his majesty has lost the affection of his American subjects by the insolent, daring, perfidious and unconstitutional language of ministers, etc.” His grace said these bills, instead of regaining the affections of the Americans, would sound the trumpet of war to all nations; that they were at once ignominious and ineffectual; that they meant nothing or worse than nothing; that they were better calculated to divide than conciliate; and that they empowered commissioners to treat with America, and then called them back again to consult parliament. His grace also stated as a notorious fact that ministers had sent persons over to Paris to tamper with Dr. Franklin and Silas Deane, and that these American agents had rejected their offers, together with the terms of the new bills, in scorn. Lord Temple opposed the bills on different grounds. He denounced them as mean and truckling, and as tending to prostrate the king, the parliament, and the people of Great Britain at the feet of Franklin and Silas Deane, to whom ministers had paid homage in sackcloth and ashes. The people, he said, had recovered from the shock occasioned by Burgoyne’s reverses, and ministers were now going to depress their newly-awakened animation by succumbing to an arrogant enemy. Lord Shelborne also opposed the bills as tending to separate the two countries. He never would consent, he said, that America should be independent of England, and he represented that his idea of the connexion between the two countries was, that they should have one friend, one enemy, one purse, and one sword; that Britain, as the great controlling power, should superintend the whole; and that both the countries should have but one will, though the means of expressing it might be different. This, he said, might have been obtained long ago without bloodshed or animosity. The bills passed without a division: a protest was entered against them, but it was only signed by one solitary peer, Lord Abingdon.

INTIMATION OF THE FRENCH TREATY WITH AMERICA.

The conciliatory bills were scarcely passed when Lord North delivered a message from the throne to the commons, stating the receipt of information from the French king, that he had concluded a treaty of amity and commerce with his majesty’s revolted subjects in America, and that in consequence of this offensive communication, the British ambassador at Paris had been ordered home. His majesty, the minister said, fully relied on the zeal and affection of his people to repel the insult and maintain the honour of the country. The note of the French ambassador was laid before parliament, and it was to this effect:—“The United States of North America, who are in full possession of independence, as pronounced by them on the 4th of July, 1766, having proposed to the King of France to consolidate, by a formal convention, the connexion begun to be established between the two nations, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed a treaty of friendship and commerce, designed to serve as a foundation for their mutual good correspondence. His majesty, the French king, being resolved to cultivate the present good understanding subsisting between France and Great Britain by every means compatible with his dignity and the good of his subjects, thinks it necessary to make his proceeding known to the court of London, and to declare at the same time that the contracting parties have paid great attention not to stipulate any exclusive advantages in favour of the French nation, and that the United States have reserved the liberty of treating with every nation whatever upon the same footing of equality and reciprocity. In making this communication to the court of London, the king is firmly persuaded it will find new proofs of his majesty’s constant and sincere disposition for peace; and that his Britannic majesty, animated by the same friendly sentiments, will equally avoid every thing that may alter their good harmony, and that he will particularly take effectual pleasures to prevent his French majesty’s subjects and the United States from being interrupted, and to cause all the usages received between commercial nations to be, in this respect, observed, and all those rules which can be said to subsist between the two courts of France and Great Britain. In this just confidence, the undersigned ambassador thinks it superfluous to acquaint the British minister that the king, his master, being determined to protect effectually the lawful commerce of his subjects, and to maintain the dignity of his flag, has, in consequence, taken effectual measures in concert with the Thirteen United and Independent States of America.” In making this communication to the house, Lord North moved an appropriate address to the king, which again called forth the spirit of opposition. In discussing the motion, an amendment was proposed requesting his majesty to dismiss the ministers. Lord North was reproached with having suffered himself to be surprised by the notification of a treaty which appeared to have been two years under discussion, and with leaving the country on the eve of war destitute of adequate means for its internal security. Without designing to vindicate ministers, Governor Pownall detailed the circumstances and progress of the treaty. The account, however, which he gave was widely different from matter of fact. He said that the idea had not existed six months, and had not been in actual negociation more than half that time. But it is well known that the idea had been uppermost in the minds of the American leaders for full two years, and that Silas Deane had been attempting to negociate for nearly that period, and Benjamin Franklin had been at Paris with the same object in view for near twelve months. It appears indeed that the only reason the treaty was not signed long before, was that the French at first attempted to drive a hard bargain, conceiving that the Americans were in such a weak condition that they would agree to any terms rather than not obtain the co-operation of France. The news of ther surender of Burgoyne’s army, as Governor Pownall observed, lowered the demands of the French, and this it was that made them hurry on such a treaty as congress desired. But even. now Pownall remarked, peace was yet practicable, if Great Britain would pursue the proper course. He said:—“The Americans are and must be independent. We acknowledge it in our acts, and have already, though we may try to cover our shame with words, resigned all dominion over them. They will never rescind their declaration; but if parliament will extend the powers of the commissioners so far as to acknowledge their independence, on conditions, they will, in return, form with us a federal treaty, offensive, defensive, and commercial. The compact, signed at Paris, is not yet ratified by congress: by a speedy and candid exertion this country may still be enabled to take advantage of the natural predilection of the Americans for the parent state. If a federal treaty Were not adopted, and the Americans should ever be induced to treat on other terms, one of their first demands must be a reimbursement of expenses, and an indemnification for losses. A pecuniary remuneration was out of the question; but in lieu of it government must sacrifice Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Newfoundland fishery. This would be insisted on; but if independence were conceded America could only treat with England on the same ground as any other independent nation.” General Conway and Mr. Dundas argued that it would be better policy to form a federal union with America, than to let her fall into the hands of France; but the vast majority of the house seemed to think that the entrance of France into the quarrel rendered all present thought of negociation an absurdity and a meanness; and that no future friendship could be hoped from a people who, though descended from us and bound to us by the strong ties of community of descent, language, and religion, had united themselves with the most ancient, inveterate, and most powerful of all our enemies. At the same time war was advocated, it was suggested that Chatham, the scourge of the house of Bourbon, was the proper man to occupy the post held by Lord North at such a crisis. But Lord North did not coincide in this opinion. He expressed a total disregard to office, but contended that the interest of the empire, as well as his own reputation, demanded that he should still sit at the helm of the state. The original address was carried by a large majority, and in the house of lords an amendment to the address was negatived by a majority of sixty-eight against twenty-five. Addresses were also returned from both houses to a royal message intimating his majesty’s intention of calling out the militia.

INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF THE NAVY.

Previous pages show that there had already been debates on the state of the navy. Now that a war with France was inevitable the subject was brought prominently forward; especially in the house of lords. On the 13th of March, Lord Howard of Effingham moved a series of resolutions explaining the condition of the navy during the last eight years; the number of ships broken up, built, or repaired; and the precise condition and expense of the ordnance. In moving these resolutions, Lord Howard spoke of the necessity of economy, and accused the first lord of the admiralty with gross mismanagement. Lord Sandwich, who had been assailed on previous occasions when the same subject was introduced, now made a long and able defence. The British naval force, he said, at that moment consisted of three hundred and seventy-three ships of all rates, which was a force double to that which England had in her possession half a century before. In drawing the comparison or the present state of the navy with its condition in 1727, he adduced arguments highly favourable to his own administration; but notwithstanding this, the opposition were very violent in their language towards him. He was even threatened with the vengeance of the people, who, it was said, would rise and tear him to pieces, as the Dutch had treated De Witt. The debate was tumultous, but the motions were all negatived.

MOTION FOR EXCLUDING CONTRACTORS FROM PARLIAMENT.

After various debates on the iniquities practised by contractors, and the badness of the provisions which they supplied, Sir Philip Jennings Clarke introduced a bill for excluding contractors from parliament, unless their contracts were publicly obtained by competition. In this debate ministers were coupled with the offenders, and Lord George Gordon, who afterwards rendered himself so notorious, declared that Lord North was the worst of all contractors—he was, he said, a contractor for men, a contractor for parliament, and a contractor for the representatives of the people! Lord George advised the minister to save his country and rescue his own life from popular vengeance by calling away his butchers from America, by retiring with all the rest of his majesty’s evil advisers, and by turning away from his own wickedness. The first and second reading of the bill was carried, but the motion for committing the bill was negatived on the 5th of May, by a majority of two, and it was consequently lost.

REVISION OF THE TRADE OF IRELAND.

During the month of April a committee of the house of commons was formed for the revision of the trade laws which affected Ireland. In consequence of the American war, a stop had been put to exportations of manufactures, and a large body of the people deprived of employment. Lord Nugent therefore proposed that Ireland should be permitted to export all articles of Irish manufacture—woollen cloths and wool excepted—on board British vessels to the coast of Africa and other foreign settlements, and to import from the same all goods, except indigo and tobacco. He also proposed that they should be allowed to export Irish sailcloth, cotton-yarn, and cordage to England, free of duty. Two bills founded upon these propositions were introduced, and both sides of the house admitting the justice of the measures seemed to agree in the propriety of adopting them. The great commercial body of England, however, took the alarm, and during the Easter recess, a formidable opposition was entered into by the merchants in all quarters. Petitions flowed into parliament from every part of the country, and the different members of parliament were instructed by their constituents to oppose the measures. Many who had previously been disposed to give them their support, in compliance with these instructions now opposed them; but Mr. Burke, who was member for the great trading city of Bristol, manfully refused, and continued to co-operate with Lord Nugent in his task. In presenting a petition from Bristol against the measures, he ably advocated them, and declared that if from his conduct he should forfeit the suffrages of his constituents at the next election, it should stand on record, as an example to future representatives of the commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him that they were wrong. Notwithstanding the petitions and the altered opinion of many members, the second reading of the two bills was carried by a large majority. The petitioners, however, were resolute in their opposition to the measures. They prayed to be heard by counsel, and this being granted, such was the weight of the pleadings of the close-trade interest, that the supporters of the bills were compelled to effect a sort of compromise by which the amount of the benefit conferred on Ireland was greatly diminished.

BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

While the measures for benefiting the trade of Ireland were under discussion, Sir George Saville brought in a bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics, by repealing certain penalties and disabilities created by the 10th and 11th of William III., entitled an Act for preventing the Growth of Popery. The Roman Catholics had recently presented a very flattering address to his majesty, and the occurrences in America and the attempts made by the Americans to excite insurrection seem to have suggested to the minds of ministers the expediency of tranquillizing and securing the affections of the Irish people. This bill, therefore, was supported by ministers, and it was carried through the commons unanimously. The Bishop of Peterborough warmly opposed it in the house of lords, but the majority of the peers gave it their support, and the bill passed into a law. By it the subjects of Great Britain professing the Romish creed were permitted to perform their religious rites, and were rendered capable of inheriting or purchasing real estates, on subscribing an oath of allegiance to the king, and disclaiming the pope’s authority over this realm, or his power of absolving its people from their obligations to the government as by law established. This dawn of religious freedom has been extolled as one of the greatest glories of the reign of George III.; but it must be recollected that this measure was one of expediency, which detracts materially from its glory.

{GEORGE III. 1778–1779}

MOTION OF CENSURE ON LORD GEORGE GERMAINE, ETC.

On the 19th of March, during the sitting of the committee of the whole house on the state of the nation, Mr. Fox moved a resolution of censure on Lord George Germaine, as the chief author of Burgoyne’s disaster. This motion was rejected, and the solicitor-general then proposed that the house should exonerate the noble secretary from all blame. A vote to the effect that the failure of the expedition from Canada was not caused by any neglect of the secretary of state was carried, but the resolution was not reported. By this time Burgoyne, who was a member of parliament, and who had been permitted to return home upon parole, was in his place to speak for himself. He had an opportunity of explaining the whole matter on the 26th of May, when a motion was made for a select committee to consider the transactions of the northern army, the convention of Saratoga, and the means by which the general of that army had obtained his release. In supporting the motion, Burgoyne vindicated his conduct at great length, and complained bitterly of fabrications which injured his own honour and the honour of the army, as well as of his treatment in parliament during his absence, and his treatment generally since his return to England. He solicited a full inquiry, asserting that he put his fortune, his honour, and his head on the issue. The reply of Lord George Germaine was brief, and he concluded by saying that the house was not the proper tribunal to decide upon the campaign, and therefore he could not see the propriety of parliamentary interference. The motion was rejected.

In the course of the debate, Mr. Temple Luttrell adduced the story of the court-martial which had sat upon Lord George Germaine himself, after the battle of Minden, and made an insulting comparison between his conduct in that battle, and the conduct of the brave and enterprising Burgoyne. In a paroxysm of rage, Lord George asserted that he did not merit such an attack; that he would for once descend to a level with the wretched character and malice of his assailant; and that, old as he was, he would meet the fighting gentleman and be revenged. The house called to order, and the speaker reprimanded both members, and insisted that the affair should proceed no further. Lord George immediately apologized for his warmth, but Luttrel escaped out of the house, and would neither apologize nor give the required assurances till the sergeant-at-arms was called in. He then said that he meant his reflections as public matter, and that they were not to be referred to private abuse or enmity, and there the matter ended.

LORD CHATHAM’S LAST APPEARANCE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

About this time, some of the leaders of the opposition became convinced that the only possibility of detaching America from France and avoiding both wars was by acknowledging the independence of the American colonies. These sentiments were communicated to Chatham, and he was solicited by those who entertained them to honour a motion about to be made by the Duke of Richmond on this subject with his support. In reply, Chatham confessed his concern that he was under so wide a difference with his noble friends respecting the sovereignty and allegiance of America; but notwithstanding his increased infirmities, he expressed his determination to be in the house on the 7th of April, which was the day mentioned as that on which the subject was to be brought forward. On that day Chatham appeared in the house for the last time. He came wrapped up in flannel, supported by two friends, and looking like a dying man; and as he entered, the peers rose up and continued standing while he passed to his seat. The Duke of Richmond made his motion, which was for an address to the king, beseeching him to acknowledge the independence of America, by withdrawing all his forces from that country; and to dismiss his ministers. Lord Weymouth, one of the secretaries of state, opposed the motion, and Chatham followed on the same side against his own party. He was supported by his crutches and his two friends, and when he had gained his feet, he took one of his crutches from under his arm, and raising it cast his eyes toward heaven, and said:—“I thank God that I have been enabled to come here this day, to perform my duty and to speak on a subject which has so deeply impressed my mind. I am old and infirm; I have one foot—more than one foot in the grave; I am risen from my bed to stand up in the cause of my country, perhaps never again to speak in this house.” This was delivered in a feeble tone, but as he grew warm, his voice rose and became as harmonious as ever. In the course of his speech, he entered into a full detail of the American war, dilating on all the measures which he had opposed, and evils which he had predicted; adding, at the close of each review, “and so it proved.” Chatham then spoke more particularly on the subject of the motion. He remarked: “My lords, I rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me; that I am still alive to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy! Pressed down as I am by the hand of infirmity, I am little able to assist my country in this most perilous conjuncture; but, my lords, while I have sense and memory I will never consent to deprive the royal offspring of the House of Brunswick, the heirs of the Princess Sophia, of their fairest inheritance. Where is the man that will dare to advise such a measure? My lords, his majesty succeeded to an empire as great in extent as its reputation was unsullied. Shall we tarnish the lustre of this nation by an ignominious surrender of its rights and fairest possessions? Shall this great kingdom, that has survived whole and entire the Danish depredations, the Scottish inroads, and the Norman conquest—that has stood the threatened invasion of the Spanish armada,—now fall prostrate before the house of Bourbon? Surely, my lords, this nation is no longer what it was! Shall a people, that fifteen years ago were the terror of the world, now stoop so low as to tell their ancient, inveterate enemy, ‘Take all we have, only give us peace?’ It is impossible! I wage war with no man, or set of men. I wish for none of their employments; nor would I co-operate with men who still persist in unretracted error; who, instead of acting on a firm, decisive line of conduct, halt between two opinions where there is no middle path. In God’s name, if it is absolutely necessary to declare either for peace or war; and the former cannot be preserved with honour, why is not the latter commenced without hesitation? I am not, I confess, well informed of the resources of this kingdom, but I trust it has still sufficient to maintain its just rights, though I know them not. But, my lords, any state is better than despair. Let us at least make one effort; and if we must fall, let us fall like men!” When Chatham sat down, the Duke of Richmond rose again, and after replying to the arguments of Lord Weymouth, he attempted to answer the great orator. Although evidently disconcerted and irritated at the course he had taken, the Duke professed the greatest veneration for Chatham’s name and person, and the greatest gratitude for the services he had rendered the country. The name of Chatham, however, he said, could not perform impossibilities, or restore the country to the state it was in when directed by his counsels. Our finances were then, through the abilities of that able financier, Mr. Pelham, in a flourishing condition; our fleet was then in an admirable condition, under the direction and care of that able naval officer, Lord Anson; and the influence of the crown then had not reached its present and alarming height. During the greater part of the war, he continued, we had only France to contend with, and when Spain commenced hostilities, France was reduced to the lowest ebb, having already lost her navy and the best of her colonies. Then also America fought for us, but now she would be allied with France and Spain against us. He added, “If the noble earl had pointed out the means of supporting this unequal contest, I should readily acquiesce in his sentiments; but since he has not only omitted to point out the means, but acknowledged that he knows them not, he will excuse me if I adhere to my former opinion. No person is more anxious for the dependence of America; but being convinced of its total impracticability, I would retain the colonists as allies, and thus prevent them from throwing themselves into the arms of France. The noble earl, as a reason for war, has mentioned the inherent rights of the heir apparent. To recover these possessions by force is now impossible; but I will readily join in calling to a severe account those who have caused the loss of his inheritance.” During this harangue, the Earl of Chatham had frequently denoted by the motion of his hand that he had remarked and would reply to some observations which he deemed offensive, and when the Duke of Richmond sat down, he attempted to rise for that purpose. But his work was done: his strength failed him, and he would have fallen to the floor but for the prompt assistance of some noble peers. He was carried into an adjoining chamber, and the whole house, agitated by the event, adjourned in silence.

DEATH OF LORD CHATHAM, AND POSTHUMOUS HONOURS TO HIS MEMORY.

Lord Chatham so far recovered as to be able to be carried down to his favourite villa of Hayes, in Kent. These appearances of recovery, however, were soon found to be delusive. He expired on the 11th of May, in the seventieth year of his age. His death was announced in the house of commons late in the evening of that day by his friend Colonel Barré, who moved for an address to the king that his remains should be interred at the public expense in Westminster Abbey. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Townshend, and seemed to meet with general approbation; but Mr. Rigby, who apprehended that a public funeral would not be agreeable to his majesty, as Chatham had not recently been looked upon with much favour at court, suggested that a public monument to his memory would be a better testimony of the public admiration and gratitude. The result of this suggestion, however, was very different from that which Townshend intended. Mr. Dunning said it would be better to have both the public funeral and the monument, and he combined both in a resolution, which was carried without one dissentient voice; Lord North giving it his warmest support. A funeral and a monument were therefore secured to the great orator, and as, notwithstanding his places, pensions, and legacies left him, Chatham had died in debt, on the recommendation of Lord John Cavendish, £20,000 was voted for the payment of his debts, and £4000 a-year was settled upon-his heirs. No opposition was made to these grants in the commons; but a motion made by the Earl of Shelburne in the lords, that the peers should attend his funeral was lost by a majority of one vote. The annuity bill was also opposed in the lords; but it was carried by a majority of forty-two to eleven. In all these votes his majesty concurred, although during the noble earl’s life he had opposed an application made to him to settle the pension he enjoyed in reversion to his second son, William Pitt, until, at least, decrepitude or death had put an end to him “as a trumpet of sedition.” His majesty, however, could not carry his resentment beyond the grave, and perhaps pleased with the last noble sounds of his trumpet, he gave his warm assent to the honours and rewards which parliament had voted to the great orator and his heirs. And the posthumous honours paid to Chatham were not confined to the king and the parliament. The Common-council petitioned to have his remains interred in the noblest edifice of Great Britain, St. Paul’s Cathedral, and when this was refused, they erected a monument in Guildhall to his memory. He was one of the greatest orators England ever produced; greater even than the garbled and defective reports of his speeches would denote him to have been. In his private life his character was both exemplary and amiable—his public character is defined in the preceding pages.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND’S MOTION RESUMED.

The Duke of Richmond’s motion was resumed on the day after it had been interrupted by Chatham’s illness. The resumed debate, however, only served to place the difference of opinion which existed between the Rockingham and Chatham parties respecting America in a clearer light. The former contended for the independence of that country, without reserve or delay; while the latter as warmly contended that such a measure would prove one of the greatest political evils that could befall the nation. The Earl of Shelburne also maintained that the resources of Great Britain, if properly managed, were sufficient to cope with our triple foes—America, France, and Spain—and that our navy would not fail of supporting the glory they had gained in so many conflicts. The motion was negatived by a majority of fifty-five against thirty-three.

THE SESSION CLOSED.

Although the season was now far advanced, motions were made in both houses to put off the prorogation. These motions were, however lost, and on the 3rd of June, the king terminated the session. In his speech, his majesty thanked his faithful commons for their zeal and attention to the interests of their country, and the honourable support they had made for the royal family; several annuities having been granted to his numerous family. Alluding to the one great question, he said, that his desire was to preserve the tranquillity of Europe; that the faith of treaties and the law of nations had been respected by him, and that he had anxiously avoided giving offence to any foreign power. He added:—“Let that power by whom this tranquillity shall be broken, answer to their subjects and to the world for all the fatal consequences of war!”

PROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE.

Having entered into a treaty with America, in which treaty it was stipulated that the Americans should never return to their allegiance to the British crown, and having thereby hurled a bold defiance to the power of England, the French made preparations for war. At this time France was by no means in a flourishing condition, but by oppressing the poverty-stricken people with imposts, duties, and _corvées_, and by taking the bread from half-famished mouths, means were found to raise armies and equip fleets. The coasts of Normandy and Britainy swarmed with soldiers, who threatened to invade England; arms, money, and men were sent to America; and the navy of France set out to contend with the navy of Great Britain, for the mastery of the seas between the two countries. On the 18th of March, the French king issued an edict to seize all British ships in the ports of France, and shortly after our government laid an embargo on all French ships in British ports. This, with the mutual withdrawal of ambassadors, and the interruption of all diplomatic intercourse, left the two countries in a state of open hostility, although no heralds or manifestoes were employed on either side to make a formal declaration of war. On their part, the French had in reality no materials for manifestoes, whence their silence; while on our part, ministers were too much employed to think of such a ridiculous solemnity. It was, moreover, too well understood on both sides that the only arguments likely to avail must proceed from the mouth of the cannon.

NAVAL OPERATIONS IN THE BRITISH CHANNEL.