Chapter III: {george III. 1769—1771} (1)

The Affairs of America..... Meeting of Parliament.....
Dissolution of the Grafton Cabinet..... Debates on the
Middlesex Election, &c. The Question of Controverted
Elections..... Debates on America..... Release of
Wilkes..... American Affairs..... Riots at Boston..... The
Prorogation of Parliament..... Remonstrance of Beckford to
the King..... Prosecution of Woodfall and Almon.....
Disputes respecting Falkland Islands..... Affairs of
America..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debate concerning
the Falkland Islands..... Parliamentary Proceedings on the
Law of Libel..... Quarrels between the Lords and
Commons..... Convention with Spain...... Changes in the
Ministry.

THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

It has been seen how the Americans were affected by the Declaratory Bill, which accompanied the repeal of the Stamp Act. Had government been wise, their disaffection would have taught its members to have devised some conciliatory measures in order to prevent the threatened outbreak. The conduct of the government, however, was the very reverse from this. Instead of allaying the discontents of our colonists, ministers increased them by resolving to enforce what they called the Mutiny Act. This was carried hurriedly through the house at the close of the session; and though the consequences of such a course must have been as clear as daylight, yet ministers resolved to put it into execution. For the Mutiny Act was, more properly speaking, an act for quartering and better providing for the troops at the expense of the colonies. It gave power to the military to billet themselves on private houses, as was done in the war, and therefore was naturally offensive to the whole of the American population, whether friendly or adverse to the English government. It was calculated to make foes of friends, and to confirm those who were already foes, in their opposition to the mother country. The design of this measure, doubtless, was to overawe the colonists; but the spirit of freedom had taken too deep root in America thus to be overawed. Matters, in truth, grew worse and worse daily in that country. The minds of the Americans had been chafed to such a degree by their original grievances, and the measures which had been adopted to enforce their quiescence, that they became every day more and more disaffected toward the English government. How full fraught the country was with rebellion became manifest on the arrival of the newly-formed American board of commissioners, at Boston, to enforce the payment of the duties recently imposed upon them, and to put an end to smuggling. In the preamble to Charles Townshend’s Act, the colonists read, that these duties were laid “for the better support of the government, and the administration of the colonies;” and in the bill itself they found a clause which seemed to empower the king, by sign manual, to establish a general civil list in every province in North America, with salaries, pensions, and everything that could be obnoxious to a free-thinking people. This was instantly declared to be unnecessary, unjust, and dangerous to the rights of Americans; while the establishment of a civil list in America, independent of the assemblies, was pronounced illegal. Measures were taken by the people of Boston for putting into effect the non-importation agreements, which had been before suggested; the press was employed to demonstrate the iniquity of the taxing acts; and the assembly of Massachusets addressed a circular letter to all the other colonies to invite them to combine in taking measures to defeat the obnoxious act. Every assembly, except that of New Hampshire, adopted the sentiments and the plan contained in the circular of the assembly of Massachusets, and passed votes of thanks to the authors of it. How effective it was in exciting opposition is manifest from the following circumstance. Bernard, the governor of Massachusets, was instructed to require the house of representatives to rescind the resolution which gave birth to the letter, and to declare the king’s disapprobation of it. But instead of rescinding the resolution, it received the emphatic confirmation of the assembly. This reply was sent to the governor:—“If the votes of this house are to be controlled by the direction of a minister, we have left us but a vain semblance of liberty. We have now only to inform you that this house have voted not to rescind, and that, on a division on the question, there were ninety-two nays, and seventeen yeas.”

The next day, Governor Bernard received positive instructions to dissolve the assembly of Massachusets. But it was in vain that the arm of power sought to quell the general disaffection: when employed it had only the effect of making the colonists more resolute in their opposition. Associations and committees were formed in most of the provinces, and smuggling was carried on in the broad face of day. Some months before, one Malcolm had fought with the custom-house officers, and had landed sixty pipes of Madeira at Boston without paying duty. In the month of June another cargo arrived at Boston, and when the excise-officer stepped on board he was seized and confined below, while the wine was sent on shore. The officer was afterwards liberated, and on the following morning the skipper of the sloop entered four or five pipes at the custom-house, declaring that this was the whole of his cargo. Aware of the falsehood of this statement, the commissioners ordered a comptroller to seize the sloop, and to fix the king’s broad arrow upon her. This was the signal for a riot. A mob, headed by Malcolm, beat and nearly killed several of the revenue officers, and the commissioners themselves were compelled to seek safety in flight. The sloop was, however, seized; the excise being assisted by the captain of the Romney man-of-war, then lying at anchor off Boston. This was on a Friday, and the two following days were comparatively quiet, but on Monday an immense mob gathered in the streets at Boston, and placards were stuck up, calling upon the “sons of liberty” to meet on the following morning. At this meeting a committee was appointed to wait upon the governor, to inquire why the sloop had been seized? This committee pretended that it was an affront offered to the town of Boston to act thus arbitrarily, since the sloop might have been left in safety at the wharf. The committee affected likewise to disapprove of the riot, and some few of the ringleaders were sought for and found, under the pretence of bringing them to condign punishment. But the whole was a farce. Malcolm, the smuggler, and others of a similar stamp, sate upon the grand jury, and quashed all prosecution.

It was these proceedings which seem to have persuaded the ministers at home to revive the obsolete statute of Henry VIII. Before the news of these Boston riots, however, had arrived in England, ministers had resolved to employ force. In a secret and confidential letter, Lord Hillsborough had told General Gage that it was his majesty’s pleasure he should send one regiment or more from Halifax to Boston, to be quartered in that town, in order to assist the civil magistrates and the revenue officers. This was on the 8th of June, and three days later Governor Bernard was informed by his lordship that his majesty had directed one regiment to be stationed at Boston, and had ordered a frigate, two sloops, and two armed cutters to repair to and remain in the harbour of that town for the above-mentioned purpose. It was not, however, till the month of September that the people of Boston became fully aware of the intention of government to send troops thither, and in the meantime they had been busy in organizing resistance to the Mutiny Act. In the month of August, the merchants and traders of Boston agreed upon a new subscription paper, to this effect:—“We will not send for or import from Great Britain, either upon our own account, or upon commission, this fall, any other goods than what are already ordered for the fall supply. We will not send for or import any kind of goods or merchandise from Great Britain, &c., from the lat of January, 1769, to the 1st of January, 1770; except salt, coals, fish-hooks and lines, hemp and duck, bar-lead and shot, wool-cards and card wire. We will not purchase of any factor or others any kind of goods imported from Great Britain, from January, 1769, to January, 1770. We will not import on our own account, or on commission, or purchase of any who shall import from any other colony in America, from January, 1769, to January, 1770, any tea, paper, glass, or any other goods commonly imported from Great Britain. We will not, from and after the 1st of January, 1769, import into this province any tea, paper, glass, or painters’ colours, until the act imposing duties on those articles shall be absolutely repealed.” This paper was generally subscribed by the merchants of Boston, and, soon after, the merchants of Connecticut, New York, and Salem entered into similar agreements.

In the month of September a committee waited upon Governor Bernard, praying him to convene a general assembly. Then it was that they were informed that a military force was coming; and that, consequently, another assembly could not be convened till the governor had received the commands of his majesty. The inhabitants of Boston now resolved, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, to take all legal and constitutional measures to defend the rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities granted in their royal charter. They also agreed, that a certain number of persons should be chosen to act for them as a committee in convention, and to consult and advise with such as might be sent from other towns in the province. Finally, they fixed a convention, to be held in Faneuil-hall, on the 22nd of September, and voted that all the inhabitants not provided with arms should be requested to obtain some forthwith, as there was an apprehension in the minds of many of an approaching war with France.

The convention met on the day appointed. It consisted of deputies from eight districts and ninety-six towns, and its chief business was to petition the governor, make sundry loyal professions, and express an aversion to tumults and standing armies. Its deliberations were cut short by the arrival of the troops, under Colonel Dalrymple, who anchored in Nantasket Roads, near Boston. The governor requested the town-council to provide quarters for these troops in Boston, but they refused; stating, that by act of parliament all troops were to be quartered in the barracks, and that it was illegal to bring them into the town. Colonel Dalrymple led his soldiers to the common on the outside of Boston, and the town-council was again requested to quarter them in the town, which they again refused. He had two regiments under his command, and one of these took possession of Faneuil-hall—the other lay out on the cold common all night. On the evening of the next day, however, the governor ordered the town or state-house to be opened to the other regiment; and the soldiers took possession of every part of it, except the great council-chamber. These proceedings excited deep resentment, and when the governor and Colonel Dalrymple required the council to provide barrack provisions, as regulated by the Mutiny Act, the request was flatly refused. Still the inhabitants of Boston repressed their vindictive feelings. Care was taken by them, however, to make known their injuries, and the insults to which they were subjected in every part of British America. The picture they drew was, doubtless, exaggerated; but that they had grievances there can be no question. At all events they found the sympathy they desired in the various states of America. The Philadelphians, the Georgians, the Rhode-Islanders, and, in short, all the other colonies and towns, with the single exception of Portsmouth, the sole sea-port of New Hampshire, now followed their example, as regards the non-importation of goods from Great Britain. The very females of America partook of the general spirit of resistance; for they entered into associations among themselves, proscribing the use of tea. Some there were among the merchants who showed a reluctance to comply with the terms of the agreement; but their houses were surrounded by organised mobs, and they were compelled to give up trade rather than risk the forfeiture of their property and lives by selling British goods.

Thus encouraged, the Bostonians became more bold in their opposition to government. The assembly being called together in May, 1769, a committee from the house of representatives remonstrated with the governor, complaining of an armament investing their city—of the military guard—of cannon pointed at the door of their state-house—and requesting him, as his majesty’s representative, to order the removal of the ships and the troops. The answer they received was, that he had no authority over his majesty’s ships, or over his troops, within the town of Boston. A few days after the house declared that the use of a military force in the execution of the laws was inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, and that they would not transact any business while thus menaced by soldiers. In order to obviate this objection to business, the governor adjourned the assembly to Cambridge, a town separated from Boston by a narrow arm of the sea, but they were not more disposed for business at Cambridge than at Boston. The only vote passed by them was to this effect:—“That the establishment of a standing army in this colony in time of peace is an invasion of natural rights; that a standing army is not known as a part of the British constitution; that sending an armed force into the colony, under a pretence of assisting the civil authority, is highly dangerous to the people, unprecedented, and unconstitutional.” When requested by the governor to make provision for the troops, after an indignant denunciation of the Mutiny Act, and observing, that of all the new regulations, not excepting the Stamp Act, this was the most unreasonable, they thus declared their resolution:—“Your excellency must excuse us in this express declaration—that as we cannot consistently with our honour and our interest, and much less with the duty we owe to our constituents, so we never will make provision for the purposes in your several messages mentioned.” Finding the assembly thus refractory, the governor prorogued them, taking his leave in the following terms:—“To his majesty, therefore, and if he pleases, to his parliament, must be referred your invasion of the rights of the imperial sovereignty: you need not be apprehensive of any misrepresentations, as it is not in the power of your enemies, if you have any, to add to your publications—they are plain and explicit and need no comment. It is my duty, and I shall do it with regret, to transmit to the king true copies of your proceedings: and that his majesty may have an opportunity to signify his pleasure thereon before you meet again, I think it necessary to prorogue this general court immediately, to the usual time of the winter session.”

Before governor Bernard prorogued the assembly, his majesty had requested his presence in England for the purpose of ascertaining the real state of the province; at the same time testifying his approbation of his conduct, and as a mark of his favour, creating him baronet. Sir Francis left the colony on the 1st of August, and at his departure, the powers of government devolved on lieutenant-governor Hutchinson, a native of the province; a man of great abilities, but influenced in his conduct by a grasping ambition, and an inordinate love of office and aggrandisement. On his return, Sir Francis had no very favourable report to make of his province. Notwithstanding every precaution had been adopted, smuggling was still carried on to a very great extent. The Bostonians had even adopted the practice of tarring and feathering all informers, or all who attempted to assist the government: a brutal operation, which was often attended with a violence that destroyed life. Nor was smuggling carried on in the province of Boston alone. Associations against British commerce were organized to such an extent, that the exports to America were found to fall short of those in the preceding year by £740,000, and the revenue derived from that country was reduced from £701,000 to £30,000. In this the Americans were aided by other countries, who sent them their manufactures in great abundance, so that the narrow views of ministers not only destroyed the resources of Great Britain, but tended to enrich its commercial and political rivals. This greatly alarmed the English merchants, and Lord Hillsborough thought proper to issue a circular letter to the colonies, stating that his majesty’s ministers intended, during the next session, to take off the duties upon glass, paper, and painters’ colours, they having been enacted contrary to the true principles of commerce. No mention, however, was made of the duty upon tea, and the Americans looked upon this omission as having been purposely and invidiously made, as a mark of the legislative supremacy of Great Britain. Nothing, moreover, was said about repealing the odious clauses in the Mutiny Act, and the colonists likewise complained that the circular spoke of commercial expediency, and not of the right which they claimed of imposing taxes upon the colonies by their own act alone In truth, if this circular was intended to conciliate the inhabitants of British America, it was a total failure. The universal mind was too much irritated to be soothed by such an impotent palliative.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1770}

Although America was almost in a state of open rebellion, and England itself, with Ireland, were rent with faction, yet the parliament did not assemble till the 9th of January. This delay naturally excited surprise, and this was still further heightened by the tenor of the king’s speech. Taking no notice of the public discontents, though it feelingly lamented the general distress, it chiefly adverted to a general distemper which had broken out among the horned cattle, which the king gravely assured the lords and commons, he had, by the advice of his privy-council, endeavoured to check. And this was solemnly uttered when wits and scoffers abounded on every hand—when Junius had his pen in his hand full fraught with gall, and Wilkes was bandying about his bon-mots and sarcasms. “While the whole kingdom,” says Junius, in a letter to the Duke of Grafton, “was agitated with anxious expectation upon one great point, you meanly evaded the question, and instead of the explicit firmness of a king, gave us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier.” Never was a speech from the throne more unfortunate, indeed, than this, for though it slightly adverted to the disturbances in America, yet the subject of the disease existing among horned cattle was its prominent feature. It was no wonder, therefore, that it became the jest of the whole nation. Newspapers, pamphlets, and periodicals teemed with biting sarcasm on this most extraordinary circumstance. The king’s love of farming was bitterly descanted upon, and he was represented as attending to cows, stalls, dairies, and farms, while his people were misgoverned and discontented, and his empire, like a ship in a furious storm, in danger every minute of being dashed to pieces. In fine, to show the most profound contempt of such a speech from the mouth of the monarch, at such a season, the session was nicknamed “the horned cattle session.”

Before the opening of parliament, one day the Earl of Chatham stalked into the drawing-room of St. James’s, and after the levee had some private conversation with the king. What passed between them is unknown, but Horace Walpole says, that his reception was most flattering, and the king all condescension and goodness. It does not appear, however, that the interview satisfied Chatham, for it by no means tended to soften his opposition. When parliament met, indeed, he took his place in the house of lords, vigorous and more eloquent than ever, and the administration was doomed to feel his power, like that of a giant refreshed with wine.

The address, which was moved in the upper house by the Duke of Ancaster, and seconded by Lord Dunmore, was as general and unmeaning as the king’s speech. Chatham rose to reply, and after glancing at his age and infirmities, he took a general review of measures since the year 1763. There never was a period, he asserted, when the serious attention of the house to public affairs was more imperatively demanded, and he boldly maintained that it was the duty of their lordships to lay the true state and condition of the country before his majesty. After indulging in a quiet sneer at the care the council had bestowed upon horned cattle, he remarked, that he was glad to hear that the king had reason to believe the peace of the country would be preserved, since peace could never be more desirable to a kingdom, than when it was torn to pieces by divisions and distractions, as England was at the passing hour. He then criticised the last treaty with France and Spain, asserting that England had not obtained what she had a right to expect from the success of our arms, and the feeble condition of our enemies. He also maintained, that having deserted our ally the King of Prussia, we had left ourselves without alliances on the continent, and, consequently, had been every moment on the verge of a new war, during a seven years’ peace. This war, he said, might be unavoidable, and must be unfavourable to England, as the princes of the house of Bourbon, while we stood in an isolated position, had become closely united among themselves, and had formed the closest connexion with the powers of Europe. He, however, lamented still more the unhappy acts which had severed the affections of the American colonists from Great Britain; and the internal discontents of the country. To these he earnestly called the attention of their lordships, since their privileges, however transcendent and appropriate in themselves, stood in fact on the people as a basis. The rights of the highest and the meanest subject, he said, had the same foundation, the security of the law, which was common to all. He maintained that the liberty of the subject was invaded both at home and in the colonies, and that the people who were loud in their complaints, would not be pacified without a redress of their grievances. Liberty, he observed, was a plant that deserved to be cherished; that he loved the tree himself, and wished well to all its branches; that, like the vine in scripture, it had spread from east to west, had embraced whole nations with its branches, and sheltered them under its leaves. Concerning the discontents of the colonists, he conceived that they arose from the measures of government. These had driven them into excesses which could not be justified, but for which, he, for one, was inclined to make some allowance. As to their combinations, and their success in supplying themselves with goods, this, he said, had alarmed him for the commercial interests of the mother country, but he could not conceive in what sense they could be deemed illegal, or how the house by any declaration could remove the evil. Other remedies must be looked for, as the discontents of two millions of people could only be removed by a removal of their causes. Finally, on the subject of discontent in England, he attributed it to the proceedings of the house of commons in the matter of Mr. Wilkes, and he concluded by submitting the following amendment:—“That after the words, ‘and which alone can render our deliberations respectable and effectual,’ be inserted these words, ‘and for these great and essential purposes, we will, with all convenient speed, take into our most serious consideration the causes of the discontents which prevail in so many parts of your majesty’s dominions, and particularly the late proceedings of the house of commons, touching the incapacity of John Wilkes, Esq., expelled by that house, to be elected a member to serve in this present parliament, thereby refusing, by a resolution of one branch of the legislature only, to the subject his common right, and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a representative.’”

This amendment was opposed by Lord Mansfield, he considering that it was a gross attack on the privileges of the commons, and calculated to create a quarrel between the two houses, or between the king and the commons. A question, he said, relating to the seat of a member, could only be determined by the house itself, whose judgment was final, and must be received as the law of the land. The arguments which he used in his speech to support his opinions were ably answered by Chatham. The noble lord began his reply by extolling common sense above subtilty and ingenious refinement. The constitution had been invaded, and he heard with astonishment that invasion defended on principle. He denied that the commons had a supreme jurisdiction, or that its decision must be received as the law of the land; for why, he pertinently asked, were the generous exertions of our ancestors made to secure and transmit to their posterity a known law and a certain rule of living, if, instead of the arbitrary power of a king, we must submit to that of a house of commons? Tyranny was detestable in any shape, but especially when exercised by a number of tyrants. But that, he triumphantly asserted, was not the fact or the constitution of England, and he pointed out where the law of parliament might be found by every honest man; namely, in Magna Charta, in the statute-book, and in the Bill of Rights. The first principle of the constitution is, he observed, that the subject shall not be governed by the will of any man or body of men, but by the whole legislature, and by certain laws to which he has given his assent: laws which were open to him to examine, and not beyond his ability to understand. He then denounced the late decision as destitute of every condition essential to its legality, and as being unsupported by reason, precedent, Magna Charta, or the Bill of Rights. Whether it be questioned by the legislature, he continued, will depend on the resolution of the house; but that it violates the constitution, no man who had listened to the debate could deny. He then expressed his confidence in the wisdom and constitutional authority of the house, and after praising the ancient nobility as founders of the constitution, and invoking the house to follow their brilliant example, he thus concluded:—“Those iron barons—for so I may call them when compared with the silken barons of modern days—were the guardians of the people; yet their virtues were never engaged in a question of such importance as the present. A breach has been made in the constitution—the battlements are dismantled—the citadel is open to the first invader—the walls totter—the constitution is not tenable. What remains, then, but for us to stand foremost in the breach, to repair, or to perish in it?”

The lord chancellor Camden had declared, upon his patron’s resignation of the privy-seal, that Chatham should still be his polar star, and that he reluctantly consented “to hold on a little while longer with this crippled administration.” The part which he took in this debate proved him to be sincere in his declarations. The house was astonished to hear, indeed, sentiments from his lips as strong as those delivered by Chatham. “I accepted,” said he, “the great seal without conditions: I meant not therefore to be trammelled by his majesty—I beg pardon—by his ministers. But I have suffered myself to be so too long. For some time I have beheld with silent indignation the arbitrary measures of the minister. I have often drooped and hung down my head in council, and disapproved by my looks those steps which I knew my avowed opposition could not prevent. I will do so no longer, but will openly and boldly speak my sentiments.” Lord Camden then agreed with his friend respecting the incapacitating vote of the commons, and accused the ministry, by implication, of having formed a conspiracy against the liberties of the country. By their violent and tyrannical conduct, he said, they had alienated the minds of the people from his majesty’s government—he had almost said from his majesty’s person—and that in consequence a spirit of discontent had spread itself into every nook of the kingdom, and was daily increasing, so that it was to be feared, that, if some methods were not devised to appease the clamours heard on every hand, the people might in despair become their own avengers, and take the redress of their grievances into their own hands. The address was negatived, and Lord Pomfret then moved an adjournment for some days; chiefly, as Lords Temple and Shelburne told the house in reply, for the purpose of removing the untractable chancellor, Camden, from his seat in the ministry. Lord Shelburne, however, expressed a conviction “that after the dismissal of the present worthy chancellor the seals would go a begging,” and that “there would not be found in the kingdom a wretch so base and mean-spirited as to accept of them on the conditions on which they must be offered.”

The address in the house of commons was moved by Sir George Osborne In opposition, Mr. Dowdeswell moved for the insertion into the address of words, intimating the necessity of inquiring into the causes of the prevailing discontents in every part of his majesty’s dominions. The debate on this motion was most violent, and lasted many hours. Colonel Barré observed, “that a great part of the king’s subjects were alienated from him; England was in opposition to its own representatives; in Ireland the parliament was prorogued because it had supported the true constitutional right of taxation; the colonies were in actual rebellion on account of taxes confessedly imposed, not for gain, but as a mere test of obedience; and, perhaps to crown the whole, France was on the eve of a war with us.” The Marquis of Granby expressed his regret for having, in the preceding session, voted with ministers on the question of the disqualification of Mr. Wilkes, and wished the house would re-examine their resolution. General Conway opposed the amendment; and Lord North, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Charles James Fox took the same side of the question, and the amendment was rejected by a majority of 254 to 138. Another warm debate arose on the morrow, on the question of receiving the report of the address. Sir William Meredith said, that thanking the king for his approbation of their conduct would imply an approval of the vote respecting the Middlesex election. Sir George Sackville accused the house of betraying the rights of the people; and being threatened with the tower by General Conway, he was defended by Sergeant Glynn and Mr. Burke, the latter of whom dared ministers to punish Sir George, and told them that they were abhorred by the people. Thus supported, Sackville repeated the charge, and he was followed by Fox, who deprecated the licentious language introduced in the house. Burke replied, but there was no division.

{GEORGE III. 1769—1771}

DISSOLUTION OF THE GRAFTON CABINET.

Before the declarations made by Lord-chancellor Camden in the house of lords, his conduct had been so displeasing to his colleagues that he was not consulted in any of their measures, and he had not even a voice in the preparation of the king’s speech. When, therefore, he stood openly forward as an opponent of the cabinet, it was not to be expected that the seals would be long left in his possession. The opposition knew this, and their only fear was that he would anticipate ministers by a spontaneous resignation, and thereby free the ministers from the odium which they would obtain from the public by his dismissal. Camden, however, seems to have had no thoughts of taking such a step, and the ministers had no alternative left but to remove him from office. Accordingly he was dismissed, and Lord Shelburne’s prediction was literally verified—the great seals went a begging. The Honourable Charles Yorke, indeed, reluctantly accepted them, but before his patent of peerage could be completed, he committed suicide, and the government had to seek another chancellor. The seals were successively offered to Sir Eardley Wilmot and Lord Mansfield, who would not accept them, and nothing remained but to put them in commission, and to appoint a speaker in the house of lords in the interim. This latter office was accepted by Lord Mansfield, and some time after, Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe, one of the barons of the exchequer; the Honourable Henry Bathurst, one of the justices of the common pleas; and Sir Richard Aston, one of the justices of the king’s bench, were appointed commissioners. But the embarrassment of government did not end here. While business was suspended in the house of lords by the want of a chancellor, it was also suspended in the commons by the illness of the speaker, Sir John Cust. Moreover, the removal of Lord Camden was followed by the resignation of his friend Mr. Dunning, the solicitor-general; of the Marquess of Granby, as master-general of the ordnance, and commander-in-chief of the forces; of Mr. James Grenville, who held the office of one of the vice-treasurers for Ireland; and of several noblemen who held offices in the household. The greatest blow to the existence of the ministry seems to have been the resignation of Granby—a blow which the king and the ministers in vain sought to avert. Urged by some of the leading members of the opposition, who as earnestly desired him to adopt this line of conduct, as the king and his ministers entreated him not to resign, he gave up everything except his regiment—the Blues. The ordnance was then offered to General Conway, who refused to accept any of “Lord Granby’s spoils,” and the fragment of the ministry still left in office had to brave the storm of opposition as they best could.

After the adjournment which had taken place during these changes, on the 22nd of January, the Marquess of Rockingham moved in the house of lords, that the house should, on the 24th, take into consideration the lamentable state of the nation. In reply, the Duke of Grafton remarked, that he did not intend to oppose this inquiry, and that he was ready at any time to enter into the question. The Earl of Chatham then rose, and in a long and eloquent speech, complained of a breach made in the constitution. There was a capital mischief fixed at home, which corrupted the very foundation of our political existence, and preyed upon the very vitals of the state. “The constitution,” he exclaimed vehemently, “has been grossly violated—the constitution at this moment stands violated! Until that wound be healed, until the grievances be redressed, it is in vain to recommend union to parliament—in vain to promote concord among the people. If we mean seriously to unite the nation within itself, we must convince them that their complaints are regarded, that their injuries shall be redressed. On that foundation I would take the lead in recommending peace and harmony to the people. On any other I would never wish to see them united again. If the breach in the constitution be effectually repaired, the people will of themselves return to a state of tranquillity; if not, may discord prevail for ever! I know to what point this doctrine and this language will appear directed; but I feel the principles of an Englishman, and I utter them without apprehension or reserve. The crisis is indeed alarming—so much the more does it require a prudent relaxation on the part of government. If the king’s servants will not permit a constitutional question to be decided on according to the forms, and on the principles of the constitution, it must then be decided in some other manner; and rather than it should be given up—rather than the nation should surrender their birthright to a despotic minister, I hope, my lords, old as I am, I shall see the question brought to issue, and fairly tried between the people and the government.” The Earl of Chatham next offered some severe remarks on the surrender of Corsica, the augmentation of troops in Ireland, the arrears of the civil list, the waste of the public revenues, and the evils arising from the riches of Asia. “The importers of foreign gold,” said he, “have forced their way into parliament by such a torrent of private corruption, as no private hereditary fortune could resist.” He then offered several suggestions on the propriety of a reform in parliament—suggestions, he observed, not crude and undigested, but ripe and well-considered, as the subject had long occupied his attention. His scheme was, not that the rotten boroughs should be disfranchised, though he considered them as the rotten part of the constitution; nor that the unrepresented towns should be allowed members, though he admitted that in them great part of the strength and vigour of the constitution resided—but that each county should elect three members instead of two, he considering that the knights of the shires approached the nearest to the constitutional representation of the country, because they represent the soil. At the same time, he recommended that the city representatives should be augmented, and that in increasing the number of representatives for the English counties, the shires of Scotland should be allowed an equal privilege, in order to prevent any jealousy which might arise from an apparent violation of the union. In concluding his speech, he proclaimed his coalition with the Marquess of Rockingham, whom, on a previous occasion he had overthrown as an incapable statesman; justifying the union formed between them, on the grounds that it was formed for the good of the country; or, in his own words, “to save the state.”

It must be admitted that the scheme of parliamentary reform divulged by the Earl of Chatham was by no means enlightened or impartial. In it no allowance was to be made for the growing importance of the commercial and manufacturing interests, the landed interests alone were consulted, and the country gentlemen, who had never been celebrated for liberal measures in their legislation, were to crowd the house of commons, and to decide upon the affairs of the nation. The Earl of Chatham himself, at a later period, seems to have doubted the efficacy of his plan of reform, for he admitted that the knights of the shires or the country members of the house of commons, “were not the most enlightened or spirited part of the house.” All history, indeed, tends to prove that such a plan of reform would have proved abortive, so far as regards the liberty and well-being of the great body of the people, and the perfecting of the theory of the English constitution, so far as to make its political practice agree with its principles. There can be no question, indeed, but that all other interests would have been secondary to that of the agricultural in the consideration of a parliament thus constituted; whereas the aim of an enlightened legislature should be to secure the interests of every section of the community, whether agricultural, commercial, or manufacturing.

The Earl of Chatham signified his intention of supporting the Marquess of Rockingham on the 24th, when the great question mooted by him was to be discussed. On that day, however, it was announced that he was too ill to attend, and Rockingham also was distressed in mind by the melancholy suicide of the Honourable Charles Yorke. Under these circumstances, he moved the adjournment of the question to the 2nd of February, which was granted by the house; but before that time the Duke of Grafton, harassed by these commotions and scourged by the press, especially by the writings of Junius, had resigned his office, and the king had committed the charge of government to Lord North. At the same time, the state of the health of Sir John Cust, having induced him to resign the speaker’s chair, Sir Fletcher Norton was elected his successor. The Earl of Halifax, moreover, was appointed privy seal in the room of Lord Bristol; Mr. Wellbore Ellis was selected to be a vice-treasurer in Ireland; Charles Fox was made a lord of the admiralty; and Mr. Thurlow was created solicitor-general instead of Mr. Dunning. There were a few minor substitutions and interchanges of offices, but these were the principal; and Lord North’s ministry was, therefore, for the most part a continuation of that of the Duke of Grafton. The Marquess of Gran by’s places of the ordnance and commander-in-chief were left vacant for the present, and the great seal was left in commission, with the commissioners already named.

DEBATES ON THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION, ETC.

Lord North, with whose administration commences a momentous era in the annals of Great Britain, was eldest son to the Earl of Guildford. In private life he was one of the most amiable and worthy of men, and he was a man of elegant acquirements. In public life, also, he was scarcely less honoured. Brought up amidst official duties, and aiming constantly at legislatorial distinction, he had acquired eminent skill in managing a debate, while his good humour and equanimity of temper secured to him a greater share of esteem and affection than was perhaps ever possessed by any other minister. Yet his estimable qualities and his political skill had not sufficient potency to disarm opposition. In the very outset of his administration, indeed, the opposition made him feel that he had not taken possession of a bed of roses; or, at least, roses without thorns. The principal object of the late debates in the house of lords was to procure a vote in favour of the Middlesex electors: with the same end in view, Mr. Dowdeswell now moved another resolution in the commons; namely, “That by the law of the land, and the law and usage of parliament, no person eligible of common right can be incapacitated by a resolution of the house, but by an express act of parliament only.” This undeniable proposition placed ministers in a dilemma, for it was only a prelude to others, and if they agreed to it and rejected those that followed, they would seem to resist conclusions from premises they had themselves conceded; while if they rejected it, it would appear as if the house of commons was a capricious court; a court neither bound by law nor by the usages of parliament. The debate on the question was one of great violence; and in the course of it, Colonel Barre compared the state to a vessel in a storm which had parted with her mainmast (Grafton,) and was trying to sail under a jury-mast (North). The new premier acknowledged that the storm was great, but asserted that the ship was not compelled to hang out lights for pilots, as her own crew were capable of conducting her safely into port. And so it proved. North avoided the snare laid for him by moving as an amendment, “That the judgment of the house on the Middlesex election is conformable to law and the usage of parliament,” which was eventually carried by a large majority.

On the 2nd of February, pursuant to notice, the Marquess of Rockingham made a similar motion to that of Mr. Dowdeswell in the house of lords. He moved, “That the house of commons, in the exercise of its judicature in matters of elections, is bound to judge according to the law of the land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which is part thereof” This was opposed by Lord Sandwich on the ground of improper interference with the lower house, which, if aggrieved, had the means of redress in its own power. Lord Sandwich was answered by Lord Chatham. In the course of his speech, Sandwich had alluded to the expulsion of Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, and the great Lord Bacon, “for certain crimes and misdemeanours,” from which he argued that the peers now ought to take no more notice of the expulsion of Wilkes, than the commons then had taken notice of the expulsion pronounced by their lordships on the above-named noble offenders. To this point Chatham replied: “Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case. They affected only themselves: the rights of no constituent body were affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes we complain of; as an individual he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of complaint, the great cause is, that the inherent rights and franchises of the people are in this case invaded, trampled upon, annihilated. Lord Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county or city: the rights of no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their expulsion!” In his speech, Chatham declaimed with great severity against the gross dereliction of principle shown by the commons. They were, indeed, he said, the proper protectors of their own rights and privileges; but he lamented that they had, by their recent conduct, forgotten those privileges, and had added to the long list of venality from Esau to the present day. The vote of the commons which made Colonel Luttrell representative for Middlesex, he maintained, was a gross invasion of law and of the rights of election; a dangerous violation of the constitution; a treacherous surrender of privileges; and a corrupt sacrifice of honour. He added, that to gratify the resentment of certain individuals, the laws had been despised and destroyed, and that since the commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his majesty’s ministers, and proved themselves corrupt, it was necessary for their lordships to step forward and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the justly incensed and intemperate rage of the people, and, on the other to the criminal and malignant conduct of his majesty’s ministers: their lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes of liberty and prerogative. The house was excited, but the motion was negatived by a large majority. On the ministerial side, the Earl of Marchmont then moved, “That any resolution of the lords directly or indirectly impeaching a judgment of the house of commons, in a matter where their jurisdiction is competent final, and conclusive, would be a violation of the constitutional right of the commons, tending to make a breach between the two houses of parliament, and leading to general confusion.” In his speech, the Earl lost his temper and his discretion, imprudently hinting that if the opposition went one step further it would be necessary to call in the aid of Foreign assistance. He was called to order by the Duke of Richmond, and when he attempted to explain, he found himself unable, and Lord Mansfield was compelled to relieve him, by declaring as a lawyer and a statesman, that their lordships had no right to interfere in any determination of the commons. The Earl of Egmont pursued the same course, and declared that the people were guilty of treason in offering such petitions as they had recently offered to his majesty. The Earl of Chatham again rose, and after thanking Lord Egmont in an ironical strain for his lenity in allowing the petitioners to wear their heads, he defended the petitions as praiseworthy and constitutional, and re-asserted that the house of lords had a right to interfere, when either an invasion of the people’s liberty was attempted, or an unconstitutional determination made. This was in reply to the statement of Lord Mansfield, and he then praised the abilities of that nobleman at the expense of his honour, honesty, and patriotism. Chatham next complained of the ministerial motion, and of the late hour—for it was midnight—at which it had been made. He proposed an adjournment for two days. “If,” he exclaimed, “the constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at this dark hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only felons and assassins are seeking for prey.” Ministers, however, seem to have acted upon the well-known adage, that “delays are dangerous.” The adjournment was rejected, and at two o’clock in the morning Marchmont’s motion was carried. Protests were entered against both decisions, the former being signed by forty-two, and the latter by forty peers.

Similar discussions led to similar results in the house of commons. On the 5th of February a debate was there entered upon, in which the opposition urged that the expulsion of Wilkes had been determined by ministers in council, and a motion was also made to bring in a bill to regulate and define the consequences of expulsion from the house; but the ministers in each instance were victorious. The exertions of the opposition, however, were warmly supported by a large majority of the liverymen of London, who busied themselves in getting up memorials and remonstrances, and hence they were nothing daunted by their repeated defeats. Ministers were, indeed, attacked upon other points of their policy besides the matter of Wilkes Thus, on the 2nd of March, Lord Craven, acting with the opposition, moved an address to the throne, beseeching his majesty forthwith to take proper steps for such an increase of seamen in the royal navy as should effectually preserve the honour and security of his; majesty’s kingdom and colonies. This was made the medium of severe censures on the dismissal of able officers for their votes in parliament, and also on the entire management of the navy. Earl Chatham supported the motion, and condemned the conduct of ministers in this particular branch of the national service, as base and unworthy. In his speech he again adverted to his favourite topic; that of the secret influence which was at work near the throne. This influence he denounced as dangerous, base, unconstitutional, and wicked; and maintained that it had occasioned all the unhappiness of the nation, and created confusion in the government of the colonies. He then asserted that this invisible influence was still working for evil, for although the favourite (Bute) was gone to Turin, Mazarine absent was Mazarine still; and his influence by means of agents was potent as ever. Then, raising his voice, he exclaimed, “This country was sold at the late peace! We were sold by the court of Turin to the court of France!” Chatham then indirectly accused the king of insincerity and treachery to himself, personally, during the time that he was minister; asserting that after he had given his approbation to plans and measures one week, he would let them vanish into air the next, and that all his promises and assurances were broken through an in-invisible influence. The king was defended by the Duke of Grafton, who hinted that the intellect of Chatham was affected; but this only drew forth a repetition of the accusation in stronger language. “I rise,” said he, “neither to deny nor retract, nor to explain away the words I have spoken. As for his majesty, I have always found him everything gracious and amiable in the closet; so amiably condescending as to promise, in every repeated audience, not only to forgive, but to supply the defects of health by his cheerful support, and by the ready assistance of all his immediate dependents. Instead of this, all the obstacles and difficulties which attended every great and public measure did not arise from those out of government: they were suggested, nourished, and supported by that secret influence I have mentioned, and by the industry of those very dependents; first by secret treachery, then by official influence, and afterwards in public councils. A long train of these practices has at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself.”