The history of England, from the accession of George III. to the close of Pitt's first administration, 1760-1801
by William Hunt · English · Gutenberg #25232 · 1,250,674 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The history of England, from the accession of George III. to the close of Pitt's first administration, 1760-1801
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The history of England, from the accession of George III. to the close of Pitt's first administration, 1760-1801
Author: William Hunt
Editor: William Hunt
Reginald Lane Poole
Release date: April 29, 2008 [eBook #25232]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25232
Credits: Produced by Paul Murray, Brownfox and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND, FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION, 1760-1801 ***
Produced by Paul Murray, Brownfox and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
_THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND._
_Seventy-five years have passed since Lingard completed his_ HISTORY OF
ENGLAND, _which ends with the Revolution of 1688. During that period
historical study has made a great advance. Year after year the mass of
materials for a new History of England has increased; new lights have
been thrown on events and characters, and old errors have been
corrected. Many notable works have been written on various periods of
our history; some of them at such length as to appeal almost exclusively
to professed historical students. It is believed that the time has come
when the advance which has been made in the knowledge of English history
as a whole should be laid before the public in a single work of fairly
adequate size. Such a book should be founded on independent thought and
research, but should at the same time be written with a full knowledge
of the works of the best modern historians and with a desire to take
advantage of their teaching wherever it appears sound.
The vast number of authorities, printed and in manuscript, on which a
History of England should be based, if it is to represent the existing
state of knowledge, renders co-operation almost necessary and certainly
advisable. The History, of which this volume is an instalment, is an
attempt to set forth in a readable form the results at present attained
by research. It will consist of twelve volumes by twelve different
writers, each of them chosen as being specially capable of dealing with
the period which he undertakes, and the editors, while leaving to each
author as free a hand as possible, hope to insure a general similarity
in method of treatment, so that the twelve volumes may in their
contents, as well as in their outward appearance, form one History.
As its title imports, this History will primarily deal with politics,
with the History of England and, after the date of the union with
Scotland, Great Britain, as a state or body politic; but as the life of
a nation is complex, and its condition at any given time cannot be
understood without taking into account the various forces acting upon
it, notices of religious matters and of intellectual, social, and
economic progress will also find place in these volumes. The footnotes
will, so far as is possible, be confined to references to authorities,
and references will not be appended to statements which appear to be
matters of common knowledge and do not call for support. Each volume
will have an Appendix giving some account of the chief authorities,
original and secondary, which the author has used. This account will be
compiled with a view of helping students rather than of making long
lists of books without any notes as to their contents or value. That the
History will have faults both of its own and such as will always in some
measure attend co-operative work, must be expected, but no pains have
been spared to make it, so far as may be, not wholly unworthy of the
greatness of its subject.
Each volume, while forming part of a complete History, will also in
itself be a separate and complete book, will be sold separately, and
will have its own index, and two or more maps._
Vol. I. to 1066. By Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L., Litt.D., Fellow of
University College, London; Fellow of the British Academy.
Vol. II. 1066 to 1216. By George Burton Adams, M.A., Professor of
History in Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Vol. III. 1216 to 1377. By T. F. Tout, M.A., Professor of Medieval and
Modern History in the Victoria University of Manchester; formerly
Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.
Vol. IV. 1377 to 1485. By C. Oman, M.A., Fellow of All Souls' College,
and Deputy Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford.
Vol. V. 1485 to 1547. By H. A. L. Fisher, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of New
College, Oxford.
Vol. VI. 1547 to 1603. By A. F. Pollard, M.A., Professor of
Constitutional History in University College, London.
Vol. VII. 1603 to 1660. By F. C. Montague, M.A., Professor of History
in University College, London; formerly Fellow of Oriel College,
Oxford.
Vol. VIII. 1660 to 1702. By Richard Lodge, M.A., Professor of History
in the University of Edinburgh; formerly Fellow of Brasenose
College, Oxford.
Vol. IX. 1702 to 1760. By I. S. Leadam, M.A., formerly Fellow of
Brasenose College, Oxford.
Vol. X. 1760 to 1801. By the Rev. William Hunt, M.A., D.Litt., Trinity
College, Oxford.
Vol. XI. 1801 to 1837. By the Hon. George C. Brodrick, D.C.L., late
Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and J. K. Fotheringham, M.A.,
Magdalen College, Oxford, Lecturer in Classics at King's College,
London.
Vol. XII. 1837 to 1901. By Sidney J. Low, M.A., Balliol College,
Oxford, formerly Lecturer on History at King's College, London.
The Political History of England
IN TWELVE VOLUMES
EDITED BY WILLIAM HUNT, D.LITT., AND
REGINALD L. POOLE, M.A.
X.
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE
CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION
1760-1801
BY
WILLIAM HUNT, M.A., D.LITT.
PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1905
_The production of this book, which was ready in April, has unavoidably
been postponed by the Publishers_
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
THE KING AND BUTE.
PAGE
25 Oct., 1760. Accession of George III. 1
National feeling 1
The king's education and character 3
His plan of government 6
His first cabinet 8
Influence of the Earl of Bute 11
The civil list 13
1761. The war in Germany 13
7 June. Capture of Belle Ile 15
The king's covert attack on the whig ascendency 15
Opposing views with respect to the war 17
The general election of 1761 19
25 Mar. Bute secretary of state 20
8 Sept. The king's marriage 21
Bute's unpopularity 22
CHAPTER II.
THE PEACE OF PARIS.
1761. Negotiations for a peace 23
France and Spain act together in negotiation 25
Pitt maintains British honour and interests 26
Pitt and his colleagues 28
5 Oct. Pitt resigns office 31
2 Jan., 1762. The family compact. War declared against Spain 32
Frederick of Prussia offended 33
25 April. Newcastle's resignation. Bute succeeds to
the treasury 34
The war in Germany 35
British conquests: Martinique, Havana, Manila 37
Negotiations with France 38
A majority in the commons secured 39
The terms of peace 40
10 Feb., 1763. Definitive treaty signed at Paris 42
Mar. The cider tax 43
11 April. Bute retires from office 44
CHAPTER III.
THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION.
1763. The new ministers 45
April. The _North Briton_, No. 45, and the general
warrant 46
Aug. The king's attempts to strengthen the
administration 48
Sept. Changes in the administration 49
Nov. Proceedings in parliament against Wilkes 50
19 Jan., 1764. The commons expel Wilkes 51
Violation of the privileges of parliament 52
Grenville's economy 53
Great Britain's colonial policy 54
1763. Defence of the American colonies 58
10 Mar., 1764. The stamp bill proposed 59
22 Mar., 1765. The bill enacted 60
American resistance 60
The right of taxation 62
Unstatesmanlike policy 63
CHAPTER IV.
THE KING, THE WHIGS, AND CHATHAM.
1765. The king and Grenville 64
April-May. The regency bill 65
The weavers' riot 66
16 July. A whig administration formed under Rockingham 67
Its weakness and difficulties 68
Jan., 1766. Pitt on American taxation 69
Burke, his character and political principles 70
Mar. Repeal of the stamp act. The declaratory act 71
July. Pitt forms an administration, and is created
Earl of Chatham 73
His foreign policy 74
Sept.-Nov. "A forty days' tyranny" 76
Feb., 1767. Chatham incapacitated by disease 76
June, 1763. Revolt of Mir Kasim 77
23 Oct., 1764. Battle of Baxar 78
June, 1767. Parliamentary interference with the E. India
Company 79
1767-69. Haidar Ali's invasions of the Karnatic 80
CHAPTER V.
GROWTH OF THE KING'S POWER.
1767. C. Townshend and the new American duties 82
The ministry in Chatham's absence 85
Jan., 1768. Junction with the Bedford party 87
Feb. The _Nullum Tempus_ bill 87
Massachusetts heads resistance to the revenue
acts 88
1 May, 1769. Partial repeal of the new duties decided on 90
1761. Condition of Ireland. Rise of Whiteboyism 91
The government of Ireland 93
1768-69. Octennial act and augmentation of Irish army 94
1768. The general election of 1768 94
Wilkes returned for Middlesex 95
10 May. Riot in St. George's Fields 96
1769. Wilkes and the Middlesex electors 97
French annexation of Corsica. Faltering policy
of ministers 98
Arrears of the civil list 99
The _Letters_ of Junius 99
Chatham in opposition 100
28 Jan., 1770. Grafton resigns. North forms an administration 102
Triumph of the king's policy 103
Discontent with the constitutional machinery 103
Chatham and Burke differ on character of
needful reforms 105
CHAPTER VI.
THE KING'S RULE.
1770. Two parties in the opposition 106
The struggle in parliament 107
April. The Grenville controverted elections act 108
5 Mar. The "Boston massacre" 109
Chatham and his city friends demand a
dissolution 110
They are foiled by the king 111
Dispute with Spain concerning the Falkland
islands 112
England's foreign policy 114
1770-71. Changes in the ministry 115
The law of libel 116
The house of commons and the printers 117
1772. Religious toleration 118
The royal marriage act and C. J. Fox 119
June, 1773. Affairs of E. India Company. North's
regulating act 121
May. Clive's acquittal 122
The king's political predominance 123
CHAPTER VII.
THE QUARREL WITH AMERICA.
1772-73. Resistance to law in America 124
16 Dec., 1773. The Boston tea-riot 126
29 Jan., 1774. Franklin before the privy council 126
The penal acts 128
The Quebec act 129
5 Sept. First meeting of a continental congress 132
The American loyalists 134
The general election of 1774 135
Opinion in England on the American crisis 136
Feb.-Mar., 1775. Bills and resolutions for conciliation 138
The Americans prepare for war 139
19 April. Fighting at Lexington and Concord 140
CHAPTER VIII.
THE COLONIAL REBELLION.
April, 1775. The American army at Cambridge 143
May. Americans seize Ticonderoga and Crown Point 144
English opinion on the outbreak of war 144
15 June. Washington appointed American commander-in-chief 146
17. The battle of Bunker hill 147
The invasion of Canada 151
31 Dec. Defeat of the Americans at Quebec 152
The king hires German troops 153
17. The evacuation of Boston 155
May-June, 1776. The Americans chased out of Canada 155
Spread of the idea of separation 156
28 June. Unsuccessful attempt on Charleston 157
4 July. Declaration of American independence 158
1775. The war generally popular in Great Britain 158
The opposition in parliament 159
The state of the navy 161
Nov. North's prohibitory bill 162
CHAPTER IX.
SARATOGA.
27 Aug., 1776. The battle of Long Island 164
15 Sept. British take New York 165
11, 13 Oct. Carleton's victory on Lake Champlain 166
8 Dec. Washington retreats across the Delaware 167
26. The surprise of Trenton 168
Partial secession of whigs from parliament 169
Impressment for the navy 170
1777. Arrears of the civil list 171
Plan for co-operation between Howe and Burgoyne 172
June-Nov. Howe's campaign. Battle of the Brandywine,
Sept. 11 173
American camp at Valley Forge 175
6 July. Burgoyne captures Ticonderoga 176
His difficulties, distress, and failure 177
17 Oct. The convention of Saratoga 179
Responsibility for the disaster 179
6 Jan., 1778. Alliance between France and the Americans 181
Why England had not yet subdued the Americans 183
CHAPTER X.
WAR WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.
1777-78. The opposition and the war 186
Mar., 1778. The king's refusal to allow Chatham to form a
ministry 187
11 May. Chatham's death 190
Constitutional importance of the issue of the
war 191
Abuses in naval administration 191
27 July. Naval action off Ushant 193
Progress of the war in America 193
Lord Howe and Count d'Estaing 194
Mistaken naval policy of Great Britain 195
Aug., 1779. Combined French and Spanish fleets in the
Channel 196
The war in various parts of the world 196
12 May, 1780. The surrender of Charleston 198
Jan.-Feb. Rodney's relief of Gibraltar 198
17 April. His indecisive action off Dominica 199
Ireland's grievances 200
1779. The volunteers 202
Removal of restrictions on Irish trade 202
1779-80. Activity of the opposition in England 202
2-7 June. The Lord George Gordon riots 205
CHAPTER XI.
YORKTOWN AND THE KING'S DEFEAT.
Mar., 1780. The armed neutrality 208
20 Dec. Dispute with the Dutch: war declared 209
Defence of Gibraltar 210
5 Aug., 1781. Battle of the Dogger Bank 212
1780. General election and the new parliament 212
2 Oct. The fate of Major Andre 215
3 Feb., 1781. Rodney takes St. Eustatius 216
July, 1780. French squadron at Rhode island 218
16 Aug. Cornwallis's campaign in the south: battle
of Camden 219
17 Jan., 1781. Battle of the Cowpens 221
15 Mar. Battle of Guilford 222
May. Cornwallis in Virginia 223
How England lost command in the American waters 224
19 Oct. The capitulation at Yorktown 225
Causes of the disaster 225
Reception of the news in England 226
Events in the war with France and Spain 227
Mar., 1782. The second Rockingham ministry; the king's
defeat 229
CHAPTER XII.
THE ROUT OF THE WHIGS.
1782. Attack on the corrupt influence of the crown 231
May. Legislative independence conceded to Ireland 232
12 April. The "battle of the Saints" 234
Last scenes of the siege of Gibraltar 236
1780-84. War in India and in the Indian waters 236
Quarrel between Fox and Shelburne 238
July, 1782. Shelburne forms a ministry 240
30 Nov. Preliminaries of peace between Great Britain
and America 241
The American loyalists 242
3 Sept., 1783. Definitive treaty of Versailles 242
State of parties in parliament 243
The coalition between Fox and North 244
April. The Coalition ministry 245
May. Pitt's motion for parliamentary reform 246
Warren Hastings in India 247
Nov.-Dec. Fox's India bills 249
Dec. The Coalition ministry dismissed; Pitt prime
minister 251
Struggle on the question of a dissolution 251
25 Mar., 1784. Parliament dissolved 254
General election: "Fox's martyrs" 254
CHAPTER XIII.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS, 1760-1801.
General character of the period 255
Amusements, gambling, racing, the drama, etc. 256
Travelling and the state of the roads 258
Literature: poetry, fiction, and serious prose
works 259
The arts, architecture, painting, etc. 262
Natural science 263
Voyages of discovery 263
Religion 264
The criminal law 265
The prisons and transportation 266
The police system 267
Increase of trade and manufactures 268
The mercantile system and _laissez-faire_ 269
Steam and water power: iron manufacture 270
Canals 271
Manufacture of textile fabrics 271
Failure of domestic industries 272
Wages of agricultural labourers 273
Regulation of corn trade 273
Improvements in agriculture 274
Enclosures 275
Combinations of workmen to raise wages 277
The poor law 277
Sufferings of the poor and specially of factory
children 278
CHAPTER XIV.
EARLY YEARS OF PITT'S ADMINISTRATION.
1784. Significance of Pitt's victory 280
Change in office of prime minister and in
house of lords 281
Pitt's character and management of parliament 282
The Westminster election 283
1784-85. Pitt's finance 284
Aug., 1784. His bill for the government of India 286
18 April, 1785. His bill for parliamentary reform 287
May. His resolutions on Irish trade 288
1786. Establishment of the sinking fund 291
26 Sept. Commercial treaty with France 293
1787. Consolidation of customs and excise 294
Bill for relief of dissenters 295
1788. The slave trade question 295
Foreign policy 296
1785. Austrian aggression 297
1786-87. French influence in the United Provinces 298
Oct., 1787. Restoration of the stadholder 300
April, 1788. Triple alliance--Great Britain, Prussia, and
the United Provinces 301
CHAPTER XV.
THE REGENCY QUESTION.
1785. Return of Hastings to England 302
1786. Pitt and the charges against Hastings 303
13 Feb., 1788. Trial of Hastings begun 304
1788-93. Cornwallis as governor-general of India 305
Feb., 1788. Pitt's (India) declaratory bill 305
May, 1787. The Prince of Wales's debts paid 307
5 Nov., 1788. The king's insanity 309
10 Dec. Fox asserts the prince's right to the regency 311
Pitt's resolutions 312
10 Mar., 1789. The king's recovery announced 314
The Irish parliament and the regency 314
The French revolution begins 315
English opinions on events in France 317
1790. Dispute with Spain relating to Nootka Sound 319
28 Oct. Convention with Spain 321
CHAPTER XVI.
DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.
1790. General election 322
1795. Acquittal of Hastings 323
1791-92. Struggle for the abolition of the slave trade 323
1792. Fox's libel bill 324
Pitt's foreign policy 324
1791. The Russian armament 326
Nov., 1790. Burke's _Reflections on the French Revolution_ 328
May, 1791. Rupture between Burke and Fox 329
27 Aug. The Declaration of Pilnitz 331
Revolutionary propaganda 331
1792. Dismissal of Thurlow 332
A whig scheme of coalition 333
French proposals 333
21 May. Proclamation against seditious writings 335
Aug. British ambassador recalled from Paris 336
French conquest of Flanders 337
The provocations received by England 338
Dec. Disruption of the whig party 340
21 Jan., 1793. Execution of Louis XVI. 342
1 Feb. France declares war on England 342
War necessary for the safety of Great Britain 342
Conduct of C. J. Fox 343
CHAPTER XVII.
THE FIRST COALITION.
1793. Change in Pitt's domestic policy 345
Pitt as a war minister 346
Loans raised by Pitt 348
Formation of the coalition 349
April. The conference at Antwerp 349
Success of the allies 350
Their discordant aims 351
Aug. The surrender of Toulon 352
8 Sept. York before Dunkirk: the battle of Hondschoote 353
Dec. Attempted co-operation with the Vendeans 354
Siege and evacuation of Toulon 355
Mar. Traitorous correspondence bill 357
1793-94. Repressive proceedings 357
1794. The opposition in parliament 359
Selfish conduct of Prussia and Austria 360
The British retreat through Holland 362
The coalition in a shattered state 363
Aug. British conquest of Corsica 363
28 May-1 June. Naval victory: the glorious First of June 364
Portland whigs coalesce with government 366
1791. Ireland. Society of United Irishmen founded 367
1793. Catholic relief act 368
1794. Catholic emancipation question 368
Feb., 1795. The recall of Fitzwilliam 370
CHAPTER XVIII.
ENGLAND'S DARKEST DAYS.
1795. A desire for negotiation 372
8 April. Marriage of the Prince of Wales 373
Difference between Pitt and Grenville 373
5 April. Treaty of Basle 374
Treaties with Austria and Russia 374
Feeble conduct of war in the Mediterranean 375
June. The expedition to Quiberon 376
War in the West Indies 377
Scarcity, riots, and democratic agitation 378
Nov. Repressive legislation 379
1796. Bonaparte's campaign in Italy 380
British fleet evacuates the Mediterranean 381
Overtures and unsuccessful negotiations for
peace 382
Financial difficulties: the Loyalty loan 384
Ireland--United Irishmen adopt a military
organisation 386
Dec. French attempt an invasion of Ireland 386
27 Feb., 1797. Suspension of cash payments 387
14. Battle of Cape St. Vincent 388
18 April. Preliminaries of peace between France and
Austria signed at Leoben 390
The mutinies in the navy 391
Negotiations at Lille 396
17 Oct. Treaty of Campo Formio 397
11. Battle of Camperdown 398
A partial secession of whigs from parliament 399
Nov. The triple assessment 400
CHAPTER XIX.
IRISH REBELLION AND NAVAL SUPREMACY.
1798. Threatened invasion of England 401
The Irish peasantry look to France for help 404
1797-98. Rebellion in Ulster averted by severities 405
12 Mar., 1798. Arrest of rebel leaders in Dublin 407
Cruel measures adopted in midland and southern
counties 407
23 May. Outbreak of rebellion in Kildare 408
Rebellion in Wexford 409
21 June. Rebels routed on Vinegar hill 411
20 Aug. French under Humbert land in Killala bay 413
27. "The race of Castlebar" 413
Other attempts at invasion 414
1 Aug. The Battle of the Nile 416
Mar.-May, 1799. The defence of Acre 418
4 May. Storming of Seringapatam and death of Tipu 420
1798. Paul of Russia proposes a coalition 421
Dec., 1798.} The second coalition formed 423
Jan., 1799.}
1798. British troops withdrawn from San Domingo 424
CHAPTER XX.
ISOLATION IN EUROPE AND THE IRISH UNION.
1799. Campaign of Suvorov 425
A French fleet in the Mediterranean 426
June. Nelson and the Neapolitan jacobins 427
Aug.-Oct. The expedition to the Helder 429
Paul of Russia deserts the coalition 431
9 Oct. Bonaparte returns to France 432
Jan., 1800. The convention of El Arish 432
25 Dec, 1799. Bonaparte's letter to the king 433
April. Payment of the income tax 434
Scarcity of wheat 435
April, 1800. Investment of Genoa 436
14 June. The battle of Marengo 437
Bonaparte proposes a naval armistice 438
Unprofitable expeditions 439
9 Feb., 1801. The Treaty of Luneville: isolation of England 440
Paul's anger against England 440
Dec., 1800. The armed neutrality 441
Great Britain's maritime supremacy 443
Scarcity and desire for peace 443
Irish independence a source of weakness 445
Oct., 1798. Pitt contemplates union on a protestant basis 446
1799. Hopes of the catholics excited 447
How the government secured a majority 448
1 Aug., 1800. The union enacted 450
Sept. Pitt proposes catholic emancipation 451
Feb., 1801. The king refuses his assent: Pitt will resign 452
20. The king's insanity 453
Mar. Pitt's promise to the king 454
14. Pitt resigns office 455
APPENDIX I. On Authorities 459
II. Administrations of Great Britain, 1760-1801 470
III. The Grenvilles 476
MAPS.
(AT THE END OF THE VOLUME.)
1. Great Britain, showing the parliamentary representation.
2. The United States of America (northern section) {illustrating the War
3. " " " (southern section) {of Rebellion and the
{Treaty of Sept. 3,
{1783.
ERRATA.
[Transcribers' Note: These corrections to errata have been applied to
the e-book]
Page 4, line 25, _for_ "George" _read_ "William".
" 10, note, _for_ "From about 1760" _read_ "From the
Revolution".
" 49, line 23, _for_ "of state in Egremont's place" _read_ "and took
the northern department".
" 55 " 4, _for_ "1657" _read_ "1660".
" " " 9, _for_ "cotton" _read_ "grain".
" 71, lines 8, 9, _omit_ comma after "matters," and _for_ "including
taxation. The court party" _read_ "whatsoever. Some
of the king's household".
" 115, line 23, _for_ "northern" _read_ "southern".
" " " 24, _for_ "southern" _read_ "northern".
" 121 " 3, _for_ "cousin" _read_ "aunt".
" 130, lines 11, 12, _for_ "French laws and customs were swept away"
_read_ "The administration of the law was confused".
" 135, line 7, _for_ "astride on iron rails" _read_ "to ride
upon a rail".
" 144 " 29, _for_ "up" _read_ "down".
" 220 " 29, _for_ "stony" _read_ "strong".
" 245 " 36, _for_ "1788" _read_ "1778".
" 259 " 33, _for_ "1774" _read_ "1770".
" 263 " 5, _for_ "steel" _read_ "copper".
" 282 " 12, _for_ "than" _read_ "to".
" 351 " 31, _for_ "1,500 (Austrians)," _read_ "11,000".
" 394 " 27, _for_ "Commander" _read_ "captain".
" 467 " 40, _for_ "Karl von Martens" _read_ "F. de Martens".
" 468 " 41, _for_ "Clerque" _read_ "Clergue".
" 470. Newcastle's administration, _secs. of state_, E. of Egremont,
_for_ "_succ._ March, 1761," _read_ "_succ._ Oct.,
1761"; _for_ E. of Bute, "_succ._ Oct., 1761," _read_
"_succ._ March, 1761". _Ld. privy seal_, _after_ "E.
Temple" _read_ "D. of Bedford _succ._ Nov., 1761".
" 471. Grenville's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ _for_
"E. of Sandwich" _read_ "E. of Halifax, _succ._ Sept.,
1763"; _n. dept._ _for_ "E. of Halifax" _read_ "E. of
Sandwich, _succ._ Sept., 1763".
Rockingham's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ after
Conway _read_ "D. of Richmond, _succ._ May, 1766";
_n. dept._ _for_ "D. of Richmond" _read_ "H. S. Conway,
_succ._ May, 1766".
" 473. North's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ _for_ "E. of
Sandwich, E. of Halifax, E. of Suffolk, Visct.
Stormont" _read_ "E. of Rochford, _succ._ Dec, 1770,
Viscount Weymouth, _succ._ Nov., 1775, E. of
Hillsborough, _succ._ Nov., 1779"; _n. dept._ _for_
"Viscount Weymouth, E. of Hillsborough," _read_ "E. of
Sandwich, _succ._ Dec, 1770, E. of Halifax _succ._
Jan., 1771, E. of Suffolk _succ._ June, 1771, Viscount
Stormont _succ._ Oct., 1779".
" 475. Pitt's administration, _admiralty_, _for_ "Hood" _read_ "Howe".
" 478, col. 1, line 32, _for_ "afterwards" _read_ "previously".
" " " 2 " 50, Bridgewater, _for_ "Earl of" _read_ "Duke of".
" 481 " 1 " 27, Cumberland, _for_ "George" _read_ "William".
" 482 " 1 " 26, Emmet, _for_ "Robert" _read_ "Thomas".
" 487 " 1 " 51, Lincoln, _for_ "Earl of (Clinton), 195, 197,
198" _read_ "American general, 195, 198".
" 491 " 2 " 25, Queensberry, _for_ "Earl of" _read_ "Duke of".
CHAPTER I.
THE KING AND BUTE.
George III. was in his twenty-third year when he succeeded his
grandfather, George II., on October 25, 1760. His accession caused
general satisfaction. The jacobite schism had come to an end; no one
imagined that a restoration of the exiled house was possible, or
seriously wished that it might take place. The remembrance of the rising
of '45 strengthened the general feeling of loyalty to the reigning
house; the Old Pretender had lost all interest in public affairs, and
his son, Charles Edward, was a confirmed drunkard, and had alienated his
friends by his disreputable life. Englishmen were determined not to have
another Roman catholic king, and they were too proud of their country
willingly to accept as their king a prince who was virtually a foreigner
as well as a papist, and whose cause had in past years been maintained
by the enemies of England. It is true that their last two kings had been
foreigners, but this was so no longer; their new king had been born and
brought up among them and was an Englishman to the backbone. He
succeeded an old king of coarse manners and conversation and of openly
immoral life, and his youth and the respectability of his morals added
to the pleasure with which his people greeted him as a sovereign of
their own nation.
National feeling was growing in strength; it had been kindled by Pitt,
and fanned into a flame by a series of victories which were largely due
to the inspiration of his lofty spirit. He had raised Great Britain from
a low estate to a height such as it had never reached before. The French
power had been overthrown in North America and the dominion of Canada
had been added to the British territories. In India the victories of
Clive and his generals were soon to be crowned by the fall of
Pondicherry, and French and Dutch alike had already lost all chance of
successfully opposing the advance of British rule by force of arms.
Great Britain had become mistress of the sea. Her naval power secured
her the possession of Canada, for her ships cut off the garrison of
Montreal from help by sea; it sealed the fate of the French operations
in India, for D'Ache was forced to withdraw his ships from the
Coromandel coast and leave Lally without support. In the West Indies
Guadeloupe had fallen, and in Africa Goree. In every quarter the power
of France was destroyed, her colonies were conquered, her ships captured
or driven from the sea.
The naval supremacy of England is attested, strange as it seems at first
sight, by her losses in merchant shipping, which were far heavier than
those of France, more than 300 in 1760, more than 800 in 1761, for many
English merchantmen were at sea while the French dared not send out
their merchant ships for fear of capture. Nor was this all, for the ruin
of the commerce of France led the shipowners of St. Malo to fit out many
of their ships as privateers and corsairs, and the ruin of her navy sent
many a fine seaman aboard them. Skippers of English traders who
straggled from their convoy, or sailed ahead of it in order to be first
in the market, were often punished for their obstinacy or greediness by
these fast-sailing privateers.[1] In spite of these losses, England's
supremacy at sea caused a rapid increase in her wealth and commerce, and
she took full advantage of her power, seizing French merchandise carried
in neutral vessels. The wealth acquired through her naval supremacy
enabled her to uphold the cause of her allies on the continent.
England's purse alone afforded Frederick of Prussia the means of keeping
the field, and the continuance of the war depended on her subsidies. The
continental war, in which our troops played a secondary part, was by no
means so popular as the naval war, yet under Pitt's administration it
had helped to rouse the spirit of the nation. A new militia had been
created and the old jealousy of a standing army was weakened. It was,
then, at a time when national feeling was strong that Englishmen were
called upon to welcome a king of their own nationality, and they
answered to the call with enthusiasm.
[Sidenote: _THE YOUNG KING._]
George was in many respects worthy of their welcome. Moral in his
conduct and domestic in his tastes, he set an example of sobriety and
general decency of behaviour. He was kind-hearted and had the gift of
pleasing. On public occasions his demeanour and words were dignified. In
private he talked in a homely way, his words following one another too
quickly and sometimes showing a confusion of thought and excitability of
brain. To the poor he would speak with familiar kindness, chatting with
them like a good-natured squire. Yet simple as he was in his habits and
private talk, he always spoke and acted as a gentleman; the coarseness
of the old court was a thing of the past. He was deeply and unaffectedly
pious, and was strongly attached to the Church of England; his religion
was of a sober kind and was carried into his daily life. He was
constantly guided by the dictates of his conscience. His will was
strong; and as his conscience was by no means always so well-informed as
he believed it to be, his firmness often deserved the name of obstinacy.
Nor, in common with the best of men, did he always clearly distinguish
between his personal feelings and conscientious convictions. He had
great self-control, and was both morally and physically courageous.
Though as a youth he had been idle, he was never addicted to pleasure;
his accession brought him work which was congenial to him, he overcame
his natural tendency to sloth and, so long as his health allowed,
discharged his kingly duties with diligence. His intellectual powers
were small and uncultivated, but he had plenty of shrewdness and common
sense; he showed a decided ability for kingcraft, not of the highest
kind, and gained many successes over powerful opponents. The welfare of
his people was dear to him; he was jealous for the honour of England,
rejoiced in her prosperity, and strove with all his strength to save her
from humiliation. In religion, tastes, and prejudices he was in sympathy
with the great mass of his people; and in matters in which his policy
and conduct seem most open to censure, he had the majority of the nation
with him.
He had, however, some serious failings which brought trouble both on his
people and himself. They were largely the results of his training. His
father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, a fool, a fribble and worse, died
when George was twelve years old. His mother, the Princess Augusta, was
a woman of strong will, ambitious of power, unamiable in temper,
thoroughly insincere, narrow-minded, and full of petty feelings. She was
strict in all religious matters, had a high sense of duty, and was a
careful mother. When her son became king, she acted as though she had a
right to direct him in his political work. Her interference was
mischievous: she was unpopular and incapable of understanding the
politics of a great country; for she had the prejudices of a little
German court, and regarded politics merely in a personal light. George
grew up completely under her influence. Jealous of her authority and
influence over her sons, she was quick to suspect their governors and
preceptors of trying to act independently of her, and thwarted them
continually. They had no chance of gaining George's confidence or of
giving him the benefits which a lad may derive from the society of men
experienced in the ways of the world. Do what they would, the princess
was always too strong for them, and Lord Waldegrave, one of the prince's
governors, records as his own experience that "the mother and the
nursery always prevailed". Nor had George the opportunity of learning
anything from companions of his own age; his mother was afraid that his
morals would be corrupted by association with young people, and kept him
in the strictest seclusion. He had no friend except his brother Edward.
Her jealousy extended to her children's nearest relations. They had
little intercourse with the court, and William, Duke of Cumberland,
whose upright character and soldierly qualities might well have endeared
him to his nephews, complained that as children they were taught to
regard him with the most unworthy suspicion.
Brought up among bed-chamber women and pages, in an unwholesome
atmosphere of petty intrigue, and carefully kept from contact with the
world, George had the failings which such a system might be expected to
produce. His mother certainly succeeded in implanting in his heart
religious principles which he preserved through life, and she turned him
out a pure-minded and well-bred young man; but the faults in his
character were confirmed. He was uncharitable in his judgments of others
and harsh in his condemnation of conduct which he did not approve. His
prejudices were strengthened; he put too high a value on his own
opinions and was extremely stubborn. In dealing with men, he thought too
much of what was due to himself and too little of what was due to
others. As a lad he lacked frankness, and in later life was disingenuous
and intriguing. When he was displeased his temper was sullen and
resentful. He was always overcareful about money, and in old age this
tendency developed into parsimony. His education was deficient; it had
not been carried on steadily, and he had been allowed to indulge a
constitutional inertness. Though he overcame this habit, the time which
he had lost could not be made up for, and ideas which might have been
corrected or enlarged by a more thorough education, remained firmly
fixed in his mind.
[Sidenote: _THE EARL OF BUTE._]
Among these ideas were an exaggerated conception of the royal
prerogative and the belief that it was his duty as king to govern as
well as to reign. His mother's constant exhortation to him, "George, be
a king," fell upon willing ears, and appears to have been enforced by
his tutors. A more powerful influence on the mind of the young prince
than that of any of his tutors was exercised by John Stuart, Earl of
Bute, his mother's chief friend and adviser. He was a fine showy man,
vain of his handsome person, theatrical in his manners, pompous, slow
and sententious in his speech. His private life was respectable; he had
literary and scientific tastes, and a good deal of superficial
knowledge. His abilities were small; he would, George's father used to
say, "make an excellent ambassador in any court where there was nothing
to do".[2] He lacked the steadfast self-reliance necessary to the part
which he undertook to play, and had none of the dogged resolution of his
royal pupil. His enemies freely accused him of falsehood; he was
certainly addicted to intrigue, but he was probably too proud a man to
utter direct lies. The friendship between him and the princess was close
and lasting. It was generally believed that he was her paramour, but for
this there is no real evidence. It would have been contrary to the
character of the princess, and the assertion seems to have been a
malicious scandal. George liked him, and when he was provided with a
household of his own in 1756, he persuaded the king to put the earl at
the head of it as his groom of the stole. Though utterly incompetent for
the task, Bute instructed the prince in the duties of kingship; he
encouraged him in the idea that a king should exercise a direct control
over public affairs, and is said to have borrowed for him a portion of
Blackstone's then unpublished _Commentaries on the Laws of England_ in
which the royal authority is magnified.
George's political system was, it is evident, largely based on
Bolingbroke's essay _On the Idea of a Patriot King_. In this essay
Bolingbroke lays down that a king who desires the welfare of his people
should "begin to govern as soon as he begins to reign," that he must
choose as his ministers men who "will serve on the same principles on
which he intends to govern," and that he must avoid governing by a
party. Such a king will unite his people, and put himself at their head,
"in order to govern, or more properly subdue, all parties". This
doctrine seemed specially appropriate to the state of affairs at
George's accession. During the last two reigns the power of the crown
had dwindled. Neither George I. nor George II. had cared for, or indeed
understood, domestic politics, and the government had fallen into the
hands of the whig party which became dominant at the Revolution. The
whigs posed as defenders of the Hanoverian house and of the principles
of 1688. Those principles limited the exercise of the prerogative, but
they did not involve depriving the crown of all participation in the
government. The whig party exaggerated them, and while the fortunes of
Hanover and continental affairs absorbed the attention of the king, they
completely usurped the government of the country. They were strong in
the house of lords, and secured their position in the commons by
employing the patronage of the crown, the money of the nation, and their
own wealth and influence to control the borough elections. For nearly
fifty years a small number of whig lords shared the government of the
country among themselves. During Walpole's administration the whigs
became split into sections. Several of the more powerful lords of the
party had each his own following or "connexion" in parliament, composed
of men bound to him by family ties, interest, or the gift of a seat.
These sections, while they agreed in keeping the crown out of all part
in the government, and the tories out of all share in the good things
which the crown had to bestow, struggled with one another for office.
[Sidenote: _THE KING INTENDS TO RULE._]
Meanwhile the tories were left out in the cold. So long as jacobitism
was a danger to the state, this was not a fair cause of complaint, for
many tories had corresponded with the exiled princes. By 1760, however,
tories had become as loyal as whigs. George was fully determined to put
an end to this state of things: he would be master in his own kingdom;
he and not the whigs should govern England. He naturally rejoiced to see
the tories, a large and important body of his subjects, reconciled to
the throne; and as he had been brought up in tory principles, he
welcomed with peculiar pleasure the support of the party of prerogative.
The tories were no longer to be neglected by the crown; the whig
monopoly was to be brought to an end. He did not contemplate taking
political power from one party in order to vest it in another. He
designed to rule independently of party; no political section was
necessarily to be excluded from office, but no body of men, whether
united by common principles or common interest, was henceforth to
dictate to the crown. To be willing and able to carry on the government
in accordance with his will was to be the sole qualification for a share
in the administration. Ministers might or might not be agreed on matters
of the first importance; all the agreement between them which was
necessary was that each in his own sphere should act as an agent of the
king's policy.
The system was not so impossible as it would be at present. The idea of
the cabinet as a homogeneous body, collectively responsible to
parliament, was not yet established. Government was largely carried on
by ministers working more or less independently of one another. In 1760
the cabinet, an informal committee of the privy council, was an
institution of a different character from that of to-day. During the
last two reigns it had included, along with the ministers holding the
chief political offices, whether of business or dignity, certain great
court officials, and some other personages of conspicuous position whose
assistance might be useful to the government. Nominally the "lords of
the cabinet" were fairly numerous. They did not all take an equal share
in government. The king's "most serious affairs" were directed by not
more than five or six of them, who formed a kind of inner cabinet, the
first lord of the treasury, the two secretaries of state, one or more of
the principal supporters of the administration, and generally the lord
chancellor. They discussed matters privately, sometimes settling what
should be laid before a cabinet meeting, and sometimes communicating
their decisions to the king as the advice of his ministers, without
submitting them to the cabinet at large.[3] Outside this small inner
circle the lords of the cabinet held a position rather of dignity than
of power, and some of them rarely attended a cabinet meeting.[4] This
arrangement was mainly due to the long predominance of Sir Robert
Walpole and to the overwhelming political influence of a few great whig
houses. The strife among the whigs which followed Walpole's retirement
and the critical character of foreign affairs tended to increase the
number of councillors who commonly took part in cabinet business.
[Sidenote: _THE CABINET._]
The first cabinet of George III. as settled with reference to a meeting
held on November 17, consisted of the keeper of the great seal (Lord
Henley), the president of the council (Lord Granville), the two
secretaries of state (Pitt and Holdernesse), the Duke of Newcastle
(first lord of the treasury), Lord Hardwicke (ex-chancellor), Lord Anson
(first lord of the admiralty), Lord Ligonier (master-general of the
ordnance), Lord Mansfield (lord chief-justice), the Duke of Bedford
(lord-lieutenant of Ireland) and the Duke of Devonshire (lord
chamberlain). If Lord Halifax (president of the board of trade) pleased,
he might attend to give information on American affairs; and Newcastle
suggested that Legge (the chancellor of the exchequer, whose office, as
finance was then largely managed by the first lord of the treasury, was
of less importance than it soon became) and the "solicitor" (Charles
Yorke, solicitor-general) should also be summoned.[5] Soon afterwards
Bute was appointed groom of the stole to the king and entered the
cabinet.[6] After 1760 the cabinet began to assume its later form;
questions of the highest importance were debated and decided on in
meetings of eleven or twelve councillors, and in 1761 Hardwicke
complained that the king's "most serious affairs" were discussed by as
many as would in earlier days have formed a whole cabinet.[7] From 1765
the existence of an inner circle becomes less distinct, though at all
times a prime minister naturally takes counsel privately with the most
prominent or most trusted members of his government. Non-efficient
members of a cabinet appear more rarely until, in 1783, they disappear
altogether. The old inner cabinet becomes expanded into a council
consisting generally of high political officers, and the members, ten or
twelve in number, discuss and settle the weightiest affairs of state.
With the critical negotiations with France in 1796 came a new
development; the prime minister, the younger Pitt, and Lord Grenville,
the foreign secretary, arranged that the British ambassador should write
private despatches for their information, and others of a less
confidential character which might be read by the cabinet at large.[8]
Here a new inner cabinet is foreshadowed. It differed from the old one:
that arose from the small number who were entrusted with an actual share
in the government; this, from the fact that the number of the king's
confidential servants was so large that it was advisable that certain
matters of special secrecy should only be made known to and discussed by
two or three. The subsequent increase of the council promoted the
development of an inner cabinet, and such a body is understood to have
existed for many years during which cabinets have been of a size
undreamt of by ministers of George III.
The solidarity of the cabinet is now secured by the peculiar functions
and powers of a prime minister.[9] It was not so at the accession of
George III. That there should be an avowed prime minister possessing the
chief weight in the council and the principal place in the confidence of
the king is a doctrine which was not established until the first
administration of the younger Pitt; and though the title of prime
minister had come into use by 1760, it was still regarded as invidious
by constitutional purists. According to George's system he was himself
to be the only element of coherence in a ministry; it was to be formed
by the prime minister in accordance with his instructions, and each
member of it was to be guided by his will. The factious spirit of the
whigs, the extent to which they monopolised power, and the humiliating
position to which they had reduced the crown, afford a measure of
defence for his scheme of government. Yet it was in itself
unconstitutional, for it would have made the ministers who were
responsible to parliament mere agents of the king who was not personally
responsible for his public acts. And it was not, nor indeed could it be,
carried out except by adopting means which were unconstitutional and
disastrous. It necessarily made the king the head of a party. He needed
votes in parliament, and he obtained them, as the whig leaders had done,
by discreditable means. If his ministers did not please him he sought
support from the members of his party, "the king's friends," as they
were called; and so there arose an influence behind the throne distinct
from and often opposed to that of his responsible advisers.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S SCHEME._]
Since 1757 the strife of the whig factions had been stilled by
coalition. At the king's accession the administration was strong. It
owed its strength to the co-operation of the Duke of Newcastle, the
first lord of the treasury, and Pitt, secretary of state.[10] Newcastle,
the most prominent figure among the great whig nobles, derived his power
from influence; he had an unrivalled experience in party management and
as a dispenser of patronage, and though personally above accepting a
bribe of any kind, he was an adept at corrupt practices. He would have
been incapable of conducting the war, for he was ignorant, timid, and
vacillating, but he knew how to gain the support of parliament and how
to find the supplies which the war demanded. Pitt was strong in the
popular favour which he had gained by his management of the war; he was
supremely fitted to guide the country in time of war, but he was too
haughty and imperious to be successful in the management of a party. He
did not care to concern himself about applications for bishoprics,
excisorships, titles, and pensions, or the purchase of seats in
parliament. All such work was done by Newcastle. For his attack on the
whig party George needed a scheme and a man--some one to act for him in
matters in which as king he could not appear personally to interfere.
The man was ready to his hand, his friend and teacher, Bute. His scheme
of attack was to create a division between Newcastle and Pitt, to make
peace with France, and force Pitt to leave the ministry, Pitt's
resignation would weaken the whigs, and the king would be in a position
to give office to Bute and any other ministers he might choose.
Newcastle and Pitt were not really in accord, for not only was Newcastle
jealous of Pitt, but he was anxious to bring the war to an end while
Pitt wished to continue it. George therefore started on his work of
sowing dissension between them with something in his favour. He disliked
Pitt's war policy. He and Bute desired peace, no doubt for its own sake,
as well as because it would forward their plan, for when the war ended
the great war minister would no longer be necessary to the whigs.
On the day of his accession George privately offered to make Bute a
secretary of state.[11] He refused the offer, for to have stepped into
the place of Holdernesse while the whig party was still united would
have been premature. The council was immediately summoned to Carlton
house, a residence of the princess-dowager. George at once showed that
he would take a line of his own. After a few gracious words to Newcastle
in private audience, he closed the interview by saying, "My lord Bute is
your very good friend and will tell you my thoughts at large". The duke,
Pitt, and Holdernesse were called into the closet to hear the
declaration he was about to make to the privy council; it is said to
have been written by the king himself with the help of Bute. When it had
been read George merely asked if anything was "wrong in point of form".
Pitt could scarcely believe his ears; the war was described as "bloody
and expensive". He had an interview with Bute in the evening and
insisted on a change in the sentence. He carried his point, and the
words in the council-book with reference to the war are: "As I mount the
throne in the midst of an expensive, but just and necessary war, I shall
endeavour to prosecute it in a manner most likely to bring about an
honourable and lasting peace in concert with my allies". The last five
words were dictated by Pitt.[12] Bute having been sworn of the privy
council, and having entered the cabinet as groom of the stole, assumed
"a magisterial air of authority," and was universally recognised as the
king's confidant and mouthpiece.
The king opened parliament on November 19, wearing his crown. His speech
was settled by his ministers, and was sent to Bute for his perusal,
Newcastle intending himself to lay it before the king, as it was his
right to do.[13] Bute, however, took it to the king, and Newcastle to
his amazement received it back from the earl with an additional clause
written by the king's hand, and a message that the king would have it
inserted in the speech which was to be laid before him next day in
cabinet council.[14] The clause began: "Born and educated in this
country, I glory in the name of Britain" [_sic_], and went on to express
the king's confidence in the loyalty of his people and his desire to
promote their welfare.[15] The words were unexceptionable, but the
absolute command to insert them in the speech for which the ministers,
not the king, were responsible, was unwise. The use of the word Britain
was attributed to the Scotsman Bute. In later life the king declared
that he had written the clause without suggestion from any one.[16] His
command was obeyed, and the manner in which his words were received
illustrates the adulation then customarily rendered to the sovereign.
Hardwicke, who was in the habit of composing addresses for his
colleagues, seems to have taken "Britain" for "Briton," as indeed it
usually appears in print, and inserted a clause in the lords' address
ending with--"What a lustre does it cast on the name of Briton when you,
Sir, are pleased to esteem it among your glories!" When whig lords could
adopt such words as these, a young king might well be encouraged to
think over-highly of the royal prerogative. The incident has a special
interest. The cabinet council of the 17th, in which the speech was read
in its final form, was held by the king in person. By the end of the
last reign it had become unusual that the king should preside at cabinet
meetings. With one doubtful exception, George III. never again presided
at a meeting, and so the absence of the sovereign from the deliberations
of the cabinet became an established constitutional usage. Thus at the
time when the king was preparing to assume a preponderance in the
government, the crown finally abandoned one of the few remaining customs
which indicated a right to govern as well as to reign.
[Sidenote: _THE CIVIL LIST._]
A like contrast is afforded by the arrangement of the civil list. George
was the first sovereign who entirely surrendered his interest in the
hereditary revenues of the crown in England, and placed them at the
disposal of parliament. In return parliament voted him a civil list, or
fixed revenue, "for the support of his household and the dignity of the
crown". The sum voted was L800,000 a year, which was at first charged
with some pensions to members of the royal family. By this arrangement
the control of parliament over the king's expenditure was asserted at a
time when the king was relying on his prerogative to enable him to
become independent of ministerial control. Besides this income George
had the hereditary revenues from Scotland, a civil list in Ireland, the
duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and certain admiralty and other dues,
the whole amounting to "certainly not much short of a million
annually".[17] If the value of money at the time is considered, it may
be allowed that the crown was amply provided for, and that so thrifty a
king as George would always have found his revenues sufficient for his
needs, if he had not spent large sums in supplying pensions and places
of profit for his political adherents, and in other methods of
corruption. The good impression made by the young king was heightened by
a speech from the throne on March 3, 1761, recommending that in order to
complete the independence of judges, their commission should not for the
future be terminated by the demise of the crown, and that sufficient
salaries should be assigned to them. An act to that effect was
accordingly passed. On the 19th the king closed the session, and
parliament was dissolved shortly afterwards.
The war was going on gloriously under Pitt's direction. Our ally,
Frederick of Prussia, was, indeed, in distress in spite of his
hard-earned victory at Torgau, for his resources were exhausted, and
half his dominions were occupied by his enemies. During 1761 Prince
Henry made no progress in Saxony. Frederick himself lost Schweidnitz,
and, with it, half Silesia, while the fall of Colberg left the Russians
free either to besiege Stettin in the following spring, or to seize on
Brandenburg. In Western Germany, however, where a British army was
serving under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick in the defence of Hanover
against the French, a signal success was gained. Early in the year the
allies entered Hesse, and forced the French to retreat almost to the
Main. Nevertheless they failed to take Cassel, the chief object of the
campaign, and were obliged to retire from Hesse. In June two French
armies, under Marshal de Broglie and Prince Soubise, effected a junction
at Paderborn, advanced to Soest, and threatened Lippstadt. Ferdinand
took up a position between the Lippe and the Ahse at Vellinghausen. On
July 15 he was attacked by the French. The enemy engaged his left wing,
formed by the British troops under their commander, the gallant Marquis
of Granby. The attack was splendidly met and finally repulsed. The
battle was renewed the next morning at daybreak, and the allies gained a
complete victory. The British troops, who formed about a fourth part of
the allied army, highly distinguished themselves; Maxwell's grenadiers
alone captured four French battalions. This victory, won against heavy
odds, foiled the most serious attempt of the French against Hanover; it
saved Lippstadt, which would have been exceedingly useful to them as a
depot; and, more than that, it caused a quarrel between Broglie and
Soubise, which ended in the recall of Broglie, by far the abler of the
two generals. Meanwhile they parted company; Soubise did much mischief
in Westphalia, and Broglie campaigned to the east of the Weser. The
French kept their hold on Gottingen and Cassel, and were therefore in a
position to renew their attacks on Hanover the following year.
[Sidenote: _CAPTURE OF BELLE ILE._]
News came from India of the fall of Pondicherry on January 15, 1761, and
this was the end of the French power in that land. Few were the French
ships which put out to sea during the year, and they were all taken. In
the West Indies Dominica, one of the so-called neutral islands, of which
the French had taken possession, was reduced by Lord Rollo, then holding
a command in New York. About the same time the French received a more
galling blow. On March 29 a fleet under the command of Keppel, carrying
a land force of about 9,000 men under General Hodgson, sailed for Belle
Ile, a small and barren island with a population of 5,000, mostly
fisher-folk. It was fortified and well garrisoned. A first attempt to
land was repulsed with nearly 500 casualties. Tidings of the repulse
were brought to Pitt; he sent reinforcements and ordered the commander
to persevere. A second attempt, carried out with remarkable daring, was
successful, and siege was laid to Palais, the strong place of the
island. It was gallantly defended by the governor, who in a night attack
surprised the British in their trenches and inflicted a heavy loss upon
them. The lines which covered the town were taken by storm and the place
was abandoned, but the fortress still held out. As, however, the British
ships cut off all supplies, the garrison was at last, on June 7, forced
to capitulate. They marched out with the honours of war and were
conveyed to the mainland. By the capture of Belle Ile England gained far
more than the barren island; it was French soil, and France would be
prepared to surrender possessions of greater value in exchange for it.
For Pitt the success of the expedition was a special triumph, for he had
insisted upon it in spite of the opposition of Newcastle and the adverse
opinion of the admirals Hawke and Boscawen.
While Pitt was laying down and carrying out plans of victory, the king
and Bute were exciting discord between him and Newcastle. For a few days
after the accession Newcastle seemed more in favour than Pitt, who was
justly displeased because Lord George Sackville, one of Bute's friends,
was received at court in spite of his recent disgrace. Before long,
however, Newcastle found himself slighted and became violently jealous
of Pitt. If Bute were to ally himself with Pitt and adopt his policy,
the old minister knew that his own day would soon be over. He received a
hint that a change was contemplated. At the end of six months, Bute
said, the king "will declare whom he will call to his cabinet
council".[18] The alliance between Pitt and Bute seemed complete. In
January, 1761, the Spanish ambassador wrote: "there is no better voice
in council than his [Pitt's], which joined to that of my Lord Bute seems
to decide matters".[19] Pitt could work well with the rising star so
long as Bute did not oppose the continuance of the war, for he heartily
approved of breaking down party distinctions, and, like the king, hated
government by connexion. While, however, the king desired to destroy
factions in order to establish personal government, Pitt desired that
they should give place to a system of government by the best men,
supported by the king and the nation. Tories were graciously received at
court, and among them many of Bute's fellow-countrymen. In November,
1760, six tory lords and grooms of the bed-chamber were appointed
without any intimation having been given to Newcastle.[20] The whigs
were amazed, and the duke's mortification was keen.
The king's determination to break down the system which had so long
secured the whig power was set forth and commended in a remarkable
pamphlet written by Douglas, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, and
probably inspired by his patron, Lord Bath.[21] It urged the king to be
on his guard against "the pretensions of a confederacy of ministers,"
and to exercise the full extent of power allowed him by the
constitution. He must not let his patronage go by the advice of
ministers. Let him rely on his people; let him be master. Proscription,
the writer says, is ended, and he expresses his belief that if the king
will pursue the line marked out in his pamphlet, corruption also will
disappear; for so long as a minister disposes of places, he has the
means of corrupting parliament, whereas if the crown dispenses its own
patronage it will gain strength, and the independence of parliament will
be restored. For Newcastle, the veteran dispenser of the royal
patronage, such a system meant political extinction. Its meaning was
already brought home to him by an intimation that he was not to have
"the choice of parliament," the management of the coming general
election in boroughs under government influence, nor to purchase seats
with the treasury money. Anson was reproved by Bute for having,
according to custom, provided members for the admiralty boroughs.
Newcastle believed, with good reason, that Pitt and Bute were agreed on
this matter. He was deeply distressed, and told his friend Hardwicke
that he thought he must resign office.[22] That, however, was the last
thing he was likely to do.
[Sidenote: _OPPOSING VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO THE WAR._]
While Pitt may have welcomed the co-operation of his new ally from a
belief that they had a common policy as regards government by connexion,
and as a means of checking the opposition with which his plans were
often received by Newcastle and his friends, it is certain from later
events that the king and Bute were not sincere in their dealings with
him. They designed to raise dissension between him and his
fellow-ministers, and so prepare a way for Bute's assumption of office
and for the termination of the war. As early as January 18, 1761, when
Newcastle was sufficiently frightened and humbled, the Sardinian
minister, Count de Viri, one of Bute's tools, had a secret interview
with him, and proposed that the earl should be made a secretary of
state. Newcastle, who was mortally afraid of Pitt, said that the
appointment must be made with his concurrence, for otherwise Pitt might
blame him, and might perhaps resign office and leave him and Bute
saddled with the conduct of the war.[23]
Bute intended when in office to make a peace which would immortalise his
name. He saw that this would soonest be obtained if England withdrew
from the war on the continent and confined her operations to the sea.
France would then be induced by the loss of her colonies to make a
separate peace. Pitt was determined not to assent to any peace which was
not made in concert with our allies and did not insure England a full
return for her victories. Bute would have had the country stand apart
from continental politics; Pitt desired that it should have continental
allies and make itself felt in the politics of Europe. The two opposing
views are characteristic of the two men. Pitt maintained that the
continental war was profitable because it had hindered France from
putting forth her full strength in defence of her colonies.
Statesmanlike as his position was, there was much to be said on the side
of the tories and others, who held that England should confine herself
to a naval war. We have, they argued, no interest in a war for Silesia.
Why should we pay Frederick L670,000 a year, the amount of the subsidy
again granted to him soon after the accession, for fighting in his own
quarrel? What profit do we derive from the L340,000 paid to the
Landgrave of Hesse for the hire of troops? The naval war has brought a
rich return; on the continent we have nothing to gain by victory. As for
the argument that the German war is one of diversion, why should we
divert a war from the sea, where we are supreme, to land, where we must
necessarily be inferior to France? To fight in Germany for Hanover is to
surrender the advantages of an insular position. Better let France
overrun Hanover, for, as we shall possess her colonies, we can force her
to surrender it again.
These arguments are ably stated in a pamphlet entitled _Considerations
on the German War_, written by one Israel Mauduit, and published at the
end of 1760. It had a strong effect on public opinion, and was followed
by other pamphlets more or less on the same lines, and probably written
at the instigation of Bute, for he employed and largely rewarded the
services of pamphleteers. Their arguments were enforced by the growing
expenses of the war and the difficulty of obtaining men for the army.
The supplies granted for the year 1760 were L15,503,563; for 1761 they
amounted to L19,616,119, the interest on which was to be paid by the
continuance of the old taxes and a new tax of three shillings per barrel
on beer and ale. The national debt of Great Britain and Ireland, which
in 1755 was L72,505,572, entailing a charge for interest and expenses of
a little over L2,500,000, amounted in 1760 to L102,000,000, with a
charge of L3,500,000.[24] In 1761 the British troops serving abroad were
thirty-nine regiments of foot and thirty-one of horse and dragoons; in
all, 110,000 men, besides 60,000 German auxiliaries in British pay. In
Germany we had about 25,000 men. At the same time sea-pay was drawn for
288 ships of various kinds and 80,675 men, the navy then consisting of
378 vessels, of which 285 were first to sixth rates.[25] Of these, 121
ships of the line with about 70,000 men were in active service. The call
for men was very heavy in proportion to the population, and high
bounties were offered for enlistment. Balloting for the new militia
caused some riots in the north, specially at Hexham, where the miners
fiercely attacked the militia, and forty-two men were killed and
forty-eight wounded.
[Sidenote: _A GENERAL ELECTION._]
Before the king and Bute opened their campaign they insured support in
parliament. Early in 1761 preparations were made for the general
election. The court spread the idea that it was for purity of election;
it was known that Newcastle's hands were tied, and it was expected that
no money would be issued from the treasury. Nothing was less true.
Corruption was rampant and the treasury issued large sums. George
personally named candidates for boroughs belonging to the crown, to
which the ministry had hitherto appointed, and otherwise took an active
share in the arrangements. For the most part he worked through Bute, to
whom Newcastle was forced to submit his lists of candidates that he
might compare them with his own and decide who should be brought in.
This was galling to the old minister, but he had already done much to
forward the whig interest in the coming election, and flattered himself
that "they [the court] had left matters too late for them to do any
mischief".[26] In former elections the whigs used the resources of the
crown to secure power for themselves; in this election the crown itself
used its own means of corrupt influence. Private men followed its
example. A new class of candidates appeared, men without party connexion
or local interest, who had lately become rich, West India merchants,
"nabobs" gorged with the spoils of the East, shareholders of the East
India Company, admirals and others who had reaped a splendid harvest
from the destruction of the commerce and shipping of France. The
competition for seats was extraordinary; at Andover there were nine
candidates. Constituencies which had long obeyed the orders of great
landlords were no longer to be reckoned upon. No political question was
exciting public interest, and the borough elections were decided rather
by money than by measures. Bribery was carried to a preposterous height,
and the new-rich bought seats as openly as they bought their horses. The
borough of Sudbury went so far as to advertise itself for sale. Those
who without political aims or connexions forced themselves into
parliament by their wealth were peculiarly open to court influence.
Newcastle's belief that the elections would secure his position was
ill-founded; many members on whom he relied were ready to desert him at
the bidding of the court. By the beginning of March, before the
elections were over, the king and Bute were sure of the support they
desired.
Bute was in a position which enabled him to take office and to begin to
carry out the designs cherished by his master and himself, to bring the
war to an end and to encourage the jealousy of Pitt's colleagues to such
an extent that they would force him to leave them. He could be dispensed
with as soon as peace was made, and without him the whig ranks could
easily be broken up, for Newcastle could be crushed at any time. With
Bute as an ally Pitt dominated over his fellow-ministers, who bore his
yoke with rebellious feelings. If Bute came over to their side they
could make a stand against him. Viri's secret negotiations on Bute's
behalf gave them a chance not to be neglected. Newcastle, Hardwicke, and
the Duke of Devonshire took counsel together, and Newcastle went to the
king with a proposal that Bute should accept office. To this George, of
course, readily assented. Pitt knew nothing of all this until the matter
was settled.[27] On March 12 Holdernesse was dismissed. It was not a
creditable business; four months before he had signified his readiness
to make room for Bute,[28] and he received a present pension of L4,000 a
year and the reversion of the wardenship of the Cinque Ports, which was
at least equally valuable, as a reward for his complaisance. He was
succeeded by Bute as secretary of state on the 25th.
At the same time Legge, the chancellor of the exchequer, who had refused
to accede to Bute's wishes with regard to two elections, and was much
disliked by the king,[29] was dismissed, and was succeeded by Lord
Barrington, an honest man, with no strong political convictions, who was
always ready to carry out the king's plans. Barrington was succeeded as
secretary-at-war by Charles Townshend, a brilliant wit and orator, "the
delight and ornament" of the house of commons,[30] a reckless and
unstable politician, who was destined to bring evil on his country. A
month earlier, one of Bute's adherents, George Grenville, the treasurer
of the navy, a brother of Earl Temple, lord privy seal, and a
brother-in-law of Pitt, was rewarded by a seat in the cabinet. He had
considerable ability, great aptitude for business, and a thorough
knowledge of parliamentary affairs, was a statesman of unsullied purity,
public-spirited, hard-working and ambitious;[31] he was deficient in
tact, had no generosity of mind, and was harsh, formal, and impatient of
opposition. Newcastle's perfidy increased the ill-feeling between him
and Pitt, against whom the new alliance was avowedly directed,[32] for
at the time that Newcastle sold himself to Bute in order to gain his
support, Pitt was becoming aware that the king was probably about to
oppose his policy with respect to the war. Newcastle was delighted with
the success of his trick, but he soon found that Bute slighted him, and
that his power was going from him, for he was no longer allowed to
control the patronage of the crown.[33] By treating him in this way the
king and Bute kept him subservient. Bute aggravated the division between
the ministers, and used Pitt's colleagues against him in the conflict
which was impending on the question of peace and war. The history of
that conflict is for convenience' sake deferred to the next chapter.
[Sidenote: _THE KING'S MARRIAGE._]
The satisfaction caused by the young king's gracious manners and
respectable life was increased by his marriage. In 1755 his grandfather
had proposed that he should marry a princess of the house of Brunswick,
but abandoned the project in consequence of the opposition of George's
mother. About a year before his accession George fell in love with Lady
Sarah Lennox, a daughter of the late Duke of Richmond and sister-in-law
of Henry Fox, a young lady of remarkable beauty. His attentions to her
were continued after his accession. Fox and his wife, Lady Caroline,
took care that he should have every opportunity of seeing her; and
George, as he rode through Kensington, was charmed to find her in a
fancy dress playing at hay-making in front of Fox's residence, Holland
House. He went so far as to signify plainly to her that he meant to make
her a formal offer of marriage.[34] Most inopportunely Lady Sarah broke
her leg, and while she was laid up, the princess-dowager and Bute
persuaded George to change his mind. They at once arranged a marriage
for him with the Princess Charlotte, a daughter of the Duke of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and the marriage took place on September 8. The
queen did not meddle in affairs of state; she bore fifteen children, and
had many domestic virtues. On the 22nd the king and queen were crowned.
George's popularity was impaired by the influence exercised over him by
his mother and Bute, which excited the ridicule of the higher class of
society and the bitter feelings of the London populace. Bystanders
sneered when they saw him on his way to visit his mother, and it is said
that on one occasion he was insulted with a coarse jest. In Bute's case
the idea that he was the royal favourite would alone have sufficed to
make him hated. The term was generally applied to him. Yet he was not a
favourite in the more odious sense of the word, for though the king
showed him signal favour, their relations were rather political than
personal. His nationality strengthened the dislike with which he was
regarded. The jacobite troubles had increased the prejudices of the
English against the Scots; they looked down upon them as a
half-barbarous people, poor, and greedy to enrich themselves with the
wealth of England. Scorn and indignation were aroused by the grants of
honours and employments made to Bute's Scottish followers who came in
great numbers to the court under his patronage. Bills were posted in
London with the words: "No petticoat government! No Scotch minister! No
Lord George Sackville!" Any unpopular measure was set down to Bute's
advice. The beer-tax was believed to have been suggested by him, and
provoked a disturbance in the theatre in the king's presence, which
caused Bute much annoyance. He was yet to rise higher in the state, and
to arouse more violent feelings of hatred and contempt.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Mahan, _The Influence of Sea Power upon History_, pp. 318-19.
[2] Earl Waldegrave's _Memoirs_, p. 36.
[3] See, for example, "Memorandum of what past at Sir R. Walpole's
house," Sept. 9, 1725, Add. MS. 32,687 (Duke of Newcastle's Papers), f.
155.
[4] _Engl. Historical Rev._, xvii. (1902), 678 _sqq._, an interesting
article by Mr. Winstanley to which I am indebted.
[5] Add. MS. 32,914, ff. 171, 189; the order in the text is that of the
manuscript, the names and offices within parentheses are supplied.
[6] His appointment about Nov. 16, Add. MS., _u.s._, f. 369; he appears
as a "lord of the cabinet," Jan. 8, 1761, Add. MS. 32,917, f. 180.
[7] Add. MS. 32,929, f. 143; see also _Engl. Hist. Rev._, _u.s._
[8] _Dropmore Papers_, iii., 337-38, 341-43 (Hist. MSS. Comm.); Earl of
Malmesbury, _Diaries_, etc., iii., 465.
[9] J. Morley, _Walpole_, p. 157.
[10] From the Revolution the two principal secretaries of state took one
the southern, the other the northern department. Both were responsible
for home affairs. Foreign affairs were divided between them, the
southern department including France, Spain, etc., the northern,
Germany, the Low Countries, Denmark, Sweden, and Russia. A third
secretaryship was established for the colonies in 1768, and abolished in
1782, when the distinction between northern and southern was
discontinued and the secretaryships were divided into home and foreign.
[11] Newcastle to Hardwicke, March 6, 1764, Add. MS. 32,919, f. 481.
[12] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Oct. 26, 1760, quoted in Harris's _Life of
Hardwicke_, iii., 215-16.
[13] Memoranda, Nov. 13, 1760, Add. MS. 32,914, f. 277.
[14] Bute to Newcastle, Nov. 16, _ibid._, f. 345.
[15] Add. MSS. 32,684 (Royal family), f. 121, and 32,914, f. 359.
[16] G. Rose, _Diaries and Correspondence_, ii., 189.
[17] Burke, "_Present Discontents_," _Works_, iii., 143, ed. 1852; May,
_Constitutional History_, i., 236.
[18] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Nov. 7, 1760, Add. MS. 32,914, ff. 171-72.
[19] _Chatham Correspondence_, ii., 90.
[20] Newcastle to Duke of Manchester, Dec. 14, 1760, Add. MS. 32,916, f.
173; see also f. 322.
[21] _Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man_, 1761.
[22] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Dec. 7, 1760, Add. MS. 32,915, f. 332.
[23] Secret Memorandum, C. V. [Count de Viri], Add. MS. 32,917, f. 461.
[24] Parliamentary Paper, xxxiii. (July, 1858), 165, National Debt.
[25] MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, The Progress of the Navy, R.O.
[26] Albemarle, _Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham_, i., 61-64.
[27] _Secret Memoranda_, C. V., Add. MS. 32,919, f. 285; see also ff.
314, 400, 402 _sq._, 477 _sq._, and 32,920, f. 66.
[28] Dodington's _Diary_, p. 416.
[29] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Feb. 10, 1761, Add. MS. 32,919, f. 43.
[30] Burke, "_On American Taxation_," Works, iii., 214.
[31] Burke, "_On American Taxation_," _Works_, iii., 197.
[32] Memoranda, Add. MS. 32,920, f. 65.
[33] Newcastle to Devonshire, July 11, 1761, Add. MS. 32,925, f. 10; see
also ff. 155-56, 185, 235, Add. MS. 32,926, ff. 189-93, 284, 352.
[34] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox_, i., 13, ed. Lady
Ilchester.
CHAPTER II.
THE PEACE OF PARIS.
By the beginning of 1761 France was anxious for peace, and in concert
with her allies, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Poland, invited Great
Britain and Prussia to negotiate, and suggested that a congress should
meet at Augsburg. England and Prussia assented, and plenipotentiaries
were appointed. In England the prospect of a peace was hailed with
satisfaction, and the funds rose 4 per cent. The congress never met, but
the plan was not abandoned for some months; and Choiseul, the minister
of Louis XV., sent a memorial to England proposing that, as difficulties
would arise at the congress if the questions in dispute between England
and France were debated along with the affairs of their respective
allies, the two courts should enter on a separate negotiation. He
offered to treat on the basis of _uti possidetis_, that is, that the
possessions of both countries should be acknowledged as regards the
conquests made by the one from the other, and that certain dates in the
current year should be fixed upon as those on which the conquests should
be ascertained. The offer was large; for at that time England had
conquered from France Cape Breton, Canada, Guadeloupe, Mariegalante,
Goree, and Senegal, and had also gained great advantages in India,
though the fall of Pondicherry was not yet known; while France had only
conquered Minorca from England. She had also, it will be remembered,
gained insecure possession of Hesse, Hanau, and Gottingen. England
agreed to a separate negotiation on the basis of _uti possidetis_, but
Pitt would not commit himself as to the dates, for he was preparing the
expedition against Belle Ile, and intended that England should not lose
the advantage which would accrue from its success. He also declared that
his court would not desert the King of Prussia. Choiseul replied that
neither would France desert her allies, and that the negotiation only
concerned the interests of the two powers. On this understanding the two
courts sent representatives the one to the other; the English
representative chosen by Pitt was Hans Stanley, and M. de Bussy was sent
to London by Choiseul.
Soon after they arrived at their destinations Belle Ile was conquered.
Pitt knew how deeply the national spirit of France would be wounded by
this blow; he promised to restore the island if adequate compensation
were made, and Choiseul professed himself willing to make important
concessions. On July 15, however, he made proposals of a less favourable
kind than might have been expected. They were, briefly, that France
should cede Canada on certain conditions, one of which was that she
should have liberty to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and dry cod on
the Newfoundland shore, and should have Cape Breton in sovereignty for a
shelter for her ships, though she should not erect fortifications. She
would restore Minorca, and should receive back Guadeloupe and
Mariegalante; two of the neutral islands, Dominica and St. Vincent,
should be under her protection, and of the other two she should keep St.
Lucia and England should have Tobago. The rival claims in India were to
be settled on the basis of a treaty of 1755, before the late English
victories. England should restore either Senegal or Goree, for unless
France had one of them, her West India possessions would be useless, as
she would have no port for the shipment of negroes. Belle Ile was to be
restored, and France would evacuate Hesse and Hanau. After preliminaries
were signed England was not to help Prussia, nor France Austria, but
France would not surrender the territories conquered from the King of
Prussia, for they were conquered and held in the name of the
Empress-queen. This stipulation was made in favour of Austria which had
assented to the separate negotiation on condition that her interests
were guarded. The proposals were of a kind to suggest doubts as to
Choiseul's sincerity. As a matter of fact he was secretly arranging a
strict alliance with Spain as a means of forcing England to make
favourable terms.
[Sidenote: _SPANISH AND FRENCH MEMORIALS._]
Spain had three grievances against Great Britain. She complained that
her ships had wrongfully been made prizes, that she was shut out from
the Newfoundland fishery, and that British settlements had been made on
the bay of Honduras. Charles III, of Spain had a strong leaning towards
a French alliance; he was much influenced by the family tie between
himself and the other Bourbon powers, and he considered that the
destruction of the French navy by Great Britain deprived Spain of a
guarantee for the safety of her possessions in the western hemisphere.
He believed that by identifying the interests of Spain with those of
France, he would gain a satisfactory settlement of his own claims and
also better terms for France than she could otherwise obtain. As early
as September, 1760, the Count de Fuentes, the Spanish minister in
London, presented to Pitt a memorial on the Newfoundland fishery, in
which it was stated that a copy had been communicated to the court of
France. Indignant at the implied threat, Pitt replied that he was at a
loss to understand the meaning of such a communication, and that France
had nothing to do with the question.[35] A month later Dutens, secretary
to the British embassy at Turin, sent him information which proved that
the King of Spain would not long remain a passive spectator of the
war.[36] Pitt was thus fully aware of the necessity for watchfulness as
to the relations between France and Spain; the correspondence between
Fuentes and the Marquis Grimaldi, the Spanish minister at Paris, was
regularly intercepted and its contents communicated by Pitt to his
colleagues. The two ambassadors were endeavouring to bring about an
alliance between their king and Louis, and, on March 10, 1761, Fuentes
wrote that "if this is done, at the end of the year we shall have a
peace to our liking and France's," and that England would be compelled
by "force and fear" to do justice to Spain. Pitt soon showed him and
Choiseul how unsafe it was to reckon on English fear.
Along with the French proposals of July 15, Bussy presented Pitt with a
memorial on the grievances of Spain, proposing that England should
terminate her differences with that court, and declaring that the French
king "cannot disguise the danger he apprehends, and of which he must
necessarily partake if these objects which seem nearly to concern his
Catholic majesty shall be the occasion of a war". Pitt was furious at
this insult to his country and at once addressed Bussy in terms
different from the ordinary language of diplomacy. He declared in plain
words that the king would not allow the dispute with Spain to be
blended in any manner whatever in the negotiation, and that any further
attempt to blend them would be considered an affront. He returned the
memorial as "wholly inadmissible".[37] In answer to the French articles
he replied that Canada must be ceded unconditionally, and refused to
surrender Cape Breton or to allow France any part in the fisheries. Both
Pitt and Choiseul held the fisheries question to be of prime importance.
If France were shut out from them, she would, Pitt believed, permanently
be crippled as a maritime power, for apart from the value of the fish
both for victualling ships and in commerce the fisheries were a nursery
for a race of hardy seamen, and Pitt wished to prevent France from ever
restoring either her merchant marine or her naval strength. The second
crucial question in the negotiation concerned our allies. Pitt insisted
that Frederick should receive back the territories conquered from him by
France, and that both England and France should be free to help their
allies. Determined to give France no commercial advantage, he refused to
cede either Senegal or Goree. England must have Minorca, but would agree
to an equal partition of the neutral islands, and would restore Belle
Ile, Guadeloupe, and Mariegalante. He further rejected the date proposed
as a basis for a peace in India.
[Sidenote: _PITT'S ULTIMATUM._]
Pitt kept the negotiation with Bussy in his own hands, and met
opposition in the cabinet with haughty determination. Newcastle and his
party were eager for peace, and, equally with Bussy, complained that the
tone of his despatches was too peremptory. Bute resented what he
described as Pitt's insolence.[38] Nevertheless the king and he
considered the French proposals unsatisfactory and were annoyed by the
memorial concerning the Spanish grievances, but Bute believed that
patient negotiation would induce France to yield all that was in
dispute. Accordingly, to Newcastle's consternation, he supported Pitt's
demands. Pitt's strongest opponent was the Duke of Bedford, who was
urgently summoned to the council by Bute and Newcastle when they wanted
a champion against him. Upright and fairly able, Bedford owed his
political prominence mainly to his rank and vast wealth; he was much
addicted to sport and other pleasures, and allowed himself to be guided
by a gang of greedy adherents of whom Rigby, a coarse and shameless
place-hunter, was the chief. Pitt laid his ultimatum to France before
the council on August 15. He had so far yielded to pressure as to offer
France a limited right of fishing, and the island of St. Pierre as a
shelter and port, provided it was kept unfortified. On the other crucial
question his demand was unchanged; the Westphalian lands were to be
restored to Frederick, and both parties were to remain free to help
their allies. His despatch was considered needlessly irritating, but he
would not allow a word to be altered. Bute would give no help against
him. Bedford, who had a violent temper, was so angry at being overborne,
that he declared that he would attend no more councils, and Newcastle
was reduced to whining despair. By the 18th, however, Bute came to an
agreement with the Newcastle faction and promised to help them against
Pitt.[39]
Lord Bristol, our ambassador at Madrid, was instructed to remonstrate
energetically with General Wall, the Spanish minister, on the subject of
Bussy's memorial. He was to say that as regards the prizes there were
courts whose business it was to decide such matters, that England would
not allow Spain any share in the fishery, but was willing to receive
representations as to the Honduras settlements, provided they were not
sent through France, and that any union of counsels with France would
hinder an amicable arrangement. He was, further, to demand an
explanation of the naval preparations which Spain was making. He could
obtain no satisfaction, and on August 31 sent Pitt a paper in which Wall
declared that his master concurred in Bussy's memorial, and, while he
protested that no offence was intended, maintained that Spain and France
had a right to mix in the affairs each of the other "for mutual
assistance". A declaration of war from Spain was, Bristol thought, not
far off.[40] On September 2 Stanley sent Pitt a copy of what he believed
to be an article of a secret treaty between France and Spain, and wrote
that he was assured in Paris that Spain would immediately declare war,
and that a treaty between the two powers only needed signature.[41]
Intercepted letters between Fuentes and Grimaldi proved that a treaty
had been signed between them on August 15. This was the famous family
compact, the purport of which was not yet known in England. A fresh set
of proposals was made by Choiseul, and Stanley was led to believe one
day that peace was unlikely, and another that France would agree to
terms and that "the affair of Spain would be dropped".[42] It became
evident that Choiseul was trifling with England, and on September 15 the
cabinet decided to recall Stanley forthwith.
Choiseul was anxious to avoid an immediate breach between England and
Spain, both because Spain was expecting the arrival of her
treasure-ships from America,[43] and also because her naval preparations
were incomplete. Pitt, who was convinced that Spain was intending to
declare war, was anxious to strike while so grand an opportunity lasted.
A cabinet council was held on the 19th. He was not present, but sent in
a paper signed by himself and Temple, urging that, in view of Wall's
avowal of "a total union of counsels and interests" between the two
Bourbon monarchies, Bristol should be ordered to return to England
without taking leave, in fact, that war with Spain should at once be
declared.[44] Unfortunately we had no _casus belli_ against Spain, and
could not found one on secret information. The council made a point of
this, and voted that a declaration of war would neither be just nor
expedient, but that Bristol should demand further and distinct
assurances of the intentions of Spain. They knew that their decision
would probably lead to Pitt's resignation, and held anxious discussion,
for they were in great perplexity. Bute had hoped that peace would be
made, and then Pitt might be got rid of. Things were turning out
awkwardly. "If," he said, "we had any view of peace, he should be less
solicitous what part Mr. Pitt took, but that, as the continuance of the
war seemed unavoidable, he thought that we should do what we could to
hinder Mr. Pitt from going out, and thereby leaving the
impracticability of his own war upon us."[45] He and the rest of the
council knew that Pitt could conduct the war, and that they could not.
They agreed that peace with France might still be hoped for.
[Sidenote: _PITT AND HIS COLLEAGUES._]
That belief was strongly held by the king, and he was delighted by a
letter from Stanley holding out hope of peace.[46] George believed
Choiseul's assurances, and was angry with Pitt for treating them as mere
amusements. At a council on the 21st, Pitt, in an eloquent speech,
pointed out "the almost certainty" of success against the united forces
of the Bourbon monarchies, but, said he, "there is not an hour to lose".
He regretted the concessions which he had been persuaded to make to
France, and "was determined _now_ to abide by his own opinion". The
council adhered to its decision of the 19th. It was plain that Pitt and
Temple would retire, and their colleagues discussed who should succeed
Pitt.[47] George's spirits were dashed by another letter from Stanley
expressing his belief that Spain was contemplating an attack on our ally
the King of Portugal.[48] He could not conceal his ill-temper, and let
it be known that he wished to get rid of Pitt "in all events".[49] He
was soon gratified. Another cabinet meeting was held on October 2 to
decide what orders should be sent to Bristol. Pitt took the same ground
as before, and declared that his opinion had been strengthened by one of
Grimaldi's intercepted letters. Granville, the president of the council,
said that he was convinced that a declaration of war with Spain would
neither be just nor expedient. Newcastle, Devonshire, and Hardwicke
concurred. Bute said that such a war would be dangerous, and in any case
should be put off as long as possible. Anson thought that our ships were
not in a condition for it.[50] Mansfield feared that if England
declared war against Spain the other maritime powers would think that
she was set on destroying them all. Ligonier believed that Spain could
put 70,000 men in the field; she had made "a great figure" in Queen
Anne's reign, and might do so again, and she would be joined by Naples
with an army of 20,000. Temple spoke on Pitt's side, and then appears to
have left the council-room in anger.
Pitt spoke again. He had, he said, "been called by the sovereign, and in
some degree by the voice of the people, to assist the state when others
had abdicated". He had succeeded in spite of opposition, for hardly an
expedition he had proposed, "though most probable and attended with the
greatest success, had not beforehand been treated as chimerical and
ridiculous". He knew the little interest he had either in council or
parliament, but, said he, "the papers which I have in my bag" (meaning a
letter from Bristol, and the paper which he sent from Wall) "fix an
eternal stain on the crown of England, if proper measures are not taken
upon them"; and he would not acquiesce in sending no answer to Spain. He
was responsible, and he "would not continue without having the
direction". No one could be surprised at his going on no longer, for he
would be responsible for nothing but what he directed. Granville spoke
some words of compliment to him, but protested against his claim to
direct; when the king referred a matter to the council "the opinion of
the majority must decide". The council rejected Pitt's proposal.[51]
[Sidenote: _PITT RESIGNS OFFICE._]
It must not be supposed that Pitt had information as to the relations
between France and Spain which he did not lay before his colleagues;
indeed it is fairly certain that this was not the case. They knew that a
treaty was made, and that Spain had entered into it with hostile
intentions. Pitt, with the insight of a statesman, was sure that war
with Spain was certain, and desired to strike before she was ready. His
colleagues, anxious for peace and fretting under his predominance,
allowed themselves to be blinded by their hopes. They believed that
France might yet shake off her engagement to Spain, and be willing to
make peace on terms to which Great Britain could agree; and they
determined in any case to put off a declaration of war against Spain as
long as possible. Pitt resigned the seals on the 5th. So ended the
ministry of that great man who alone, at a critical time, had justly
rated the strength and spirit of England, and had dared to rely upon
them, who had taught his fellow-countrymen how great things they might
do, had sent them forth, confident in that knowledge, to victory after
victory, and had laid broad and deep the foundations of Britain's
colonial empire.
The king's petulant wish was fulfilled, but though he and Bute approved
of the decision of the council, Bute thought that Pitt's resignation was
"not favourable in the present minute to the king's affairs". He would
have been well pleased if George could have found in Pitt a minister
subservient to his royal will; he could not endure that he should give
strength to a whig cabinet. Pitt took a line which the king disliked,
yet Bute knew that he could ill be spared so long as the war lasted, and
was annoyed that his intrigues against him had been successful at an
inopportune time. The leaders of the whig oligarchy, and specially
Newcastle, Devonshire, and Bedford, sometimes inspired by Bute, and
sometimes urging him on, had succeeded in driving Pitt out of office.
What was to be their reward? They were to fall back into disunion, and
were consequently to find themselves unable to resist the growth of the
royal power. As for Pitt himself, his resignation dissolved the
unnatural alliance between him and them. His position was tolerable only
so long as he was their master, for in feeling he was not one of them.
As heartily as George himself he hated government by connexion, and like
him desired to break up all parties. He despised the corrupt practices
by which the whigs strengthened themselves, and he had a deep reverence
for the crown. Yet his aims were totally different from those of the
king. He would have broken party ties in order to form a strong
administration; he would have destroyed corruption and looked to the
king and nation for the support of government, and relying on their
support would have crushed the enemies of England. George, on the other
hand, wanted ministers who would carry out his will; he was led to
imitate and, indeed, to surpass the whigs in corrupt practices; he
desired that England should be at peace, and should take no part in
continental politics. Pitt at last stood alone and unconnected. Which
would gain his support, the king or the whigs? The question runs through
the history of the party politics of England during the next eight
years.
When Pitt went to the king to give up the seals of his office, George
spoke graciously to him. Always intoxicated by a peep into the royal
closet, Pitt burst into tears and replied in words of absurd
self-abasement. The tidings of his resignation were received with
general indignation. For a moment his popularity was overclouded. He
accepted a pension of L3,000 a year for three lives, and the dignity of
Baroness of Chatham for his wife. With mean and studied[52] adroitness
it was contrived that the _Gazette_ announcing his resignation should
publish with it a notification of these grants, and a letter from
Stanley again holding out hope of a peace with France. For the grants it
is, as Burke wrote, "a shame that any defence should be necessary".[53]
Pitt addressed a dignified letter to alderman Beckford, his chief
follower in the city, on the cause of his resignation and the
"unsolicited" marks of royal favour which he had received. His
popularity rose as high as ever. The city was specially strong for him,
for its merchants and traders owed him a deep debt of gratitude. At the
lord mayor's feast on November 9, which was attended by the king, he had
the bad taste to draw off the cheers in the street to himself; he was
loudly applauded, and the king coldly received. Bute's coach was
escorted by hired bruisers; it was attacked amid cries of "Damn all
Scotch rogues!" "No Bute!" "No Newcastle salmon!" and Bute was rescued
from the mob by constables. In parliament Pitt adopted a noble line; he
justified his own conduct without blaming his late colleagues,
disregarded attacks upon himself, and urged the ministers to act firmly,
and the house to give them its united support.
[Sidenote: _WAR DECLARED AGAINST SPAIN._]
He was succeeded as secretary of state by Lord Egremont, a man of small
ability; the leadership of the commons was committed to Grenville, and
Bedford took Temple's place as privy seal. Events soon vindicated the
wisdom of Pitt's demand for instant war with Spain. Bristol in vain
demanded satisfactory assurances from that court. At first Wall's
answers were conciliatory, but naval preparations still went on. By
November 2 all the treasure-ships had arrived safely. Their arrival
caused a marked change in Wall's tone; he no longer disguised the
hostile feeling of his court. At Christmas the Family Compact was
published. It was of the same character as the compacts of 1733 and
1743, and arranged a strict alliance between the sovereigns of the house
of Bourbon. It was formed between the Kings of France and Spain, the
King of Spain also engaging for the King of the Two Sicilies, and it
guaranteed the dominions of the three kings and of the Duke of Parma.
Each sovereign was to send specified assistance to any of the others who
might require it, but wars undertaken by France in consequence of
engagements to German or northern states were not to be cases in which
Spain should be bound to send help, "unless some maritime power should
take part in them". These words pointed directly to Great Britain. On
January 2, 1762, war was declared against Spain. France and Spain forced
our ally, the King of Portugal, to declare war, and in the spring Spain
invaded his kingdom.
This new war afforded Bedford an opportunity for moving in parliament
for the recall of the British troops from Germany. Bute, though equally
desirous for their recall, opposed the motion as inopportune;
circumstances, he said, had arisen which promised to enable us to lessen
expenses and reduce the war. The motion was lost. The declaration of
disagreement between two cabinet ministers on so serious a question
illustrates the difference between the cabinet system of the time and
that of to-day. The circumstances to which Bute referred were the death
of Frederick's enemy, Elizabeth of Russia, on January 5, and the
accession of Peter III., who was his ardent admirer. Peter restored East
Prussia to Frederick, ordered Tchernitchev and his 20,000 men to
withdraw from Glatz, and entered into negotiations for an alliance with
Prussia, which was concluded later. Frederick's position was totally
changed. Bute hoped that he would use this change of fortune to make
peace; it naturally caused him to be more eager to prosecute the war for
Silesia. When he applied for the renewal of the English subsidy of
L670,000, Bute informed him that it would only be granted on condition
that he gave assurances that he was ready to make peace. This Frederick
would not do. Other difficulties arose between the two courts. Bute
complained that Frederick was secretly negotiating with Russia for a
separate treaty which would hinder a general peace, and thwart our
policy in the north by encouraging Russia to enforce the surrender of
Schleswig. Frederick also had his complaints. Early in the year Bute
made certain efforts for a general peace, and Frederick asserted that
Bute had suggested that Russia should force him to surrender Silesia to
Austria. Bute was deceived as regards the tsar's intentions, and his
words were spoken in the interest of Prussia. Nevertheless, Frederick
would not be pacified, and he further accused Bute of trying to dissuade
Peter from making an alliance with him. This charge was flatly denied by
Bute. It rests solely on the assertion of Prince Galitzin, the Russian
ambassador in London, and there is no reason for doubting Bute's
word.[54] As Frederick refused to give any pledge as to the terms on
which he would make peace, the British government refused the subsidy.
Pitt having been driven from office, the king and Bute turned upon
Newcastle. Bute and Grenville treated him with discourtesy; he found
himself deprived of the power of dispensing patronage; the king did not
even consult him as to the new peerages granted in the spring. As an old
whig he set a high value on the continental connexion formed by the
alliance with Frederick, and cared more for the war in Europe than for
naval expeditions. He was deeply annoyed by the desire of Bute,
Grenville, and Bedford to withdraw our troops from Germany and by the
refusal of the subsidy. He would not, he declared, "be Grenville's tool
and load the nation with four or five millions to carry on a ridiculous,
destructive maritime war".[55] Nevertheless he clung to office.
Devonshire and Hardwicke agreed with him, and attached themselves to a
section of the whigs who acknowledged the Duke of Cumberland as their
head. Newcastle proposed that a vote of L2,000,000 should be asked for,
L1,000,000 as usual for the German war and L1,000,000 for the war in
Portugal. Bute and Grenville maintained that only L1,000,000 was wanted.
That, he said, implied the abandonment of the German war. The question
was decided against him in a cabinet meeting on May 4. Bitterly as he
felt this defeat on a matter concerning his own office, the treasury, he
would not do more than threaten to resign, and found an excuse for
retaining office for the present. George and Bute were determined that
he should go; George was ungracious, Bute uncivil. His friends urged him
to resign. At last he brought himself to the point and resigned on the
25th.[56]
[Sidenote: _BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION._]
On his resignation the king spoke kindly to the old man, as indeed he
well might, for the duke had spent a long life and a vast fortune in the
service of his house; he had, it is said, reduced his income from
L25,000 to L6,000 a year in securing support for government by means
which, whatever we may esteem them now, were then considered becoming to
a man of his wealth and station. George pressed him to accept a pension.
He refused, declaring that the gracious sense which the king expressed
of the sacrifices he had made for his royal house was all the recompense
he desired.[57] If Pitt's acceptance of rewards needs no defence,
Newcastle's refusal of them demands admiration. Bute succeeded him as
first lord of the treasury. Several other changes were made in the
administration. George Grenville became secretary of state in Bute's
place, and Sir Francis Dashwood chancellor of the exchequer in
succession to Barrington, who took Grenville's office as treasurer of
the navy. Dashwood was utterly ignorant of the rudiments of finance, and
was scandalously immoral; his house, Medmenham abbey, was the
meeting-place of the Hell-fire club, of which he was the founder, and he
took a foremost part in the childish mummery, the debauchery, and
blasphemy of the "Franciscans," as his companions called themselves.
Lord Halifax, a man of popular manners, loose morals, and small ability,
succeeded Anson at the admiralty; Henley remained lord chancellor,
Bedford privy seal, and Fox paymaster. Devonshire had ceased to attend
meetings of the cabinet but was still lord chamberlain. The king and
Bute had won a signal success; the whig administration was broken up and
Bute was virtually master of the government.
The Russian alliance more than made up to Frederick for the loss of the
English subsidy; Tchernitchev and his army were at his disposal.
Suddenly his hopes were clouded over. On July 10 Peter was deposed and
soon afterwards was murdered. He was succeeded by his wife Catherine,
who did not share his admiration for the Prussian king. Frederick was
facing the Austrians in Silesia when orders came to Tchernitchev to lead
his army home. Tchernitchev delayed his departure, remaining merely as
an onlooker, to give the Prussians the support of his presence. On the
21st Frederick won the decisive battle of Burkersdorf, and a few weeks
later was master of Silesia. In western Germany, where the war more
immediately concerned England, Prince Ferdinand showed consummate skill
in forcing the French to act on the defensive. On June 24 the allies
defeated them at Wilhelmsthal. The victory was decided by Granby, who,
after a fierce engagement, destroyed the pick of the French army under
Stainville. A series of successes followed; Gottingen was evacuated, the
larger part of Hesse reconquered, and Cassel and some other places which
remained to the French were blockaded. The French army of reserve under
Conde marched from the Lower Rhine to help Soubise; a junction was
effected to the north of Frankfort, and the French attempted to open up
communications with Cassel. After much manoeuvring about the Lahn, no
way seemed possible for them save by crossing the Ohm. The passage at
Bruckenmuhle, near Amoneburg, was held by the allies. The French
attacked on September 21. During the last four hours of the conflict,
which lasted the whole day, the defence was taken up by Granby, and was
maintained with splendid determination until at last the French retired.
Cassel surrendered on November 1, and the war ended.
[Sidenote: _BRITISH SUCCESSES._]
Success attended the arms of Great Britain in other quarters. Pitt's
spirit still animated her efforts. How far the government adopted his
plans and arrangements cannot, perhaps, be decided with certainty. He
had large ideas, which probably included not merely the conquest of
Martinique and Havana, but also an attack on Louisiana. The enemies of
the government attributed to him the victories which followed his
resignation.[58] The ministers naturally claimed the credit of them and
certainly made arrangements for them,[59] probably following lines
already marked out by Pitt. Rodney, who was in command on the Leeward
islands station, acting in co-operation with General Monckton, reduced
Martinique in February. The fall of that island, the seat of the
government of France in the West Indies, the centre of her privateering
expeditions, and her chief mart in those parts, was followed by the
surrender of Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent, and England became
mistress of all the Windward islands. Against these losses France could
set only a momentary possession of St. John's, Newfoundland, which was
speedily retaken. Spain had to pay heavily for her rashness in espousing
the French cause. Her troops, indeed, entered Portugal, overran
Traz-os-Montes, and threatened Oporto, while south of the Douro they
advanced as far as Almeida and took it. But the aspect of affairs
changed when 8,000 British soldiers landed at Lisbon and the Count of
Lippe-Buckeburg took the command. He was ably seconded by General
Burgoyne, and the Spaniards were forced to retreat within their own
frontier.
So far as England was concerned the war in Portugal was a small matter.
It was through her power on the sea that she was able to reap a rich
harvest from her war with Spain. In March a fleet under Pocock, carrying
10,000 men under the command of the Earl of Albemarle, sailed for
Havana. Off Cape St. Nicholas, Pocock was joined by a reinforcement sent
by Rodney. There was no time to lose, for the hurricane season was near;
and he therefore took his ships through the shoals of the Bahama channel
instead of to the south of Cuba, and brought them out safely on June 5,
a notable piece of seamanship, for the channel was little known. The
troops laid siege to Fort Moro, which commanded Havana. The Spaniards
made a vigorous defence, and the British suffered terribly from disease;
at one time 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 seamen were incapacitated by
sickness. Much-needed reinforcements arrived from New York, and, on July
30, the fort was taken by storm after a siege of forty-five days. The
town capitulated on August 12. The reduction of the island deprived
Spain of a rich colony, an important centre of trade, and, more, of a
port which commanded the route of her treasure-ships from the Gulf of
Mexico. An immense booty was secured, L3,000,000 in money besides
merchandise.
About the same time England dealt Spain a heavy blow on the other side
of the world. An expedition under General Draper sailed from Madras in a
fleet commanded by Admiral Cornish, and on September 25 landed at
Manila. The Spaniards, though unprepared, refused to surrender, and the
place was taken by storm. Large government stores were seized by the
victors, but the British commanders allowed the inhabitants to ransom
their property for 4,000,000 dollars. Half this sum was paid in bills on
the Spanish treasury which were rejected at Madrid, and the money was
never paid. With Manila the whole of the Philippines passed to Great
Britain. Though a privateering expedition undertaken with the Portuguese
against Buenos Ayres was beaten off with heavy loss, Spain was unable to
defend the sources of her wealth against the British navy. In May the
capture of the _Hermione_, from Lima, brought over L500,000 to the
captains and crews of the frigate and sloop engaged in the business. A
glorious procession passed through London, carrying the treasure to the
Tower, on August 12, when people were rejoicing at an event scarcely to
be remembered with equal satisfaction, the birth of the future king,
George IV. Two of the ships belonging to the Manila expedition also made
a prize of an Acapulco ship with a cargo worth 3,000,000 dollars.
During the summer Bute treated with France through the Count de Viri.
Bedford urged concessions upon him, and his fear lest the negotiations
should be broken off made him willing to agree to Choiseul's demands. He
would, indeed, have yielded more than he did, if Grenville had not
checked him in the cabinet. In September Bedford was sent to Paris to
settle the preliminaries. Peace was by no means desired by the English
people; they were proud of their victories and were disgusted that Bute
should have the management of affairs. Bedford was hooted in the streets
of London as he set out for Paris. Both Bute and his enemies prepared
for a struggle. Bute, as usual, employed the press to fight for him, and
engaged the services of a number of pamphleteers and newspaper-writers.
His character as a patron of men of letters rests chiefly on the money
which he spent in this way, though it must be set to his credit that he
procured a pension for Samuel Johnson without stipulating for any
return. Among his hired scribes was Smollett, who edited a paper for him
called _The Briton_. The other side, too, was active. In obedience to
Frederick's instructions the Prussian ambassadors took part in exciting
popular discontent with the government; and were justly reproved by
Grenville for their preposterous conduct. Bute was vigorously assailed
in print. The publication of _The Briton_ called forth the ironically
named _North Briton_, of which the first number appeared in June. It was
brought out by John Wilkes, member for Aylesbury, a clever and
dissipated man of fashion, with literary tastes, great courage, an
excellent wit, too often employed in obscenity, and a remarkably ugly
face. He was incorrupt and his political professions were probably
sincere. Behind him stood Temple, ever ready to instigate others to stab
the objects of his hate. The court party was strengthened by grants of
peerages, preferments, and other good things, and "the king's friends,"
as they began to call themselves, became a recognised body. Yet Bute
feared that parliament would be hostile, and made overtures to Newcastle
and Hardwicke, hoping to secure the duke's influence; but they would not
be cajoled.
[Sidenote: _SECURING A MAJORITY._]
A majority for the peace had to be insured before the preliminaries came
before parliament. Grenville was dissatisfied with some of the articles,
and would in any case have been too scrupulous for the work which had to
be done. Bute was driven to apply to Henry Fox, whom both the king and
he cordially disliked. Fox, who had previously sold his support to Bute
at the price of a peerage for his wife, was offered Grenville's place as
secretary of state and a peerage for himself, if he would take the
management of the commons. "We must," George said, "call in bad men to
govern bad men." Fox at once broke with the whigs and accepted the
leadership, but he refused the seals, for he preferred to continue in
the more lucrative office of paymaster of the forces, which he had used
during the last six years as a means of amassing a great fortune. As
paymaster he had large sums of public money in his hands to meet calls
at fixed periods. Holders of the office were wont to employ such sums
for their own benefit. Pitt would not do so, and left the office a poor
man. Fox had no such scruples. During the war the government often
obtained ready money by issuing bills at 20 per cent discount. Fox
bought these bills with the public money which lay in his hands. He
also used the public money in operating in government stock and gained
immense profits from the fluctuations of the funds, for as a minister he
of course knew more about the chances of peace than the public.[60]
Grenville was forced to resign the leadership to him, and the office of
secretary to Halifax, and take the admiralty in exchange. Fox set about
the business of securing a majority in the commons by bribing members.
In one day L25,000 was paid out of the treasury, and it is said even so
small a sum as L200 was not refused.
Encouraged by Fox's success, George gave the whigs a lesson on the
fruits of opposition. The king, so the court party said, would be king;
the prerogative was to shine out. Devonshire, the "prince of the whigs,"
was forced to resign the chamberlain's staff; the king treated him
uncivilly and with his own hand struck his name from the list of privy
councillors. The whigs were enraged at this high-handed proceeding. The
Marquis of Rockingham resigned the bed-chamber, and George received his
resignation with indifference. Worse was yet to come. Overtures were
made to Pitt by the whigs who gathered round Cumberland, but he would
not connect himself with them. They had defeated his policy, and though
he desired Bute's removal, he would not help to turn him out in order to
put Newcastle back in power.
[Sidenote: _THE TERMS OF PEACE._]
The preliminaries of peace were signed on November 3, and laid before
parliament on the 29th. France agreed to restore Minorca and to evacuate
the territories of Hanover, Hesse, Brunswick, and Prussia. Both parties
were to withdraw their troops from Germany. Dunkirk was to be
dismantled. France resigned Canada, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton,
together with some territory hitherto claimed as part of Louisiana.
Spain ceded Florida and received back Havana and Manila. Portugal was
restored to its position as before the war. Great Britain restored to
France Belle Ile, Guadeloupe, Mariegalante, Martinique, and St. Lucia,
and retained Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, and Tobago. France was
allowed a right of fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the
Newfoundland coast, and received the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon
as shelters, covenanting not to fortify them. Spain gave up its claim
to the Newfoundland fishery, agreed that the dispute concerning prizes
should be settled by the courts, and acknowledged the right to cut
logwood on the Bay of Honduras. In Africa England restored Goree to
France and kept Senegal. In India France abandoned her pretensions to
conquests since 1749, and received back the factories which she had at
that date. As a compensation to Spain for the loss of Florida, France
ceded to her Louisiana; a Spanish governor arrived there in 1766, but
though Spain had posts and settlements in the province, she can scarcely
be said to have ever had any effective hold upon it.
It was a glorious peace for Great Britain; it marks a signal epoch in
her imperial history. But it was not so advantageous as she had a right
to expect. Financially peace was desirable, for the national debt of
Great Britain and Ireland, which before the war stood, as has already
been stated, at L72,505,572, had risen to L132,716,049, but her
resources were by no means exhausted; she could have continued the war
without distress. It is fairly certain that better terms might have been
obtained if the government had carried on the negotiations in a
different spirit. Martinique, specially valuable to a maritime power,
was surrendered without compensation; Manila was simply thrown away
through careless haste; Goree, on which the French slave trade depended,
might easily have been retained. Grenville protested against the
surrender of Guadeloupe, and it was decided on when he was too ill to
attend the council. Florida was a poor exchange for Havana, the richest
of our conquests. Whether Pitt's policy of obtaining commercial
monopolies by force of arms was economically sound, and whether the
restoration of the French navy would have been impeded so materially by
exclusion from the fishery as he believed, are questions on which we
need not dwell here. The treaty must be judged according to the beliefs
of the time. As it ceded valuable conquests without adequate
compensation, and encouraged France again to enter on a naval and
commercial policy by restoring to her Goree, colonies in the West
Indies, and her factories in India, and by granting her a share in the
fisheries, it was justly condemned as unsatisfactory. As regards the
continental war, the change in Frederick's position was sufficient
reason for our withdrawal from a quarrel which did not concern us. Yet
he had some cause of complaint, for though the treaty provided that the
French should evacuate his territories, it did not provide that the
territories should be handed over to him. He gained possession of them
without difficulty, but for that he owed no thanks to England. He
believed that he had been betrayed and deserted, and adopted an
unfriendly attitude, which was a hindrance to England's foreign policy
in later years.
At home the peace was widely condemned. When parliament met on November
25, Bute's coach was attacked and he was in some danger. In the lords
the address approving the preliminaries was passed without a division.
In the commons the debate had begun when Pitt entered the house. He was
suffering from gout, and was carried by his servants within the bar.
Dressed in black velvet, and leaning on a crutch, he advanced slowly to
his seat, his limbs swathed in wrappings, and his face pale with
suffering. Yet he spoke for three hours and forty minutes. After
declaring that he was unconnected with any party, he criticised the
various articles of the treaty, pointing out that they surrendered
maritime and commercial advantages which would have been doubly valuable
because our gain would have been the loss of France. The treatment of
Frederick he denounced as base and treacherous. The address was carried
by 319 to 65. The definitive treaty was signed at Paris on February 10,
1763, and on the 15th Prussia and Austria made peace at Hubertsburg. The
majority was largely obtained by corruption. Many members, however, no
doubt welcomed the peace, even though they were not fully satisfied with
its terms. The rout of the whigs was completed by their disunion; some
who would have voted against the address were discouraged by Pitt's
attitude of solitary independence.[61] The king had succeeded in
breaking up the whig party, and there was no organised opposition. The
court was triumphant. On hearing the result of the division, the
princess-dowager is said to have exclaimed, "Now my son is King of
England!" The victory was followed up by a general proscription of the
whigs; Newcastle, Grafton, and Rockingham were dismissed from their
lord-lieutenancies. Nor was vengeance confined to the great. All whigs
who held places were deprived of them, and even poor clerks and
excisemen lost the employments bestowed on them by whig ministers. Fox
urged on the execution of this shameful business. Every effort was made
to obtain congratulatory addresses on the peace from municipal bodies,
and money was offered for them. London and several other places refused
to be won over by any means.
[Sidenote: _THE CIDER TAX._]
The unpopularity of the administration was heightened by its finance.
Dashwood's scheme for the supplies included a loan of L3,000,000, which
was negotiated on such extravagant terms that the scrip soon rose to a
premium of 11 per cent. The loan was not open to public competition, it
was distributed among the chief supporters of the government; nine of
them, it is said, cleared each L20,000, Fox L10,000, and so on, while
the nation lost L385,000 by the transaction. It was a new form of
corruption, specially dangerous because indirect.[62] More general
indignation was excited by the proposal of a tax of four shillings a
hogshead on cider, to be paid by the maker and collected as an excise.
The tax was excessive in amount, onerous in its conditions, and unfair
in its incidence, for it fell equally on the poorest and the most
valuable cider, and pressed solely on particular districts. It was,
however, as an extension of the excise laws that it was specially
offensive to public feeling. That was a matter on which Englishmen were
extremely jealous. Thirty years before a proposal for an extended excise
nearly wrecked the power of Sir Robert Walpole, who wisely yielded to
the storm. By Dashwood's scheme farmers were liable to have the privacy
of their homes invaded by the visits of excisemen. Disturbances broke
out in the cider counties, and troops were moved into them. The
excitement was general. London petitioned against the tax, and its
example was followed by many other corporations and counties. Bute was
violently assailed in print, by Wilkes in prose and by his friend
Churchill in verse. A parliamentary opposition was organised; it was
joined by Pitt and Temple, and had its headquarters at Wildman's tavern
in Albemarle Street. Pitt spoke strongly against the tax in the commons.
It was defended by Grenville, who in the course of his speech constantly
demanded where another tax could be laid. Mimicking his querulous tone,
Pitt repeated aloud the words of an old ditty, "Gentle shepherd, tell me
where". The nickname, Gentle shepherd, stuck by Grenville. The bill
passed the commons and was sent up to the lords. For the first time
since the revolution the lords divided on a money-bill, and voted 49
against, to 83 for its committal.
A few days later, on April 7, Bute announced that ill-health compelled
him to retire from office. The announcement caused general surprise, but
he had for some weeks determined to retire, and had arranged with the
king that Grenville should succeed him. That he should have taken office
was, Pitt wrote, more astonishing than his departing from it.[63] He
took office with the intention of carrying out the king's policy of
breaking up the whig phalanx and bringing about a peace. Both objects
were accomplished. Though still strong in votes in the commons, he had
few allies of any weight, for Bedford was offended with him. The newly
formed opposition caused him uneasiness, specially as it included Pitt
and Temple; it was strong in the lords, and he feared its influence in
their chamber.[64] Though his health was not materially affected, he was
doubtless weary of a task which he must have learned was too great for
his abilities. He knew that he was generally hated by the people, and
feared that if he remained longer in office, his unpopularity would
become injurious to the king. Before his resignation he provided
handsomely for his relations and friends at the expense of the nation;
reversions of L52,000 a year were distributed among them. Fox was
rewarded by his creation as Baron Holland, and managed to keep the pay
office for two years longer.
FOOTNOTES:
[35] _Chatham Correspondence_, ii., 69 _n._
[36] Dutens, _Memoires d'un voyageur_, i., 178-79.
[37] _Parliamentary Hist._, xv., 1044-47.
[38] Newcastle to Bedford, July 2, 1761; _Bedford Correspondence_, iii.,
19.
[39] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Aug. 17, 1761, Add. MS. 32,927, f. 68;
_Bedford Correspondence_, iii., 36-42.
[40] Bristol to Pitt, Aug. 31, 1761, Add. MS. 32,927, ff. 285-87.
[41] Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 2, 1761, Add. MS. 32,928, f. 14.
[42] Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 6, 1761, _ibid._, ff. 1, 148, 179.
[43] Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 8, 1761, _ibid._, f. 40.
[44] _Ibid._, f. 225, printed in _The Grenville Papers_, i., 386-87.
[45] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Sept. 20, 1761, Add. MS. 32,928, f. 260.
[46] Stanley to Pitt, dated Sept. 14, 1761, received the 21st, _ibid._,
f. 148.
[47] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Sept. 21, 1761, _ibid._, ff. 303-6.
[48] Stanley to Pitt, dated Sept. 19, 1761, received the 25th, _ibid._,
f. 245.
[49] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Sept. 26, 1761, _ibid._, f. 362.
[50] The disposition of the naval force fit for service on Sept. 15,
1761, was: At home and within call, 54 ships of the line and 58
frigates; with Saunders, 11 of the line and 12 frigates; East Indies, 14
of the line; Jamaica, 6; Leeward islands, 8; North America, 6; other
plantations, 2; convoys and cruisers, 4; total, 105 of the line. Men
wanting to complete ships at home, 15,490 (Add. MS. 32,928, f. 185).
France could not have had more than 42 ships of the line (Mahan,
_Influence of Sea Power_, p. 312). Spain had 49 of the line fit for
service, but insufficiently manned (Coxe, _Bourbon Kings of Spain_,
iii., 245, ed. 1813).
[51] Minutes of Council, Oct. 2, 1761, Add. MS. 32,929, ff. 18-28.
[52] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Nov. 9, 1761, Add. MS. 32,929, f. 143.
[53] _Annual Register_, iv. (1761), 48.
[54] Bisset, _Memoirs of Sir A. Mitchell_, ii., 283, 286, 294 _sq._;
_Buckinghamshire Correspondence_, i., 47-52; Adolphus, _Hist. of the
Reign of George III._, i., App. 5, 79-83.
[55] Newcastle to Devonshire, April 10, 1762, Add. MS. 32,937, ff. 11,
87.
[56] Add. MS. 32,938, ff. 18, 50, 105 _sq._, 239, 262, 304, 425.
[57] Newcastle to Cumberland, May 26, 1762, Add. MS. 32,939 f. 5.
[58] Newcastle to Pitt, 1762, MS. Pitt Papers, 25, R.O.; Temple to Pitt,
Oct. 3, 1762, _ibid._, 61.
[59] As regards Manila, see _Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep._, vii., 316 _sq._
[60] Fox's Memoir in _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox_, i., 72-73.
[61] A. von Ruville, _William Pitt und Graf Bute_, pp. 55-56.
[62] _Parl. Hist._, xv., 1305; _History of the Late Minority_, p. 96;
May, _Constitutional History_, i., 382-83.
[63] Pitt to Newcastle, April 9, 1763, Add. MS. 32,948, f. 84. Bute
resigned on the 11th.
[64] Newcastle to Lord Kinnoul, June 3, 1763, Add. MS. 32,949, f. 15.
CHAPTER III.
THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION.
The king appears to have received Bute's resignation without regret;
indeed it was remarked that the day before it was announced he was in
unusually good spirits, "like a person just emancipated".[65] Bute had
done all that he could do for him as prime minister; he had cleared the
ground for the establishment of the king's system of government; the
whig oligarchy was disorganised and overthrown, and the war was at an
end. George could not have wished to keep a minister in office who was
hated by his people; that would have been contrary to the idea of a
patriot king, and would in time have made him unpopular. Nor was he
perhaps altogether satisfied with Bute's conduct in office; for in later
life he observed that he was "deficient in political firmness".[66] Bute
was to continue to be useful to him in another capacity in which
political firmness was not so important; he was to be the king's private
adviser, and help him to select and manage his responsible ministers.
Through his instrumentality, George had already secured a set of
ministers who would, they both believed, be content to carry out the
king's will. Grenville, though he had opposed Bute in the cabinet with
reference to the negotiations with France, professed that as prime
minister he would try to win his complete approval, and with only one
exception allowed Bute to form his administration for him. Bute and his
master thought they had secured a useful tool, a subservient and
hard-working drudge. They were mistaken in their man; Grenville was
independent and self-confident. He took the two offices of first lord of
the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. Dashwood retired with Bute
and the barony of Despencer was called out of abeyance in his favour.
Halifax and Egremont remained secretaries of state and Henley lord
chancellor. Bedford distrusted Bute and refused to take office. The new
administration promised to exercise economy, and Grenville took care
that the pledge should be redeemed. Its frugality did not make it
popular; it did not command the confidence of the nation, and was
generally considered a feeble continuation of its predecessor.
The king prorogued parliament on April 19, 1763; his speech described
the peace as honourable to his crown, and claimed, or at least implied,
that it had induced the enemies of the Prussian king "to agree to a
peace which he had approved". On the 23rd appeared No. 45 of the _North
Briton_ with a violent denunciation of the speech. It declared that the
king had given "the sanction of his sacred name to the most odious
measures and to the most unjustifiable public declarations from a throne
ever renowned for truth, honour, and unsullied virtue". That the
ministers were responsible for the king's speech was well understood,
and was clearly recognised in the article. George took the article as
conveying an accusation of falsehood against himself personally, and
there was some excuse for this interpretation of it. Other numbers of
the paper had been violent, and had been passed by without notice. His
present ministers were not deficient in political firmness; he ordered
them to prosecute the writer. Halifax thereupon issued a general
warrant, that is a warrant directed against persons not named, ordering
the king's messengers to search for the authors, printers, and
publishers of the _North Briton_, arrest them and seize their papers.
Warrants of this kind to be executed on persons not named, without
evidence of their identity or guilt, had hitherto been held lawful, but
they were subversive of the liberty of the subject and contrary to the
spirit of the constitution. During three days forty-nine persons were
arrested under this warrant. Among them were the avowed publisher of the
_North Briton_, the printer, and his workmen. They declared that Wilkes
was the author.
[Sidenote: _PROCEEDINGS IN WILKES'S CASE._]
Wilkes was arrested under the general warrant on the 30th, and carried
before the secretaries of state; his house was searched and his papers
seized. He was committed to the Tower. He hoped, he said, that he might
have the room in which Egremont's father had been confined as a rebel,
and, referring to the popular belief as to the consequences of the
dirty habits of Bute's fellow-countrymen, in any case, one which had not
been tenanted by a Scot. Temple at once applied on his behalf for a writ
of _habeas corpus_, which was granted by Pratt, chief justice of the
common pleas, but as Wilkes was no longer in the custody of the
messengers, they could not produce him. He was kept in close
confinement; Temple and the Duke of Grafton who went to see him were not
admitted, and even his solicitor was denied access to him. A new writ
was issued, and on May 3 he was brought before the court of common
pleas. He pleaded his privilege as a member of parliament. Pratt
delivered judgment on the 6th and decided that he was entitled to the
privilege of parliament, which extended to all offences save treason,
felony, and breach of the peace. The other judges concurred, and he was
set at liberty. The crowd which had collected in Westminster Hall
received the result of the trial with loud applause, and escorted Wilkes
to his house in Great George Street. Meanwhile Egremont had in the
king's name ordered Temple, the lord lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, to
deprive Wilkes of his commission as colonel of the Bucks militia. In
forwarding this order to Wilkes, Temple added some complimentary
expressions, and on the 7th the earl was dismissed both from his
lieutenancy and the privy council.
Several persons who were arrested on the general warrant brought actions
against the messengers. In the first of these suits Pratt, setting aside
evil precedents, declared general warrants to be illegal. A
master-printer obtained L400 damages, one journeyman L300, and others
L200. Wilkes sued Wood, the under-secretary of state, for ransacking his
house, and the jury awarded him L1,000 damages. He also began actions
for false imprisonment against the two secretaries of state. His suit
against Egremont was cut short by the earl's death on August 20. Halifax
took advantage of various legal devices to delay the hearing of the suit
against himself, and it was not decided until six years later. Temple,
who had paid Wilkes's law expenses, wished him to avoid giving further
cause of offence. Wilkes, however, set up a press in his own house,
reprinted the _North Briton_ in volumes, and printed other matter also.
The arbitrary proceedings of the government in this case excited much
adverse feeling, especially in London, and gave a fresh impetus to the
discontent in the cider districts. They were attributed to Bute's
influence. In some western villages a man in Scottish dress led about an
ass decorated with a blue ribbon and wearing a paper crown; and at
Exeter an effigy of Bute remained hanging on a gibbet for a fortnight,
no one daring to remove it.
[Sidenote: _MINISTERIAL CHANGES._]
George, though at first well pleased with the new administration, soon
saw that it lacked strength. He made an attempt to enlist Hardwicke and
Newcastle, but they would not take office without their party. Bute
advised an offer to Bedford, who declared that he would not join the
government unless Bute would undertake to retire, not only from the
court, but from London. Negotiations were also carried on with Pitt,
whom Bute was most anxious to secure for the king. Pitt made it clearly
understood that he would not take office with Bedford, the man most
responsible for the peace, nor would he come in alone. In spite of
Pitt's objection to him, Bedford, who did not care for office, advised
the king to take him. George was dissatisfied with his ministers; he was
annoyed by their unpopularity and by the growth of a spirit of
turbulence among the lower classes, and personally was wearied by the
constant interviews and the long harangues which Grenville inflicted
upon him. Bute, too, was not finding Grenville so anxious to win his
approval as he expected, and on Egremont's death had an interview with
Pitt. The result was satisfactory; and George, much to Grenville's
disgust, told him that he meant to ask Pitt to enter the administration,
and would "do it as cheap as he could," with as few changes as possible.
Pitt had an interview with the king on August 27. Both evidently thought
that there was nothing to prevent him from taking office, and he
communicated with Devonshire, Newcastle, and Rockingham. The next day
George seems to have changed his mind; he told Grenville that Pitt's
terms were too hard. Bute is said to have instigated this change, and it
is probable that both he and the king were disappointed at finding that
Pitt meant to bring in with him several of the whig leaders. Pitt had a
second interview with the king on the 29th, and George is said to have
closed it with the words: "Well, Mr. Pitt, I see this will not do. My
honour is concerned and I must support it." Pitt's proposals were
probably exaggerated by the ministerial party. It is certain that he
proposed several changes, and the admission of some of the leading
whigs, and that either he or the king suggested Temple for the treasury.
George had made up his mind before the interview that it would probably
be useless. Both he and Bute would gladly have secured Pitt's support,
but they wanted him to take office alone, or at least not with a party.
George had no mind for another whig administration with Pitt as its
master-spirit.
He again turned to Bedford and told him that Pitt had stipulated that he
was to have no office, even about the court, at that time, though in
future years he might be permitted to hold a court appointment, and that
no favour should be shown to any one concerned in the peace. George may
well have believed that this was the meaning of Pitt's words. Even so,
he should not have divulged anything which took place in his closet,
specially if it was likely to make mischief; he was, however, in serious
difficulties. His device succeeded. Though Bedford was already aware
that Pitt would not act with him, he was piqued at this fresh
declaration of hostility; he agreed to take office, and, on September 9,
was appointed president of the council in succession to Lord Granville
who died in the previous January. He was considered head of the
administration. The Earl of Sandwich became secretary of state and took
the northern department, and Lord Hillsborough succeeded Lord Shelburne
as president of the board of trade. Sandwich had official experience,
and was neither idle nor incapable, though unprincipled and extremely
profligate; Hillsborough was deficient in tact and judgment. Shelburne
had been one of Bute's followers, and arranged his bargains with Fox,
who accused him of having deceived him. He was employed in the late
negotiations with Pitt, resigned office on their failure, and attached
himself to Pitt. The king was completely in the hands of Bedford and
Grenville, his only defence against an administration composed of whig
magnates. They used their power to force him to send Bute out of London.
This insolent conduct was specially reprehensible in the case of
Grenville, who owed his advancement to Bute's recommendation. Grenville
continued to weary the king with interviews; he worried him with his
disputes with his colleagues, and irritated him beyond endurance by
suggestions, which were not ill-founded, that he was still under Bute's
influence. "Good God, Mr. Grenville," the poor king exclaimed, "am I to
be suspected after all I have done?"
Parliament met on November 15, and the government at once made an attack
on Wilkes. In the lords, Sandwich complained of two profane and obscene
pieces printed in his private press, _An Essay on Woman_ and a
paraphrase of the _Veni Creator_. There was no evidence of publication;
a few copies only were printed, evidently for private circulation, and
one of them was obtained by tampering with a workman. Even if
publication had been proved, there would still have been no reason for
the lords' interference; for obscene and profane publications were
punishable by law. But the ministers were anxious to obtain support for
their measures of revenge. The name of Bishop Warburton of Gloucester
was attached in mockery to notes in the _Essay on Woman_, and with his
concurrence the case was brought before the house as a breach of
privilege. The lords lent themselves to this transparent device; they
petitioned the king to command the prosecution of Wilkes and, later,
when he was out of their reach, ordered that he should be confined for
his offence against themselves. Their proceedings excited public
ridicule. That Sandwich should complain of obscenity and profanity, and
should censure Wilkes, a fellow-monk of Dashwood's debauched fraternity,
for indulging in them was, indeed, a case of Satan rebuking sin. At a
performance of the "Beggar's Opera" at Covent Garden theatre the
audience caught up with delight Macheath's words, "That Jemmy Twitcher
should peach me I own surprised me," and Sandwich became generally known
as Jemmy Twitcher.
[Sidenote: _WILKES EXPELLED FROM PARLIAMENT._]
On the same day as the proceedings in the lords, Grenville brought a
message from the king to the commons informing them of what had been
done in Wilkes's case. They voted, 273 to 111, that the _North Briton_,
No. 45, was a false and seditious libel, and ordered that it should be
burnt by the common hangman. In the course of the debate, Martin, who
had lately been secretary to the treasury, called Wilkes a cowardly and
malignant scoundrel. The next day, the 16th, they fought a duel with
pistols in the ring in Hyde Park; they had no seconds and each fired
twice. Martin's second shot wounded Wilkes dangerously. In his absence
the commons discussed his plea of privilege. Pitt strongly urged the
house to maintain its privileges. Parliament, he said, had no right to
surrender them; if it did so it would endanger its own freedom and
infringe upon the rights of the people. As for Wilkes personally, Pitt
was anxious to show that he did not approve of Temple's support of him,
and called him "the blasphemer of his God and the libeller of his king".
The house voted by 258 to 133 that privilege of parliament does not
extend to seditious libels, and ought not to obstruct the ordinary
course of the law in such cases. In itself this was an excellent
decision. Parliamentary privileges had increased to a mischievous
extent. By the abandonment of many of them, such as certain invidious
exemptions from the course of law which it claimed for its members, the
exclusion of strangers from its debates, and the prohibition of
reporting, parliament has gained in dignity and purity, and has
confirmed the liberties of the people. Nevertheless, though the
abandonment of privilege was in itself a step in a right direction, it
was reprehensible in Wilkes's case, because it was an _ex post facto_
measure, designed to meet a special case, and vindictive in its
intention.
The lords agreed in the decision of the commons, though a protest
against the surrender of privilege was signed by seventeen peers. On
December 3, the day fixed for the burning of No. 45 in front of the
Royal Exchange, a large mob broke the windows of the sheriff's coach and
pelted the constables. Encouraged by gentlemen at the windows of
neighbouring houses, they tore a large part of the paper from the
executioner with shouts of "Wilkes and liberty," carried it in triumph
outside Temple Bar, the boundary of the city, and there made a bonfire
into which they threw a jack-boot and a petticoat, the popular emblems
of Bute and the Princess of Wales. Yet Wilkes was in an unpleasant
position. A Scot went to his house intending to murder him; was arrested
and found insane. A summons was sent to him to appear at the bar of the
house of commons; his surgeons stated that he was too ill to attend, and
a later day was fixed. Before it came he went off secretly to Paris, and
while there excused himself from obedience to the order of the house by
sending a medical certificate. The commons refused to give any weight to
it, declared him in contempt, and guilty of a seditious libel, and on
January 19, 1764, expelled him the house. An information was laid
against him in the court of king's bench for reprinting and publishing
No. 45; he was convicted and, as he did not appear to receive sentence,
was outlawed.
While little sympathy seems to have been felt for Wilkes personally,
except among the lower classes, the attack upon him was widely resented
because it was regarded as an encroachment on national liberty.
Parliament was not in accord with public feeling. A strong effort was
made to induce the commons to declare that general warrants were
illegal. Pitt acknowledged that he had issued them during the war, when
it was necessary to find out and remove suspected persons; but no such
necessity existed at present, and he urged the house to do justice to
the nation, the constitution, and the law, by condemning them. The
ministers managed to shelve the question, but carried the adjournment
only by 234 to 218. Though on other matters they commanded a large
majority, several members from whom they expected support voted against
them in the debates arising out of Wilkes's arrest. Among these were
General Conway and Colonel Barre. Conway, the brother of the Earl of
Hertford, had gained much credit in the war in Germany; he was a dashing
officer and a respectable general, a man of refined tastes and high
principles. As a politician he was thoroughly honest, of small ability
and utterly wanting in decision of character. He was the dearest friend
of Horace Walpole; and Walpole, who regarded politics in a personal
light, exercised an unfortunate influence upon him. Barre, who had
served with distinction in Canada, was a coarse man, eloquent, and
feared by his opponents on account of his remarkable power of invective.
He sat for one of Shelburne's boroughs, and believing himself slighted
by Pitt, attacked him vehemently in the house on his resignation of
office. As a supporter of Bute he was appointed adjutant-general and
governor of Stirling, posts worth L4,000 a year. George, who regarded a
vote against the ministers in this matter as a personal affront to
himself, was determined that all who held either military or civil
appointments should clearly understand that they could not continue to
serve him if they opposed his policy in parliament. With Bedford's
approval, Conway, Barre, and with them General A'Court, who had also
voted in the minority, were deprived of their commands, and Shelburne,
Barre's patron, was dismissed from his office as aide-de-camp to the
king. Barre followed Shelburne's example in attaching himself to Pitt.
[Sidenote: _GRENVILLE'S ECONOMY._]
These dismissals violated the most valuable of the privileges of
parliament, freedom of speech and immunity from royal coercion. It was a
well-established constitutional rule that the king should not take
notice of anything which passed in parliament and that no member should
suffer for his speeches or votes. This rule had been broken in the last
reign when, in 1733, two officers lost their commands and, in 1735, Pitt
his cornetcy for acting with the opposition. On the present occasion the
responsibility for its violation rests on Grenville at least as much as
on the king himself. Parliament took little notice of this infringement
upon its privileges, though on the first day of the session, 1765,
Granby pleased the army by some sharp remarks on the dismission of
officers on account of their votes in parliament.[67] Encouraged by
their success against Wilkes, the ministers waged war on political
libels. A large number of _ex officio_ informations, or accusations
presented by the attorney-general on which the person accused was
brought to trial without the previous finding of a grand jury, were laid
against printers and others during the course of the year. As this
looked like persecution, it excited popular anger. One bookseller who
was sentenced to stand in the pillory in New-palace-yard, Westminster,
drove thither in a hackney coach numbered 45, and was cheered by a crowd
estimated at 10,000 persons. Two hundred guineas was collected for him,
and the mob hung a jack-boot and a "Scotch bonnet" on a gibbet and then
burnt them.
Grenville insisted on economy in the national expenditure; it was
needful, for during the late war the public debt had risen from
L72,500,000 to L132,700,000, and the country was heavily taxed. His
budget stood in honourable contrast to the finance of the late
administration; it did not propose lotteries or a private loan, and it
included an advantageous bargain with the Bank of England for the
renewal of its charter. Yet in some matters his economy was
short-sighted and peddling. He starved the naval estimates. During the
war many ships were built hastily of timber insufficiently seasoned, and
had fallen into so bad a condition that half their original cost was
needed for the repair of their hulls; there were too few workmen in the
dockyards, and the stores were empty of sails, rigging, and cordage.
Lord Egmont, the first lord of the admiralty, represented the necessity
for a large expenditure on the navy, but Grenville would not hear of it.
So, too, in less important matters, he grudged spending money on the
police of London, and highway robbery and other crimes of violence were
insufficiently checked, and he even refused so small a sum as L20,000
which the king wanted for the purchase of some land at the back of
Buckingham House, the site of part of the present Grosvenor Place, in
order that the garden which he was then making might not be overlooked.
The expenditure on the American colonies and the irregularities by which
they evaded their legal obligations, were offensive to his frugal and
orderly temperament; he proposed to enforce their obligations, and to
draw from the colonies some part of their cost to the mother-country.
The colonies occupied a long and comparatively narrow tract of country
stretching for seventeen hundred miles along the Atlantic. They differed
in character. In the northern colonies the puritan element was strong,
and the chief sources of wealth were commerce and farming. The southern
colonies had cavalier traditions, and their wealth was chiefly derived
from plantations which were cultivated by slave labour. Though
puritanism as a religious force was well-nigh extinct in the New England
provinces, it affected the temper of the people; they set a high value
on speech-making and fine words, and were litigious and obstinate;
lawyers were plentiful among them, and had much influence. As a whole
the colonies were impatient of control and jealous of interference.
Their constitutions differed in various points; in some the governor was
appointed by the crown, in others by the proprietary. All alike enjoyed
a large measure of personal and political freedom: they had the form and
substance of the British constitution; they had representative
assemblies in which they taxed themselves for their domestic purposes,
chose most of their own magistrates, and paid them all; and it was
seldom that their legislation was interfered with except with respect to
commerce.
[Sidenote: _RESTRICTIONS ON COLONIAL TRADE._]
The freedom which they enjoyed did not extend to commerce and
manufactures. In those matters the policy of Great Britain was founded
on the "mercantile theory," then universally accepted, and was directed
towards securing a monopoly of trade. Other countries pursued a like
policy towards their colonies, though they treated them with far less
liberality. The restrictions placed by Great Britain on colonial trade
were based on the Navigation acts of 1660 and later years, which were
originally aimed at the maritime power of the Dutch. Briefly, they
confined trade with the colonies to English or colonial ships; the
Americans were debarred from exporting a number of the most important
products of their country, their tobacco, grain, sugar, hides, and
timber for masts, except to Great Britain; no foreign ship might enter
their harbours, nor, with certain exceptions, could they import foreign
merchandise, except in ships sailing directly from England. Various acts
debarred them from manufactures which would have entered into
competition with English goods; they depended on the mother-country for
the commonest and most necessary things, for their cloth, hardware, and
a host of manufactured articles. Port duties were imposed by England,
and were collected by officers of the customs, whose business it was to
prevent contraband trading. These duties were not imposed for the sake
of revenue, but for the regulation of trade; and the whole system of
restrictions was founded on the idea that colonies should be made to
serve the interest of the mother-country by giving its merchants and
manufacturers the monopoly of the colonial market.
The colonies received some compensations for the restrictions placed
upon their industry and commerce. With certain exceptions their trade
was free. While some of their products were confined to the British
market, they had the monopoly of that market; no Englishman, for
example, might buy tobacco which did not come from America or Bermuda.
Their export trade to England was encouraged by bounties, and, though
their foreign imports generally had to come to them through England, a
system of drawbacks, by which the duties were remitted on exportation to
America, enabled them to buy continental goods more cheaply than they
could be bought in England. Nothing indeed can be further from the truth
than the idea that England's treatment of her colonies was harsh or
illiberal. Unfortunately the mercantile theory set up an opposition
between the interests of a mother-country and her colonies. A far more
important mitigation of the restrictions imposed on the colonies than
any that came from English liberality, was derived from the constant
violation of them. Few English statesmen knew or cared to know anything
about colonial affairs. Left to themselves the American colonies grew
rich. Their merchants, especially in New England, carried on a brisk and
extremely profitable contraband trade. In exchange for lumber, fish, and
cattle the New England merchants obtained sugar and molasses, and
bullion from the French and Spanish colonies; and vast quantities of rum
were distilled in Boston and exported to Africa to be used in the slave
trade.
England was not altogether a loser by these transactions. The richer a
Boston merchant became, the more British goods did he import, and as he
had to pay for them in bullion, his contraband trade enabled him to meet
his obligations. These advantages were indirect, the loss to the English
West India merchants was obvious and heavy. In order to protect them an
attempt was made in 1733 to stop this contraband trade by the imposition
of heavy duties; but the profits of the trade were so large that the
revenue officers found it to their interest to be careless or actually
conniving, and scarcely any duties were paid. On an average the American
customs cost England from L7,000 to L8,000 a year and did not bring in
quite L2,000. During the war the contraband trade afforded the French
useful supplies, and in 1760 Pitt ordered the colonial governors to
punish those who traded with the enemy. More power was placed in the
hands of the revenue officers by the issue of writs of assistance
enabling them to search for dutiable articles in any place without
alleging specific information. These writs were lawful and were
specially justifiable in time of war. Their lawfulness was
unsuccessfully disputed before the superior court of Massachusetts by a
lawyer named Otis, an eloquent speaker, singularly devoid of moderation.
His speech, in which rhetoric is more conspicuous than a knowledge of
law, attacked the commercial legislation of parliament generally; it was
much admired, and has been regarded by some Americans as the first step
towards revolution.
[Sidenote: _ENGLAND AND HER COLONIES._]
A system which cramped the trade and industry of a self-reliant people,
growing in wealth and intent on gain, for the benefit of a country
separated from them by 3,000 miles of ocean, then only crossed by
sailing ships, must sooner or later have led to revolt. The Americans
were impatient of control and apt to quarrel with their governors, who
often found their office an unenviable one. "Such wrong-headed people,"
said one of them, "I thank God I had never to do with before." They were
not a people patiently to submit to restrictions. Two causes had
contributed to bind them to Great Britain. One of these was their fear
of the French in Canada. So long as the French and their Indian allies
threatened their homes, even the most turbulent of them knew that they
gained by being subjects of the English king. The war with France called
forth a feeling of loyalty. The triumph of England freed them from the
fear of French aggression and their protestations of gratitude were
exuberant. Yet there were many who saw that the conquest of Canada
loosened the tie which bound the American colonies to the mother-country
and would probably lead to an assertion of independence. Separation
would, however, have been impossible without union. The jealousies
between the colonies were so strong that revolt seemed improbable. Were
they left to themselves, Otis declared in 1765, "America would be a mere
shambles of blood and confusion". A common cause alone could bring about
union, and such a cause was soon to be found. The termination of the war
enabled the ministers to direct their attention to the contraband trade
which had assisted the common enemy, defrauded the government, and
annoyed the commercial class. During Bute's administration, in 1763,
revenue cutters were sent to cruise off the American coast, the officers
of the king's ships were sworn to act as revenue officers, and revenue
cases were heard in the admiralty courts. Smuggling was more effectually
checked, and the irritation caused by the loss of trade was aggravated
by the roughness with which the seamen enforced the law.
Grenville adopted a new policy apparently contemplated by Bute's ministry.
Hitherto parliament had imposed customs duties on the colonies solely for
the purpose of regulating trade; he designed to raise revenue from them.
The idea was suggested to Walpole as a means of obtaining money on the
failure of his excise scheme, and that wary statesman promptly rejected
it. The money, however, which Grenville hoped to raise from the colonies
was not to swell the revenues of England; it was to be applied to their
own defence. His design was reasonable. The war had enormously increased
the public debt. It is true that it was not undertaken only for the
defence of the colonies; it is not less true that it was not a merely
insular war. The war concerned the empire at large, and Great Britain's
lavish sacrifices of blood and treasure delivered her children across the
ocean from the fear of French conquest. Her expenditure on their defence
could not end with the war; a small standing army had to be maintained for
their protection. It seemed not unlikely that France would attempt to
regain her lost dominions; it would have been fatal to leave the American
colonies undefended. And another foe was always at hand, for the Indians
regretted the overthrow of the French and were exasperated by the
ill-treatment they received from the British colonists. In 1763 Pontiac,
head-chief of the Ottawas, formed a confederation against the English.
Along the borders of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland the Indians
massacred outlying settlers, surprised many forts and slew their
garrisons. Three provinces might have been overrun before the inhabitants
had organised any defence, had not Sir Jeffrey (later Lord) Amherst, the
commander-in-chief, had a small British force at his disposal, consisting
mainly of companies of the 7th, 42nd, and 77th regiments of the line, and
of the Royal American regiment (later the 60th Rifles), formed in 1755 for
service in America. A little army composed largely of men of the 42nd
Highlanders, and commanded by Colonel Bouquet, defeated the Indians at
Bushy Run on August 5. Fort Pitt was relieved and, the victory having
encouraged the provincials to make a stand, the war virtually ended in
November, 1764.
[Sidenote: _THE STAMP ACT PROPOSED._]
The provincials disliked the idea of a standing army, and would have
preferred that their defence should have been left to themselves. That
was impossible. They were largely farmers and traders, peaceful folk
unwilling to leave their profitable pursuits. There was no central
authority to dictate the proportion of troops which each of the colonies
should contribute to a common force, and their selfishness and
jealousies made them grudge help one to another. The Americans behaved
shabbily to the troops sent to defend them, but Pontiac's war proved
that in times of pressing danger their safety might depend upon the
presence of a British force. Was it right or just that the colonies
should be defended by England and should contribute nothing towards the
cost of their defence? Grenville thought that it was not. On March 10,
1764, he laid before parliament a list of port dues; some of them were
higher than before, and to counterbalance the increase he proposed to
give several new advantages to colonial trade. Payment was no longer to
be evaded so easily as in past times, and smuggling would be attended
with greater risk. The money was to be paid into the English treasury
and was to be used only for colonial defence. More would be wanted for
that purpose, and he proposed to raise it by an act requiring that all
legal documents should bear stamps. This measure he deferred for a year
in order to ascertain the feeling of the colonies and to give them an
opportunity of raising the money in some other way if they preferred it.
The force to be kept in America was twenty regiments, or about 10,000
men, which, with the maintenance of fortifications, would cost L350,000
a year. Of this sum the proposed stamp act would, it was calculated,
bring in about L100,000. The bill passed without remark.
In an interview with the agents of the colonies Grenville pointed out
that the tax was reasonable, and was an easy and equitable way of
raising the required money, but promised that if the colonies disliked
it, and would raise the money themselves in some other way, he would be
content. Before the year was out they met him again and, acting on
instructions from their colonies, tried to dissuade him from his
purpose. Chief among them was Benjamin Franklin, then agent for
Pennsylvania, a New Englander by birth, not a puritan either in religion
or morals, a wise politician, shrewd, public-spirited, inventive, and
full of schemes of practical usefulness. He proposed that the money
should be voted by the provincial assemblies, but could not say that the
colonies would agree as to the amount which each should contribute. On
that of course the whole matter depended. When Grenville brought in his
stamp bill the debate, Burke says, was extremely languid. Parliament had
no idea that the act would lead to serious consequences. Nor were the
American agents much better informed, for Franklin, who considered that
a small standing army might be useful, believed that the colonies had no
choice but to submit to the tax. Pitt was absent from parliament,
suffering from gout. Conway and Barre opposed the bill, and Barre, in a
speech of fervid eloquence, described the Americans as "sons of
liberty," driven from their country by tyranny and treated by her with
neglect. In the commons the bill was carried with only forty
dissentients, and in the lords apparently without a division. It
received the royal assent on March 22, 1765, and was to come into
operation on November 1. In April the mutiny act was extended to
America, binding the colonies to provide the king's troops with quarters
and certain necessaries, such as fuel and candles.
[Sidenote: _AMERICAN RESISTANCE._]
The stamp act raised a storm of indignation in the American colonies.
Some of them, and especially the New England colonies, already had a
substantial grievance in the heavy blow dealt to their prosperity by the
repression of their contraband trade. Their discontent was increased by
a suspicion that England was about to establish episcopacy among them at
their expense, for Archbishop Secker and other English churchmen were
anxious to introduce bishops into America. A more sentimental, though an
efficient cause of irritation also existed in the affectation of
superiority adopted by Englishmen towards their colonial
fellow-subjects. The stamp tax brought their discontent to a head, and
gave the party hostile to government an opportunity for stirring up
opposition. During the year unwisely allowed by Grenville for
considering the proposed tax, they busily agitated against it. While at
that time the Americans allowed that parliament had a right to impose
duties for the regulation of trade, they denied its right to levy an
internal tax for the purpose of revenue, because they were not
represented in parliament.
Opposition to the ministerial policy naturally began in Boston, where
the repression of contraband trade weighed most heavily and
where--though that was a smaller matter--the dislike to episcopacy was
specially strong. The town-meeting promptly passed resolutions denying
the right of parliament to tax the colonies without their consent. The
meeting was led by Samuel Adams, a man of frugal life and austere
character, who, after failing as a brewer and as a tax collector,
adopted the career most congenial to his tastes and talents of political
agitator. The resolutions were adopted by the provincial assembly, and
on its invitation five other colonies joined with Massachusetts in
sending memorials and petitions to England against the proposed tax. The
assembly of Virginia was in session when the news came that the tax was
enacted, and Patrick Henry, a lawyer, brought forward some defiant
resolutions, of which four were carried, though only by a small
majority. His speech, which contained an insolent reference to the king,
was much admired. A general congress of the colonies was proposed by
Massachusetts and met at New York on November 7. Representatives of nine
colonies attended and others sent expressions of good-will. The members
drew up a statement of their claims and grievances in moderate terms,
and further expressed them in an address to the king, a memorial to the
lords, and a petition to the commons.
These orderly proceedings were accompanied by outbursts of lawless
violence. Societies for resistance were organised. The "sons of
liberty," as they called themselves in reference to Barre's speech, were
active in Boston, and in August, 1765, a mob plundered the house of a
man who was nominated as a distributor of stamps, destroyed a building
on his land which they believed was to be used as a stamp-office, hanged
him in effigy, and forced him to renounce his appointment. A sermon
preached by Jonathan Mayhew, a popular unitarian minister, on the words
"I would that they were even cut off which trouble you," was followed by
a more serious riot. Public buildings were attacked, the records of the
admiralty court were burnt, and the rioters forced their way into the
custom-house and got at the liquor in the cellars. Maddened by drink
they wrecked the stately mansion of Hutchinson, the lieutenant-governor,
and destroyed his fine collection of books and manuscripts. Persons of
good position more or less openly encouraged these excesses and no one
was punished for them. Outbreaks of mob violence, though of a less
riotous kind, took place in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and elsewhere. On
November 1, the day on which the stamp act came into operation, copies
of it were offered for sale headed, "The folly of England and the ruin
of America," bells were tolled, and mock funerals passed through the
streets.
Everywhere the new stamps were seized and destroyed. At New York the
lieutenant-governor, encouraged by the presence of the king's troops,
tried to secure the stamps sent to the town. A riot ensued. General
Gage, the commander-in-chief, declined to interfere at the risk of
beginning a civil war, and the stamps were surrendered and locked up in
the town hall. Besides these not a parcel of stamps was left in the
colonies. For a time this put an end to legal business, and the courts
were closed. Then lawyers agreed to take no notice of the lack of stamps
on documents, and at last the governors declared that the operation of
the act was to be reckoned as suspended. Retaliatory measures were
concerted. Merchants combined to stop all importation from England,
cancelled their orders and delayed sending remittances. Associations
were formed for abandoning the use of English goods, and the richest
citizens either wore old clothes or rough material of colonial
production. Manufactories of linen, cloth, and hardware were started,
and in order to insure a supply of wool, butchers were forbidden by
their customers to kill lambs.
The distinction made by the party of resistance between external and
internal taxation was in accordance with previous practice. Though
parliament had frequently imposed port-duties on the colonies, it had
abstained from imposing taxes within them. The stamp act was a new
departure. English history afforded ground for the distinction, which
was alleged in Bate's case, in the reign of James I., in support of the
claim of the crown. Yet it is clearly artificial, for a division of
taxes, such as into external and internal, only concerns their
incidence; it is a matter which belongs to economics and does not affect
political right. The colonists' claim of exemption from parliamentary
taxation on the ground of non-representation appeals to the sympathy of
Englishmen. Both in England and America there were some who desired that
the colonies should be represented in parliament, but their distance
from England and the ignorance of both peoples as regards the
circumstances and needs of each other would have been fatal objections
to any such scheme. The claim of the colonists seems to imply a
misapprehension of the character of parliament; for parliament is not a
mere meeting of delegates, it is an imperial assembly, and its
sovereignty is neither derived from the perfection of its constitution
nor lessened by its imperfection. Taxation is an attribute of
sovereignty, and parliament had a right to tax the colonies because the
sovereign power resided in it. Where else could it reside? To deny the
right to tax and to admit the right to legislate was inconsistent. How
could parliament, in virtue of its sovereign authority, have a right to
pass a bill ensuring personal freedom in the colonies, and yet have no
right to pass another bill imposing a tax on them? The logical outcome
of the American contention was that all parliamentary legislation
concerning the colonies was null, except so far as they chose to admit
it. Under all their arguments lay the germ of independence, though as
yet the leaders of the agitation loudly professed loyalty.
[Sidenote: _UNSTATESMANLIKE POLICY._]
That the tax was reasonable in intention, equitable in incidence, and in
itself tolerable, few probably will now deny. Nor will any one surely
deny that the act was foolish and unstatesmanlike. Strict definitions of
legal right are not safe guides in practical politics: sentiment and
circumstances should be held to be of far greater account. The Americans
maintained that there was an important difference between external and
internal taxation, and, in common with all other Englishmen, they highly
valued the right expressed in the maxim, "No taxation without
representation". It was a fatal mistake to disregard their belief and,
for the sake of avoiding a not very serious expenditure, to seem to deny
what they claimed as their heritage as Englishmen. Heavy as its expenses
were, Great Britain could have afforded to take upon itself the sum
required for the defence of the colonies. Grenville could not see the
matter in this light. Well-meaning and wishing to act fairly both
towards England and the colonies, he brought trouble on both alike by
his insistence on legal right. His administration was fruitful in evil.
He permitted parliament to enter on a disastrous struggle with Wilkes in
order to gratify the king; he raised up discord between England and her
most important colonies; he allowed the strength of England to decay by
grudging to spend the money needed for the maintenance of the navy, and
its dignity to be impaired by neglecting to insist on the payment of the
Manila ransom, though for that he was not individually responsible. One
judicious act of his administration may be recorded here. The Isle of
Man, though under the allegiance of the king, was not fully under the
royal authority; the king had no courts and no officers there, and it
was, as Burke said, "the very citadel of smuggling". In 1765 the crown
bought the rights of the Duke and Duchess of Atholl over the island for
L70,000, and it became thenceforward an integral part of the realm of
England.
FOOTNOTES:
[65] Hardwicke to Newcastle, Add. MS. 32,948, f. 54.
[66] G. Rose, _Diaries_, ii., 192.
[67] James Grenville to Lady Chatham, Jan. 12, 1765, MS. Pitt Papers,
35.
CHAPTER IV.
THE KING, THE WHIGS, AND CHATHAM.
Both for public and personal reasons George was anxious to get rid of
his ministers. Unlike them, he appears as early as the spring of 1765 to
have considered the discontent of his American subjects a serious
matter, and he blamed them for it.[68] In other respects, too, he was
dissatisfied with their public conduct, and he complained bitterly of
their behaviour towards himself. In spite of some outward agreement in
action, he and Grenville, who without the name retained nearly all the
authority of prime minister, pursued fundamentally different systems.
Grenville, though not less ready than the king to meet opposition with
violent measures, was imbued with whig theories. While George sought to
rule by securing the support of parliament, Grenville tried to use that
support to enable him to rule the king. He was a pedant, and lectured
the king on his duty like a schoolmaster. Bute stood in his way as the
king's ally and secret counsellor. His victory over him was partial and
short-lived. While Bute was in the country the king corresponded with
him, and he returned to London in the spring of 1764. His return made
the ministers uneasy, and Grenville's lectures became intolerable. "When
he has wearied me for two hours," George complained, "he looks at his
watch to see if he may not tire me for an hour more." Bad as their
public conduct was, he and his colleagues owed their fall chiefly to
their unbecoming behaviour to their sovereign.
[Sidenote: _THE REGENCY BILL._]
Early in 1765 the king had a severe illness and showed signs of the
insanity from which he suffered later. He recovered in March, and as he
believed that his life was not likely to be prolonged, he was anxious to
provide for a possible regency. Constitutional usage pointed to the
queen as the proper person to be regent during the infancy of her son.
George, however, wished to have the power to nominate a regent by an
instrument revocable at pleasure. Grenville dissuaded him from this
idea, and, with his ministers' consent, he announced from the throne
that a bill would be laid before parliament restricting the regency to
the queen and other members of the royal family usually residing in
England. When the bill was proposed in the lords the question was raised
whether the king's mother was a member of the royal family, or only
those in the order of succession. If the Princess of Wales became
regent, Bute would probably regain power. In order to prevent this dire
possibility, Bedford sacrificed decency and common sense by successfully
opposing a motion that the princess's name should expressly be included
in the bill. While the matter was pending, on May 3, Halifax and
Sandwich went to the king and persuaded him that the bill would not pass
the commons unless the princess was excluded. Anxious to save his mother
from insult, George authorised Halifax to move an amendment that only
the queen and those descended from George II. should be capable of the
regency. Halifax, in moving the amendment, announced that he did so with
the king's sanction, and it was adopted by the lords.
George soon learnt that he had been deceived, that people were
scandalised at his appearing to cast a slur upon his mother, and that
the opposition in the commons would move to include her name. In great
agitation he appealed to Grenville to help him by announcing a message
from the crown to the commons recommending the inclusion of the
princess. Grenville, though he had had no part in the trick of the two
secretaries, refused his request on the ground that it would stultify
the ministers, nor would he give way though the king actually wept with
mortification. An amendment to insert the princess's name was proposed
in the commons, was carried by 167 votes to 37, and was accepted by the
lords. George determined to shake off Grenville's yoke. He called on his
uncle, Cumberland, to find him new ministers, and the duke, though he
had been treated unkindly by his nephew, loyally came to his help.
Evidently by Bute's advice, the king authorised him to treat with Pitt
and Temple. Pitt was living in retirement, and in October, 1764, told
Newcastle that he intended to remain unconnected. He was willing to
accept office in a comprehensive administration on the understanding
that the officers who had been dismissed for their votes in parliament
should be restored, that the new ministers should be at liberty to
propose a resolution declaring general warrants illegal, and that a
continental alliance should be formed against the Bourbon powers.
Temple, however, refused office, and Pitt would not come in without him.
As Temple was on the eve of a reconciliation with his brother Grenville,
with whom he had quarrelled over the Wilkes affair, it was thought that
his refusal was due to an ambitious idea of a family administration of
himself, his brothers, and Pitt. Be this as it may, he probably
suspected that Bute would have an influence in the proposed
administration. Pitt allowed himself to be swayed by gratitude for help
which Temple had given him in the days of his poverty. During this
negotiation a riot broke out in London. The silk manufacture was
depressed owing to foreign competition, and thousands were consequently
almost starving. A bill to check the importation of silk by the
imposition of fresh duties was laid before the lords; it was opposed by
Bedford, who was averse from restraints on commerce, and it was
rejected. On this a large number of Spitalfields weavers went to
Richmond, on May 14, to seek help from the king in person. They met him
on Wimbledon common. He received them kindly, but could not, of course,
give them the help they wanted. The next day many thousands gathered in
Spitalfields and Moorfields at beat of drum, marched to St. James's and
Westminster, and stopped members on their way to parliament. Bedford was
assaulted and wounded, and on the 17th a determined attack was made upon
his house on the north side of Bloomsbury Square. It was garrisoned by
soldiers and others, but the attack was only defeated by the arrival of
fresh troops. When the disturbances were at last quelled, a large
collection was made for the relief of the immediate distress, which was
further mitigated by a sudden fall in the price of bread.[69] The affair
increased the king's discontent with his ministers and embittered the
feelings of anger between the Bute and Bedford factions.[70]
[Sidenote: _THE FIRST ROCKINGHAM MINISTRY._]
On Pitt's refusal to take office, Cumberland tried Lord Lyttelton and
Charles Townshend, but they declined the king's offer because they
believed that no strong administration was possible without Pitt. George
was forced to beg his ministers to continue. They took full advantage of
his humiliation. Pitt had asked for assurances on matters of public
policy; they made stipulations which chiefly concerned persons. The king
must promise never again to consult Bute, and must deprive his brother
Mackenzie of the office of privy seal of Scotland. As regards Bute,
George at once gave the required promise, and though he was afterwards
constantly suspected of consulting with him, there is good reason to
believe that he loyally kept his word, and that Bute never again offered
him any advice.[71] He had prom
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/25232