Chapter III: {george III. 1769—1771} (2)

It seems clear that when the Earl of Chatham made these assertions, the councils of the king were no longer biassed by the influence of the Earl of Bute; but, notwithstanding, the charges made all the impressions on the public mind which he could have desired. Some even declared that they knew the secret agents that went between the absent lord, the princess dowager and the king, and Mr. Dyson, Mr. Bradshaw, both placemen and members of parliament, and subsequently, Mr. Jenkinson (afterwards Baron Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool,) were expressly named as the principal of the parasites. The popular credulity on this subject appeared to receive confirmation from the conduct of the king towards the “good citizens” of London. Four days after this debate in the house of lords the common hall of the city took into consideration a memorial complaining that a petition which had been presented to his majesty by the citizens remained unanswered. This memorial, after the lord mayor Beckford had delivered an exciting harangue, was adopted by acclamation, and with three rounds of applause. At first the king refused to hear this memorial; but he at length consented, and it was carried up to St. James’s on the 14th of March by the lord mayor, and more than two hundred common-councilmen, liverymen, and city officers. It was read to the king as he sat upon his throne, and perhaps the ears of royalty were never destined to hear stronger remonstrances than this memorial contained. It told him that secret and evil counsellors, combined with a corrupt parliament, robbed the people of their dearest rights, and that they had done a deed more ruinous in its consequences than the levying of ship-money by Charles I., or the dispensing power assumed by James IL, and which deed must vitiate all the further proceedings of the present parliament; it called God and man to witness that the citizens would not be thus cheated of their liberties; and that as they were gained by the stern virtues of their ancestors, so they should be preserved by themselves; and it concluded by praying that the king would dissolve the present parliament, and remove from him all evil counsellors. With a clouded brow the king in reply pronounced the contents of this memorial to be disrespectful to himself, injurious to his parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the constitution; and he asserted that he had ever made the law of the land the rule of his conduct, that he esteemed it his chief glory to rule over a free people, and that he had a right to expect from them a steady and affectionate support. The city deputation withdrew, amidst the manifest resentment of the courtiers, and the court instantly resolved to bring the memorial before the notice of parliament. This was done on the 19th of March, when it was moved by Sir Thomas Clavering, “That to deny the legality of the present parliament, and to assert that the proceedings thereof are not valid, is highly unwarrantable, and has a manifest tendency to disturb the peace of the kingdom, by withdrawing his majesty’s subjects from then-obedience to the laws of the realm.” This motion was warmly opposed, but it was carried by a large majority, and an address to the king was also agreed to in condemnation of the city memorial, both by the lords and the commons. It is said that the king graciously received this address, but that he thought the city magistrates ought to have been proceeded against by parliament for their conduct. On the other hand, the city and the people of Middlesex were offended by the conduct of the opposition, and the smallness of the minority that voted against the address, and they passed strong resolutions, expressing their discontent. The blame was chiefly imputed to the Rockingham party; and the Rev. Mr. Home—better known at a later date by the name of Home Tooke—who had begun to rule the democracy at the Mile-end and Brentford meetings, announced his intention of exposing that party; but this was prevented chiefly through the influence of the Earl of Chatham. Instead of this, indeed, the reverend orator employed his talents in getting up a strong petition and remonstrance to the king from the freeholders of Middlesex, and which was presented on the 31st of March; the Earl of Chatham having previously thanked him for his able exertions in the cause of freedom, and for abstaining from his proposed attack on the Rockingham party.

THE QUESTION OF CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS, ETC.

Ever since the famous Aylesbury case, in 1704, the house of commons had been sole judge of the qualification of electors, and of all other matters regarding the election of their own members. All controverted elections were tried before a committee of the whole house, the members not being bound to impartiality, either by oath, promise, or pledge. On the 2nd of April, Mr. George Grenville brought in a bill for regulating the trial of controverted elections, which provided that, in every case, the judicature should be transferred from the house to a sworn committee of fifteen members, whereof thirteen were to be chosen by the contesting claimants for the seat, out of a list of forty-five chosen by ballot by the whole house, and the other two named by the contesting parties themselves; one for each. The committee were to have full power to examine witnesses, papers, and records, and their oath bound them to a strict impartiality. This bill met with stern opposition from the ministers, and at one stage it was moved by Mr. Welbore Ellis, that it should be rejected, which was seconded by Mr. Charles Fox; but the bill was eloquently defended by Burke, and it passed into a law. It was carried up to the lords by Mr. Grenville on the 5th of April, where, as Lord Mansfield had expressed his approbation of it, and promised its support, no opposition was feared. It passed unanimously, and it seems to have had a very beneficial effect on the legislature.

Previously to the passing of this act, a bill was proposed by Mr. Dowdeswell to disqualify officers of the excise and customs from voting at elections The mover stated, that both classes were under the influence of the crown, and that the departments of the revenue were becoming so numerous as to render that influence incompatible with a free constitution. There was no attempt, however, to prove corruption, and the motion was rejected, as unfair in its attempt to deprive individuals of the rights of British subjects, on the mere presumption of venality. An act at the same time was passed for altering the law of privilege, so far as it extended to the effects and domestics of the members of either house. In the house of lords this bill was warmly supported by Lord Mansfield, and as warmly opposed by Lord Sandwich, who argued, that it was an encroachment upon the privileges of the peers. An inquiry into the accounts of the civil list, during the year 1769, was a popular subject in both houses about the same time. The expenses having greatly increased, it was inferred that the money was employed in the corruption of electors. Ministers opposed this inquiry, arguing, that as the civil list was solely the revenue of the crown, the crown had a right to expend it as it pleased; and that if an additional grant had been asked, then, and not till then, the expenditure might have been investigated, for the purpose of ascertaining the necessity of the grant, and how the money was spent. The motion was negatived, and other attempts to interfere with the management of the king’s revenue met with a similar fate.

The debate in the house of lords on this question is rendered remarkable by the eloquent speech uttered by the Earl of Chatham. In the course of this speech he asserted that the minister who was bold enough to spend the money of the people before it was granted, though it might not be used for the purpose of corrupting their representatives, deserved death. He was reminded that he, too, when in office, had granted pensions, to which he replied, “It is true, and here is a list of them: you will find there the names of General Amherst, Sir Edward Hawke, and several others of the same nature—they were given as rewards for real services, and as encouragements to other gallant heroes. They were honourably earned in a different sort of campaign than those at Westminster; they were gained by actions full of danger to themselves, of glory and of benefit to this nation—not by corrupt votes of baseness and of destruction to their country. You will find no secret service there; and you will find that, when the warrior was recompensed, the member of parliament was left free. You will likewise find a pension of £1,500 a year to Lord Camden. I recommended his lordship to be chancellor; his public and private virtues were acknowledged by all; they made his station more precarious. I could not reasonably expect from him that he would quit the chief-justiceship of the common pleas, which he held for life, and put himself in the power of those who were not to be trusted, to be dismissed from the chancery perhaps the day after his appointment. The public has not been deceived by his conduct. My suspicions have been justified. His integrity has made him once more a poor and private man; he was dismissed for the opinion he gave in favour of the right of election in the people.” Here the noble orator was interrupted by loud cries of “To the bar, to the bar,” and Lord Marchmont moved that his words should be taken down. Chatham himself seconded this motion: “My words,” he thundered forth in an indignant tone, “My words remain unretracted, unexplained, and reaffirmed. I desire to know whether I am condemned or acquitted, and whether I may still presume to hold up my head as high as the noble lord who moved to have my words taken down.” Chatham paused for a reply, and none being given, he continued, “I will trust no sovereign in the world with the means of purchasing the liberties of the people. When I had the honour of being the confidential keeper of the king’s intention, he assured me that he never intended to exceed the allowance which was made by parliament, and therefore, my lords, at a time when there are no marks of personal dissipation in the king—at a time when there are no marks of any considerable sums having been expended to procure the secrets of our enemies—that a request of an inquiry into the expenditure of the civil list should be refused, is to me most extraordinary. Does the King of England want to build a palace equal to his rank and dignity? Does he want to encourage the polite and useful arts? Does he mean to reward the hardy veteran who has defended his quarrel in many a rough campaign, whose salary does not equal that of some of your servants? Or does he mean, by drawing the purse-strings of his subjects, to spread corruption through the people, to procure a parliament, like a packed jury, ready to acquit his ministers at all adventures? I do not say, my lords, that corruption lies here, or that corruption lies there; but if any gentleman in England were to ask me whether I thought both houses of parliament were bribed, I should laugh in his face and say, ‘Sir it is not so.’” Chatham concluded by saying that an inquiry into the state and expenditure of the civil list was proper, just, and expedient; and that a refusal of it would elicit ridicule and exhibit folly. Nevertheless the motion was negatived.

DEBATES ON AMERICA.

A petition was presented to parliament by the English merchants trading with America, representing that, in consequence of the duties and taxes, the discontents of the Americans, and their combinations to prevent the importation of goods from England, their trade had gone to ruin; and praying for the intervention of the legislature. In consequence of this, a bill was proposed by Lord North, to repeal all the American taxes and duties except tea. In proposing this repeal he censured the Revenue Act only as an inexpedient or unproductive impost, and not as an illegal or impolitic claim. The duty on tea, he said, was continued to maintain the right of taxing the Americans, and it could not be supposed that an impost of three pence per pound on an article from which one shilling was deducted when exported to America, would offend the colonists, unless they were determined upon a rebellion. Mr. Grenville, the parent of the Stamp Act, argued that he had at least acted systematically, and that in imposing the stamp duties he had reason to think that they would be paid. The succeeding ministry, he said, had repealed that act, but had reaffirmed the right of parliament to tax the colonies, by laying duties upon unwise and anti-commercial principles: duties which were far more odious to the colonies than his Stamp Act. His opinion was, therefore, that the ministers must now give up, or stand by the whole. A partial repeal, he added, will not do: the Americans would not rest satisfied with any thing short of the renunciation by parliament of the right to tax them in any way, either externally or internally. In this General Pownall coincided, and he proposed as an amendment, that the repeal should be extended to all articles, as the only way of quieting the colonies. This amendment was supported by General Conway, Colonel Barre, and Sir William Meredith, but it was rejected, and leave was given to bring in North’s bill. A subsequent motion to repeal the duty on tea was also lost, and the act passed according to North’s first proposal.

RELEASE OF WILKES.

On the 12th of April, the term of Wilkes’s imprisonment having expired, he was set at liberty. He was no sooner freed from confinement than he recommenced his system of agitation. Everywhere he harangued on his sufferings, and declared that he was ready to die in the cause of liberty. He was considered a martyr by the populace, and in both houses he had his friends. On the 1st of May, the Earl of Chatham, after arranging his plan of attack with Temple, Rockingham, Shelburn, and others, stood up in the house of lords and presented a bill for reversing the adjudications of the house of commons, whereby John Wilkes, Esq. had been adjudged incapable of being elected a member to serve in this present parliament, and the freeholders of the county of Middlesex, had been deprived of one of their legal representatives. In descanting on this, Chatham declared that a violent outrage had been committed against everything dear and sacred to Englishmen. He then made some observations on the new state arithmetic by which Colonel Luttrel’s 296 votes had been held to be a greater number than Wilkes’s 1143! This, he said, was flying in the face of all law and freedom: a robbery of the liberty of freeholders; and making the birthrights of Englishmen a mere farce. He then represented Colonel Luttrell as sitting in the lap of John Wilkes, and the majority of the house as being turned into a state engine. He added, in conclusion, “I am afraid this measure originated too near the throne. I am sorry for it; but I hope his majesty will soon open his eyes, and see it in all its deformity.” Lord Mansfield opposed the Earl of Chatham. He contended that the house had no right to interfere with the decisions of the commons; that those decisions were legal; that in consequence of previous votes and sentences, Wilkes was nobody in the eye of the law; and that, though the freeholders gave their votes, it was for the house of commons to judge as to the point of qualification. Lord Camden replied, that Lord Mansfield was delivering unconstitutional doctrines, and that Wilkes had been expelled in consequence of a secret influence which had said, “Mr. Wilkes shall not sit.” He also asserted that the judgment of the commons on the Middlesex election was a worse wound in the constitution than any of those inflicted in the reign of Charles I., when the nation had no parliament; and he expressed a hope that if this bill should be rejected, the good sense and spirit of the people would persevere session after session, till the judgment of parliament should be revoked. The bill was rejected, and thirty-eight peers signed a protest.

When this bill was lost, the Earl of Chatham demanded that the house should be summoned on the 4th, as he had a motion to make of great importance relative to the king. On the day appointed, his lordship moved, “That the advice inducing his majesty to give the answer to the late address, remonstrance, and petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London, was of a most dangerous tendency, inasmuch as thereby the exercise of the rights of the subject to petition the king for redress of grievances, to complain of violations of the freedom of election, to pray dissolution of parliament, and to point out malpractices in administration, to urge the removal of evil ministers, etc., had been indiscriminately checked with reprimand; and the afflicted citizens of London had heard from the throne itself, that the contents of their humble addresses could not but be considered by his majesty as disrespectful, injurious, etc.” The noble lord said that an answer so harsh as this exceeded all precedent in the history of this country; that the very essence of the constitution not only permitted, but required petitioning; and that the Stuarts themselves never dared to prevent the practice. He then eulogized the lord mayor and the liverymen of London, and in conclusion, pronounced Colonel Luttrell as a mere nominee thrust in by the enemies of the law and constitution. The motion was negatived by a large majority.

{GEORGE II. 1769–1771}

AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

On the 1st of May, the opposition in the house of commons called for the correspondence of the American colonies, and subsequently Mr. Burke moved eight resolutions relating to the troubles in those colonies, and censuring the plan ministers were pursuing. The previous question was carried against the first of these resolutions, the second, third, and fourth were negatived, and the previous question was carried against the remainder. Similar resolutions were moved in the house of lords by the Duke of Richmond; but they were all negatived by a large majority. On the 14th, however, nothing daunted, the Earl of Chatham coupled the discontents of America with those in England and Ireland, and founded a motion on them for an address to dissolve the parliament. He moved, “That an humble address be presented to his majesty, most dutifully and earnestly beseeching him, that in the dangerous state wherein his kingdoms are involved, from the high dissatisfactions generally prevailing at home, and from the most alarming disorders which have unhappily manifested themselves in his American dominions, his majesty will, in his great wisdom and necessary care, to prevent more fatal mischiefs, be graciously pleased to take the recent and genuine sense of his people, by dissolving this present parliament, and calling, with all convenient dispatch, a new parliament.” In his speech he declared that the house of commons had not the confidence of the people; and in speaking of the mode of reforming that assembly, he said, “Instead of depriving a county of its representatives, one or more members ought to be added to its representation, in order to counterbalance the weight of corrupt and venal boroughs.” The house, however, would not listen to his arguments: a loud cry of “Question, question,” was raised, and the motion was rudely negatived. But if Chatham was not listened to in parliament, he was venerated for his recent opposition to the measures of government by the people. On the same day, the common council of London carried a vote of thanks to him, for the zeal he had exhibited in support of their sacred privileges and the right of election; and also for his declaration that he would use his best endeavours to restore the house of commons to its purity, by shortening the duration of its term, and introducing a more equal representation.

RIOTS AT BOSTON.

While both houses of parliament were carrying on a wordy war, matters had assumed a more serious aspect in America. Committees had been appointed in nearly all the principal sea-ports of the colonies, to examine cargoes arriving from Great Britain, and to report to their constituents how far the act of association was carried into effect, or how far infringed Meetings of the association were regularly held at Faneuil Hall, Boston, and votes of censure were passed upon all who introduced or sold any of the prohibited goods. The names of such offenders were, indeed, regularly published in the newspapers, with comments appended to them, holding them up to the public as selfish slaves and traitors. A few, however, it would appear, were permitted to make a market, by selling the prohibited articles, which could only be purchased from their shops; and this becoming notorious, one Theophius Lillie, a tradesman at Boston, resolved to sell what was thus sold by others. In order to point him out as one whose shop was to be shunned, the mob placed a rude figure at his door, and a person named Richardson, either a friend or a servant of Lillies, attempted to remove the nuisance, and being defeated in his design by the mob, who pelted him with stones, he took up a loaded gun and fired upon his assailants from within doors. The shot killed a boy, who was forthwith recorded in the newspapers as the first martyr in the cause of liberty. He was, in truth, the first that was sacrificed, but the blow proceeded from the hand of a persecuted American, and not from the hand of an Englishman. It was not long, however, before the English were involved in quarrels with the Americans, which resulted in the loss of life. The boldness of the Bostonians seems daily to have increased after the above-mentioned incident. It was in vain that merchants implored even to keep the goods they had imported in store, as if bonded, until the duties in England should be repealed: they were compelled to send them back to those who had shipped them. At the same time, it was shrewdly suspected that several of the Bostonian leaders still imported and sold goods largely; or, at least, permitted goods to be imported in their vessels. The people of New York, indeed, taxed the Bostonians with unfair and selfish dealings, and renounced the non-importation agreement. This gave rise to mutual recrimination between these two states: the New Yorkers called the Bostonians pedlars, and the Bostonians said that the New Yorkers were no patriots. At the same time, the Bostonians were fierce in their hatred of the English government and its measures. If they acted with duplicity in the matter of trade, they were at least consistent in their denunciations against all connection with England. The soldiers quartered in Boston were subject to constant insults from them, and were continually interrupted in their duty. All classes conceived that as they had not been called in by the civil magistrates of the place, that their presence was illegal, and that every means employed to hasten their departure, or make their stay uncomfortable was laudable. Hence, no sentinel could stand in his place without being insulted; and it was too much to expect from human nature, that the soldiers should suffer continual insult without retorting upon theis adversaries. Some alleged that Colonel Dalrymple and his officers should have kept their men separate from the inhabitants; but this could not have been done, except by keeping them prisoners in their quarters, and by discontinuing the practice of mounting guard at the government offices. It was easy to foresee, therefore, that sooner or later disastrous consequences would ensue. And this was rendered more certain, because government had not sent a sufficient number of troops to keep the populace of Boston in awe. As soon as the arrival of troops at Boston was known at home, General Pownal had pointed out the error, stating that if they intended to govern the country by military force, they had not sent sufficient troops; and that if they did not intend this, they had sent too many. The people of Boston, he said, were set in array against the military; that though the sword was not drawn, it was ready to leap from the scabbard; and that though the word for action was not yet given, mischief was on tip-toe, and the slightest circumstance would set it on foot. These remarks were founded in truth. The Boston newspapers gave insertion to a fictitious narrative of a defeat of a body of soldiers by the people of New York, and to a series of fictions which represented the English troops as a set of poltroons who would quail before the sons of liberty. While these reflections were fresh in the minds of the soldiers, one of them was involved in a quarrel, and was beaten by several Bostonians, who were rope-makers belonging to the establishment of Mr. John Gray. Incensed at the ill-treatment he had received, twelve of his comrades returned with him to the spot and fell upon the rope-makers, and compelled them to take refuge in flight. This served as a prelude to a more serious conflict. Meetings were held by the mob, who decided upon attacking the soldiers, and driving them out of Boston. The day appointed for this was the 5th of March, and on the evening of that day parties from all quarters assembled, armed with sticks and clubs, and made an attack upon some of the troops in Dock-square. An officer appeared, who ordered the men to their barracks, and they with difficulty escaped thither. They were followed by the mob, who dared them to come out; and their rage increasing, the mob began to tear up the stalls of the market-place in Dock-square, and swore that they would attack the main-guard. Some peaceable citizens exerted themselves to allay their fury, and they had well nigh succeeded in persuading many of them to retire, when a tall man in a red cloak and white wig appeared among them, and incited them by a brief harangue to carry out their design. His discourse was followed by shouts of “To the main guard! To the main guard! We will destroy the soldiers!” The mob then separated into three divisions, each of which took separate roads. One of these divisions in their route passed by the Custom-house, and a boy pointing to the sentinel on duty there, asserted that he was the man who had knocked him down. A loud cry was instantly raised to kill him, and the sentinel loaded his gun by way of intimidating them. Nothing daunted, however, they first pelted him with every thing that came to hand, and then, seeing his reluctance to fire, closed upon him, and compelled him to retreat to the door of the Custom-house. He sought admittance, but those within were afraid of opening the door, and the sentinel then shouted for assistance to the main guard which was within hearing. A corporal and six privates were sent by Captain Preston to his rescue, while he followed at a short distance. Their guns were unloaded; but as they advanced, they found the mob increasing, and were pelted so pitilessly by them on every hand, and so grossly insulted by opprobrious language, that they loaded them and fixed on their bayonets. Still they were reluctant to fire; and when the mob pressed in upon them, they merely used their weapons to keep them off. At length a certain mulatto named Crispus Attucks, with others dressed like sailors, gave three cheers, hemmed in the soldiers, and struck at their muskets with clubs, exclaiming to those behind, “Come forward, they dare not fire; let us kill them, etc.” Attucks aimed a blow at Captain Preston, who was begging the rioters to desist, and keeping his men quiet, and in doing so he not only hit the Captain on his arm, but struck down one of the men’s muskets, and then seized his bayonet. Some persons behind Captain Preston now urged the soldiers to fire, and the private whose musket had been knocked out of his hand having recovered it, fired at the mulatto, who fell mortally wounded. The other soldiers now successively fired off their pieces, and three persons were killed, while others were wounded more or less dangerously. The mob retreated, but they recollected in an adjoining street, with dreadful yells, and the drums beat to arms. It seemed as if a combat of the fiercest kind was about to take place; but certain persons who had been gliding about the mob, urging them on to acts of violence, now thought proper to persuade them to retire. The storm was hushed for that night; but early in the morning the mob again collected in large numbers. At the same time, the lieutenant-governor held a council, and the magistrates and chief citizens met in full assembly, and chose a committee. The committee soon waited upon the governor and council, and declared that nothing could restore peace to the town but the immediate removal of the troops. Colonel Dalrymple proposed that the 29th regiment, whose men had been engaged in the riot, should remove to Castle William, and that the 14th regiment should remain. This was reported to the assembly; but another deputation demanded the total and immediate removal of all the troops, as the only means of tranquillizing the town. The governor was told that he must not think the demand proceeded from a set of vagabonds, for that people of the best character were determined, that if the troops were not voluntarily removed, they should be expelled by force. A force of ten thousand men, it was stated, were at their beck, and these were determined to destroy the troops if not removed, albeit it might be called rebellion. The governor first flatly refused to accede to this demand; he then wavered in his determination, and finally he agreeded to divide the responsibility of removing them with Colonel Dalrymple and the members of the council, and the troops were ordered to march to Castle William. Thus successful the Bostonians grew more bold in their opposition to the English government. The newspapers represented the affair of the 5th of March as a deliberate murder on the part of the troops, and nothing was neglected to exasperate the public mind and perpetuate the memory of “the bloody and inhuman massacre.” Yet when Captain Preston and his men were put upon their trials, American judges and a jury from among the citizens of Boston, were compelled to admit that they had acted only in self-defence. Their verdict was, that Captain Preston and six of the solders were not guilty, and that two, Montgomery, who shot Crispus Attucks, and Killroy, who was proved to have shot another man, were not guilty of murder but of manslaughter only. These two prayed the benefit of clergy, which was allowed, and each being burnt in the hand in open court, they were discharged like their comrades. In the course of the trial, Judge Lynde declared that the affair turned out to the disgrace of every person concerned against Captain Preston, and to the shame of the people of Boston in general.

THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

News of the disturbances in Boston arrived before the close of this session; but hopes being entertained that the late bill would have the effect of conciliating the Americans, it was deemed proper to abstain from any investigation, lest it should relight the torch of discord. The session terminated on the 19th of May.

REMONSTRANCE OF BECKFORD TO THE KING.

The answer which the king had given to the good citizens of London at the presentation of their recent memorial had given them great umbrage, and on the 23rd of May, the lord mayor and some aldermen, with a numerous train, went again to St. James’s with another petition, complaining of this answer. The address stated that it was, as well as the general acts of government, “against the clearest principles of the constitution, and the result of insidious attempts made by evil counsellors, to perplex, confound and shake the rights of the people.” It concluded with a renewed demand for the dissolution of parliament, and the removal of the present ministers. The king replied that it was his duty to express dissatisfaction at their last address, and that his sentiments on the subject were still the same. It was anticipated that the deputation would not be very graciously received, and that the king would not retract his former sentiments. Hence a remonstrance had been prepared in the shape of a reply, and to the astonishment of the court, Beckford, instead of retiring with the usual etiquette from the royal presence, approached the throne, and thus addressed the king: “Most gracious sovereign, will your majesty be pleased so far to condescend, as to permit the mayor of your loyal city of London to declare in your royal presence, in behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare apprehension of your majesty’s displeasure would at all times affect their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them with inexpressible anxiety and with the deepest affliction. Permit me to assure your majesty, that your majesty has not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your crown. We do therefore, with the greatest humility and submission, most earnestly supplicate your majesty that you will not dismiss us from your presence, without expressing a more favourable opinion of your faithful citizens, and without some comfort, or at least some prospect of redress.” Had the remonstrance stopped here, Beckford might have obtained the smiles of the king; but he continued: “Permit me, sire, to observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by false insinuations and suggestions to alienate your majesty’s affections from your loyal subjects in general, and from the city of London in particular, is an enemy to your majesty’s person and family; a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy constitution, as it was established at the glorious Revolution.” Beckford prayed for a reply, but none being given, the deputation withdrew. The king appears, indeed, to have been too angry to reply with courtesy, for he immediately issued orders, through the medium of the lord chamberlain, that lord mayors should in future confine themselves to delivering their papers, and not presume to make speeches. But if Beckford did not please the king, he gained great credit with the people for his conduct. The Earl of Chatham warmly applauded him for asserting the rights of the city with weight and spirit. On the other hand, the king increased his unpopularity by his conduct towards the deputation. The common council were so incensed, that they demurred about voting an address of congratulation on the birth of the Princess Elizabeth, which happened about this time. Wilkes in particular, who was made an alderman even while in the King’s Bench, and who now wore the civic gown, opposed such an address, and when the good feelings of the citizens prevailed over their anger, and they voted an address, he did what he could to render it unpopular. The address, however, was presented in the usual form, and his majesty observed in reply, “that the city of London, entertaining such loyal sentiments, might always feel assured of his protection.” A few days after this Beckford died, and the city voted that he should be honoured with a statue in Guildhall, and that the speech he had delivered to the king should be engraved on the pedestal. His death was considered a serious blow to the opposition, as no one could be found possessing the weight which he derived from his wealth and munificence, or who could supply his ardour and fearlessness.

PROSECUTION OF WOODFALL AND ALMON.

Almost every act which the government now committed tended only to excite the public clamour and indignation. During this summer it involved itself in new troubles, and exposed itself to fiercer attacks, by prosecuting the printers and publishers of Junius’s Letters. In the month of June Woodfall was tried for printing in his newspaper, the “Public Advertiser,” one of these letters, which was addressed to his majesty, and was considered a scandalous libel; and Almon was tried for selling a re-publication of it in the “London Museum.” Almon was found guilty of publishing, and was sentenced to pay a fine of ten marks, and find security for his good behaviour for two years. Woodfall was found “guilty of printing and publishing only” and in his case, the defendant moved to stay the entering of judgment on the verdict, while the attorney-general moved for a rule on the defendant, to show cause why the verdict should not be entered according to the legal import of the words. The attorney-general’s motion was attended to first; and when the matter came to be argued in the court of King’s Bench, Lord Mansfield, before whom both cases had been tried, went regularly through the whole evidence, as well as his own charge to the jury. After recapitulating the defence on the trial, his lordship remarked: “I directed the jury, that if they believed the innuendoes, as to persons and things, to have been properly filled up in the information, and to be the true meaning of the paper, and if they gave credit to the witnesses, they must find the defendant guilty. If the jury were obliged to determine whether the paper was in law a libel or not, or to judge whether it was criminal, or to what degree; or if they were to require proofs of a criminal intention—then this direction was wrong. I told them, as I have always told them before, that whether a libel or not, was a mere question of law arising out of the record, and that all the epithets inserted in the information were formal inferences of law. A general verdict of the jury finds only what the law implies from the fact, for that is scarcely possible to be produced: the law implies from the act of publication, a criminal intent.” After some further remarks of minor importance his lordship continued: “The motion of the attorney-general divides itself into two parts; first, to fill up the finding of the jury with the usual words of reference, so as to connect the verdict with the information: the omission of these words, we are of opinion, is a technical mistake of the clerk, and may be now supplied. The second head of the argument is to omit the word ‘only’ in the entry of the verdict: this we are all of opinion cannot be done. The word ‘only’ must stand in the verdict; if this word was omitted, the verdict would then be, ‘guilty of printing and publishing,’ which is a general verdict of guilty; for there is no other charge in the information but printing and publishing, and that alone the jury had to inquire. We are all of opinion, that my direction to the jury is right and according to law; the positions contained in it never were doubted; it never has been, nor is it now complained of in this court. There clearly can be no judgment of acquittal, because the fact found by the jury is the only question they had to try; the single doubt that remains, is concerning the meaning of the word ‘only.’” The court considering that the word “only” had been used in an ambiguous sense, ordered Woodfall a new trial on that ground; but when it came on, the attorney-general remarked that he had not the original newspaper by which he could prove the publication Thus terminated the second trial: the want of this was fatal to the cause.

DISPUTES RESPECTING FALKLAND ISLANDS.

During the summer and autumn of the present year the attention of government was absorbed by a subject, which at one time threatened a new war with France and Spain—this was the affair of the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands are situate in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, off the extremity of the South American continent, and the eastern entrance to the Straits of Magellan. They consist of two larger islands called East and West Falkland, and a great number of isles and islets. By right, they certainly belonged to England. The discovery of them was made by Captain Hawkins in the reign of Elizabeth, who called them “Hawkins’ Maiden Islands,” and they were afterwards visited by Strong in 1689, who gave them their present name. Subsequently they were visited by the French, who in 1764 formed a settlement at Berkeley Sound, an excellent harbour on West Falkland. In the next year, Commodore Byron formed a counter settlement at Port Egmont on East Falkland. The Spaniards, who had neglected these islands and their resources, now took the alarm, and demanded their evacuation both from France and England, as territories belonging to them both by right of papal bulls, and degrees of latitude and longitude. The French abandoned their settlement, but the English refused to accede to the demand. Spain, dreading the power of England, was for the time compelled to give up the claim; but at length, in 1769, the domestic distractions of Great Britain, her ready acquiescence in the transfer of Corsica to France, and the encouragement of the French minister Choiseul, emboldened the Spanish court to revive its pretensions to these islands. An armament, consisting of several ships of war, provided with apparatus for a siege, sailed from Buenos Ayres, and in the month of June suddenly appeared off Port Egmont. The British commandant, Captain Farmer, knowing that the place could not sustain a siege, after a few shots, submitted to terms of capitulation. Contrary to all the rules of war, however, the Spanish commodore, in order to prevent the intelligence from arriving in England on an early day, or from being first related by English lips, enjoined Captain Farmer not to sail without his permission, and to ensure compliance, he even unshipped the rudder of his vessel, and kept it on shore for three weeks. This was an insult to the British flag not to be endured. As soon as the proceedings were known in England, all ranks were inflamed with resentment, and eagerly desired that the national honour, thus grossly violated should be avenged. Lord North prepared for the worst, by putting ships in commission ready for war. It was thought expedient, however, to avert war, if possible, by negociations, and Spain was ultimately induced to disavow the enterprise of the governor of Buenos Ayres, and to restore the island. At the same time it was either stipulated or understood, that the settlement should at a future period be abandoned by the English: an arrangement which, as will be seen, formed a subject of complaint in parliament against the ministry.

AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

When the news arrived of the repeal of the taxes by the British parliament, the people of Boston were by no means thankful for that act. The retention of the duty on tea, it was said, did away with all its merits, as it proved the unalterable resolution of asserting the disputed right. As, however, they could not hope to keep up the whole of the non-importation agreement, it was resolved, in a meeting of merchants, to import every thing but tea. This resolve was also entered into by the Philadelphian merchants, and great efforts were made by the leaders of the movement, to induce the people to adhere strictly to this agreement, until the tea duty should be repealed. But most of the provinces were not desirous of persevering in the quarrel, and consequently renewed their commercial intercourse with the mother country: orders came over to England, indeed, to such an extent, that our exports to the colonies in this and the following year exceeded in amount what they had ever been before. Still the progress of a revolution was not impeded. There were many zealots in America, who could not rest satisfied while a connexion subsisted between England and her colonies, and who were still busied in sowing the seeds of discontent. Some such zealots existed in every colony, but it was in New England and in Virginia that that they were chiefly to be found. In the great southern province they were headed by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, and by their means the popular party in Virginia were led to deplore the massacre at Boston, and to uphold that city as a new Sparta and the seat of liberty. The assembly of Virginia, in a petition or remonstrance to his majesty, ventured to express their strong dissatisfaction at Lord North’s imperfect Repeal Act, and their deep affliction at seeing that the pretension of the mother country to the right of taxing the colonies was persevered in by the retention of duty upon tea. They also criticised the conduct of Lord Bottetourt, their governor, and represented that no alliance was to be placed upon the goodwill or moderation of those who managed the affairs of the mother country. All the houses of assembly, now reopened, were, in truth, scarcely less difficult to manage than they had been the year before, and in almost every instance they were prorogued by the governors. In the assembly of Massachusets, especially, there were great commotions, arising partly from communications received from England, which represented that the state and conduct of the colony was likely to be submitted to the consideration of parliament in the present session, and partly from the dismissal of the provincial forces from Castle William, and the establishment of the royal troops in that fortress. It was suspected that measures were in train to reduce the province to a state of utter dependence on Great Britain, and they proceeded to prepare instructions for their agent in London, in order to prevent the blow. But before they proceeded to business the house made another attempt to obtain a removal of the seat of government to Boston; and having failed in this, they made a strong protest against their conduct being drawn into a precedent. Soon after this Mr. Hutchinson was appointed governor of the province; but the subject of the assembly’s removal afforded matter of dispute in the remonstrances of the house at the opening of every session.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The king opened parliament on the 13th of November. The prominent part of his speech related to the Falkland Islands, a question that was still in abeyance. His majesty informed the lords and commons, that by an act of the governor of Buenos Ayres, in seizing one of his possessions by force, the honour of the crown and the rights of the people were deeply affected; and he called on them for advice and assistance. The addresses of both houses approved of the steps taken by his majesty, and assured him of their effectual support: to this end, supplies for the augmentation of the army and navy were cheerfully voted,—and in order to defray any extraordinary expenses, the land-tax was increased from three to four shillings in the pound.

DEBATE CONCERNING THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

In the debate on the address, Lord North had said, that as the Spanish ambassador had thrown the responsibility upon the Governor of Buenos Ayres, it was proper that his Spanish majesty should be allowed time to disavow these proceedings. He had also endeavoured to show that the Falkland Islands were of little value to anybody, and not of sufficient importance to justify a war if it could be avoided. These sentiments ill accorded with the views of some in the lower house, in which they were uttered, and several, as Dowdeswell, Barré, Burke, Sir William Meredith, and Sir Charles Saunders, blamed the minister for putting forward the Governor of Buenos Ayres, instead of complaining of his master, the King of Spain; who must, they contended, have previously authorised his expedition against Port Egmont. Similar opinions appear to have been entertained in the house of lords, although the address passed there without any show of dissatisfaction. On the 20th of November, however, the Duke of Richmond gave notice that he would make a motion on the 22nd, on which day, therefore, the house was summoned. That day arrived, Richmond moved for an address, praying that the king would order that all papers received by the ministry between the 12th of September, 1769, and the 12th of September, 1770, touching hostilities commenced, or designed to be commenced, by the crown of Spain, or any of his officers, should be laid before parliament. In urging this demand, the duke said, that the affairs of the Falkland Islands was only one among many acts of aggression, and he asserted that while we were in want of seamen, three thousand, captured in trading ships by the Guarda-Costas, under pretence of smuggling, were rotting in Spanish prisons, or pining away in hopeless slavery in South America. The motion was opposed by Lords Weymouth and Hillsborough, who contended that the production of the papers called for, would embarrass a negociations now in good train that the Spanish government was entitled to respect and delicate management; and that the ministers were not wanting either in vigilance or vigour. The Duke of Richmond was supported by the Earl of Chatham, who, in a long and eloquent speech, showed the necessity of firmness on the part of the British cabinet;—accused the Spaniards of want of faith, and of being as mean and crafty as they are proud and insolent; and predicted that if ministers patched up an accommodation for the present, they would still have a Spanish war in six months. He concluded by charging the ministers with having destroyed all content and unanimity at home by a series of oppressive and unconstitutional measures; and with having delivered up the nation, defenceless, to a foreign enemy. He added this warning:—“Let me warn them of their danger. If they are forced into a war, they stand it at the hazard of their heads; if, by an ignominious compromise, they should stain the honour of the crown, or sacrifice the rights of the people, let them look to the consequences, and consider whether they will be able to walk the streets in safety.”—The Duke of Manchester, the Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl of Shelburne, and Lord Lyttleton also supported the Duke of Richmond’s motion, but it was nevertheless negatived by a large majority. On the same day, also, a similar motion was made and negatived in the house of commons; moreover, a few days later the Earl of Chatham moved that Captain Hunt, who had driven off a Spanish schooner from Port Egmont, before the armament arrived, should be ordered to attend the house; and when this was negatived, he moved an address to his majesty, praying that the house might be acquainted at what time reparation was first demanded from Spain, which likewise received a negation.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAW OF LIBEL.

The sentiments promulgated by Lord Mansfield on the law of libel, in the case of Woodfall, had created much discussion among the legal profession, and had met with much obloquy among the people. They were represented as an attempt to infringe the rights and powers of juries, and to reduce their verdicts to a mere echo of the opinions of judges, inasmuch as they were merely to inquire into the fact of printing and publishing, and not allowed to judge whether the matter in question was a libel or not On the 28th of November, Lord Chatham denounced this mode of directing juries from the bench, but Lord Mansfield justified it, and laid it down as an axiom, “that a libel, or not a libel, was a matter of law to be decided by the bench, and the question to be left to the jury was only the fact of printing and publishing.” Mansfield demanded a call of the house for the 10th of December, and when that day arrived, he laid on the table a paper, drawn up with great care and precision, containing the unanimous opinion of the court of king’s bench in Woodfall’s case, in order that their lordships might, read or copy it as they pleased. Lord Camden inquired whether this paper was intended to be entered on the journals, and submitted to debate. Mansfield replied it was merely intended for the information of members, and he then suddenly moved an adjournment and quitted the house. On the next day, Camden considering the paper as a challenge to himself, endeavoured to provoke a discussion, by addressing six queries to the chief-justice, but Lord Mansfield declared that he would not answer interrogations, and the matter dropped.