Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
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 ***
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 ***
Page 4
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
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
Page 5
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.
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.
Page 6
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.
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.
Page 7
X.
Page 8
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND
Page 9
FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO
THE
THE
Page 10
CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION
Page 11
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
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
Page 12
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
The King and Bute.
PAGE
25 Oct.,
Accession of George III. 1
1760.
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
15
ascendency
Opposing views with respect to the
17
war
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
25
negotiation
CHAPTER I.
The King and Bute.
PAGE
25 Oct.,
Accession of George III. 1
1760.
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
15
ascendency
Opposing views with respect to the
17
war
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
25
negotiation
Page 13
Pitt maintains British honour and
26
interests
Pitt and his colleagues 28
5 Oct. Pitt resigns office 31
The family compact. War declared
2 Jan., 1762. 32
against Spain
Frederick of Prussia offended 33
Newcastle's resignation. Bute
25 April. 34
succeeds to the treasury
The war in Germany 35
British conquests: Martinique,
37
Havana, Manila
Negotiations with France 38
A majority in the commons secured 39
The terms of peace 40
10 Feb.,
Definitive treaty signed at Paris 42
1763.
Mar. The cider tax 43
11 April. Bute retires from office 44
CHAPTER III.
The Grenville Administration.
1763. The new ministers 45
The North Briton, No. 45, and the
April. 46
general warrant
The king's attempts to strengthen the
Aug. 48
administration
Sept. Changes in the administration 49
Proceedings in parliament against
Nov. 50
Wilkes
19 Jan.,
The commons expel Wilkes 51
1764.
26
interests
Pitt and his colleagues 28
5 Oct. Pitt resigns office 31
The family compact. War declared
2 Jan., 1762. 32
against Spain
Frederick of Prussia offended 33
Newcastle's resignation. Bute
25 April. 34
succeeds to the treasury
The war in Germany 35
British conquests: Martinique,
37
Havana, Manila
Negotiations with France 38
A majority in the commons secured 39
The terms of peace 40
10 Feb.,
Definitive treaty signed at Paris 42
1763.
Mar. The cider tax 43
11 April. Bute retires from office 44
CHAPTER III.
The Grenville Administration.
1763. The new ministers 45
The North Briton, No. 45, and the
April. 46
general warrant
The king's attempts to strengthen the
Aug. 48
administration
Sept. Changes in the administration 49
Proceedings in parliament against
Nov. 50
Wilkes
19 Jan.,
The commons expel Wilkes 51
1764.
Page 14
Violation of the privileges of
52
parliament
Grenville's economy 53
Great Britain's colonial policy 54
1763. Defence of the American colonies 58
10 Mar.,
The stamp bill proposed 59
1764.
22 Mar.,
The bill enacted 60
1765.
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
A whig administration formed under
16 July. 67
Rockingham
Its weakness and difficulties 68
Jan., 1766. Pitt on American taxation 69
Burke, his character and political
70
principles
Repeal of the stamp act. The
Mar. 71
declaratory act
Pitt forms an administration, and is
July. 73
created Earl of Chatham
His foreign policy 74
Sept.-Nov. "A forty days' tyranny" 76
Feb., 1767. Chatham incapacitated by disease 76
June, 1763. Revolt of Mír Kásim 77
52
parliament
Grenville's economy 53
Great Britain's colonial policy 54
1763. Defence of the American colonies 58
10 Mar.,
The stamp bill proposed 59
1764.
22 Mar.,
The bill enacted 60
1765.
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
A whig administration formed under
16 July. 67
Rockingham
Its weakness and difficulties 68
Jan., 1766. Pitt on American taxation 69
Burke, his character and political
70
principles
Repeal of the stamp act. The
Mar. 71
declaratory act
Pitt forms an administration, and is
July. 73
created Earl of Chatham
His foreign policy 74
Sept.-Nov. "A forty days' tyranny" 76
Feb., 1767. Chatham incapacitated by disease 76
June, 1763. Revolt of Mír Kásim 77
Page 15
23 Oct.,
Battle of Baxár 78
1764.
Parliamentary interference with the
June, 1767. 79
E. India Company
Haidar Alí's invasions of the
1767-69. 80
Karnatic
CHAPTER V.
Growth of the King's Power.
C. Townshend and the new
1767. 82
American duties
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
88
the revenue acts
1 May, Partial repeal of the new duties
90
1769. decided on
Condition of Ireland. Rise of
1761. 91
Whiteboyism
The government of Ireland 93
Octennial act and augmentation of
1768-69. 94
Irish army
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.
98
Faltering policy of ministers
Arrears of the civil list 99
The Letters of Junius 99
Chatham in opposition 100
Battle of Baxár 78
1764.
Parliamentary interference with the
June, 1767. 79
E. India Company
Haidar Alí's invasions of the
1767-69. 80
Karnatic
CHAPTER V.
Growth of the King's Power.
C. Townshend and the new
1767. 82
American duties
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
88
the revenue acts
1 May, Partial repeal of the new duties
90
1769. decided on
Condition of Ireland. Rise of
1761. 91
Whiteboyism
The government of Ireland 93
Octennial act and augmentation of
1768-69. 94
Irish army
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.
98
Faltering policy of ministers
Arrears of the civil list 99
The Letters of Junius 99
Chatham in opposition 100
Page 16
28 Jan., Grafton resigns. North forms an
102
1770. administration
Triumph of the king's policy 103
Discontent with the constitutional
103
machinery
Chatham and Burke differ on
105
character of needful reforms
CHAPTER VI.
The King's Rule.
1770. Two parties in the opposition 106
The struggle in parliament 107
The Grenville controverted elections
April. 108
act
5 Mar. The "Boston massacre" 109
Chatham and his city friends
110
demand a dissolution
They are foiled by the king 111
Dispute with Spain concerning the
112
Falkland islands
England's foreign policy 114
1770-71. Changes in the ministry 115
The law of libel 116
The house of commons and the
117
printers
1772. Religious toleration 118
The royal marriage act and C. J. Fox 119
Affairs of E. India Company.
June, 1773. 121
North's regulating act
May. Clive's acquittal 122
The king's political predominance 123
CHAPTER VII.
102
1770. administration
Triumph of the king's policy 103
Discontent with the constitutional
103
machinery
Chatham and Burke differ on
105
character of needful reforms
CHAPTER VI.
The King's Rule.
1770. Two parties in the opposition 106
The struggle in parliament 107
The Grenville controverted elections
April. 108
act
5 Mar. The "Boston massacre" 109
Chatham and his city friends
110
demand a dissolution
They are foiled by the king 111
Dispute with Spain concerning the
112
Falkland islands
England's foreign policy 114
1770-71. Changes in the ministry 115
The law of libel 116
The house of commons and the
117
printers
1772. Religious toleration 118
The royal marriage act and C. J. Fox 119
Affairs of E. India Company.
June, 1773. 121
North's regulating act
May. Clive's acquittal 122
The king's political predominance 123
CHAPTER VII.
Page 17
The Quarrel with America.
1772-73. Resistance to law in America 124
16 Dec.,
The Boston tea-riot 126
1773.
29 Jan.,
Franklin before the privy council 126
1774.
The penal acts 128
The Quebec act 129
First meeting of a continental
5 Sept. 132
congress
The American loyalists 134
The general election of 1774 135
Opinion in England on the American
136
crisis
Feb.-Mar.,
Bills and resolutions for conciliation 138
1775.
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
Americans seize Ticonderoga and
May. 144
Crown Point
English opinion on the outbreak of
144
war
Washington appointed American
15 June. 146
commander-in-chief
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
1772-73. Resistance to law in America 124
16 Dec.,
The Boston tea-riot 126
1773.
29 Jan.,
Franklin before the privy council 126
1774.
The penal acts 128
The Quebec act 129
First meeting of a continental
5 Sept. 132
congress
The American loyalists 134
The general election of 1774 135
Opinion in England on the American
136
crisis
Feb.-Mar.,
Bills and resolutions for conciliation 138
1775.
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
Americans seize Ticonderoga and
May. 144
Crown Point
English opinion on the outbreak of
144
war
Washington appointed American
15 June. 146
commander-in-chief
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
Page 18
May-June, The Americans chased out of
155
1776. Canada
Spread of the idea of separation 156
28 June. Unsuccessful attempt on Charleston 157
Declaration of American
4 July. 158
independence
The war generally popular in Great
1775. 158
Britain
The opposition in parliament 159
The state of the navy 161
Nov. North's prohibitory bill 162
CHAPTER IX.
Saratoga.
27 Aug.,
The battle of Long Island 164
1776.
15 Sept. British take New York 165
Carleton's victory on Lake
11, 13 Oct. 166
Champlain
Washington retreats across the
8 Dec. 167
Delaware
26. The surprise of Trenton 168
Partial secession of whigs from
169
parliament
Impressment for the navy 170
1777. Arrears of the civil list 171
Plan for co-operation between Howe
172
and Burgoyne
Howe's campaign. Battle of the
June-Nov. 173
Brandywine, Sept. 11
American camp at Valley Forge 175
6 July. Burgoyne captures Ticonderoga 176
His difficulties, distress, and failure 177
155
1776. Canada
Spread of the idea of separation 156
28 June. Unsuccessful attempt on Charleston 157
Declaration of American
4 July. 158
independence
The war generally popular in Great
1775. 158
Britain
The opposition in parliament 159
The state of the navy 161
Nov. North's prohibitory bill 162
CHAPTER IX.
Saratoga.
27 Aug.,
The battle of Long Island 164
1776.
15 Sept. British take New York 165
Carleton's victory on Lake
11, 13 Oct. 166
Champlain
Washington retreats across the
8 Dec. 167
Delaware
26. The surprise of Trenton 168
Partial secession of whigs from
169
parliament
Impressment for the navy 170
1777. Arrears of the civil list 171
Plan for co-operation between Howe
172
and Burgoyne
Howe's campaign. Battle of the
June-Nov. 173
Brandywine, Sept. 11
American camp at Valley Forge 175
6 July. Burgoyne captures Ticonderoga 176
His difficulties, distress, and failure 177
Page 19
17 Oct. The convention of Saratoga 179
Responsibility for the disaster 179
Alliance between France and the
6 Jan., 1778. 181
Americans
Why England had not yet subdued
183
the Americans
CHAPTER X.
War with France and Spain.
1777-78. The opposition and the war 186
The king's refusal to allow Chatham
Mar., 1778. 187
to form a ministry
11 May. Chatham's death 190
Constitutional importance of the
191
issue of the war
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
195
Britain
Combined French and Spanish fleets
Aug., 1779. 196
in the Channel
The war in various parts of the
196
world
12 May,
The surrender of Charleston 198
1780.
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
202
trade
Responsibility for the disaster 179
Alliance between France and the
6 Jan., 1778. 181
Americans
Why England had not yet subdued
183
the Americans
CHAPTER X.
War with France and Spain.
1777-78. The opposition and the war 186
The king's refusal to allow Chatham
Mar., 1778. 187
to form a ministry
11 May. Chatham's death 190
Constitutional importance of the
191
issue of the war
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
195
Britain
Combined French and Spanish fleets
Aug., 1779. 196
in the Channel
The war in various parts of the
196
world
12 May,
The surrender of Charleston 198
1780.
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
202
trade
Page 20
Activity of the opposition in
1779-80. 202
England
2-7 June. The Lord George Gordon riots 205
CHAPTER XI.
Yorktown and the King's Defeat.
Mar., 1780. The armed neutrality 208
Dispute with the Dutch: war
20 Dec. 209
declared
Defence of Gibraltar 210
5 Aug.,
Battle of the Dogger Bank 212
1781.
General election and the new
1780. 212
parliament
2 Oct. The fate of Major André 215
3 Feb.,
Rodney takes St. Eustatius 216
1781.
July, 1780. French squadron at Rhode island 218
Cornwallis's campaign in the south:
16 Aug. 219
battle of Camden
17 Jan.,
Battle of the Cowpens 221
1781.
15 Mar. Battle of Guilford 222
May. Cornwallis in Virginia 223
How England lost command in the
224
American waters
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
227
Spain
The second Rockingham ministry;
Mar., 1782. 229
the king's defeat
1779-80. 202
England
2-7 June. The Lord George Gordon riots 205
CHAPTER XI.
Yorktown and the King's Defeat.
Mar., 1780. The armed neutrality 208
Dispute with the Dutch: war
20 Dec. 209
declared
Defence of Gibraltar 210
5 Aug.,
Battle of the Dogger Bank 212
1781.
General election and the new
1780. 212
parliament
2 Oct. The fate of Major André 215
3 Feb.,
Rodney takes St. Eustatius 216
1781.
July, 1780. French squadron at Rhode island 218
Cornwallis's campaign in the south:
16 Aug. 219
battle of Camden
17 Jan.,
Battle of the Cowpens 221
1781.
15 Mar. Battle of Guilford 222
May. Cornwallis in Virginia 223
How England lost command in the
224
American waters
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
227
Spain
The second Rockingham ministry;
Mar., 1782. 229
the king's defeat
Page 21
CHAPTER XII.
The Rout of the Whigs.
Attack on the corrupt influence of
1782. >231
the crown
Legislative independence conceded
May. 232
to Ireland
12 April. The "battle of the Saints" 234
Last scenes of the siege of Gibraltar 236
War in India and in the Indian
1780-84. 236
waters
Quarrel between Fox and Shelburne 238
July, 1782. Shelburne forms a ministry 240
Preliminaries of peace between
30 Nov. 241
Great Britain and America
The American loyalists 242
3 Sept.,
Definitive treaty of Versailles 242
1783.
State of parties in parliament 243
The coalition between Fox and
244
North
April. The Coalition ministry 245
Pitt's motion for parliamentary
May. 246
reform
Warren Hastings in India 247
Nov.-Dec. Fox's India bills 249
The Coalition ministry dismissed;
Dec. 251
Pitt prime minister
Struggle on the question of a
251
dissolution
25 Mar.,
Parliament dissolved 254
1784.
General election: "Fox's martyrs" 254
The Rout of the Whigs.
Attack on the corrupt influence of
1782. >231
the crown
Legislative independence conceded
May. 232
to Ireland
12 April. The "battle of the Saints" 234
Last scenes of the siege of Gibraltar 236
War in India and in the Indian
1780-84. 236
waters
Quarrel between Fox and Shelburne 238
July, 1782. Shelburne forms a ministry 240
Preliminaries of peace between
30 Nov. 241
Great Britain and America
The American loyalists 242
3 Sept.,
Definitive treaty of Versailles 242
1783.
State of parties in parliament 243
The coalition between Fox and
244
North
April. The Coalition ministry 245
Pitt's motion for parliamentary
May. 246
reform
Warren Hastings in India 247
Nov.-Dec. Fox's India bills 249
The Coalition ministry dismissed;
Dec. 251
Pitt prime minister
Struggle on the question of a
251
dissolution
25 Mar.,
Parliament dissolved 254
1784.
General election: "Fox's martyrs" 254
Page 22
CHAPTER XIII.
Social and Economic Progress, 1760-1801.
General character of the period 255
Amusements, gambling, racing, the
256
drama, etc.
Travelling and the state of the roads 258
Literature: poetry, fiction, and
259
serious prose works
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-
269
faire
Steam and water power: iron
270
manufacture
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
277
wages
The poor law 277
Sufferings of the poor and specially
278
of factory children
Social and Economic Progress, 1760-1801.
General character of the period 255
Amusements, gambling, racing, the
256
drama, etc.
Travelling and the state of the roads 258
Literature: poetry, fiction, and
259
serious prose works
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-
269
faire
Steam and water power: iron
270
manufacture
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
277
wages
The poor law 277
Sufferings of the poor and specially
278
of factory children
Page 23
CHAPTER XIV.
Early Years of Pitt's Administration.
1784. Significance of Pitt's victory 280
Change in office of prime minister
281
and in house of lords
Pitt's character and management of
282
parliament
The Westminster election 283
1784-85. Pitt's finance 284
Aug., 1784. His bill for the government of India 286
18 April,
His bill for parliamentary reform 287
1785.
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
French influence in the United
1786-87. 298
Provinces
Oct., 1787. Restoration of the stadholder 300
Triple alliance—Great Britain,
April, 1788. 301
Prussia, and the United Provinces
CHAPTER XV.
The Regency Question.
1785. Return of Hastings to England 302
1786. Pitt and the charges against Hastings 303
13 Feb.,
Trial of Hastings begun 304
1788.
Early Years of Pitt's Administration.
1784. Significance of Pitt's victory 280
Change in office of prime minister
281
and in house of lords
Pitt's character and management of
282
parliament
The Westminster election 283
1784-85. Pitt's finance 284
Aug., 1784. His bill for the government of India 286
18 April,
His bill for parliamentary reform 287
1785.
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
French influence in the United
1786-87. 298
Provinces
Oct., 1787. Restoration of the stadholder 300
Triple alliance—Great Britain,
April, 1788. 301
Prussia, and the United Provinces
CHAPTER XV.
The Regency Question.
1785. Return of Hastings to England 302
1786. Pitt and the charges against Hastings 303
13 Feb.,
Trial of Hastings begun 304
1788.
Page 24
Cornwallis as governor-general of
1788-93. 305
India
Feb., 1788. Pitt's (India) declaratory bill 305
May, 1787. The Prince of Wales's debts paid 307
5 Nov.,
The king's insanity 309
1788.
Fox asserts the prince's right to the
10 Dec. 311
regency
Pitt's resolutions 312
10 Mar.,
The king's recovery announced 314
1789.
The Irish parliament and the regency 314
The French revolution begins 315
English opinions on events in
317
France
Dispute with Spain relating to
1790. 319
Nootka Sound
28 Oct. Convention with Spain 321
CHAPTER XVI.
Declaration of War by France.
1790. General election 322
1795. Acquittal of Hastings 323
Struggle for the abolition of the
1791-92. 323
slave trade
1792. Fox's libel bill 324
Pitt's foreign policy 324
1791. The Russian armament 326
Burke's Reflections on the French
Nov., 1790. 328
Revolution
May, 1791. Rupture between Burke and Fox 329
27 Aug. The Declaration of Pilnitz 331
Revolutionary propaganda 331
1788-93. 305
India
Feb., 1788. Pitt's (India) declaratory bill 305
May, 1787. The Prince of Wales's debts paid 307
5 Nov.,
The king's insanity 309
1788.
Fox asserts the prince's right to the
10 Dec. 311
regency
Pitt's resolutions 312
10 Mar.,
The king's recovery announced 314
1789.
The Irish parliament and the regency 314
The French revolution begins 315
English opinions on events in
317
France
Dispute with Spain relating to
1790. 319
Nootka Sound
28 Oct. Convention with Spain 321
CHAPTER XVI.
Declaration of War by France.
1790. General election 322
1795. Acquittal of Hastings 323
Struggle for the abolition of the
1791-92. 323
slave trade
1792. Fox's libel bill 324
Pitt's foreign policy 324
1791. The Russian armament 326
Burke's Reflections on the French
Nov., 1790. 328
Revolution
May, 1791. Rupture between Burke and Fox 329
27 Aug. The Declaration of Pilnitz 331
Revolutionary propaganda 331
Page 25
1792. Dismissal of Thurlow 332
A whig scheme of coalition 333
French proposals 333
Proclamation against seditious
21 May. 335
writings
British ambassador recalled from
Aug. 336
Paris
French conquest of Flanders 337
The provocations received by
338
England
Dec. Disruption of the whig party 340
21 Jan.,
Execution of Louis XVI. 342
1793.
1 Feb. France declares war on England 342
War necessary for the safety of
342
Great Britain
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
York before Dunkirk: the battle of
8 Sept. 353
Hondschoote
Attempted co-operation with the
Dec. 354
Vendeans
Siege and evacuation of Toulon 355
A whig scheme of coalition 333
French proposals 333
Proclamation against seditious
21 May. 335
writings
British ambassador recalled from
Aug. 336
Paris
French conquest of Flanders 337
The provocations received by
338
England
Dec. Disruption of the whig party 340
21 Jan.,
Execution of Louis XVI. 342
1793.
1 Feb. France declares war on England 342
War necessary for the safety of
342
Great Britain
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
York before Dunkirk: the battle of
8 Sept. 353
Hondschoote
Attempted co-operation with the
Dec. 354
Vendeans
Siege and evacuation of Toulon 355
Page 26
Mar. Traitorous correspondence bill 357
1793-94. Repressive proceedings 357
1794. The opposition in parliament 359
Selfish conduct of Prussia and
360
Austria
The British retreat through Holland 362
The coalition in a shattered state 363
Aug. British conquest of Corsica 363
28 May-1 Naval victory: the glorious First of
364
June. June
Portland whigs coalesce with
366
government
Ireland. Society of United Irishmen
1791. 367
founded
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
373
Grenville
5 April. Treaty of Basle 374
Treaties with Austria and Russia 374
Feeble conduct of war in the
375
Mediterranean
June. The expedition to Quiberon 376
War in the West Indies 377
Scarcity, riots, and democratic
378
agitation
Nov. Repressive legislation 379
1793-94. Repressive proceedings 357
1794. The opposition in parliament 359
Selfish conduct of Prussia and
360
Austria
The British retreat through Holland 362
The coalition in a shattered state 363
Aug. British conquest of Corsica 363
28 May-1 Naval victory: the glorious First of
364
June. June
Portland whigs coalesce with
366
government
Ireland. Society of United Irishmen
1791. 367
founded
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
373
Grenville
5 April. Treaty of Basle 374
Treaties with Austria and Russia 374
Feeble conduct of war in the
375
Mediterranean
June. The expedition to Quiberon 376
War in the West Indies 377
Scarcity, riots, and democratic
378
agitation
Nov. Repressive legislation 379
Page 27
1796. Bonaparte's campaign in Italy 380
British fleet evacuates the
381
Mediterranean
Overtures and unsuccessful
382
negotiations for peace
Financial difficulties: the Loyalty
384
loan
Ireland—United Irishmen adopt a
386
military organisation
French attempt an invasion of
Dec. 386
Ireland
27 Feb.,
Suspension of cash payments 387
1797.
14. Battle of Cape St. Vincent 388
Preliminaries of peace between
18 April. 390
France and Austria signed at Leoben
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
399
parliament
Nov. The triple assessment 400
CHAPTER XIX.
Irish Rebellion and Naval Supremacy.
1798. Threatened invasion of England 401
The Irish peasantry look to France
404
for help
Rebellion in Ulster averted by
1797-98. 405
severities
12 Mar.,
Arrest of rebel leaders in Dublin 407
1798.
British fleet evacuates the
381
Mediterranean
Overtures and unsuccessful
382
negotiations for peace
Financial difficulties: the Loyalty
384
loan
Ireland—United Irishmen adopt a
386
military organisation
French attempt an invasion of
Dec. 386
Ireland
27 Feb.,
Suspension of cash payments 387
1797.
14. Battle of Cape St. Vincent 388
Preliminaries of peace between
18 April. 390
France and Austria signed at Leoben
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
399
parliament
Nov. The triple assessment 400
CHAPTER XIX.
Irish Rebellion and Naval Supremacy.
1798. Threatened invasion of England 401
The Irish peasantry look to France
404
for help
Rebellion in Ulster averted by
1797-98. 405
severities
12 Mar.,
Arrest of rebel leaders in Dublin 407
1798.
Page 28
Cruel measures adopted in midland
407
and southern counties
23 May. Outbreak of rebellion in Kildare 408
Rebellion in Wexford 409
21 June. Rebels routed on Vinegar hill 411
French under Humbert land in
20 Aug. 413
Killala bay
27. "The race of Castlebar" 413
Other attempts at invasion 414
1 Aug. The Battle of the Nile 416
Mar.-May,
The defence of Acre 418
1799.
Storming of Seringapatam and death
4 May. 420
of Tipú
1798. Paul of Russia proposes a coalition 421
Dec., 1798.
The second coalition formed 423
- Jan., 1799.
British troops withdrawn from San
1798. 424
Domingo
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,
Bonaparte's letter to the king 433
1799.
April. Payment of the income tax 434
Scarcity of wheat 435
407
and southern counties
23 May. Outbreak of rebellion in Kildare 408
Rebellion in Wexford 409
21 June. Rebels routed on Vinegar hill 411
French under Humbert land in
20 Aug. 413
Killala bay
27. "The race of Castlebar" 413
Other attempts at invasion 414
1 Aug. The Battle of the Nile 416
Mar.-May,
The defence of Acre 418
1799.
Storming of Seringapatam and death
4 May. 420
of Tipú
1798. Paul of Russia proposes a coalition 421
Dec., 1798.
The second coalition formed 423
- Jan., 1799.
British troops withdrawn from San
1798. 424
Domingo
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,
Bonaparte's letter to the king 433
1799.
April. Payment of the income tax 434
Scarcity of wheat 435
Page 29
April, 1800. Investment of Genoa 436
14 June. The battle of Marengo 437
Bonaparte proposes a naval
438
armistice
Unprofitable expeditions 439
9 Feb., The Treaty of Lunéville: isolation of
440
1801. England
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
445
weakness
Pitt contemplates union on a
Oct., 1798. 446
protestant basis
1799. Hopes of the catholics excited 447
How the government secured a
448
majority
1 Aug.,
The union enacted 450
1800.
Sept. Pitt proposes catholic emancipation 451
The king refuses his assent: Pitt will
Feb., 1801. 452
resign
20. The king's insanity 453
Mar. Pitt's promise to the king 454
14. Pitt resigns office 455
Appendix I. On Authorities 459
Administrations of Great Britain,
II. 470
1760-1801
III. The Grenvilles 476
MAPS.
14 June. The battle of Marengo 437
Bonaparte proposes a naval
438
armistice
Unprofitable expeditions 439
9 Feb., The Treaty of Lunéville: isolation of
440
1801. England
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
445
weakness
Pitt contemplates union on a
Oct., 1798. 446
protestant basis
1799. Hopes of the catholics excited 447
How the government secured a
448
majority
1 Aug.,
The union enacted 450
1800.
Sept. Pitt proposes catholic emancipation 451
The king refuses his assent: Pitt will
Feb., 1801. 452
resign
20. The king's insanity 453
Mar. Pitt's promise to the king 454
14. Pitt resigns office 455
Appendix I. On Authorities 459
Administrations of Great Britain,
II. 470
1760-1801
III. The Grenvilles 476
MAPS.
Page 30
(At the End of the Volume.)
Great Britain, showing the parliamentary
1.
representation.
The United States of America illustrating the War
2.
(northern section) of Rebellion and
3.
The United States of America }the Treaty of Sept.
(southern section) 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".
Great Britain, showing the parliamentary
1.
representation.
The United States of America illustrating the War
2.
(northern section) of Rebellion and
3.
The United States of America }the Treaty of Sept.
(southern section) 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".
Page 31
" 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
" 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
Page 32
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".
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".
Page 33
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'Aché was forced to withdraw his ships from the
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'Aché was forced to withdraw his ships from the
Page 34
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.
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.
Page 35
George was in many respects worthy of their welcome.
Moral in his conduct and domestic in his tastes, he set an THE YOUNG
example of sobriety and general decency of behaviour. KING.
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
Moral in his conduct and domestic in his tastes, he set an THE YOUNG
example of sobriety and general decency of behaviour. KING.
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
Page 36
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
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
Page 37
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.
Among these ideas were an exaggerated conception of
the royal prerogative and the belief that it was his duty THE EARL OF
as king to govern as well as to reign. His mother's BUTE.
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
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.
Among these ideas were an exaggerated conception of
the royal prerogative and the belief that it was his duty THE EARL OF
as king to govern as well as to reign. His mother's BUTE.
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
Page 38
"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.
Meanwhile the tories were left out in the cold. So long
as jacobitism was a danger to the state, this was not a THE KING
fair cause of complaint, for many tories had INTENDS RULE.
TO
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
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.
Meanwhile the tories were left out in the cold. So long
as jacobitism was a danger to the state, this was not a THE KING
fair cause of complaint, for many tories had INTENDS RULE.
TO
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
Page 39
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.
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.
Page 40
The first cabinet of George III. as settled with reference
to a meeting held on November 17, consisted of the THE CABINET.
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
to a meeting held on November 17, consisted of the THE CABINET.
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
Page 41
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.
Since 1757 the strife of the whig factions had been
stilled by coalition. At the king's accession the THE KING'S
SCHEME.
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
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.
Since 1757 the strife of the whig factions had been
stilled by coalition. At the king's accession the THE KING'S
SCHEME.
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
Page 42
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
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
Page 43
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
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
Page 44
one of the few remaining customs which indicated a right to govern as well
as to reign.
A like contrast is afforded by the arrangement of the
civil list. George was the first sovereign who entirely THE CIVIL LIST.
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 £800,000 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
as to reign.
A like contrast is afforded by the arrangement of the
civil list. George was the first sovereign who entirely THE CIVIL LIST.
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 £800,000 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
Page 45
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
depôt; 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 Göttingen and Cassel, and were therefore in a position to renew their
attacks on Hanover the following year.
News came from India of the fall of Pondicherry on
January 15, 1761, and this was the end of the French CAPTURE OF
power in that land. Few were the French ships which put BELLE ILE.
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
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
depôt; 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 Göttingen and Cassel, and were therefore in a position to renew their
attacks on Hanover the following year.
News came from India of the fall of Pondicherry on
January 15, 1761, and this was the end of the French CAPTURE OF
power in that land. Few were the French ships which put BELLE ILE.
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
Page 46
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.
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.
Page 47
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.
While Pitt may have welcomed the co-operation of his
new ally from a belief that they had a common policy as OPPOSING VIEWS
WITH RESPECT
regards government by connexion, and as a means of TO THE WAR.
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
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.
While Pitt may have welcomed the co-operation of his
new ally from a belief that they had a common policy as OPPOSING VIEWS
WITH RESPECT
regards government by connexion, and as a means of TO THE WAR.
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
Page 48
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 £670,000 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 £340,000 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 £15,503,563; for 1761 they amounted to
£19,616,119, the interest on which was to be paid by the continuance of the
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 £670,000 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 £340,000 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 £15,503,563; for 1761 they amounted to
£19,616,119, the interest on which was to be paid by the continuance of the
Page 49
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 £72,505,572,
entailing a charge for interest and expenses of a little over £2,500,000,
amounted in 1760 to £102,000,000, with a charge of £3,500,000.[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.
Before the king and Bute opened their campaign they
insured support in parliament. Early in 1761 A GENERAL
ELECTION.
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
national debt of Great Britain and Ireland, which in 1755 was £72,505,572,
entailing a charge for interest and expenses of a little over £2,500,000,
amounted in 1760 to £102,000,000, with a charge of £3,500,000.[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.
Before the king and Bute opened their campaign they
insured support in parliament. Early in 1761 A GENERAL
ELECTION.
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
Page 50
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 £4,000 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
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 £4,000 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
Page 51
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.
The satisfaction caused by the young king's gracious
manners and respectable life was increased by his THE KING'S
MARRIAGE.
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
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.
The satisfaction caused by the young king's gracious
manners and respectable life was increased by his THE KING'S
MARRIAGE.
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
Page 52
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.
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.
Page 53
[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.
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.
Page 54
[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.
[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.
Page 55
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 Göttingen.
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.
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 Göttingen.
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.
Page 56
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.
Spain had three grievances against Great Britain. She
complained that her ships had wrongfully been made SPANISH AND
prizes, that she was shut out from the Newfoundland FRENCHMEMORIALS.
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
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.
Spain had three grievances against Great Britain. She
complained that her ships had wrongfully been made SPANISH AND
prizes, that she was shut out from the Newfoundland FRENCHMEMORIALS.
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
Page 57
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
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
Page 58
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.
Pitt kept the negotiation with Bussy in his own hands,
and met opposition in the cabinet with haughty PITT'S
determination. Newcastle and his party were eager for ULTIMATUM.
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
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.
Pitt kept the negotiation with Bussy in his own hands,
and met opposition in the cabinet with haughty PITT'S
determination. Newcastle and his party were eager for ULTIMATUM.
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
Page 59
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
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
Page 60
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.
That belief was strongly held by the king, and he was
delighted by a letter from Stanley holding out hope of PITT AND HIS
COLLEAGUES.
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
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.
That belief was strongly held by the king, and he was
delighted by a letter from Stanley holding out hope of PITT AND HIS
COLLEAGUES.
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
Page 61
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]
It must not be supposed that Pitt had information as to
the relations between France and Spain which he did not PITT RESIGNS
OFFICE.
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
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]
It must not be supposed that Pitt had information as to
the relations between France and Spain which he did not PITT RESIGNS
OFFICE.
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
Page 62
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
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
Page 63
of his resignation were received with general indignation. For a moment his
popularity was overclouded. He accepted a pension of £3,000 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.
He was succeeded as secretary of state by Lord
Egremont, a man of small ability; the leadership of the WAR DECLARED
commons was committed to Grenville, and Bedford took AGAINST SPAIN.
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
popularity was overclouded. He accepted a pension of £3,000 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.
He was succeeded as secretary of state by Lord
Egremont, a man of small ability; the leadership of the WAR DECLARED
commons was committed to Grenville, and Bedford took AGAINST SPAIN.
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
Page 64
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
£670,000, 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
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
£670,000, 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
Page 65
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 £2,000,000 should be asked for, £1,000,000 as usual for the
German war and £1,000,000 for the war in Portugal. Bute and Grenville
maintained that only £1,000,000 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]
On his resignation the king spoke kindly to the old man,
as indeed he well might, for the duke had spent a long BUTE'S
ADMINISTRATION
life and a vast fortune in the service of his house; he had, .
it is said, reduced his income from £25,000 to £6,000 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
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 £2,000,000 should be asked for, £1,000,000 as usual for the
German war and £1,000,000 for the war in Portugal. Bute and Grenville
maintained that only £1,000,000 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]
On his resignation the king spoke kindly to the old man,
as indeed he well might, for the duke had spent a long BUTE'S
ADMINISTRATION
life and a vast fortune in the service of his house; he had, .
it is said, reduced his income from £25,000 to £6,000 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
Page 66
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; Göttingen 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 Condé
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 manœuvring about the Lahn, no
way seemed possible for them save by crossing the Ohm. The passage at
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; Göttingen 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 Condé
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 manœuvring about the Lahn, no
way seemed possible for them save by crossing the Ohm. The passage at
Page 67
Brückenmühle, near Amöneburg, 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.
Success attended the arms of Great Britain in other
quarters. Pitt's spirit still animated her efforts. How far BRITISH
SUCCESSES.
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-Bückeburg 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
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.
Success attended the arms of Great Britain in other
quarters. Pitt's spirit still animated her efforts. How far BRITISH
SUCCESSES.
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-Bückeburg 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
Page 68
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, £3,000,000 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 £500,000 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
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, £3,000,000 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 £500,000 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
Page 69
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.
A majority for the peace had to be insured before the
preliminaries came before parliament. Grenville was SECURING A
MAJORITY.
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
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.
A majority for the peace had to be insured before the
preliminaries came before parliament. Grenville was SECURING A
MAJORITY.
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
Page 70
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 £25,000 was paid out of
the treasury, and it is said even so small a sum as £200 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.
The preliminaries of peace were signed on November 3,
and laid before parliament on the 29th. France agreed to THE TERMS OF
PEACE.
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.
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 £25,000 was paid out of
the treasury, and it is said even so small a sum as £200 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.
The preliminaries of peace were signed on November 3,
and laid before parliament on the 29th. France agreed to THE TERMS OF
PEACE.
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.
Page 71
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 £72,505,572, had risen to £132,716,049, 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
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 £72,505,572, had risen to £132,716,049, 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
Page 72
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.
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.
Page 73
The unpopularity of the administration was heightened
by its finance. Dashwood's scheme for the supplies THE CIDER TAX.
included a loan of £3,000,000, 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
£20,000, Fox £10,000, and so on, while the nation lost £385,000 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
by its finance. Dashwood's scheme for the supplies THE CIDER TAX.
included a loan of £3,000,000, 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
£20,000, Fox £10,000, and so on, while the nation lost £385,000 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
Page 74
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 £52,000 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, Mémoires 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.
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 £52,000 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, Mémoires 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.
Page 75
[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.
[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.
Page 76
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 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.
Page 77
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.
Wilkes was arrested under the general warrant on the
30th, and carried before the secretaries of state; his PROCEEDINGS IN
house was searched and his papers seized. He was WILKES'S CASE.
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
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.
Wilkes was arrested under the general warrant on the
30th, and carried before the secretaries of state; his PROCEEDINGS IN
house was searched and his papers seized. He was WILKES'S CASE.
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
Page 78
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 £400 damages, one journeyman £300, and others £200. Wilkes
sued Wood, the under-secretary of state, for ransacking his house, and the
jury awarded him £1,000 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.
George, though at first well pleased with the new
administration, soon saw that it lacked strength. He MINISTERIAL
made an attempt to enlist Hardwicke and Newcastle, but CHANGES.
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.
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 £400 damages, one journeyman £300, and others £200. Wilkes
sued Wood, the under-secretary of state, for ransacking his house, and the
jury awarded him £1,000 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.
George, though at first well pleased with the new
administration, soon saw that it lacked strength. He MINISTERIAL
made an attempt to enlist Hardwicke and Newcastle, but CHANGES.
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.
Page 79
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
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
Page 80
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,
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,
Page 81
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.
On the same day as the proceedings in the lords,
Grenville brought a message from the king to the WILKES
commons informing them of what had been done in EXPELLED FROM
PARLIAMENT.
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.
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.
On the same day as the proceedings in the lords,
Grenville brought a message from the king to the WILKES
commons informing them of what had been done in EXPELLED FROM
PARLIAMENT.
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.
Page 82
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 Barré. 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,
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 Barré. 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,
Page 83
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. Barré, 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 £4,000 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, Barré, and with them
General A'Court, who had also voted in the minority, were deprived of their
commands, and Shelburne, Barré's patron, was dismissed from his office as
aide-de-camp to the king. Barré followed Shelburne's example in attaching
himself to Pitt.
dearest friend of Horace Walpole; and Walpole, who regarded politics in a
personal light, exercised an unfortunate influence upon him. Barré, 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 £4,000 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, Barré, and with them
General A'Court, who had also voted in the minority, were deprived of their
commands, and Shelburne, Barré's patron, was dismissed from his office as
aide-de-camp to the king. Barré followed Shelburne's example in attaching
himself to Pitt.
Page 84
These dismissals violated the most valuable of the
privileges of parliament, freedom of speech and GRENVILLE'S
immunity from royal coercion. It was a well-established ECONOMY.
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 £72,500,000 to
£132,700,000, 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
privileges of parliament, freedom of speech and GRENVILLE'S
immunity from royal coercion. It was a well-established ECONOMY.
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 £72,500,000 to
£132,700,000, 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
Page 85
police of London, and highway robbery and other crimes of violence were
insufficiently checked, and he even refused so small a sum as £20,000
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.
The freedom which they enjoyed did not extend to
commerce and manufactures. In those matters the policy RESTRICTIONS
ON COLONIAL
of Great Britain was founded on the "mercantile theory," TRADE.
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
insufficiently checked, and he even refused so small a sum as £20,000
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.
The freedom which they enjoyed did not extend to
commerce and manufactures. In those matters the policy RESTRICTIONS
ON COLONIAL
of Great Britain was founded on the "mercantile theory," TRADE.
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
Page 86
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.
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.
Page 87
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 £7,000 to £8,000 a year and did not bring in quite £2,000. 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.
A system which cramped the trade and industry of a self-
reliant people, growing in wealth and intent on gain, for ENGLAND AND
HER COLONIES.
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
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 £7,000 to £8,000 a year and did not bring in quite £2,000. 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.
A system which cramped the trade and industry of a self-
reliant people, growing in wealth and intent on gain, for ENGLAND AND
HER COLONIES.
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
Page 88
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,
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,
Page 89
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.
The provincials disliked the idea of a standing army, and
would have preferred that their defence should have THE STAMP ACT
been left to themselves. That was impossible. They were PROPOSED.
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 £350,000 a year. Of this sum the proposed stamp
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.
The provincials disliked the idea of a standing army, and
would have preferred that their defence should have THE STAMP ACT
been left to themselves. That was impossible. They were PROPOSED.
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 £350,000 a year. Of this sum the proposed stamp
Page 90
act would, it was calculated, bring in about £100,000. 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 Barré opposed the bill, and
Barré, 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.
The stamp act raised a storm of indignation in the
American colonies. Some of them, and especially the AMERICAN
RESISTANCE.
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
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 Barré opposed the bill, and
Barré, 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.
The stamp act raised a storm of indignation in the
American colonies. Some of them, and especially the AMERICAN
RESISTANCE.
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
Page 91
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 Barré'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
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 Barré'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
Page 92
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
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
Page 93
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.
That the tax was reasonable in intention, equitable in
incidence, and in itself tolerable, few probably will now UNSTATESMANLI
deny. Nor will any one surely deny that the act was KE POLICY.
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
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.
That the tax was reasonable in intention, equitable in
incidence, and in itself tolerable, few probably will now UNSTATESMANLI
deny. Nor will any one surely deny that the act was KE POLICY.
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
Page 94
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 £70,000, 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.
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 £70,000, 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.
Page 95
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.
Early in 1765 the king had a severe illness and showed
signs of the insanity from which he suffered later. He THE REGENCY
BILL.
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
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.
Early in 1765 the king had a severe illness and showed
signs of the insanity from which he suffered later. He THE REGENCY
BILL.
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
Page 96
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,
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,
Page 97
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]
On Pitt's refusal to take office, Cumberland tried Lord
Lyttelton and Charles Townshend, but they declined the THE FIRST
ROCKINGHAM
king's offer because they believed that no strong MINISTRY.
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
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]
On Pitt's refusal to take office, Cumberland tried Lord
Lyttelton and Charles Townshend, but they declined the THE FIRST
ROCKINGHAM
king's offer because they believed that no strong MINISTRY.
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
Page 98
word, and that Bute never again offered him any advice.[71] He had
promised Mackenzie his office for life, and declared "that he should
disgrace himself" if he took it from him. Nevertheless Grenville forced him
to give way. His relations with his ministers were naturally strained; they
complained that he did not support them, and on one occasion Bedford
remonstrated with him in insolent terms. Again George requested
Cumberland to treat with Pitt, who had two interviews with the king and
was anxious to accept his offer, but Temple peremptorily refused to take
any office, even the treasury, and Pitt with deep regret again followed his
lead. The king found no way of escape, save by authorising Cumberland to
turn to the great whig families. Grenville was dismissed, and an
administration formed under the leadership of the Marquis of Rockingham
took office on July 16. It must have been a bitter humiliation to George
after all that had passed. Yet, though for the moment he was defeated, he
did not mean to give over the rule of his kingdom to the whigs, and for the
present anything was better than Grenville's tyranny. George respected his
character, but said he, "I would rather see the devil in my closet than Mr.
Grenville".
The weakness of the Rockingham administration was patent from the first.
Charles Townshend, who succeeded Holland as paymaster, called it "a
lutestring ministry, fit only for summer wear"; Pitt was expected to supply
one of more durable material before the winter. The old phalanx of the
whigs, tried hands at political business, was broken up by death and
desertion; their successors lacked experience and authority. Rockingham, a
man of thirty-five, a prominent figure on the turf, of vast wealth and
irreproachable character, was a wretched speaker, and had neither genius,
knowledge, nor industry. The Duke of Grafton, the secretary of state for the
northern department, was even younger, and, like Rockingham, a great
racing man. His public spirit made him a politician, but he cared so much
more for pleasure than for politics that he was apt to be content so long as
any immediate difficulty was tided over, and he suffered in public
estimation from the scandal caused by his dissolute life. The southern
department was taken by Conway. Dowdeswell, the chancellor of the
exchequer, was a sound financier, but a dull man. Newcastle, who was privy
seal and again had charge of church patronage, was no longer so powerful
as in earlier days. Nor were the ministers unanimous in feeling. Grafton was
promised Mackenzie his office for life, and declared "that he should
disgrace himself" if he took it from him. Nevertheless Grenville forced him
to give way. His relations with his ministers were naturally strained; they
complained that he did not support them, and on one occasion Bedford
remonstrated with him in insolent terms. Again George requested
Cumberland to treat with Pitt, who had two interviews with the king and
was anxious to accept his offer, but Temple peremptorily refused to take
any office, even the treasury, and Pitt with deep regret again followed his
lead. The king found no way of escape, save by authorising Cumberland to
turn to the great whig families. Grenville was dismissed, and an
administration formed under the leadership of the Marquis of Rockingham
took office on July 16. It must have been a bitter humiliation to George
after all that had passed. Yet, though for the moment he was defeated, he
did not mean to give over the rule of his kingdom to the whigs, and for the
present anything was better than Grenville's tyranny. George respected his
character, but said he, "I would rather see the devil in my closet than Mr.
Grenville".
The weakness of the Rockingham administration was patent from the first.
Charles Townshend, who succeeded Holland as paymaster, called it "a
lutestring ministry, fit only for summer wear"; Pitt was expected to supply
one of more durable material before the winter. The old phalanx of the
whigs, tried hands at political business, was broken up by death and
desertion; their successors lacked experience and authority. Rockingham, a
man of thirty-five, a prominent figure on the turf, of vast wealth and
irreproachable character, was a wretched speaker, and had neither genius,
knowledge, nor industry. The Duke of Grafton, the secretary of state for the
northern department, was even younger, and, like Rockingham, a great
racing man. His public spirit made him a politician, but he cared so much
more for pleasure than for politics that he was apt to be content so long as
any immediate difficulty was tided over, and he suffered in public
estimation from the scandal caused by his dissolute life. The southern
department was taken by Conway. Dowdeswell, the chancellor of the
exchequer, was a sound financier, but a dull man. Newcastle, who was privy
seal and again had charge of church patronage, was no longer so powerful
as in earlier days. Nor were the ministers unanimous in feeling. Grafton was
Page 99
far more at one with Pitt than with the Rockingham party; and the
chancellor (Henley) Lord Northington, Egmont the first lord of the
admiralty, and Barrington the secretary-at-war were included to please the
king. Another cause of weakness was George's notorious dislike of his new
ministers, which encouraged his "friends," the court party, to intrigue
against them.
Most serious of all was the attitude of Pitt. He was
pressed to join the government; its policy was in many PITT ON
respects such as he could approve, and in other matters COLONIAL
TAXATION.
he could almost have made his own terms. Nevertheless
he refused to take office and openly declared his lack of confidence in the
ministers, though they tried to satisfy him in various ways, such as by
obtaining a peerage for Pratt, who was created Baron Camden. Magnificent
as he had shown himself as a dictator, he was unfitted by temperament to
work with others, and his natural defects were aggravated by his constant
attacks of gout. At the same time his present attitude was to a large extent
also a matter of principle. He would willingly have taken office if he could
have simply been the king's minister, unconnected, without belonging to
any party. The Rockinghams, as they were called, were a party connexion,
and under Rockingham's leadership would remain so, and their character
was emphasised by the inclusion of Newcastle, the chief representative of a
system which Pitt hated, government based on the influence of the whig
houses and not on the good-will of the crown and the people. Pitt plainly
declared that he would not sit at council with Newcastle. Nor would he take
office under Rockingham. Without him the ministry had neither an original
policy nor a chance of permanence. Called into existence by Cumberland, it
leant on him for support; he was present at all cabinet meetings, and they
were sometimes held at his house. His sudden death on October 31 was a
severe shock to the stability of the government. Pitt would not advise the
ministers. Grafton urged that he should again be invited to take office, but
the king would not enter on a fresh negotiation with him, for he had refused
his former overtures and held very different views from his regarding the
American stamp act.
For months the ministers paid no heed to American discontent, save that
Conway wrote rather feebly to some of the colonial governors with
reference to the disorders. Parliament was not summoned until December
chancellor (Henley) Lord Northington, Egmont the first lord of the
admiralty, and Barrington the secretary-at-war were included to please the
king. Another cause of weakness was George's notorious dislike of his new
ministers, which encouraged his "friends," the court party, to intrigue
against them.
Most serious of all was the attitude of Pitt. He was
pressed to join the government; its policy was in many PITT ON
respects such as he could approve, and in other matters COLONIAL
TAXATION.
he could almost have made his own terms. Nevertheless
he refused to take office and openly declared his lack of confidence in the
ministers, though they tried to satisfy him in various ways, such as by
obtaining a peerage for Pratt, who was created Baron Camden. Magnificent
as he had shown himself as a dictator, he was unfitted by temperament to
work with others, and his natural defects were aggravated by his constant
attacks of gout. At the same time his present attitude was to a large extent
also a matter of principle. He would willingly have taken office if he could
have simply been the king's minister, unconnected, without belonging to
any party. The Rockinghams, as they were called, were a party connexion,
and under Rockingham's leadership would remain so, and their character
was emphasised by the inclusion of Newcastle, the chief representative of a
system which Pitt hated, government based on the influence of the whig
houses and not on the good-will of the crown and the people. Pitt plainly
declared that he would not sit at council with Newcastle. Nor would he take
office under Rockingham. Without him the ministry had neither an original
policy nor a chance of permanence. Called into existence by Cumberland, it
leant on him for support; he was present at all cabinet meetings, and they
were sometimes held at his house. His sudden death on October 31 was a
severe shock to the stability of the government. Pitt would not advise the
ministers. Grafton urged that he should again be invited to take office, but
the king would not enter on a fresh negotiation with him, for he had refused
his former overtures and held very different views from his regarding the
American stamp act.
For months the ministers paid no heed to American discontent, save that
Conway wrote rather feebly to some of the colonial governors with
reference to the disorders. Parliament was not summoned until December
Page 100
17, and though the king's speech directed attention to the late occurrences in
the colonies, the ministers had not decided on a policy. They ascertained
Pitt's opinion, and so gained a lead. When parliament assembled in January,
1766, after the recess, Pitt spoke warmly against any attempt to enforce the
stamp act. He avowed his distrust of the government in a characteristic
fashion: "Pardon me, gentlemen," said he, bowing towards the ministers,
"confidence is a plant of slow growth in an aged bosom; youth is the season
of credulity". He thought that he saw "traces of an overruling influence," a
dark saying which probably referred to Newcastle.[72] While he asserted the
sovereignty of Great Britain over the colonies in legislation, he maintained
that parliament had no right to tax them; taxation, according to him, was
"no part of the governing or legislative power". He regarded the tax as an
infringement of constitutional liberty, and rejoiced that the Americans had
resisted it. Such a matter, he urged, was not to be decided by text-books; he
had not come down to the house "armed with the statute-book, doubled
down with dog's-ears, to defend the cause of liberty". America might be
crushed, but if she fell, she would fall like Samson, embracing and pulling
down the pillars of the state, the constitution, along with her. Let them bind
her commerce and restrict her manufactures, but abstain from demanding
money without the consent of her people. His words had a great effect; they
put enforcement out of the question.
A few days later Edmund Burke made his first speech in parliament,
recommending the house to receive a petition from the colonies, and was at
once recognised as a new power. He was an Irishman, and was already
known as a writer. He became Rockingham's secretary in 1765, and a seat
was provided for him. Unsurpassed in his mastery of English prose, he
exhibits to the full the splendour of the English language in his speeches
and pamphlets. Nor is his thought unworthy of the gorgeous attire with
which it is invested. His power and constant habit of discerning and
expounding the principles which were involved in questions of the moment,
give him a supreme place as a teacher of political wisdom. In character he
was pure, generous, and tender-hearted. His fervid imagination extended the
area of his sympathies, and sometimes prejudiced his opinions. As a speaker
he was eloquent, and now and again carried his audience completely with
him, but he never caught the tone of the house of commons; his longer
speeches were too much of the nature of exhaustive treatises to be
the colonies, the ministers had not decided on a policy. They ascertained
Pitt's opinion, and so gained a lead. When parliament assembled in January,
1766, after the recess, Pitt spoke warmly against any attempt to enforce the
stamp act. He avowed his distrust of the government in a characteristic
fashion: "Pardon me, gentlemen," said he, bowing towards the ministers,
"confidence is a plant of slow growth in an aged bosom; youth is the season
of credulity". He thought that he saw "traces of an overruling influence," a
dark saying which probably referred to Newcastle.[72] While he asserted the
sovereignty of Great Britain over the colonies in legislation, he maintained
that parliament had no right to tax them; taxation, according to him, was
"no part of the governing or legislative power". He regarded the tax as an
infringement of constitutional liberty, and rejoiced that the Americans had
resisted it. Such a matter, he urged, was not to be decided by text-books; he
had not come down to the house "armed with the statute-book, doubled
down with dog's-ears, to defend the cause of liberty". America might be
crushed, but if she fell, she would fall like Samson, embracing and pulling
down the pillars of the state, the constitution, along with her. Let them bind
her commerce and restrict her manufactures, but abstain from demanding
money without the consent of her people. His words had a great effect; they
put enforcement out of the question.
A few days later Edmund Burke made his first speech in parliament,
recommending the house to receive a petition from the colonies, and was at
once recognised as a new power. He was an Irishman, and was already
known as a writer. He became Rockingham's secretary in 1765, and a seat
was provided for him. Unsurpassed in his mastery of English prose, he
exhibits to the full the splendour of the English language in his speeches
and pamphlets. Nor is his thought unworthy of the gorgeous attire with
which it is invested. His power and constant habit of discerning and
expounding the principles which were involved in questions of the moment,
give him a supreme place as a teacher of political wisdom. In character he
was pure, generous, and tender-hearted. His fervid imagination extended the
area of his sympathies, and sometimes prejudiced his opinions. As a speaker
he was eloquent, and now and again carried his audience completely with
him, but he never caught the tone of the house of commons; his longer
speeches were too much of the nature of exhaustive treatises to be
Page 101
acceptable to its members; he had little tact, an impatient temper, and often
spoke with execrable taste. The chief article in his political creed was his
belief in the excellence of the constitution. He was an ardent reformer of
abuses, but with the constitution itself he would have no meddling. Unlike
Pitt, he saw that the only effectual check to corrupt influence was to be
found in government by a party united for the promotion of national
interests upon some common principle. Such a party might, he believed, be
based on the whig families, if only they would keep themselves free from
court intrigue and selfish jealousies. He was a whig of a different type from
Newcastle and Bedford; he built his hopes on the Rockinghams and
inspired their policy. That he never sat in a cabinet was chiefly because in
those days such a distinction was confined to men of higher birth.
Decided action with regard to America was a pressing
necessity. The measures of retaliation adopted by the REPEAL OF THE
colonists were depressing trade at home. Petitions STAMP ACT.
against the stamp act were presented from the merchants of London,
Liverpool, Glasgow, and other towns, setting forth the loss inflicted on
manufacturers and their work-people by the stoppage of the American trade,
and the difficulties arising from the non-payment of debts due from
America, which amounted to £4,000,000. The ministers resolved on the
repeal of the act, and on a bill declaring the right of parliament to legislate
for the colonies on all matters whatsoever. Some of the king's household
having voted against the government, Rockingham went to the king to
remonstrate with him. George told him that he was for repeal, and that
Rockingham might say so. Two days later the ministers heard that Lord
Strange, one of the court party, was saying that the king was against repeal,
and wished it to be known. This made a great stir, and the "ministerial lives
were thought not worth three days' purchase". Rockingham went to the king
for an explanation. George acknowledged that he had told him that he was
for repeal, but said that they had been speaking only of the choice between
the repeal and the enforcement of the act, that of the two he was for repeal,
but that he desired that the act should be modified and not repealed. The
ministers had therefore "to carry on a great public measure against the
king's declared sentiments, and with a great number of his servants acting
against them".[73] Nevertheless the bill for the repeal of the act was carried
in the commons on March 11 by 275 votes to 167, and a week later in the
spoke with execrable taste. The chief article in his political creed was his
belief in the excellence of the constitution. He was an ardent reformer of
abuses, but with the constitution itself he would have no meddling. Unlike
Pitt, he saw that the only effectual check to corrupt influence was to be
found in government by a party united for the promotion of national
interests upon some common principle. Such a party might, he believed, be
based on the whig families, if only they would keep themselves free from
court intrigue and selfish jealousies. He was a whig of a different type from
Newcastle and Bedford; he built his hopes on the Rockinghams and
inspired their policy. That he never sat in a cabinet was chiefly because in
those days such a distinction was confined to men of higher birth.
Decided action with regard to America was a pressing
necessity. The measures of retaliation adopted by the REPEAL OF THE
colonists were depressing trade at home. Petitions STAMP ACT.
against the stamp act were presented from the merchants of London,
Liverpool, Glasgow, and other towns, setting forth the loss inflicted on
manufacturers and their work-people by the stoppage of the American trade,
and the difficulties arising from the non-payment of debts due from
America, which amounted to £4,000,000. The ministers resolved on the
repeal of the act, and on a bill declaring the right of parliament to legislate
for the colonies on all matters whatsoever. Some of the king's household
having voted against the government, Rockingham went to the king to
remonstrate with him. George told him that he was for repeal, and that
Rockingham might say so. Two days later the ministers heard that Lord
Strange, one of the court party, was saying that the king was against repeal,
and wished it to be known. This made a great stir, and the "ministerial lives
were thought not worth three days' purchase". Rockingham went to the king
for an explanation. George acknowledged that he had told him that he was
for repeal, but said that they had been speaking only of the choice between
the repeal and the enforcement of the act, that of the two he was for repeal,
but that he desired that the act should be modified and not repealed. The
ministers had therefore "to carry on a great public measure against the
king's declared sentiments, and with a great number of his servants acting
against them".[73] Nevertheless the bill for the repeal of the act was carried
in the commons on March 11 by 275 votes to 167, and a week later in the
Page 102
lords by 105 to 71. It was a signal victory; but, apart from the interests of
commerce, it was due rather to Pitt than to the government. The declaratory
bill also passed; its chief opponents being Pitt and, in the upper house, Lord
Camden, who on this question, as well as on that of repeal, talked much
trash about a fundamental law of nature and the limits of the power of
parliament, more in place in the mouth of an American demagogue than of
an English judge. An address was also carried recommending that the
colonial governors should be instructed to require compensation to be made
to those who had suffered during the late disturbances.
Both in England and America the repeal of the stamp act was hailed with
rejoicing. American discontent was hushed, and the public manifestations of
gladness were accompanied by expressions of loyalty and affection for the
mother-country. The colonists, however, knew that they had won a victory
over parliament, and they did not forget it. Their substantial grievance, the
commercial regulations, still remained; they soon saw that they must go
further, and that Pitt's distinction between a direct money-tax and duties on
merchandise, though it had served their immediate purpose, would no
longer be useful. The declaratory act was regarded as a menace, and kept
alive their feelings of suspicion and irritation. Their temper was shown by
the delay of many of the colonies to vote the required compensation. In
Massachusetts, where the vote was passed in December, it was insolently
accompanied by a vote of indemnity to all concerned in the riots. The repeal
of the stamp act needs no defence; a mistake had been made which was
leading to serious consequences, and in such a case it is a statesmanlike
policy to retrace the false step. The declaratory act was passed to save the
dignity of parliament. In spite of Burke's admiration for this act, it may be
suggested that the assertion of a right by a party which at the same time
declines to enforce it, is neither a dignified nor a wise proceeding. Its only,
and sufficient defence is that without it the repeal of the tax would have
been impossible. The Americans' denial of the right of parliament,
accompanied as it was by violence of word and action, roused much
indignation in England and involved every supporter of the repeal in the
imputation of betraying its dignity. If repeal was to be carried it was
necessary to satisfy men's minds by a declaration of the right of parliament
to tax the colonies.
commerce, it was due rather to Pitt than to the government. The declaratory
bill also passed; its chief opponents being Pitt and, in the upper house, Lord
Camden, who on this question, as well as on that of repeal, talked much
trash about a fundamental law of nature and the limits of the power of
parliament, more in place in the mouth of an American demagogue than of
an English judge. An address was also carried recommending that the
colonial governors should be instructed to require compensation to be made
to those who had suffered during the late disturbances.
Both in England and America the repeal of the stamp act was hailed with
rejoicing. American discontent was hushed, and the public manifestations of
gladness were accompanied by expressions of loyalty and affection for the
mother-country. The colonists, however, knew that they had won a victory
over parliament, and they did not forget it. Their substantial grievance, the
commercial regulations, still remained; they soon saw that they must go
further, and that Pitt's distinction between a direct money-tax and duties on
merchandise, though it had served their immediate purpose, would no
longer be useful. The declaratory act was regarded as a menace, and kept
alive their feelings of suspicion and irritation. Their temper was shown by
the delay of many of the colonies to vote the required compensation. In
Massachusetts, where the vote was passed in December, it was insolently
accompanied by a vote of indemnity to all concerned in the riots. The repeal
of the stamp act needs no defence; a mistake had been made which was
leading to serious consequences, and in such a case it is a statesmanlike
policy to retrace the false step. The declaratory act was passed to save the
dignity of parliament. In spite of Burke's admiration for this act, it may be
suggested that the assertion of a right by a party which at the same time
declines to enforce it, is neither a dignified nor a wise proceeding. Its only,
and sufficient defence is that without it the repeal of the tax would have
been impossible. The Americans' denial of the right of parliament,
accompanied as it was by violence of word and action, roused much
indignation in England and involved every supporter of the repeal in the
imputation of betraying its dignity. If repeal was to be carried it was
necessary to satisfy men's minds by a declaration of the right of parliament
to tax the colonies.
Page 103
Some good work was done in other directions; the cider-
tax was repealed, a commercial treaty was made with THE CHATHAM
MINISTRY.
Russia, and the house of commons came into agreement
with the judges on the question of general warrants by resolving that
general warrants being illegal, except in the cases provided for by act of
parliament, the arrest of any of its members on such a warrant would be a
breach of privilege. The administration, however, was enfeebled by the
unconcealed dislike of the king, the hostility of Pitt, and the general belief
that it was keeping him out of office. Pitt was extremely anxious for office,
but would not accept it unless a "transposition of offices" was made; unless,
in fact, Rockingham was got rid of. To this Rockingham would not consent;
he wanted Pitt to take office as his ally, not as his successor. There were
differences in the cabinet on the matter. The king's section wished to gain
Pitt for their master; Rockingham was upheld by his friends; Grafton
wanted Pitt as prime minister, and Conway, though less decided, agreed
with him. Pitt became querulous and unreasonable, and in April violently
attacked the ministers, specially excepting Grafton and Conway.[74] All
attempts at negotiation having failed, Grafton made his choice for Pitt and
resigned office. It was not easy to fill his place, for the ministry was
regarded as moribund, and finally the king was forced to give the seals to
Rockingham's friend, the young Duke of Richmond. The chancellor,
Northington, a strong supporter of the king, saw that the end was not far off,
and apparently determined to make sure of a place in the next
administration by sacrificing his colleagues. He quarrelled with them in the
cabinet on a question relating to the administration of law in Canada, and
early in July told the king that he must resign office, and that the ministry
was too weak to go on. George eagerly seized the opportunity for getting rid
of it and replacing it by a more comprehensive ministry with Pitt at its head.
The difficulties which had stood in Pitt's way were removed; the American
question seemed to be settled; he had made it known that he would not
again be guided by Temple, and he was delighted to be the king's minister,
avowing his determination "to defend the closet against every contending
party"—against, that is, the great whig houses and their connexions.
The satisfaction consequent on Pitt's accession to power faded at the news
that he had accepted a peerage as Earl of Chatham. It was unjustly
considered as a bribe, and lost him much of his popularity. A more serious
tax was repealed, a commercial treaty was made with THE CHATHAM
MINISTRY.
Russia, and the house of commons came into agreement
with the judges on the question of general warrants by resolving that
general warrants being illegal, except in the cases provided for by act of
parliament, the arrest of any of its members on such a warrant would be a
breach of privilege. The administration, however, was enfeebled by the
unconcealed dislike of the king, the hostility of Pitt, and the general belief
that it was keeping him out of office. Pitt was extremely anxious for office,
but would not accept it unless a "transposition of offices" was made; unless,
in fact, Rockingham was got rid of. To this Rockingham would not consent;
he wanted Pitt to take office as his ally, not as his successor. There were
differences in the cabinet on the matter. The king's section wished to gain
Pitt for their master; Rockingham was upheld by his friends; Grafton
wanted Pitt as prime minister, and Conway, though less decided, agreed
with him. Pitt became querulous and unreasonable, and in April violently
attacked the ministers, specially excepting Grafton and Conway.[74] All
attempts at negotiation having failed, Grafton made his choice for Pitt and
resigned office. It was not easy to fill his place, for the ministry was
regarded as moribund, and finally the king was forced to give the seals to
Rockingham's friend, the young Duke of Richmond. The chancellor,
Northington, a strong supporter of the king, saw that the end was not far off,
and apparently determined to make sure of a place in the next
administration by sacrificing his colleagues. He quarrelled with them in the
cabinet on a question relating to the administration of law in Canada, and
early in July told the king that he must resign office, and that the ministry
was too weak to go on. George eagerly seized the opportunity for getting rid
of it and replacing it by a more comprehensive ministry with Pitt at its head.
The difficulties which had stood in Pitt's way were removed; the American
question seemed to be settled; he had made it known that he would not
again be guided by Temple, and he was delighted to be the king's minister,
avowing his determination "to defend the closet against every contending
party"—against, that is, the great whig houses and their connexions.
The satisfaction consequent on Pitt's accession to power faded at the news
that he had accepted a peerage as Earl of Chatham. It was unjustly
considered as a bribe, and lost him much of his popularity. A more serious
Page 104
consequence was that it left the leadership of the house of commons to
weaker hands. Though prime minister, he took for himself the unimportant
office of privy seal. His course was probably determined by a consciousness
of failing health. Conway became northern secretary of state, with the
leadership of the commons, and Shelburne secretary for the southern
department. In spite of Temple's opposition to the repeal of the stamp act,
Pitt offered him the treasury, but that vain man would not enter the cabinet
except as Pitt's equal, and a quarrel ensued between them. The treasury was
then accepted by Grafton; and, unfortunately, by his advice, Charles
Townshend was made chancellor of the exchequer. Camden was appointed
chancellor, Northington president of the council, and they, with Granby as
commander-in-chief, and Sir Charles Saunders, who succeeded Egmont at
the admiralty, completed the cabinet. Besides Conway and Saunders, some
other Rockinghams had inferior offices, but Rockingham himself and most
of his party considered that Chatham had treated them badly, and repelled
his advances. The ministry was unfortunate in being represented in the
house of commons by the irresolute Conway and the unprincipled
Townshend. Worse still, Chatham, whose arrogance increased with his
disease, alienated adherents, and treated his colleagues with reserve and
disdain.
Chatham at once pursued the foreign policy which he had consistently
recommended by seeking a continental alliance to counterbalance the
alliance of the Bourbon powers. The family compact did not lose its
importance at the peace of Paris. Choiseul in France and Grimaldi, who
succeeded Wall in Spain, worked together heartily in promoting a Bourbon
policy, and looked forward to the reconquest of the lost possessions of
France and Spain. The allies were strengthened by the good-will of Austria.
Schemes of aggrandisement were formed, which included the acquisition of
Corsica by France and of Portugal by Spain. There were unsettled causes of
dispute between them and England touching the fortification of Dunkirk
and the Manila ransom, and Spain was also aggrieved by a British
settlement in the Falkland islands. Against France the natural ally of
England was Russia, for she had a strong interest in opposing French
influence in Denmark and Sweden; while on the side of England a Russian
alliance would, in the event of war, secure her Baltic trade and enable her
fleet to act elsewhere, and would be a defence for Hanover. An alliance with
weaker hands. Though prime minister, he took for himself the unimportant
office of privy seal. His course was probably determined by a consciousness
of failing health. Conway became northern secretary of state, with the
leadership of the commons, and Shelburne secretary for the southern
department. In spite of Temple's opposition to the repeal of the stamp act,
Pitt offered him the treasury, but that vain man would not enter the cabinet
except as Pitt's equal, and a quarrel ensued between them. The treasury was
then accepted by Grafton; and, unfortunately, by his advice, Charles
Townshend was made chancellor of the exchequer. Camden was appointed
chancellor, Northington president of the council, and they, with Granby as
commander-in-chief, and Sir Charles Saunders, who succeeded Egmont at
the admiralty, completed the cabinet. Besides Conway and Saunders, some
other Rockinghams had inferior offices, but Rockingham himself and most
of his party considered that Chatham had treated them badly, and repelled
his advances. The ministry was unfortunate in being represented in the
house of commons by the irresolute Conway and the unprincipled
Townshend. Worse still, Chatham, whose arrogance increased with his
disease, alienated adherents, and treated his colleagues with reserve and
disdain.
Chatham at once pursued the foreign policy which he had consistently
recommended by seeking a continental alliance to counterbalance the
alliance of the Bourbon powers. The family compact did not lose its
importance at the peace of Paris. Choiseul in France and Grimaldi, who
succeeded Wall in Spain, worked together heartily in promoting a Bourbon
policy, and looked forward to the reconquest of the lost possessions of
France and Spain. The allies were strengthened by the good-will of Austria.
Schemes of aggrandisement were formed, which included the acquisition of
Corsica by France and of Portugal by Spain. There were unsettled causes of
dispute between them and England touching the fortification of Dunkirk
and the Manila ransom, and Spain was also aggrieved by a British
settlement in the Falkland islands. Against France the natural ally of
England was Russia, for she had a strong interest in opposing French
influence in Denmark and Sweden; while on the side of England a Russian
alliance would, in the event of war, secure her Baltic trade and enable her
fleet to act elsewhere, and would be a defence for Hanover. An alliance with
Page 105
Russia had already been discussed, but Catherine II. had far less interest in
the matter than England, and insisted that any alliance should include her
Turkish war, to which England would not consent. Catherine was in alliance
with Frederick of Prussia, and Chatham, hoping that the adhesion of
England would be welcomed, designed a defensive alliance between Great
Britain, Prussia, and Russia, which might take in Denmark, Sweden, the
States-General, and any other power interested in withstanding Bourbon
aggrandisement. To Catherine her alliance with Prussia was much more
important than anything which she could obtain from England, and
Chatham's design therefore depended on Frederick's good-will. He declined
the proposal of Great Britain: he had not forgiven the ill-treatment which he
believed he had received from Bute; he admired Chatham, but had no
assurance that he would remain in power; and he considered any possible
danger to himself from the Bourbon alliance to be too remote to make it
advisable for him to join in a concert to prevent it. He was already
meditating the partition of Poland, and the proposed combination would
have been contrary to his policy. Chatham's great design was consequently
defeated.
His arbitrary temper soon brought him into difficulties.
He desired to reward a new adherent with the office of CHATHAM'S
treasurer of the household, then held by Lord Edgcumbe, DIFFICULTIES.
and on Edgcumbe's refusal to vacate the office, he deprived him of it.
Edgcumbe was connected with the Rockingham party, and, with the
exception of Conway, all the more important members of it who had joined
the new ministry, the Duke of Portland, Saunders, and others, resigned
office. Conway was almost persuaded to follow their example, for Chatham
treated him with haughty coldness, but he yielded to the urgent advice of his
friend Horace Walpole, and remained in the ministry, uneasy and
vacillating. Any alliance with the Rockinghams being out of the question,
Chatham was driven to make overtures to the Bedford party, which failed
because they asked more than he would grant. Finally, Saunders's place at
the admiralty was supplied by the famous admiral, Sir Edward Hawke, and
the other vacancies were filled by tories and courtiers.
The harvest of 1765 was bad, and that of the present year promised to be no
better. The price of wheat rose rapidly, and in July reached 44s. a quarter.
The poor were distressed, worse times seemed to be ahead, and the dealers
the matter than England, and insisted that any alliance should include her
Turkish war, to which England would not consent. Catherine was in alliance
with Frederick of Prussia, and Chatham, hoping that the adhesion of
England would be welcomed, designed a defensive alliance between Great
Britain, Prussia, and Russia, which might take in Denmark, Sweden, the
States-General, and any other power interested in withstanding Bourbon
aggrandisement. To Catherine her alliance with Prussia was much more
important than anything which she could obtain from England, and
Chatham's design therefore depended on Frederick's good-will. He declined
the proposal of Great Britain: he had not forgiven the ill-treatment which he
believed he had received from Bute; he admired Chatham, but had no
assurance that he would remain in power; and he considered any possible
danger to himself from the Bourbon alliance to be too remote to make it
advisable for him to join in a concert to prevent it. He was already
meditating the partition of Poland, and the proposed combination would
have been contrary to his policy. Chatham's great design was consequently
defeated.
His arbitrary temper soon brought him into difficulties.
He desired to reward a new adherent with the office of CHATHAM'S
treasurer of the household, then held by Lord Edgcumbe, DIFFICULTIES.
and on Edgcumbe's refusal to vacate the office, he deprived him of it.
Edgcumbe was connected with the Rockingham party, and, with the
exception of Conway, all the more important members of it who had joined
the new ministry, the Duke of Portland, Saunders, and others, resigned
office. Conway was almost persuaded to follow their example, for Chatham
treated him with haughty coldness, but he yielded to the urgent advice of his
friend Horace Walpole, and remained in the ministry, uneasy and
vacillating. Any alliance with the Rockinghams being out of the question,
Chatham was driven to make overtures to the Bedford party, which failed
because they asked more than he would grant. Finally, Saunders's place at
the admiralty was supplied by the famous admiral, Sir Edward Hawke, and
the other vacancies were filled by tories and courtiers.
The harvest of 1765 was bad, and that of the present year promised to be no
better. The price of wheat rose rapidly, and in July reached 44s. a quarter.
The poor were distressed, worse times seemed to be ahead, and the dealers
Page 106
were believed to be keeping back supplies in the expectation of higher
prices. Riots of a more or less serious character broke out in some fifty
places; bakers' shops were pillaged, mills and barns were fired, and dealers
and tradesmen were forced to sell provisions at prices fixed by the people.
It was not until September 10, when wheat had again risen, that the
ministers, in accordance with the economic ideas of the time, issued a
proclamation against forestalling and engrossing. It had no effect; the price
reached 49s., and on the 26th the council laid an embargo on exportation.
By law the ministers had no right to take such a step until wheat was at 53s.
4d. As, however, prices were rising, all parties agreed that the embargo was
in itself a justifiable measure. It was, however, objected that the ministers
should have summoned parliament to meet at an earlier date, and have acted
with its authority. When parliament met on November 11, the opposition
insisted that the ministers needed a bill of indemnity for having set aside the
law by a proclamation of council. Chatham defended their action on the
constitutional ground of necessity. His colleagues and supporters were not
all equally wise. Northington declared that the proclamation was legally, as
well as morally, justifiable; and the chancellor, Camden, the assertor of
popular liberties, that "it was at most a forty days' tyranny". His foolish
speech was severely handled by Mansfield. In the commons Alderman
Beckford, a hot-headed admirer of Chatham, said that "if the public was in
danger the king had a dispensing power," and was forced by Grenville to
retract his words. The debates on this matter injured the reputation of the
ministry though they did not endanger its stability.
When parliament rose in December Chatham went to
Bath for the sake of his health. In February, 1767, he had REVOLT IN
a severe attack of gout, and in March the disease began BENGAL.
to affect his mental powers. For the next two years he was unable to take
any part in politics. His effacement left the ministry without a head. Before
his retirement a difference arose in the cabinet on the affairs of the East
India Company. From a simple trading company it had been raised by the
victories of Clive and his generals to the position of a territorial power. Its
affairs were managed by a court of directors elected annually, and
consequently under the control of the court of proprietors in which every
holder of £500 stock had a vote. It proved itself unequal to its new position.
Clive returned to England in 1760, the possessor of a princely fortune, and
prices. Riots of a more or less serious character broke out in some fifty
places; bakers' shops were pillaged, mills and barns were fired, and dealers
and tradesmen were forced to sell provisions at prices fixed by the people.
It was not until September 10, when wheat had again risen, that the
ministers, in accordance with the economic ideas of the time, issued a
proclamation against forestalling and engrossing. It had no effect; the price
reached 49s., and on the 26th the council laid an embargo on exportation.
By law the ministers had no right to take such a step until wheat was at 53s.
4d. As, however, prices were rising, all parties agreed that the embargo was
in itself a justifiable measure. It was, however, objected that the ministers
should have summoned parliament to meet at an earlier date, and have acted
with its authority. When parliament met on November 11, the opposition
insisted that the ministers needed a bill of indemnity for having set aside the
law by a proclamation of council. Chatham defended their action on the
constitutional ground of necessity. His colleagues and supporters were not
all equally wise. Northington declared that the proclamation was legally, as
well as morally, justifiable; and the chancellor, Camden, the assertor of
popular liberties, that "it was at most a forty days' tyranny". His foolish
speech was severely handled by Mansfield. In the commons Alderman
Beckford, a hot-headed admirer of Chatham, said that "if the public was in
danger the king had a dispensing power," and was forced by Grenville to
retract his words. The debates on this matter injured the reputation of the
ministry though they did not endanger its stability.
When parliament rose in December Chatham went to
Bath for the sake of his health. In February, 1767, he had REVOLT IN
a severe attack of gout, and in March the disease began BENGAL.
to affect his mental powers. For the next two years he was unable to take
any part in politics. His effacement left the ministry without a head. Before
his retirement a difference arose in the cabinet on the affairs of the East
India Company. From a simple trading company it had been raised by the
victories of Clive and his generals to the position of a territorial power. Its
affairs were managed by a court of directors elected annually, and
consequently under the control of the court of proprietors in which every
holder of £500 stock had a vote. It proved itself unequal to its new position.
Clive returned to England in 1760, the possessor of a princely fortune, and
Page 107
in 1762 was created Baron Clive of Plassey in the Irish peerage. He was
opposed in the court of directors by a party headed by Sullivan. In India he
was succeeded by Vansittart, and there troubles soon arose, chiefly from the
greed of the company's servants. Mír Jafar, the Nawáb of Bengal, a self-
indulgent and unpopular ruler, was deposed by the council in 1761, and his
son-in-law, Mír Kásim, was made nawáb in his place. It was a profitable
business, for Mír Kásim spent £200,000 in presents to the council and
ceded to the company the revenues of three districts, amounting to some
£500,000 a year. Yet the exchange of nawábs proved an unwise step, for
Mír Kásim was able and active. He moved his court from Murshidábád to
Monghyr, at a greater distance from Calcutta, organised an army, and
showed that he was ready to resist oppression.
The revenues of the Indian princes were largely derived from tolls on the
transit of merchandise. The company, which had the right of free
exportation and importation, passed its goods free inland under the
certificate of the head of a factory. The system was abused. The company
paid its servants insufficient salaries, and they made up for it by engaging in
private inland trade, using the company's passes to cover their goods.
Armed with its power, they forced the natives to deal with their native
agents, to buy dear and sell cheap; they monopolised the trade in the
necessaries of life, and grew rich upon the miseries of the helpless people.
Private trade and extorted presents enabled many a man who as a mere
youth had obtained a writer's place to return to England after a few years
with a handsome income. Mír Kásim saw his people starving, his officers
ill-treated, and his treasury robbed, and prepared for revolt. Conscious of
the impending danger, Vansittart made an agreement with him as to tolls.
The council at Calcutta indignantly repudiated the agreement, and Mír
Kásim was furious. Open hostilities began in June, 1763. One of the
council, who was sent on an embassy to Kásim, was killed by his troops.
Patná was seized by the English; it was retaken, and some 200 English were
made prisoners. A little army under Major Adams, routed the nawáb's
forces, and on October 11 Monghyr was taken. Mír Kásim caused all his
prisoners, save five, to be massacred, and fled for refuge to Shujá-ud-Daulá
the nawáb wazír of Oudh. Patná was taken by storm and Bengal was
completely subdued.
opposed in the court of directors by a party headed by Sullivan. In India he
was succeeded by Vansittart, and there troubles soon arose, chiefly from the
greed of the company's servants. Mír Jafar, the Nawáb of Bengal, a self-
indulgent and unpopular ruler, was deposed by the council in 1761, and his
son-in-law, Mír Kásim, was made nawáb in his place. It was a profitable
business, for Mír Kásim spent £200,000 in presents to the council and
ceded to the company the revenues of three districts, amounting to some
£500,000 a year. Yet the exchange of nawábs proved an unwise step, for
Mír Kásim was able and active. He moved his court from Murshidábád to
Monghyr, at a greater distance from Calcutta, organised an army, and
showed that he was ready to resist oppression.
The revenues of the Indian princes were largely derived from tolls on the
transit of merchandise. The company, which had the right of free
exportation and importation, passed its goods free inland under the
certificate of the head of a factory. The system was abused. The company
paid its servants insufficient salaries, and they made up for it by engaging in
private inland trade, using the company's passes to cover their goods.
Armed with its power, they forced the natives to deal with their native
agents, to buy dear and sell cheap; they monopolised the trade in the
necessaries of life, and grew rich upon the miseries of the helpless people.
Private trade and extorted presents enabled many a man who as a mere
youth had obtained a writer's place to return to England after a few years
with a handsome income. Mír Kásim saw his people starving, his officers
ill-treated, and his treasury robbed, and prepared for revolt. Conscious of
the impending danger, Vansittart made an agreement with him as to tolls.
The council at Calcutta indignantly repudiated the agreement, and Mír
Kásim was furious. Open hostilities began in June, 1763. One of the
council, who was sent on an embassy to Kásim, was killed by his troops.
Patná was seized by the English; it was retaken, and some 200 English were
made prisoners. A little army under Major Adams, routed the nawáb's
forces, and on October 11 Monghyr was taken. Mír Kásim caused all his
prisoners, save five, to be massacred, and fled for refuge to Shujá-ud-Daulá
the nawáb wazír of Oudh. Patná was taken by storm and Bengal was
completely subdued.
Page 108
Mír Jafar was again made nawáb, and paid large sums both to the company
and its servants as compensation for their losses. The war, however, was not
over, for the nawáb wazír espoused the cause of Mír Kásim, and, in
conjunction with the Mughal emperor, Sháh Alam, threatened Bengal.
Major Hector Munro took command of the British army, and found it in a
mutinous condition; desertions to the enemy were frequent. He captured a
large body of deserters, caused twenty-four of the ringleaders to be blown
from guns, and by his dauntless conduct restored discipline among the
troops. With about 7,000 men, of whom only some 1,000 were Europeans,
he inflicted a crushing defeat on the allied forces, 50,000 strong, at Baxár
on October 23, 1764. The enemy lost 6,000 men and 167 guns. Oudh lay at
the disposal of the English, and Sháh Alam sought refuge with the
conquerors. Early in 1765 Mír Jafar died, and the council at Calcutta,
without consulting the emperor, appointed his son to succeed him, receiving
in presents from him £139,357, besides money unaccounted for. These
revolutions and wars cost the company much money, and, while its servants
were enriching themselves, it incurred heavy debts. Clive was called upon
to put an end to the maladministration of Bengal. He refused to return to
India while Sullivan was chairman of the court of directors. After a sharp
contest, in which large sums were spent, the proprietors put his party in
power. He was invested with full authority as commander-in-chief and
governor of Bengal to act in conjunction with a select committee.
He landed in India in May, 1765. During his administration of about
eighteen months he secured for the company the virtual sovereignty over its
conquests without dispossessing the nominal rulers, and he took measures
for the reformation of the company's service. Averse from a forward policy
of conquest, he restored Oudh to the nawáb wazír on payment of £500,000.
Allahábád and Kora were assigned to the emperor, together with a tribute
from Bengal, and in return Sháh Alam granted to the company the right of
levying and administering the revenues of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa,
together with jurisdiction in the Northern Circars. The nawáb of Bengal
received an annual pension of £600,000, and surrendered all his power to
the company, except the right of criminal jurisdiction. Clive reorganised the
army, and stopped the double batta, or allowance, granted by Mír Jafar after
the battle of Plassey. He forbade illicit trade and the receipt of presents, and
secured the company's servants increased salaries. These reforms were
and its servants as compensation for their losses. The war, however, was not
over, for the nawáb wazír espoused the cause of Mír Kásim, and, in
conjunction with the Mughal emperor, Sháh Alam, threatened Bengal.
Major Hector Munro took command of the British army, and found it in a
mutinous condition; desertions to the enemy were frequent. He captured a
large body of deserters, caused twenty-four of the ringleaders to be blown
from guns, and by his dauntless conduct restored discipline among the
troops. With about 7,000 men, of whom only some 1,000 were Europeans,
he inflicted a crushing defeat on the allied forces, 50,000 strong, at Baxár
on October 23, 1764. The enemy lost 6,000 men and 167 guns. Oudh lay at
the disposal of the English, and Sháh Alam sought refuge with the
conquerors. Early in 1765 Mír Jafar died, and the council at Calcutta,
without consulting the emperor, appointed his son to succeed him, receiving
in presents from him £139,357, besides money unaccounted for. These
revolutions and wars cost the company much money, and, while its servants
were enriching themselves, it incurred heavy debts. Clive was called upon
to put an end to the maladministration of Bengal. He refused to return to
India while Sullivan was chairman of the court of directors. After a sharp
contest, in which large sums were spent, the proprietors put his party in
power. He was invested with full authority as commander-in-chief and
governor of Bengal to act in conjunction with a select committee.
He landed in India in May, 1765. During his administration of about
eighteen months he secured for the company the virtual sovereignty over its
conquests without dispossessing the nominal rulers, and he took measures
for the reformation of the company's service. Averse from a forward policy
of conquest, he restored Oudh to the nawáb wazír on payment of £500,000.
Allahábád and Kora were assigned to the emperor, together with a tribute
from Bengal, and in return Sháh Alam granted to the company the right of
levying and administering the revenues of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa,
together with jurisdiction in the Northern Circars. The nawáb of Bengal
received an annual pension of £600,000, and surrendered all his power to
the company, except the right of criminal jurisdiction. Clive reorganised the
army, and stopped the double batta, or allowance, granted by Mír Jafar after
the battle of Plassey. He forbade illicit trade and the receipt of presents, and
secured the company's servants increased salaries. These reforms were
Page 109
effected in the face of violent opposition, both in civil and military quarters.
Two hundred officers conspired to resign their commissions on the same
day. Clive faced the mutiny successfully; he cashiered the leaders and
accepted the submission of the younger men. Ill-health obliged him to
return to England in January, 1767.
The enormous private fortunes made in India led people
to believe that the company was far richer than it really AFFAIRS OF THE
was. During the late wars the dividend was 6 per cent. In EAST INDIA
COMPANY.
1766 the proprietors urged an increase. To this the
directors objected that the debts of the company were heavy, and that a
premature increase would raise the price of stock to a point at which it
could not be maintained, and might end in a disaster like that of the South
Sea Company. The ministers sent a message of warning, announcing that
the affairs of the company would probably be considered in parliament.
They concerned the public, for the company enjoyed protection and
privileges granted by the nation. Nevertheless the proprietors carried their
point, and a dividend of 10 per cent. was declared. Chatham held that the
time had come for parliament to inquire by what right the company
administered its territorial revenues. He considered that it had no right to its
new position of a virtually sovereign power, that the sovereignty of the
crown should be asserted, and that in return for the privileges which it
enjoyed it should contribute a portion of its revenues to the national
treasury. The company should apply to parliament to make good its
defective title, and parliament should then settle what portion of its
revenues should be assigned to it by way of favour. His ideas were based on
an imperial policy. As early as 1759 he held that the territorial acquisitions
of the company should be claimed for the nation. With him it was a matter
not merely of revenue but of government, and though his ideas are
indistinctly indicated, and were perhaps vaguely formed, it is probable that
he had in his mind some idea of making the government of India an
imperial matter. Yet, sharing as he did the general belief as to the wealth of
the company, he certainly attached much importance to the possibility of
obtaining from it an increase of the public revenue.
A special reason may be discerned for his desire to obtain such an increase
at the end of 1766. The government wanted money; there was a heavy debt
on the civil list, and the navy needed a large grant. An increase of taxation
Two hundred officers conspired to resign their commissions on the same
day. Clive faced the mutiny successfully; he cashiered the leaders and
accepted the submission of the younger men. Ill-health obliged him to
return to England in January, 1767.
The enormous private fortunes made in India led people
to believe that the company was far richer than it really AFFAIRS OF THE
was. During the late wars the dividend was 6 per cent. In EAST INDIA
COMPANY.
1766 the proprietors urged an increase. To this the
directors objected that the debts of the company were heavy, and that a
premature increase would raise the price of stock to a point at which it
could not be maintained, and might end in a disaster like that of the South
Sea Company. The ministers sent a message of warning, announcing that
the affairs of the company would probably be considered in parliament.
They concerned the public, for the company enjoyed protection and
privileges granted by the nation. Nevertheless the proprietors carried their
point, and a dividend of 10 per cent. was declared. Chatham held that the
time had come for parliament to inquire by what right the company
administered its territorial revenues. He considered that it had no right to its
new position of a virtually sovereign power, that the sovereignty of the
crown should be asserted, and that in return for the privileges which it
enjoyed it should contribute a portion of its revenues to the national
treasury. The company should apply to parliament to make good its
defective title, and parliament should then settle what portion of its
revenues should be assigned to it by way of favour. His ideas were based on
an imperial policy. As early as 1759 he held that the territorial acquisitions
of the company should be claimed for the nation. With him it was a matter
not merely of revenue but of government, and though his ideas are
indistinctly indicated, and were perhaps vaguely formed, it is probable that
he had in his mind some idea of making the government of India an
imperial matter. Yet, sharing as he did the general belief as to the wealth of
the company, he certainly attached much importance to the possibility of
obtaining from it an increase of the public revenue.
A special reason may be discerned for his desire to obtain such an increase
at the end of 1766. The government wanted money; there was a heavy debt
on the civil list, and the navy needed a large grant. An increase of taxation
Page 110
was inadvisable, for corn was dear. Various schemes for the increase of
revenue were in the air. Many members of parliament, the court party, the
country interest, and the Grenville and Bedford connexions were regretting
the repeal of the stamp act. "We must look to the East and not to the West,"
wrote Beckford to Chatham,[75] and he spoke the mind of his leader. The
cabinet was divided. Grafton and Shelburne agreed with Chatham that the
question of the company's rights should be decided by parliament.
Townshend declared that it would be "absurd" to force the company to
share its power with the crown, and both he and Conway desired that the
question of right should be waived and that its relations with the
government should be settled by amicable arrangement. In May, 1767, the
proprietors insisted on a dividend at the rate of 12½ per cent. A motion was
carried to bring the affairs of the company before parliament. Townshend,
as Chatham said, "marred the business"; he managed to open the door for
negotiation, and to make it a mere matter of money. In June, 1767, a bill
was passed, based on an agreement with the company, which in return for
the confirmation of its territorial revenues, bound itself to pay the
government £400,000 a year for two years; and parliament prohibited a
higher dividend than 10 per cent. The bill was violently opposed, specially
by the Rockingham party, on the ground that it was an unjustifiable
interference with the rights of property. In 1769 the agreement with the
company was renewed, and permission was given for a dividend of 12½ per
cent, on certain conditions. The company was then in debt over £6,000,000.
A new and formidable enemy had arisen in Southern
India. In 1767 Haidar (Hyder) Alí, the ruler of Mysore, HAIDAR ALÍ.
made war upon the English in conjunction with the
Nizám of Haidarábád. The allies were defeated, and the nizám made peace.
Haidar, however, continued the war. He had a large force of cavalry which
he brought to great perfection, and, as the English were deficient in that
arm, he was able to do much mischief in the Karnatic. In April, 1769,
having previously drawn the English army away from Madras by skilful
manœuvres, he suddenly appeared in the immediate neighbourhood of the
town. The English were forced to make a treaty with him on his own terms.
The news sent the company's stock down 60 per cent. The same year the
crops failed in Bengal, and in 1770 there was a grievous famine which is
said to have carried off a third of the inhabitants. Yet in spite of the
revenue were in the air. Many members of parliament, the court party, the
country interest, and the Grenville and Bedford connexions were regretting
the repeal of the stamp act. "We must look to the East and not to the West,"
wrote Beckford to Chatham,[75] and he spoke the mind of his leader. The
cabinet was divided. Grafton and Shelburne agreed with Chatham that the
question of the company's rights should be decided by parliament.
Townshend declared that it would be "absurd" to force the company to
share its power with the crown, and both he and Conway desired that the
question of right should be waived and that its relations with the
government should be settled by amicable arrangement. In May, 1767, the
proprietors insisted on a dividend at the rate of 12½ per cent. A motion was
carried to bring the affairs of the company before parliament. Townshend,
as Chatham said, "marred the business"; he managed to open the door for
negotiation, and to make it a mere matter of money. In June, 1767, a bill
was passed, based on an agreement with the company, which in return for
the confirmation of its territorial revenues, bound itself to pay the
government £400,000 a year for two years; and parliament prohibited a
higher dividend than 10 per cent. The bill was violently opposed, specially
by the Rockingham party, on the ground that it was an unjustifiable
interference with the rights of property. In 1769 the agreement with the
company was renewed, and permission was given for a dividend of 12½ per
cent, on certain conditions. The company was then in debt over £6,000,000.
A new and formidable enemy had arisen in Southern
India. In 1767 Haidar (Hyder) Alí, the ruler of Mysore, HAIDAR ALÍ.
made war upon the English in conjunction with the
Nizám of Haidarábád. The allies were defeated, and the nizám made peace.
Haidar, however, continued the war. He had a large force of cavalry which
he brought to great perfection, and, as the English were deficient in that
arm, he was able to do much mischief in the Karnatic. In April, 1769,
having previously drawn the English army away from Madras by skilful
manœuvres, he suddenly appeared in the immediate neighbourhood of the
town. The English were forced to make a treaty with him on his own terms.
The news sent the company's stock down 60 per cent. The same year the
crops failed in Bengal, and in 1770 there was a grievous famine which is
said to have carried off a third of the inhabitants. Yet in spite of the
Page 111
decreasing revenue and the heavy debts of the company, the proprietors
were receiving dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent.
FOOTNOTES:
[68] Newcastle's Narrative, p. 11.
[69] Annual Register, viii. (1765), 92.
[70] Bedford Correspondence, iii., 281; Walpole, Letters, iv., 365-66.
[71] Annual Register, xxi. (1778), 256.
[72] Lord Charlemont to Flood, Jan. 8, 1766, Letters to Flood, p. 5.
[73] Conway to Lord Hertford, Feb. 12, 1766, in a MS. collection of Conway's
letters, to which Messrs. Sotheran kindly gave me access.
[74] Conway to Hertford, April 29, 1766, MS. Sotheran, u.s.
[75] Beckford to Chatham, Oct. 15, 1766, MS. Pitt Papers, 19; Grenville Papers,
iii., 336.
were receiving dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent.
FOOTNOTES:
[68] Newcastle's Narrative, p. 11.
[69] Annual Register, viii. (1765), 92.
[70] Bedford Correspondence, iii., 281; Walpole, Letters, iv., 365-66.
[71] Annual Register, xxi. (1778), 256.
[72] Lord Charlemont to Flood, Jan. 8, 1766, Letters to Flood, p. 5.
[73] Conway to Lord Hertford, Feb. 12, 1766, in a MS. collection of Conway's
letters, to which Messrs. Sotheran kindly gave me access.
[74] Conway to Hertford, April 29, 1766, MS. Sotheran, u.s.
[75] Beckford to Chatham, Oct. 15, 1766, MS. Pitt Papers, 19; Grenville Papers,
iii., 336.
Page 112
CHAPTER V.
GROWTH OF THE KING'S POWER.
While Chatham was suffering from gout and Conway from indecision,
Townshend had opportunities for mischief. His brilliant wit and oratory
gave him extraordinary influence in the house of commons, which he used
merely for his own ends, for he was unprincipled and greedy for popularity.
Whatever it might be that the majority in the house wished to have done, he
was anxious to be the doer of it. This desire to lead the house by carrying
out its wishes was probably the true reason of his opposition to Chatham's
Indian policy. It led him to take a more disastrous line with reference to
America. The colonies were irritated and suspicious. Massachusetts was
encroaching on the royal prerogative by passing an amnesty bill, and was
quarrelling over it with its governor, Bernard, and the New York assembly
was defying the authority of parliament by refusing to provide the troops
with certain articles specified in the mutiny act. An equally unconciliatory
spirit prevailed in England, where the repeal of the stamp act had become
unpopular. It was necessary to keep a permanent force in America, and the
colonists should have been willing to contribute to the defence of the
empire by paying for it. Their refusal was attributed to a desire to save their
pockets, which to some extent was the case, and Englishmen were angry at
the prospect of being called upon to meet expenses which should have been
borne by others. Even warm friends of the colonies held that a military
establishment should be paid for out of colonial revenues, and Shelburne
was considering how a fund might be raised without taxation.[76]
Unfortunately, Townshend chose to pander to the feelings of the majority of
the commons. In a debate on the army supplies on January 26, 1767, he
boasted, without any previous consultation with his fellow-ministers, that
he could raise a revenue from America nearly sufficient to maintain the
troops there. The house received his words with applause, his colleagues
with dumb dismay. Grenville and Lord George Sackville took them up and
forced him to pledge himself to make them good.
GROWTH OF THE KING'S POWER.
While Chatham was suffering from gout and Conway from indecision,
Townshend had opportunities for mischief. His brilliant wit and oratory
gave him extraordinary influence in the house of commons, which he used
merely for his own ends, for he was unprincipled and greedy for popularity.
Whatever it might be that the majority in the house wished to have done, he
was anxious to be the doer of it. This desire to lead the house by carrying
out its wishes was probably the true reason of his opposition to Chatham's
Indian policy. It led him to take a more disastrous line with reference to
America. The colonies were irritated and suspicious. Massachusetts was
encroaching on the royal prerogative by passing an amnesty bill, and was
quarrelling over it with its governor, Bernard, and the New York assembly
was defying the authority of parliament by refusing to provide the troops
with certain articles specified in the mutiny act. An equally unconciliatory
spirit prevailed in England, where the repeal of the stamp act had become
unpopular. It was necessary to keep a permanent force in America, and the
colonists should have been willing to contribute to the defence of the
empire by paying for it. Their refusal was attributed to a desire to save their
pockets, which to some extent was the case, and Englishmen were angry at
the prospect of being called upon to meet expenses which should have been
borne by others. Even warm friends of the colonies held that a military
establishment should be paid for out of colonial revenues, and Shelburne
was considering how a fund might be raised without taxation.[76]
Unfortunately, Townshend chose to pander to the feelings of the majority of
the commons. In a debate on the army supplies on January 26, 1767, he
boasted, without any previous consultation with his fellow-ministers, that
he could raise a revenue from America nearly sufficient to maintain the
troops there. The house received his words with applause, his colleagues
with dumb dismay. Grenville and Lord George Sackville took them up and
forced him to pledge himself to make them good.
Page 113
Money was wanted for the service of the country, and
specially for the maintenance of the navy, and a month AMERICAN
later Townshend proposed that the land tax should be REVENUE ACTS.
continued at four shillings in the pound. A strong opposition was expected,
for the country gentlemen reasonably contended that the tax had been raised
from three to four shillings as a war-tax, that it was time to lower it, and that
if the stamp act had not been repealed it might be reduced to its normal
amount.[77] The whigs, whose economic policy was directed by their desire
to increase the wealth and power of the nation by promoting trade, held that
the larger share of taxation should be drawn from the land, and fostered the
agricultural interest in order to enable it to bear the disproportionate burden
they laid upon it. Nevertheless, the Rockingham and Grenville parties took
advantage of the dissatisfaction of the landed gentry, acted together in a
factious spirit, and defeated the government proposal by 206 votes to 188.
This was a serious blow to the government, and was the first occasion on
which a minister had been defeated on a money-bill since the revolution.
The defeat was due to Townshend's neglect. Chatham would no longer bear
with him, and one of his last acts before his retirement was to invite Lord
North, the eldest son of the Earl of Guilford, to take his place as chancellor
of the exchequer. North refused, and Townshend remained in office. He had
to raise money somehow, and he was kept in mind of his pledge with regard
to America; for parliament was indignant at the conduct of the New York
assembly, and the court party urged him on by representing that the king
was humiliated by the repeal of the stamp act. In June he carried two bills
affecting the colonies, one providing for the execution of the trade laws, the
other imposing duties on the importation of glass, paper, paints, and tea.
The produce of these duties was to be applied, first, to the cost of
administering justice and of the civil government, and the surplus was to be
paid into the exchequer and appropriated by parliament to the defence of
the colonies. The bills passed without opposition and the acts came into
operation on November 20. A bill was also passed suspending the
legislative power of the New York assembly, until it should comply with the
mutiny act.
The new duties were external taxes, taxes on trade, such as the colonists had
professed themselves prepared to pay, and they were trifling in amount,
their produce being estimated at less than £40,000. But they were imposed
specially for the maintenance of the navy, and a month AMERICAN
later Townshend proposed that the land tax should be REVENUE ACTS.
continued at four shillings in the pound. A strong opposition was expected,
for the country gentlemen reasonably contended that the tax had been raised
from three to four shillings as a war-tax, that it was time to lower it, and that
if the stamp act had not been repealed it might be reduced to its normal
amount.[77] The whigs, whose economic policy was directed by their desire
to increase the wealth and power of the nation by promoting trade, held that
the larger share of taxation should be drawn from the land, and fostered the
agricultural interest in order to enable it to bear the disproportionate burden
they laid upon it. Nevertheless, the Rockingham and Grenville parties took
advantage of the dissatisfaction of the landed gentry, acted together in a
factious spirit, and defeated the government proposal by 206 votes to 188.
This was a serious blow to the government, and was the first occasion on
which a minister had been defeated on a money-bill since the revolution.
The defeat was due to Townshend's neglect. Chatham would no longer bear
with him, and one of his last acts before his retirement was to invite Lord
North, the eldest son of the Earl of Guilford, to take his place as chancellor
of the exchequer. North refused, and Townshend remained in office. He had
to raise money somehow, and he was kept in mind of his pledge with regard
to America; for parliament was indignant at the conduct of the New York
assembly, and the court party urged him on by representing that the king
was humiliated by the repeal of the stamp act. In June he carried two bills
affecting the colonies, one providing for the execution of the trade laws, the
other imposing duties on the importation of glass, paper, paints, and tea.
The produce of these duties was to be applied, first, to the cost of
administering justice and of the civil government, and the surplus was to be
paid into the exchequer and appropriated by parliament to the defence of
the colonies. The bills passed without opposition and the acts came into
operation on November 20. A bill was also passed suspending the
legislative power of the New York assembly, until it should comply with the
mutiny act.
The new duties were external taxes, taxes on trade, such as the colonists had
professed themselves prepared to pay, and they were trifling in amount,
their produce being estimated at less than £40,000. But they were imposed
Page 114
for purposes of revenue, not for the regulation of trade, which would in
Chatham's eyes have rendered them a rightful imposition. And the colonists'
position had changed. They demanded to be taxed only by their own
assemblies, and regarded the new acts as laying the foundation of a fiscal
system which would probably be as liable to abuse as the Irish civil list. A
renewal of the rumour concerning a colonial episcopate increased their
suspicion as to the height to which demands on their purse might grow.
Their discontent was originally founded on their impatience of control and
on the restraints placed upon their industry and commerce; their resistance
was roused by the fear of future ill-government rather than by actual
grievances. The quarrel became embittered by faults on both sides. By
denying the authority of parliament and contemning the prerogative, the
Americans took up a position which could not be conceded to them without
national humiliation; they irritated the English by violent words and actions,
and treated the loyalists with injustice and cruelty. On the other hand,
England, besides imposing restrictions on their industry and commerce,
made demands upon them which, though just, were galling to their spirit.
As they had representative assemblies, they argued that they should be
taxed only by their authority. The king and the nation generally had no
sympathy with their complaints and were unconciliatory.
Yet while there were faults on both sides, both alike
showed a spirit worthy of their common stock, the CHATHAM'S
ILLNESS.
colonists by their insistence on self-government, the
mother-country by its steadfast adherence to the imperial idea as it then
existed. Massachusetts again took the lead in resistance; the merchants
renewed the non-importation agreements, and the assembly sent a petition
to the king, and on February 11, 1768, a circular letter to the other
provincial assemblies condemning the late acts and inviting co-operation.
This letter, the work of Samuel Adams, did much to remove the jealousies
between the provinces and to arouse a spirit of union. It evoked expressions
of sympathy from Virginia and other colonies, and the merchants of New
York at once joined the Bostonians in a system of non-importation. Of
almost equal importance were The Farmer's Letters by Dickinson, which
appeared in a Pennsylvania paper in 1767-68, and contained an able
statement of the claims of colonies, recommending a firm but peaceable
attitude of resistance. Meanwhile the condition of the ministry was
Chatham's eyes have rendered them a rightful imposition. And the colonists'
position had changed. They demanded to be taxed only by their own
assemblies, and regarded the new acts as laying the foundation of a fiscal
system which would probably be as liable to abuse as the Irish civil list. A
renewal of the rumour concerning a colonial episcopate increased their
suspicion as to the height to which demands on their purse might grow.
Their discontent was originally founded on their impatience of control and
on the restraints placed upon their industry and commerce; their resistance
was roused by the fear of future ill-government rather than by actual
grievances. The quarrel became embittered by faults on both sides. By
denying the authority of parliament and contemning the prerogative, the
Americans took up a position which could not be conceded to them without
national humiliation; they irritated the English by violent words and actions,
and treated the loyalists with injustice and cruelty. On the other hand,
England, besides imposing restrictions on their industry and commerce,
made demands upon them which, though just, were galling to their spirit.
As they had representative assemblies, they argued that they should be
taxed only by their authority. The king and the nation generally had no
sympathy with their complaints and were unconciliatory.
Yet while there were faults on both sides, both alike
showed a spirit worthy of their common stock, the CHATHAM'S
ILLNESS.
colonists by their insistence on self-government, the
mother-country by its steadfast adherence to the imperial idea as it then
existed. Massachusetts again took the lead in resistance; the merchants
renewed the non-importation agreements, and the assembly sent a petition
to the king, and on February 11, 1768, a circular letter to the other
provincial assemblies condemning the late acts and inviting co-operation.
This letter, the work of Samuel Adams, did much to remove the jealousies
between the provinces and to arouse a spirit of union. It evoked expressions
of sympathy from Virginia and other colonies, and the merchants of New
York at once joined the Bostonians in a system of non-importation. Of
almost equal importance were The Farmer's Letters by Dickinson, which
appeared in a Pennsylvania paper in 1767-68, and contained an able
statement of the claims of colonies, recommending a firm but peaceable
attitude of resistance. Meanwhile the condition of the ministry was
Page 115
unfavourable alike to any chance of conciliation or to a consistently
vigorous policy.
George was grievously disappointed by Chatham's illness. Between them
they had put together an administration which Burke aptly compared to a
piece of mosaic, formed of men of various parties; and with it George not
unreasonably hoped to be able to carry out his ideal system of government,
to destroy party distinctions and establish his rule over his people for their
benefit and with their good-will.[78] In Chatham's absence, Grafton became
his principal minister, though he had no authority in the cabinet. For a time
Chatham's speedy recovery was expected, and both the king and Grafton
made constant appeals to him at least to express his opinion on public
affairs. No help was to be had from him; he would only entreat Grafton to
remain in office. The disorganised ministry was confronted by a strong
opposition composed of the Rockingham, Bedford, and Grenville
connexions. Chatham became incapable of transacting any business; and
when it was evident that his illness would be prolonged, Grafton advised
the king to enter into negotiations with them. In July, 1767, George invited
Rockingham to draw up a plan for an administration. He did not intend to
admit the Rockinghams to office; he wanted a ministry, formed on non-
party lines, which would be strong enough to hold its ground in parliament,
and all he wished Rockingham to do was to submit a scheme of such a
ministry for his approval, including in it some of the present ministers.
Rockingham, however, held the modern doctrine that a prime minister
should form his own administration, and assumed that the existing ministry
was at an end.
He yielded to the king's wish, but was determined not to take office except
with a comprehensive ministry united on the basis of opposition to that
court influence which had wrecked his former government. With this idea
he attempted to form a union with the Bedford party. The negotiation failed,
for Grenville and Temple, who were then united to the Bedfords,
represented to their allies that no union was possible without agreement as
to American policy. This ended the matter, for the Grenville and Bedford
parties were strongly in favour of American taxation. Rockingham therefore
told the king that he was unable to act upon his invitation. Grafton remained
in office. A man of pleasure and of culture, in some points a true descendant
of Charles II., he was out of his proper element in political life. He grudged
vigorous policy.
George was grievously disappointed by Chatham's illness. Between them
they had put together an administration which Burke aptly compared to a
piece of mosaic, formed of men of various parties; and with it George not
unreasonably hoped to be able to carry out his ideal system of government,
to destroy party distinctions and establish his rule over his people for their
benefit and with their good-will.[78] In Chatham's absence, Grafton became
his principal minister, though he had no authority in the cabinet. For a time
Chatham's speedy recovery was expected, and both the king and Grafton
made constant appeals to him at least to express his opinion on public
affairs. No help was to be had from him; he would only entreat Grafton to
remain in office. The disorganised ministry was confronted by a strong
opposition composed of the Rockingham, Bedford, and Grenville
connexions. Chatham became incapable of transacting any business; and
when it was evident that his illness would be prolonged, Grafton advised
the king to enter into negotiations with them. In July, 1767, George invited
Rockingham to draw up a plan for an administration. He did not intend to
admit the Rockinghams to office; he wanted a ministry, formed on non-
party lines, which would be strong enough to hold its ground in parliament,
and all he wished Rockingham to do was to submit a scheme of such a
ministry for his approval, including in it some of the present ministers.
Rockingham, however, held the modern doctrine that a prime minister
should form his own administration, and assumed that the existing ministry
was at an end.
He yielded to the king's wish, but was determined not to take office except
with a comprehensive ministry united on the basis of opposition to that
court influence which had wrecked his former government. With this idea
he attempted to form a union with the Bedford party. The negotiation failed,
for Grenville and Temple, who were then united to the Bedfords,
represented to their allies that no union was possible without agreement as
to American policy. This ended the matter, for the Grenville and Bedford
parties were strongly in favour of American taxation. Rockingham therefore
told the king that he was unable to act upon his invitation. Grafton remained
in office. A man of pleasure and of culture, in some points a true descendant
of Charles II., he was out of his proper element in political life. He grudged
Page 116
leaving his kennels at Wakefield Lodge or the heath at Newmarket to
transact public business in London, and preferred reading a play of
Euripides at Euston to being bored by a debate at Westminster. On no other
English minister have the responsibilities of office had so little effect; he
would put off a cabinet meeting for a race meeting, and even in the
presence of the king and queen appeared at the opera by the side of his
mistress, Nancy Dawson, afterwards Lady Maynard.
Yet, uncongenial as official work was to him, Grafton
was unwilling to desert the king and disappoint ACCESSIONS TO
THE MINISTRY.
Chatham. He fully intended to carry out Chatham's
policy. He failed to do so, for he allowed himself to be swayed by the king;
and he let things slide in a wrong direction, because he would not take the
trouble to make any strenuous effort to check their course. In Chatham's
absence the king gradually gained complete control of the ministry, and on
every important question the ministers followed a line wholly contrary to
that which Chatham would have adopted. Townshend died in September
and North became chancellor of the exchequer. North was an able financier,
personally popular, and a successful leader of the house of commons. He
was a strong tory and was prepared to uphold the king's policy whether he
approved it or not. At the end of the year an agreement was made with the
Bedford party. The duke, whose sight was failing and who was mourning
the loss of his only surviving son, would not himself take office, but bade
his followers do as they pleased. Lord Gower became president of the
council in place of Northington; Conway resigned the seals of secretary,
though he remained in the cabinet, and Lord Weymouth was made secretary
of state for the northern department. Lord Hillsborough was appointed as a
third secretary of state for the colonies which, in consequence of the
increase of colonial business, were removed from Shelburne's department,
and other members of the "Bloomsbury gang" received minor offices. These
changes were held to amount to the formation of a fresh administration.
George did not at first like the junction with the Bedfords, which seemed
contrary to his policy of destroying connexions, but the new ministers were
so ready to carry out all his wishes that he was soon delighted with them.
The ministry showed its bias by its action with reference to a dispute
between the two chief magnates in Cumberland and Westmorland, the Duke
of Portland, a prominent member of the Rockingham party, and Sir James
transact public business in London, and preferred reading a play of
Euripides at Euston to being bored by a debate at Westminster. On no other
English minister have the responsibilities of office had so little effect; he
would put off a cabinet meeting for a race meeting, and even in the
presence of the king and queen appeared at the opera by the side of his
mistress, Nancy Dawson, afterwards Lady Maynard.
Yet, uncongenial as official work was to him, Grafton
was unwilling to desert the king and disappoint ACCESSIONS TO
THE MINISTRY.
Chatham. He fully intended to carry out Chatham's
policy. He failed to do so, for he allowed himself to be swayed by the king;
and he let things slide in a wrong direction, because he would not take the
trouble to make any strenuous effort to check their course. In Chatham's
absence the king gradually gained complete control of the ministry, and on
every important question the ministers followed a line wholly contrary to
that which Chatham would have adopted. Townshend died in September
and North became chancellor of the exchequer. North was an able financier,
personally popular, and a successful leader of the house of commons. He
was a strong tory and was prepared to uphold the king's policy whether he
approved it or not. At the end of the year an agreement was made with the
Bedford party. The duke, whose sight was failing and who was mourning
the loss of his only surviving son, would not himself take office, but bade
his followers do as they pleased. Lord Gower became president of the
council in place of Northington; Conway resigned the seals of secretary,
though he remained in the cabinet, and Lord Weymouth was made secretary
of state for the northern department. Lord Hillsborough was appointed as a
third secretary of state for the colonies which, in consequence of the
increase of colonial business, were removed from Shelburne's department,
and other members of the "Bloomsbury gang" received minor offices. These
changes were held to amount to the formation of a fresh administration.
George did not at first like the junction with the Bedfords, which seemed
contrary to his policy of destroying connexions, but the new ministers were
so ready to carry out all his wishes that he was soon delighted with them.
The ministry showed its bias by its action with reference to a dispute
between the two chief magnates in Cumberland and Westmorland, the Duke
of Portland, a prominent member of the Rockingham party, and Sir James
Page 117
Lowther, Bute's son-in-law, who commanded nine seats in the house of
commons. The duke's estate in the north came to him by a grant from
William III. to the first Earl of Portland, in virtue of which he held the forest
of Inglewood and the socage of Carlisle, valued at about £30,000, as
appurtenances to the estate expressly granted. Lowther contended that the
grant did not convey these appurtenances and applied to the treasury for a
lease of them. Without officially informing the duke of his claim, the
treasury granted the lease. As between subject and subject the duke's title
would have been indisputable, for his house had had undisturbed possession
for over sixty years, but as regards claims of the crown there was an ancient
maxim: Nullum tempus occurrit regi—"Time does not bar the king's rights".
The attempt of the treasury to revive this maxim was considered oppressive,
and was generally attributed to the influence of Bute and the court, and to a
desire to injure a political opponent and gratify a powerful supporter. The
feeling was strengthened by the characters of the two disputants, for
Portland was a man of high reputation, Lowther a cynical tyrant. On
February 17, 1768, Sir George Savile, a great Yorkshire landowner and a
member of the Rockingham party, whose integrity and wealth gave him
weight in the house, brought in a bill called the Nullum tempus bill, to make
sixty years' possession a bar to claims of the crown. It was opposed by the
ministry, and North succeeded in adjourning the motion, though only by
134 to 114. Parliament was dissolved in March, and the new parliament
passed the bill.
The union with the Bedford party lessened any chance of American
conciliation. Hillsborough ordered the Massachusetts assembly to rescind
its circular letter. It refused, and, acting on Hillsborough's instructions,
Bernard dissolved the assembly. Other colonies rejected the command to
disregard the letter; they would stand or fall with Massachusetts. In New
York, however, the "whig party" was defeated at the elections, the assembly
complied with the mutiny act, and its legislative authority was restored.
Bernard sent home disquieting reports; the revenue laws were openly
defied, and the officers forcibly prevented from executing them; he was
himself insulted by the mob, and had not, he wrote, "the shadow of
authority". There were no troops nearer than New York. Bernard, an upright
and fairly able man, though too apt to dispute with his disputatious
opponents, was extremely unpopular, for it was known that he advised the
commons. The duke's estate in the north came to him by a grant from
William III. to the first Earl of Portland, in virtue of which he held the forest
of Inglewood and the socage of Carlisle, valued at about £30,000, as
appurtenances to the estate expressly granted. Lowther contended that the
grant did not convey these appurtenances and applied to the treasury for a
lease of them. Without officially informing the duke of his claim, the
treasury granted the lease. As between subject and subject the duke's title
would have been indisputable, for his house had had undisturbed possession
for over sixty years, but as regards claims of the crown there was an ancient
maxim: Nullum tempus occurrit regi—"Time does not bar the king's rights".
The attempt of the treasury to revive this maxim was considered oppressive,
and was generally attributed to the influence of Bute and the court, and to a
desire to injure a political opponent and gratify a powerful supporter. The
feeling was strengthened by the characters of the two disputants, for
Portland was a man of high reputation, Lowther a cynical tyrant. On
February 17, 1768, Sir George Savile, a great Yorkshire landowner and a
member of the Rockingham party, whose integrity and wealth gave him
weight in the house, brought in a bill called the Nullum tempus bill, to make
sixty years' possession a bar to claims of the crown. It was opposed by the
ministry, and North succeeded in adjourning the motion, though only by
134 to 114. Parliament was dissolved in March, and the new parliament
passed the bill.
The union with the Bedford party lessened any chance of American
conciliation. Hillsborough ordered the Massachusetts assembly to rescind
its circular letter. It refused, and, acting on Hillsborough's instructions,
Bernard dissolved the assembly. Other colonies rejected the command to
disregard the letter; they would stand or fall with Massachusetts. In New
York, however, the "whig party" was defeated at the elections, the assembly
complied with the mutiny act, and its legislative authority was restored.
Bernard sent home disquieting reports; the revenue laws were openly
defied, and the officers forcibly prevented from executing them; he was
himself insulted by the mob, and had not, he wrote, "the shadow of
authority". There were no troops nearer than New York. Bernard, an upright
and fairly able man, though too apt to dispute with his disputatious
opponents, was extremely unpopular, for it was known that he advised the
Page 118
ministers to take strong measures. It was his duty to represent the royal
authority and to maintain the laws, and he told them that he could do
nothing unless he was supported. He was right. Between a frank surrender
and a vigorous and consistent policy there should have been no middle way.
The ministers found one. They irritated the Americans without attempting
to crush the fomenters of disturbance; they threatened and retreated, made a
demonstration of force and shrank from employing it; their threats made the
British government hated, their lenity brought it into contempt.[79] Bernard,
of course, wrote as a partisan, but with this allowance his reports may be
accepted as trustworthy.
Acting on these reports, Hillsborough, early in June, 1768, ordered Gage to
send troops to Boston to protect the king's officers. It was full time. On the
10th a sloop belonging to Hancock, a merchant of Boston, arrived in the
harbour laden with wine from Madeira. The tide-waiter who boarded her
was forcibly detained, and an attempt was made to defraud the revenue by a
false declaration. On this the commissioners seized the sloop and laid her
under the stem of the Romney, a man-of-war, in the harbour. A riot ensued;
the revenue officers were mobbed, one of their boats was burned, and they
were forced to take refuge in the castle. On September 29 seven ships
carrying the 14th and 29th regiments, and a company of artillery, in all
about 1,000 men, arrived in the harbour. The Bostonians refused to assign
quarters for the troops, and they suffered some hardships. On receiving the
news of the riot in June the ministers despatched the 64th and 65th
regiments to Boston. These reinforcements arrived in January, 1769. The
people were indignant; but in the face of so large a force remained quiet.
On American, as well as on other measures, Shelburne,
who desired conciliation, differed from his colleagues. CHATHAM
RESIGNS OFFICE.
In the autumn of 1768 the king and the Bedford party
urged his dismissal, and Grafton acquiesced. Chatham was annoyed by this
decision, and still more by the dismissal of Sir Jeffrey Amherst, governor of
Virginia. He resigned the privy seal in October, and Grafton was
thenceforward considered as head of the ministry. A few days later
Shelburne resigned. He was generally disliked and distrusted. He had acted
as a go-between in the early days of his career, and while in office was
believed to be false to his colleagues; his face answered to the popular idea
of a Jesuit, and his manners were artificial. He was given the nickname of
authority and to maintain the laws, and he told them that he could do
nothing unless he was supported. He was right. Between a frank surrender
and a vigorous and consistent policy there should have been no middle way.
The ministers found one. They irritated the Americans without attempting
to crush the fomenters of disturbance; they threatened and retreated, made a
demonstration of force and shrank from employing it; their threats made the
British government hated, their lenity brought it into contempt.[79] Bernard,
of course, wrote as a partisan, but with this allowance his reports may be
accepted as trustworthy.
Acting on these reports, Hillsborough, early in June, 1768, ordered Gage to
send troops to Boston to protect the king's officers. It was full time. On the
10th a sloop belonging to Hancock, a merchant of Boston, arrived in the
harbour laden with wine from Madeira. The tide-waiter who boarded her
was forcibly detained, and an attempt was made to defraud the revenue by a
false declaration. On this the commissioners seized the sloop and laid her
under the stem of the Romney, a man-of-war, in the harbour. A riot ensued;
the revenue officers were mobbed, one of their boats was burned, and they
were forced to take refuge in the castle. On September 29 seven ships
carrying the 14th and 29th regiments, and a company of artillery, in all
about 1,000 men, arrived in the harbour. The Bostonians refused to assign
quarters for the troops, and they suffered some hardships. On receiving the
news of the riot in June the ministers despatched the 64th and 65th
regiments to Boston. These reinforcements arrived in January, 1769. The
people were indignant; but in the face of so large a force remained quiet.
On American, as well as on other measures, Shelburne,
who desired conciliation, differed from his colleagues. CHATHAM
RESIGNS OFFICE.
In the autumn of 1768 the king and the Bedford party
urged his dismissal, and Grafton acquiesced. Chatham was annoyed by this
decision, and still more by the dismissal of Sir Jeffrey Amherst, governor of
Virginia. He resigned the privy seal in October, and Grafton was
thenceforward considered as head of the ministry. A few days later
Shelburne resigned. He was generally disliked and distrusted. He had acted
as a go-between in the early days of his career, and while in office was
believed to be false to his colleagues; his face answered to the popular idea
of a Jesuit, and his manners were artificial. He was given the nickname of
Page 119
Malagrida, a Portuguese Jesuit who had been executed for conspiracy in
1761. Weymouth took his place in the southern, and Lord Rochford became
secretary of state for the northern department. When parliament met in
December, Bedford moved a petition to the crown to apply to
Massachusetts an act of 35 Henry VIII., by which offenders outside the
kingdom were liable to be brought to England for trial. This motion and
eight resolutions on American affairs moved by Hillsborough passed both
houses without a division, though not without opposition, the cause of the
colonists being advocated in the commons by Pownall, an ex-governor of
Massachusetts, Burke, and others.
To recommend the revival of an obsolete statute, made in a tyrannical reign
and to meet different circumstances, in order to enable a government to
deport offenders from a distant colony and try them by juries certain to be
prejudiced against them, was so contrary to the spirit of the constitution as
to be defensible only on the ground of necessity. That it would have been
impossible to secure a verdict in the province against a rioter can scarcely
be doubted. The government, however, advocated this measure, not because
it was necessary, but merely to frighten the colonists. This became known in
America, and the colonists learned that England had made an empty threat,
and was about to adopt a conciliatory policy. The only effect of the threat
was to excite Virginia and North Carolina to non-importation. The non-
importation agreements, which were enforced by advertising the names of
offending tradesmen, caused heavy loss to British trade. Between Christmas
1767 and 1769 the value of exports to America decreased by about
£700,000. The cabinet inclined to conciliatory measures, and the
Massachusetts assembly was again summoned, though it professed no
regret for its past conduct. On May 1, 1769, the cabinet resolved to bring in
a bill during the next session for taking off all the new duties except that on
tea. Grafton proposed to give them all up, and was supported by Camden,
Conway, and Granby. North was inclined to a total repeal, but yielded to the
king's influence, and declared for retaining the tea duty as a manifestation
of right; Gower, Hillsborough, Weymouth and Rochford voted with him.
Grafton, though outvoted in the cabinet, remained in office; he desired to
resign, but found no "good ground for retirement," for though the king
henceforward dictated his orders to him rather than asked his advice, he did
1761. Weymouth took his place in the southern, and Lord Rochford became
secretary of state for the northern department. When parliament met in
December, Bedford moved a petition to the crown to apply to
Massachusetts an act of 35 Henry VIII., by which offenders outside the
kingdom were liable to be brought to England for trial. This motion and
eight resolutions on American affairs moved by Hillsborough passed both
houses without a division, though not without opposition, the cause of the
colonists being advocated in the commons by Pownall, an ex-governor of
Massachusetts, Burke, and others.
To recommend the revival of an obsolete statute, made in a tyrannical reign
and to meet different circumstances, in order to enable a government to
deport offenders from a distant colony and try them by juries certain to be
prejudiced against them, was so contrary to the spirit of the constitution as
to be defensible only on the ground of necessity. That it would have been
impossible to secure a verdict in the province against a rioter can scarcely
be doubted. The government, however, advocated this measure, not because
it was necessary, but merely to frighten the colonists. This became known in
America, and the colonists learned that England had made an empty threat,
and was about to adopt a conciliatory policy. The only effect of the threat
was to excite Virginia and North Carolina to non-importation. The non-
importation agreements, which were enforced by advertising the names of
offending tradesmen, caused heavy loss to British trade. Between Christmas
1767 and 1769 the value of exports to America decreased by about
£700,000. The cabinet inclined to conciliatory measures, and the
Massachusetts assembly was again summoned, though it professed no
regret for its past conduct. On May 1, 1769, the cabinet resolved to bring in
a bill during the next session for taking off all the new duties except that on
tea. Grafton proposed to give them all up, and was supported by Camden,
Conway, and Granby. North was inclined to a total repeal, but yielded to the
king's influence, and declared for retaining the tea duty as a manifestation
of right; Gower, Hillsborough, Weymouth and Rochford voted with him.
Grafton, though outvoted in the cabinet, remained in office; he desired to
resign, but found no "good ground for retirement," for though the king
henceforward dictated his orders to him rather than asked his advice, he did
Page 120
not, so Grafton writes, withdraw his personal favour. So completely was the
position of a prime minister of our own day unknown at that time.
Hillsborough informed the colonies of the partial repeal of the duties, and of
the intention of the government not to lay any further taxes on America for
the purpose of revenue. In its amount, namely, threepence on the pound, the
tea duty was not a grievance, for the duty of one shilling paid in England
was returned on re-exportation, so that the Americans could buy their tea
ninepence per pound cheaper than in England. The colonial agitators,
however, denied the right of taxation and the authority of parliament, and
these the king and the English people generally were determined to
maintain. Hillsborough's letter was ungracious, but its tone was probably of
no consequence; the quarrel was not of a sort to be allayed by smooth
words. Further attempts at conciliation were made. In compliance with a
petition from Massachusetts, Bernard was recalled, and his place was taken
by Hutchinson. Boston complained bitterly of the presence of the troops,
and half of them were moved away. So long as the British force was strong
the town was fairly quiet. When it was reduced the people began to abuse
and irritate the soldiers, until the insults heaped upon them led, as we shall
see, to an untoward encounter. Thus did the ministry strengthen the spirit of
resistance and bring contempt upon Great Britain. For its refusal to make its
concessions complete, the king is mainly responsible. A complete surrender
would have humiliated him and his realm in the eyes of the world. Whether
such humiliation, surely not tamely to be accepted by a great nation, would
in the end have prevented the Americans from finding cause for quarrel and
separation may possibly be matter for discussion. It is certainly not so with
the policy of the ministers, that, if it can be called a policy at all, was clearly
the worst they could have adopted.
In Irish, not less than in American, affairs the policy of
the ministry was decided by the king. Ireland was THE CONDITION
OF IRELAND.
governed as a subject country. Shut out from the benefits
of the navigation laws, she was only allowed such commerce as would not
bring her into rivalry with England. Since the beginning of the century the
condition of her people had slightly improved, but in Munster and
Connaught there was much terrible misery. Though the severest provisions
of the penal code were obsolete, the protestants still remained a dominant
caste. Roman catholics were shut out from the bar and the army, and the
position of a prime minister of our own day unknown at that time.
Hillsborough informed the colonies of the partial repeal of the duties, and of
the intention of the government not to lay any further taxes on America for
the purpose of revenue. In its amount, namely, threepence on the pound, the
tea duty was not a grievance, for the duty of one shilling paid in England
was returned on re-exportation, so that the Americans could buy their tea
ninepence per pound cheaper than in England. The colonial agitators,
however, denied the right of taxation and the authority of parliament, and
these the king and the English people generally were determined to
maintain. Hillsborough's letter was ungracious, but its tone was probably of
no consequence; the quarrel was not of a sort to be allayed by smooth
words. Further attempts at conciliation were made. In compliance with a
petition from Massachusetts, Bernard was recalled, and his place was taken
by Hutchinson. Boston complained bitterly of the presence of the troops,
and half of them were moved away. So long as the British force was strong
the town was fairly quiet. When it was reduced the people began to abuse
and irritate the soldiers, until the insults heaped upon them led, as we shall
see, to an untoward encounter. Thus did the ministry strengthen the spirit of
resistance and bring contempt upon Great Britain. For its refusal to make its
concessions complete, the king is mainly responsible. A complete surrender
would have humiliated him and his realm in the eyes of the world. Whether
such humiliation, surely not tamely to be accepted by a great nation, would
in the end have prevented the Americans from finding cause for quarrel and
separation may possibly be matter for discussion. It is certainly not so with
the policy of the ministers, that, if it can be called a policy at all, was clearly
the worst they could have adopted.
In Irish, not less than in American, affairs the policy of
the ministry was decided by the king. Ireland was THE CONDITION
OF IRELAND.
governed as a subject country. Shut out from the benefits
of the navigation laws, she was only allowed such commerce as would not
bring her into rivalry with England. Since the beginning of the century the
condition of her people had slightly improved, but in Munster and
Connaught there was much terrible misery. Though the severest provisions
of the penal code were obsolete, the protestants still remained a dominant
caste. Roman catholics were shut out from the bar and the army, and the
Page 121
sons of catholic squires for the most part either spent their youth in idleness
or served in foreign armies. The great landowners were generally absentees
and their estates were rented by middle-men; the lands were let three or four
deep, and the peasants were crushed by exorbitant rents and unjust dealing.
Their burdens were increased by the tithe paid to an alien Church which
was still rather a secular than a religious power and, though more Irishmen
held preferments in it than formerly, had no place in the affections of the
people and neglected its duty, while the catholic priests, mostly poor and
ignorant men, were active, were adored by their flocks, and ruled them with
benevolent despotism. The tithe was specially burdensome to the poor, both
because the rich pasture-lands of the wealthy were exempt from payment,
while it was levied on little plots worked by the plough or spade of the
peasant, and because it was constantly farmed out to men who made their
bargains profitable by oppressing the needy with unfair exactions. Chief
among the causes of the misery of the peasants was the extent to which
arable land was converted into pasture. Commons were unjustly enclosed,
villages were depopulated, the starving peasants were forced to flee to the
mountains, and black cattle roamed at will round the ruins of their deserted
dwellings.
The despair of the wretched found expression in violence. In 1761 a secret
society called the Whiteboys was organised in Munster and parts of
Leinster to resist, or exact vengeance for, the enclosure of commons, and
unjust rents or tithe. The movement was agrarian, not religious, though the
Whiteboys were catholics, nor political. It was formidable, for there was no
Irish constabulary or militia. The Whiteboys would gather in obedience to
some secret mandate, march by night in large and ordered companies, some
to the land of one offender, others to that of another, and, making the
darkness hideous with their white smocks, fall to houghing cattle,
destroying fences, and spoiling pastures. Many cruel deeds were done,
though the murders were few. Stern acts were passed against Whiteboyism;
volunteers put themselves at the disposal of the magistrates, and the rising
was at last crushed, not without cruelty and an unfair administration of the
criminal law. The outbreak is a notable event in Irish history, for from that
time until now secret societies which have attempted to gain their objects
by lawless and bloody means have constantly existed in Ireland. In
protestant Ulster the Oakboys, as they called themselves, rose in 1763
or served in foreign armies. The great landowners were generally absentees
and their estates were rented by middle-men; the lands were let three or four
deep, and the peasants were crushed by exorbitant rents and unjust dealing.
Their burdens were increased by the tithe paid to an alien Church which
was still rather a secular than a religious power and, though more Irishmen
held preferments in it than formerly, had no place in the affections of the
people and neglected its duty, while the catholic priests, mostly poor and
ignorant men, were active, were adored by their flocks, and ruled them with
benevolent despotism. The tithe was specially burdensome to the poor, both
because the rich pasture-lands of the wealthy were exempt from payment,
while it was levied on little plots worked by the plough or spade of the
peasant, and because it was constantly farmed out to men who made their
bargains profitable by oppressing the needy with unfair exactions. Chief
among the causes of the misery of the peasants was the extent to which
arable land was converted into pasture. Commons were unjustly enclosed,
villages were depopulated, the starving peasants were forced to flee to the
mountains, and black cattle roamed at will round the ruins of their deserted
dwellings.
The despair of the wretched found expression in violence. In 1761 a secret
society called the Whiteboys was organised in Munster and parts of
Leinster to resist, or exact vengeance for, the enclosure of commons, and
unjust rents or tithe. The movement was agrarian, not religious, though the
Whiteboys were catholics, nor political. It was formidable, for there was no
Irish constabulary or militia. The Whiteboys would gather in obedience to
some secret mandate, march by night in large and ordered companies, some
to the land of one offender, others to that of another, and, making the
darkness hideous with their white smocks, fall to houghing cattle,
destroying fences, and spoiling pastures. Many cruel deeds were done,
though the murders were few. Stern acts were passed against Whiteboyism;
volunteers put themselves at the disposal of the magistrates, and the rising
was at last crushed, not without cruelty and an unfair administration of the
criminal law. The outbreak is a notable event in Irish history, for from that
time until now secret societies which have attempted to gain their objects
by lawless and bloody means have constantly existed in Ireland. In
protestant Ulster the Oakboys, as they called themselves, rose in 1763
Page 122
against an increase in the demands for tithe and the burdens laid upon them
for making and repairing roads. Their rising was not accompanied by the
cruelties which disgraced Whiteboyism, and was speedily pacified. Some
years later the greediness of Lord Donegal, who for the sake of gain evicted
over 6,000 protestant families and replaced them by new tenants, many of
them catholics, caused a rising in Antrim and Down. Already numerous
presbyterians of Ulster, men of Scottish and English descent, had been
driven by the destruction of the woollen trade and the disabilities imposed
by the test act to emigrate to America, and many of Donegal's evicted
tenantry followed their example. Ireland lost men who should have
defended British interests, and America gained some of her best soldiers in
the revolutionary war. The feud between the protestants and catholics of
Ulster arising out of Donegal's evictions bore bitter fruit in later troubles.
The Irish house of commons was composed exclusively
of protestants, elected exclusively by protestants. Of its THE IRISH
PARLIAMENT.
300 members sixty-four were returned for counties and
were in some measure elected by the people. Two were returned for Trinity
College, Dublin. The remainder sat for cities and boroughs, and of these
172 were nominated by borough-owners. The duration of parliament was
only terminated by the demise of the crown. The house was the
representative of the protestant aristocracy and was completely out of touch
with the mass of the people. It had little control of finance, for the Irish
establishments were large. The civil list was burdened with pensions and
sinecures, distributed either as a means of parliamentary corruption, or
among the supporters of the castle policy and the hangers-on of the English
court. By Poyning's law the Irish parliament was subordinated to the
English privy council, and could not be summoned until the bills which it
was called upon to pass had received the assent of the council. A desire for
greater independence was growing up in parliament, and a patriotic party
eagerly pressed for reforms, for the extension of the habeas corpus act to
Ireland, for securing the judges in office, and for shorter parliaments. The
government was in the hands of a party called the "Irish interest" which
worked harmoniously with the English ministers. Its chiefs, the
"undertakers," undertook the king's business in parliament, administered the
country, and dispensed patronage, for the lord-lieutenant only resided in
Ireland during the session of parliament, that is for six months every other
for making and repairing roads. Their rising was not accompanied by the
cruelties which disgraced Whiteboyism, and was speedily pacified. Some
years later the greediness of Lord Donegal, who for the sake of gain evicted
over 6,000 protestant families and replaced them by new tenants, many of
them catholics, caused a rising in Antrim and Down. Already numerous
presbyterians of Ulster, men of Scottish and English descent, had been
driven by the destruction of the woollen trade and the disabilities imposed
by the test act to emigrate to America, and many of Donegal's evicted
tenantry followed their example. Ireland lost men who should have
defended British interests, and America gained some of her best soldiers in
the revolutionary war. The feud between the protestants and catholics of
Ulster arising out of Donegal's evictions bore bitter fruit in later troubles.
The Irish house of commons was composed exclusively
of protestants, elected exclusively by protestants. Of its THE IRISH
PARLIAMENT.
300 members sixty-four were returned for counties and
were in some measure elected by the people. Two were returned for Trinity
College, Dublin. The remainder sat for cities and boroughs, and of these
172 were nominated by borough-owners. The duration of parliament was
only terminated by the demise of the crown. The house was the
representative of the protestant aristocracy and was completely out of touch
with the mass of the people. It had little control of finance, for the Irish
establishments were large. The civil list was burdened with pensions and
sinecures, distributed either as a means of parliamentary corruption, or
among the supporters of the castle policy and the hangers-on of the English
court. By Poyning's law the Irish parliament was subordinated to the
English privy council, and could not be summoned until the bills which it
was called upon to pass had received the assent of the council. A desire for
greater independence was growing up in parliament, and a patriotic party
eagerly pressed for reforms, for the extension of the habeas corpus act to
Ireland, for securing the judges in office, and for shorter parliaments. The
government was in the hands of a party called the "Irish interest" which
worked harmoniously with the English ministers. Its chiefs, the
"undertakers," undertook the king's business in parliament, administered the
country, and dispensed patronage, for the lord-lieutenant only resided in
Ireland during the session of parliament, that is for six months every other
Page 123
year. They answered roughly to the whig oligarchy in England at the
beginning of the reign, and in spite of some extravagance and corruption
used their power not altogether ill.
George, who was sincerely anxious for the good government of the country,
desired, as a matter of general policy, to break down the power of the
undertakers, as he had broken down the power of the whigs in England. He
also had a special point to carry; he wanted to obtain the consent of
parliament to an augmentation of the Irish army from 12,000 to 15,000
men. As the peace establishment of Great Britain was only about 17,000
men, the crown certainly needed a larger force, but it was unfair to lay the
burden of providing it on Ireland. With these objects the ministry sent the
Marquis Townshend, Charles Townshend's brother, to Ireland as viceroy in
1767, ordering him to reside there throughout his term of office. After much
difficulty Townshend obtained the augmentation, with the proviso that
12,000 troops should be kept in the country, and the patriotic party, Lord
Charlemont, Lucas, Flood, and others, were gratified by the octennial act
limiting the duration of parliament to eight years. When the new parliament
met, the commons acting under the influence of the undertakers, renewed
an attempt made at the beginning of the reign to establish their authority
over supply by rejecting a money bill which, according to custom, had been
prepared by the government and returned by the English privy council.
Townshend prorogued parliament; and before its next meeting secured a
majority by wholesale corruption, such as had been employed in England
by Fox and Bute, and overthrew the power of the undertakers. His want of
tact and his indecorous conduct rendered his victory fruitless, and he was
recalled in 1772.
The general election of 1768 was even more corrupt than that of 1761.
Again both the court and the nabobs came well to the front. Borough-
mongers did a business in seats much as house-agents did in houses. One of
them laughed when Lord Chesterfield offered £2,500 for a seat for his son;
the nabobs, he said, had raised prices to at least £3,000; some seats had
fetched £4,000, two as much as £5,000. George Selwyn took £9,000 for the
two seats for Ludgershall. The city of Oxford offered to return its two
sitting members if they would pay the city's debts, £5,670. They informed
the house of commons of the offer, and ten of the leading citizens were
confined for five days in Newgate, and afterwards knelt at the bar of the
beginning of the reign, and in spite of some extravagance and corruption
used their power not altogether ill.
George, who was sincerely anxious for the good government of the country,
desired, as a matter of general policy, to break down the power of the
undertakers, as he had broken down the power of the whigs in England. He
also had a special point to carry; he wanted to obtain the consent of
parliament to an augmentation of the Irish army from 12,000 to 15,000
men. As the peace establishment of Great Britain was only about 17,000
men, the crown certainly needed a larger force, but it was unfair to lay the
burden of providing it on Ireland. With these objects the ministry sent the
Marquis Townshend, Charles Townshend's brother, to Ireland as viceroy in
1767, ordering him to reside there throughout his term of office. After much
difficulty Townshend obtained the augmentation, with the proviso that
12,000 troops should be kept in the country, and the patriotic party, Lord
Charlemont, Lucas, Flood, and others, were gratified by the octennial act
limiting the duration of parliament to eight years. When the new parliament
met, the commons acting under the influence of the undertakers, renewed
an attempt made at the beginning of the reign to establish their authority
over supply by rejecting a money bill which, according to custom, had been
prepared by the government and returned by the English privy council.
Townshend prorogued parliament; and before its next meeting secured a
majority by wholesale corruption, such as had been employed in England
by Fox and Bute, and overthrew the power of the undertakers. His want of
tact and his indecorous conduct rendered his victory fruitless, and he was
recalled in 1772.
The general election of 1768 was even more corrupt than that of 1761.
Again both the court and the nabobs came well to the front. Borough-
mongers did a business in seats much as house-agents did in houses. One of
them laughed when Lord Chesterfield offered £2,500 for a seat for his son;
the nabobs, he said, had raised prices to at least £3,000; some seats had
fetched £4,000, two as much as £5,000. George Selwyn took £9,000 for the
two seats for Ludgershall. The city of Oxford offered to return its two
sitting members if they would pay the city's debts, £5,670. They informed
the house of commons of the offer, and ten of the leading citizens were
confined for five days in Newgate, and afterwards knelt at the bar of the
Page 124
house and were reprimanded by the speaker—a solemn farce, for they sold
the seats to two neighbouring magnates, and are said to have arranged the
transaction while they were in prison. Holland bought a seat for his second
son, Charles James Fox, then a youth of nineteen. As was natural in his
father's son, Fox supported the ministers, and was soon distinguished in
parliament by his opposition to all liberal measures, and outside it by
reckless gambling and extravagance.
Wilkes, who made a short visit to England in 1766,
when he remained quiet and was not disturbed, was WILKES
RETURNED FOR
brought back again by the election. He stood for the city MIDDLESEX.
of London, was at the bottom of the poll, and announced
that he would stand for Middlesex. His proceedings caused much
excitement, for the country was discontented and disturbed. The price of
bread was high, and during the early part of the year there were many
strikes and much rioting, especially in London. The Spitalfields weavers
made several riots and broke the looms of those who refused to join in their
demands. The sailors struck, and detained all outward-bound vessels in the
Thames. The coal-heavers also struck, and fought fierce battles with the
sailors in which many lives were lost. Though some of these riots broke out
a little later, they explain the excitement and enthusiasm with which Wilkes
was received by the London mob. He was returned for Middlesex by a large
majority. The mob which had passed out from London to Brentford, the
polling-place, came back in triumph, forced people to illuminate their
houses, and smashed many windows. If on Wilkes's return to England
George had granted him a free pardon, the demagogue would probably have
subsided into a peaceable member of parliament. Unfortunately he could
not overlook Wilkes's insults to himself and to his mother. Grafton came to
London as seldom as possible, but George found a willing instrument in
Weymouth. On April 17 Wilkes surrendered to his outlawry. In anticipation
of disturbances Weymouth wrote to the Lambeth magistrates, bidding them,
if need arose, to be prompt in calling in the aid of the military.
On the 26th Wilkes was committed to the king's bench prison. The populace
drew him along in a coach to Spitalfields, where he escaped their further
attentions and voluntarily went to the prison. An excited crowd daily
assembled outside the prison, and the riots of the sailors, coal-heavers, and
sawyers grew formidable. Parliament was to meet on May 10, and the king,
the seats to two neighbouring magnates, and are said to have arranged the
transaction while they were in prison. Holland bought a seat for his second
son, Charles James Fox, then a youth of nineteen. As was natural in his
father's son, Fox supported the ministers, and was soon distinguished in
parliament by his opposition to all liberal measures, and outside it by
reckless gambling and extravagance.
Wilkes, who made a short visit to England in 1766,
when he remained quiet and was not disturbed, was WILKES
RETURNED FOR
brought back again by the election. He stood for the city MIDDLESEX.
of London, was at the bottom of the poll, and announced
that he would stand for Middlesex. His proceedings caused much
excitement, for the country was discontented and disturbed. The price of
bread was high, and during the early part of the year there were many
strikes and much rioting, especially in London. The Spitalfields weavers
made several riots and broke the looms of those who refused to join in their
demands. The sailors struck, and detained all outward-bound vessels in the
Thames. The coal-heavers also struck, and fought fierce battles with the
sailors in which many lives were lost. Though some of these riots broke out
a little later, they explain the excitement and enthusiasm with which Wilkes
was received by the London mob. He was returned for Middlesex by a large
majority. The mob which had passed out from London to Brentford, the
polling-place, came back in triumph, forced people to illuminate their
houses, and smashed many windows. If on Wilkes's return to England
George had granted him a free pardon, the demagogue would probably have
subsided into a peaceable member of parliament. Unfortunately he could
not overlook Wilkes's insults to himself and to his mother. Grafton came to
London as seldom as possible, but George found a willing instrument in
Weymouth. On April 17 Wilkes surrendered to his outlawry. In anticipation
of disturbances Weymouth wrote to the Lambeth magistrates, bidding them,
if need arose, to be prompt in calling in the aid of the military.
On the 26th Wilkes was committed to the king's bench prison. The populace
drew him along in a coach to Spitalfields, where he escaped their further
attentions and voluntarily went to the prison. An excited crowd daily
assembled outside the prison, and the riots of the sailors, coal-heavers, and
sawyers grew formidable. Parliament was to meet on May 10, and the king,
Page 125
believing that a serious riot would probably take place on that day,
recommended firmness and a prompt employment of troops. The tone of his
letters at this crisis is unpleasant and shows personal animosity; yet neither
he nor Weymouth can justly be blamed for urging prompt and decided
measures, for they were necessary for the preservation of order and for the
protection of life and property. As George had foreseen, a riot broke out on
the 10th. A vast mob gathered round the king's bench prison and in St.
George's Fields, and demanded that Wilkes should be liberated in order to
take his place in parliament. The riot act was read, the troops were severely
pelted, and some soldiers killed a young man named Allen, whom they
mistook for a ringleader of the rioters. The order to fire was given; five of
the mob were killed and several wounded. Though for the moment the mob
was mastered, this untoward event exasperated the malcontents, and much
indignation was excited by an order signed by Barrington, which assured
the troops that they would be protected if "any disagreeable circumstance"
should arise in the execution of their duty. On June 8 Lord Mansfield, the
lord chief-justice, reversed Wilkes's outlawry and sentenced him on the
verdicts brought against him in 1764 to fines of £1,000, and twenty-two
months further imprisonment.
While in prison Wilkes obtained Weymouth's letter of April 17, and
published it with libellous comments, charging him with having deliberately
planned "the massacre" of St. George's Fields. These comments were voted
a seditious libel by the commons. Wilkes's petition for redress of grievances
was rejected; he was brought to the bar of the house and avowed the
authorship of the comments on Weymouth's "bloody scroll," as he called it.
On the next day, February 3, 1769, Barrington proposed his expulsion from
the house, and supported his motion by recapitulating his various misdeeds.
Grenville, Burke, and others urged that it was unfair to go back to past
offences and accumulate the charges against him, and Grenville warned the
house that the course on which it was embarking would probably lead it
into a violation of the rights of the electorate. Nevertheless, the house lent
itself to the wishes of the king and voted the expulsion by 219 to 137.
Grenville's warning was justified. Wilkes was re-elected on the 16th, and
the next day the house annulled the election and declared him incapable of
being elected to serve in the present parliament. That the house, whether
acting justly or not, has a right to expel any member whom it judges
recommended firmness and a prompt employment of troops. The tone of his
letters at this crisis is unpleasant and shows personal animosity; yet neither
he nor Weymouth can justly be blamed for urging prompt and decided
measures, for they were necessary for the preservation of order and for the
protection of life and property. As George had foreseen, a riot broke out on
the 10th. A vast mob gathered round the king's bench prison and in St.
George's Fields, and demanded that Wilkes should be liberated in order to
take his place in parliament. The riot act was read, the troops were severely
pelted, and some soldiers killed a young man named Allen, whom they
mistook for a ringleader of the rioters. The order to fire was given; five of
the mob were killed and several wounded. Though for the moment the mob
was mastered, this untoward event exasperated the malcontents, and much
indignation was excited by an order signed by Barrington, which assured
the troops that they would be protected if "any disagreeable circumstance"
should arise in the execution of their duty. On June 8 Lord Mansfield, the
lord chief-justice, reversed Wilkes's outlawry and sentenced him on the
verdicts brought against him in 1764 to fines of £1,000, and twenty-two
months further imprisonment.
While in prison Wilkes obtained Weymouth's letter of April 17, and
published it with libellous comments, charging him with having deliberately
planned "the massacre" of St. George's Fields. These comments were voted
a seditious libel by the commons. Wilkes's petition for redress of grievances
was rejected; he was brought to the bar of the house and avowed the
authorship of the comments on Weymouth's "bloody scroll," as he called it.
On the next day, February 3, 1769, Barrington proposed his expulsion from
the house, and supported his motion by recapitulating his various misdeeds.
Grenville, Burke, and others urged that it was unfair to go back to past
offences and accumulate the charges against him, and Grenville warned the
house that the course on which it was embarking would probably lead it
into a violation of the rights of the electorate. Nevertheless, the house lent
itself to the wishes of the king and voted the expulsion by 219 to 137.
Grenville's warning was justified. Wilkes was re-elected on the 16th, and
the next day the house annulled the election and declared him incapable of
being elected to serve in the present parliament. That the house, whether
acting justly or not, has a right to expel any member whom it judges
Page 126
unworthy to sit, is indisputable, but to declare an incapacity unknown to the
law was an unconstitutional and arbitrary proceeding. In spite of this
declaration Wilkes was again returned on March 16. The election was again
annulled. An address in support of the king was prepared by the court party
in the city, and on the 22nd hundreds set out in coaches for St. James's to
deliver it. They were pelted by a vast mob, and only a third of them reached
the palace. Meanwhile another mob gathered at St. James's and tried to
force a hearse bearing a picture of Allen's death into the court-yard. They
were foiled by the courage of Talbot, the lord-steward, and were dispersed
after some scuffling. Throughout the whole day the king exhibited perfect
composure, though the riot was serious and might easily have become
formidable.
A new writ was issued for Middlesex, and Colonel
Luttrell, one of the court party, resigned his Cornish seat THE RIGHTS OF
ELECTORS
in order to oppose Wilkes. In the previous December at VIOLATED.
the election of Serjeant Glynn, Wilkes's counsel, to the
other seat for the county, one of his supporters lost his life. Two men were
found guilty of murdering him, and received a royal pardon, for, though
they assaulted him, the man's death was due to natural causes. Luttrell was
believed to be risking his life, and bets were freely made as to his probable
fate. The election, however, passed off quietly on April 13, when Wilkes
polled 1,143 votes and Luttrell 296. On the 15th, the house, after a hot
debate, carried by 197 to 143 a motion that Luttrell "ought to have been
returned". This decision, which set at nought the rights of electors, was the
inevitable outcome of the vote of expulsion. The king was victorious, and
was delighted at his victory. His satisfaction was soon alloyed, for the
means which he had employed to gain his end roused widespread
indignation. He had brought himself into conflict with his people and had
blunted his weapons. He had gradually got together a set of ministers
through whom he could rule; for some of them were his willing
instruments, and the rest, though uneasy at their position, forbore to oppose
him. At great cost to himself and the nation he had secured a majority in the
house of commons, and he had strengthened his cause by enlisting on his
side the jealousy with which the house regarded all matters of privilege.
Neither his ministers nor the house failed him, not even when called upon
to violate the constitution, but his policy rendered both alike odious to the
law was an unconstitutional and arbitrary proceeding. In spite of this
declaration Wilkes was again returned on March 16. The election was again
annulled. An address in support of the king was prepared by the court party
in the city, and on the 22nd hundreds set out in coaches for St. James's to
deliver it. They were pelted by a vast mob, and only a third of them reached
the palace. Meanwhile another mob gathered at St. James's and tried to
force a hearse bearing a picture of Allen's death into the court-yard. They
were foiled by the courage of Talbot, the lord-steward, and were dispersed
after some scuffling. Throughout the whole day the king exhibited perfect
composure, though the riot was serious and might easily have become
formidable.
A new writ was issued for Middlesex, and Colonel
Luttrell, one of the court party, resigned his Cornish seat THE RIGHTS OF
ELECTORS
in order to oppose Wilkes. In the previous December at VIOLATED.
the election of Serjeant Glynn, Wilkes's counsel, to the
other seat for the county, one of his supporters lost his life. Two men were
found guilty of murdering him, and received a royal pardon, for, though
they assaulted him, the man's death was due to natural causes. Luttrell was
believed to be risking his life, and bets were freely made as to his probable
fate. The election, however, passed off quietly on April 13, when Wilkes
polled 1,143 votes and Luttrell 296. On the 15th, the house, after a hot
debate, carried by 197 to 143 a motion that Luttrell "ought to have been
returned". This decision, which set at nought the rights of electors, was the
inevitable outcome of the vote of expulsion. The king was victorious, and
was delighted at his victory. His satisfaction was soon alloyed, for the
means which he had employed to gain his end roused widespread
indignation. He had brought himself into conflict with his people and had
blunted his weapons. He had gradually got together a set of ministers
through whom he could rule; for some of them were his willing
instruments, and the rest, though uneasy at their position, forbore to oppose
him. At great cost to himself and the nation he had secured a majority in the
house of commons, and he had strengthened his cause by enlisting on his
side the jealousy with which the house regarded all matters of privilege.
Neither his ministers nor the house failed him, not even when called upon
to violate the constitution, but his policy rendered both alike odious to the
Page 127
nation. Wilkes was a gainer by his own defeat. Thousands who had little or
no sympathy with him personally espoused his cause when they found it
justly associated with liberty. A large subscription was made for him:
£17,000 was spent in paying his debts; his long-deferred suit against
Halifax was at last heard, and he obtained £4,000 damages; he was again
enabled to live in comfort, and while still in prison was elected an alderman
of London.
Other causes contributed to the unpopularity of the ministers, among them
the French annexation of Corsica. The island rebelled against the Genoese;
and they, finding themselves unable to subdue it, agreed to sell it to France.
The bravery of the insurgents excited sympathy in England; and there was a
strong feeling that the acquisition of the island by France would increase
her naval strength, which was reasonably regarded with jealousy. "Corsica,"
said Burke, "as a province of France is terrible to me;" and Sir Charles
Saunders, who had commanded in the Mediterranean, held that to prevent
the proposed annexation would be well worth a war. There was, however,
something to be said on the other side. The ministers might have pursued
either one of two courses. They might have given France to understand that
they would make the annexation of the island a cause of war, and in that
case France would probably have drawn back; or they might, without loss
of dignity, have passed the matter by as no concern of theirs. Unfortunately,
a decided course was impossible to the divided cabinet. They remonstrated
vigorously, and France wavered. Then the Bedford section made it known
that England would not in any case go to war, and France despised their
remonstrance. Grafton allowed the Corsicans to hope for British help, and
secretly sent them arms. This was worse than useless. The Corsican general,
Paoli, was forced to flee; the island was annexed to France in 1769, and, as
Burke said, "British policy was brought into derision".
Again, in the midst of the struggle with the Middlesex
electorate, parliament was asked for £513,500 to pay the ARREARS OF THE
debts on the civil list. The civil list was sufficient to CIVIL LIST.
meet the legitimate expenses of the crown; the king was personally frugal;
how had the deficiency arisen? Beyond all question the money had been
spent in augmenting the influence of the crown by multiplying offices and
pensions, by the purchase of votes at elections, and other corrupt means.
The ministers were responsible to the nation for the way in which the public
no sympathy with him personally espoused his cause when they found it
justly associated with liberty. A large subscription was made for him:
£17,000 was spent in paying his debts; his long-deferred suit against
Halifax was at last heard, and he obtained £4,000 damages; he was again
enabled to live in comfort, and while still in prison was elected an alderman
of London.
Other causes contributed to the unpopularity of the ministers, among them
the French annexation of Corsica. The island rebelled against the Genoese;
and they, finding themselves unable to subdue it, agreed to sell it to France.
The bravery of the insurgents excited sympathy in England; and there was a
strong feeling that the acquisition of the island by France would increase
her naval strength, which was reasonably regarded with jealousy. "Corsica,"
said Burke, "as a province of France is terrible to me;" and Sir Charles
Saunders, who had commanded in the Mediterranean, held that to prevent
the proposed annexation would be well worth a war. There was, however,
something to be said on the other side. The ministers might have pursued
either one of two courses. They might have given France to understand that
they would make the annexation of the island a cause of war, and in that
case France would probably have drawn back; or they might, without loss
of dignity, have passed the matter by as no concern of theirs. Unfortunately,
a decided course was impossible to the divided cabinet. They remonstrated
vigorously, and France wavered. Then the Bedford section made it known
that England would not in any case go to war, and France despised their
remonstrance. Grafton allowed the Corsicans to hope for British help, and
secretly sent them arms. This was worse than useless. The Corsican general,
Paoli, was forced to flee; the island was annexed to France in 1769, and, as
Burke said, "British policy was brought into derision".
Again, in the midst of the struggle with the Middlesex
electorate, parliament was asked for £513,500 to pay the ARREARS OF THE
debts on the civil list. The civil list was sufficient to CIVIL LIST.
meet the legitimate expenses of the crown; the king was personally frugal;
how had the deficiency arisen? Beyond all question the money had been
spent in augmenting the influence of the crown by multiplying offices and
pensions, by the purchase of votes at elections, and other corrupt means.
The ministers were responsible to the nation for the way in which the public
Page 128
money had been spent. The opposition, and specially Grenville, Burke, and
Dowdeswell, urged that before the house made the grant, it should inquire
into the causes which rendered it necessary. Their demand was resisted: the
house decided not to consider the causes of the debts, and the ministers
carried the grant without inquiry. By this evil precedent the commons
abandoned the constitutional means of checking the expenditure of the
public money by the crown, and proved themselves unfaithful to their duty
towards the nation.
Violent attacks were made on the ministers by the press. The most famous
of these are the letters signed "Junius," and others attributed, some of them
with little probability, to the same author, which appeared first in the Public
Advertizer, a London daily paper. Their fame is partly due to the mystery of
their authorship. For that doubtful honour more than thirty names have been
suggested. On strong, if not perfectly convincing grounds, Junius is now
generally believed to have been Philip Francis, then a clerk in the war office
and later a member of the East India council and a knight, though, if he was
the author, he probably received help from some one of higher social
position, possibly from Temple.[80] As literature the letters are remarkable
for clearness of expression and for a polish of style so high as to be artificial
and monotonous; their chief literary defect is violence of language.
Occupied almost exclusively with personal vituperation, they deal with
events as opportunities for abuse rather than for thoughtful comment, with
constitutional doctrines as weapons of attack rather than as bulwarks of
liberty. The writer's political opinions are based on narrow grounds; he
exhibits no power of generalisation or philosophic thought. Sheltered by his
carefully guarded anonymity, he exercised a vile ingenuity in devising how
he might wound most deeply persons whom he dared not attack in his own
name. Without regard to decency or truth he mocks with devilish glee at the
vices, failings, and misfortunes of the objects of his hatred. His attacks on
the chief ministers of the crown, on Grafton, Bedford, North, Weymouth,
and Sandwich, on Mansfield, and on the king himself, excited intense
curiosity. Before long their violence defeated their purpose and the
disgraceful "Letter to the King," published in December, 1769, excited
general disgust.
The anger caused by the issue of the struggle with the Middlesex electors
found voice in petitions to the throne. Middlesex sent up a manifesto, which
Dowdeswell, urged that before the house made the grant, it should inquire
into the causes which rendered it necessary. Their demand was resisted: the
house decided not to consider the causes of the debts, and the ministers
carried the grant without inquiry. By this evil precedent the commons
abandoned the constitutional means of checking the expenditure of the
public money by the crown, and proved themselves unfaithful to their duty
towards the nation.
Violent attacks were made on the ministers by the press. The most famous
of these are the letters signed "Junius," and others attributed, some of them
with little probability, to the same author, which appeared first in the Public
Advertizer, a London daily paper. Their fame is partly due to the mystery of
their authorship. For that doubtful honour more than thirty names have been
suggested. On strong, if not perfectly convincing grounds, Junius is now
generally believed to have been Philip Francis, then a clerk in the war office
and later a member of the East India council and a knight, though, if he was
the author, he probably received help from some one of higher social
position, possibly from Temple.[80] As literature the letters are remarkable
for clearness of expression and for a polish of style so high as to be artificial
and monotonous; their chief literary defect is violence of language.
Occupied almost exclusively with personal vituperation, they deal with
events as opportunities for abuse rather than for thoughtful comment, with
constitutional doctrines as weapons of attack rather than as bulwarks of
liberty. The writer's political opinions are based on narrow grounds; he
exhibits no power of generalisation or philosophic thought. Sheltered by his
carefully guarded anonymity, he exercised a vile ingenuity in devising how
he might wound most deeply persons whom he dared not attack in his own
name. Without regard to decency or truth he mocks with devilish glee at the
vices, failings, and misfortunes of the objects of his hatred. His attacks on
the chief ministers of the crown, on Grafton, Bedford, North, Weymouth,
and Sandwich, on Mansfield, and on the king himself, excited intense
curiosity. Before long their violence defeated their purpose and the
disgraceful "Letter to the King," published in December, 1769, excited
general disgust.
The anger caused by the issue of the struggle with the Middlesex electors
found voice in petitions to the throne. Middlesex sent up a manifesto, which
Page 129
was virtually adopted by London, accusing the ministers of treason;
Westminster prayed for a dissolution of parliament, and some counties and
boroughs followed its example, arguing that the presence of Luttrell, who
had not been duly elected, invalidated every act of the existing parliament.
London further declared itself against the court party by electing Beckford,
a prime mover in promoting the Surrey petition, as lord mayor. The country,
however, was not all on the same side; the petitions were not, as a rule,
signed by many of the larger freeholders, and by the end of the year the
movement seemed at a stand.[81] In July Chatham appeared at court restored
to health. The king received him kindly, but must have been vexed to hear
that he disapproved of the policy of the ministers, specially with regard to
the Middlesex election. He treated Grafton with extreme coldness, and
Camden, who had sneered at him in his absence, at once followed his lead.
He allied himself with the opposition, with Temple, Grenville, and their
following, and with the Rockingham party, so far as measures were
concerned. With the Rockinghams, however, he was never wholly at one;
his violence, and habit of looking beyond parliament to the people itself,
and of seeking political strength in popular good-will, separated him from
them in feeling and methods of action. Yet his alliance with them was never
formally broken. He entered into it because, he said, former differences
should be forgotten when the struggle was pro aris et focis. He was eager
for the fray. Parliament, said he, "must, it shall, be dissolved". With him as
leader and with a united opposition, backed by a large part of the nation,
victory seemed almost certain. He reckoned without the king. An ostensible
minister might be forced to resign; but the king was a permanent official,
and George was hard to beat.
Parliament met on January 9, 1770. It was a critical
time: at home discontent was widespread; the American CHATHAM IN
OPPOSITION.
colonies were disaffected; war with France and Spain
seemed not far off. The king's speech recommended attention to American
affairs and hinted at the unfriendly attitude of foreign courts, but took no
notice of domestic discontents, and gave prominence to an outbreak of
distemper among "horned cattle". The cattle plague was a matter of serious
national concern; yet the speech was insufficient for the occasion; it was,
Junius declared, the speech of "a ruined grazier". It showed that the
ministers intended to ignore the signs of popular indignation. Chatham
Westminster prayed for a dissolution of parliament, and some counties and
boroughs followed its example, arguing that the presence of Luttrell, who
had not been duly elected, invalidated every act of the existing parliament.
London further declared itself against the court party by electing Beckford,
a prime mover in promoting the Surrey petition, as lord mayor. The country,
however, was not all on the same side; the petitions were not, as a rule,
signed by many of the larger freeholders, and by the end of the year the
movement seemed at a stand.[81] In July Chatham appeared at court restored
to health. The king received him kindly, but must have been vexed to hear
that he disapproved of the policy of the ministers, specially with regard to
the Middlesex election. He treated Grafton with extreme coldness, and
Camden, who had sneered at him in his absence, at once followed his lead.
He allied himself with the opposition, with Temple, Grenville, and their
following, and with the Rockingham party, so far as measures were
concerned. With the Rockinghams, however, he was never wholly at one;
his violence, and habit of looking beyond parliament to the people itself,
and of seeking political strength in popular good-will, separated him from
them in feeling and methods of action. Yet his alliance with them was never
formally broken. He entered into it because, he said, former differences
should be forgotten when the struggle was pro aris et focis. He was eager
for the fray. Parliament, said he, "must, it shall, be dissolved". With him as
leader and with a united opposition, backed by a large part of the nation,
victory seemed almost certain. He reckoned without the king. An ostensible
minister might be forced to resign; but the king was a permanent official,
and George was hard to beat.
Parliament met on January 9, 1770. It was a critical
time: at home discontent was widespread; the American CHATHAM IN
OPPOSITION.
colonies were disaffected; war with France and Spain
seemed not far off. The king's speech recommended attention to American
affairs and hinted at the unfriendly attitude of foreign courts, but took no
notice of domestic discontents, and gave prominence to an outbreak of
distemper among "horned cattle". The cattle plague was a matter of serious
national concern; yet the speech was insufficient for the occasion; it was,
Junius declared, the speech of "a ruined grazier". It showed that the
ministers intended to ignore the signs of popular indignation. Chatham
Page 130
moved, as an amendment to the address, that the lords would inquire into
the causes of the prevailing discontents and specially into the matter of the
Middlesex election. "The people," he said, "demand redress, and depend
upon it, my lords, that one way or other they will have redress;" and he
attributed their discontent to the action of the commons in Wilkes's case.
Camden followed, and declared that he had beheld the arbitrary acts of the
ministry with silent indignation, that he would no longer keep silence, and
was of the same opinion as Chatham. Mansfield opposed the amendment on
the ground that it infringed upon the right of the commons to be sole judges
of elections and might lead to a quarrel between the two houses. Chatham
said that he reverenced the constitutional authority of the commons, but
they had gone beyond it, they had betrayed their constituents and violated
the constitution. He ended with a declamation exhorting the peers to act as
became descendants of the barons of Magna Charta (how many of them
could trace descent from so noble a source?) and like "those iron barons, for
so," said he, "I may call them when compared with the silken barons of
modern days," to defend the rights of the people at large. His amendment
was negatived. The address was carried in the lords by 203 to 36, and in the
commons after a hot debate by 254 to 138.
Camden's conduct was discreditable. It is true that the maxim that a member
of the cabinet should either acquiesce in the decision of the majority or
resign his seat in it, was not then universally accepted, and that Camden had
made it plain that he disapproved of the policy of his colleagues with
respect to the vote of incapacity. He had not, however, opposed it with any
show of determination. His alliance with Chatham made it certain that he
could not retain the chancellorship, yet he would not resign it, because he
could inflict a harder blow on the ministry as a member of it than he could
when out of office. Decency demanded that he should resign before he
appealed to the lords against a decision made by the cabinet in which he sat.
He was dismissed from office on the 17th. Granby at once threw up the
ordnance and the command of the army, and Dunning, the solicitor-general,
and some others also resigned. It was difficult to find a new chancellor, for
the ministry was believed to be moribund. Grafton offered the great seal to
Charles Yorke, the second son of the famous chancellor, Hardwicke, who
died in 1764. He had twice been attorney-general, and was an ambitious
man. His brother, Lord Hardwicke, and Rockingham, to whose party he had
the causes of the prevailing discontents and specially into the matter of the
Middlesex election. "The people," he said, "demand redress, and depend
upon it, my lords, that one way or other they will have redress;" and he
attributed their discontent to the action of the commons in Wilkes's case.
Camden followed, and declared that he had beheld the arbitrary acts of the
ministry with silent indignation, that he would no longer keep silence, and
was of the same opinion as Chatham. Mansfield opposed the amendment on
the ground that it infringed upon the right of the commons to be sole judges
of elections and might lead to a quarrel between the two houses. Chatham
said that he reverenced the constitutional authority of the commons, but
they had gone beyond it, they had betrayed their constituents and violated
the constitution. He ended with a declamation exhorting the peers to act as
became descendants of the barons of Magna Charta (how many of them
could trace descent from so noble a source?) and like "those iron barons, for
so," said he, "I may call them when compared with the silken barons of
modern days," to defend the rights of the people at large. His amendment
was negatived. The address was carried in the lords by 203 to 36, and in the
commons after a hot debate by 254 to 138.
Camden's conduct was discreditable. It is true that the maxim that a member
of the cabinet should either acquiesce in the decision of the majority or
resign his seat in it, was not then universally accepted, and that Camden had
made it plain that he disapproved of the policy of his colleagues with
respect to the vote of incapacity. He had not, however, opposed it with any
show of determination. His alliance with Chatham made it certain that he
could not retain the chancellorship, yet he would not resign it, because he
could inflict a harder blow on the ministry as a member of it than he could
when out of office. Decency demanded that he should resign before he
appealed to the lords against a decision made by the cabinet in which he sat.
He was dismissed from office on the 17th. Granby at once threw up the
ordnance and the command of the army, and Dunning, the solicitor-general,
and some others also resigned. It was difficult to find a new chancellor, for
the ministry was believed to be moribund. Grafton offered the great seal to
Charles Yorke, the second son of the famous chancellor, Hardwicke, who
died in 1764. He had twice been attorney-general, and was an ambitious
man. His brother, Lord Hardwicke, and Rockingham, to whose party he had
Page 131
attached himself, urged him not to accept the offer, and he declined it. On
the 17th, George told him that if he did not accept the great seal then, it
should never be offered to him again. He yielded, and his brother and
Rockingham reproached him bitterly for his compliance. He was in ill-
health and his malady may well have been increased by his agitation. In any
case, he died on the 20th, perhaps by his own hand. His death defeated
Grafton's one hope of strengthening the administration; he had no one in the
cabinet on whose support he could rely except Conway; for Weymouth and
the rest constantly acted contrary to his opinions. He resigned office on the
28th.
George was undaunted; he turned to the one man of
eminence among his remaining ministers and appointed THE KING'S
North to the treasury, to be held along with the POLICY SUCCESSFUL.
chancellorship of the exchequer. Few changes were
made in the ministry; the great seal was put in commission, and Mansfield,
who remained in the cabinet, took the speakership of the house of lords.
Conway retired from the cabinet. Thurlow, a strong advocate of prerogative,
coarse, blunt, yet insincere, became solicitor-general, and the other vacant
places were filled. Yet these changes mark an important epoch. During
Grafton's administration the king became master of the government, but
was forced to employ unsatisfactory instruments for the exercise of his
power. Though differences of opinion still arose in the cabinet, the ministry
gained in solidarity and strength by the loss of its dissentient members.
Above all, George at last found a first minister after his own heart. North
had ability, tact, knowledge, and an unfailing good temper; he was well
educated and of high moral character. Though ungainly in appearance and
with no oratorical talent, he was witty and formidable in debate. In intellect
he was the king's superior, but he allowed George's prejudices to override
his convictions. He would never be called prime minister. George was his
own prime minister, and he merely his manager and representative. His
submission to the king at the cost of his duty to the country did not proceed
from selfish motives; it was the result partly of personal attachment and
partly of the action of the stronger upon the weaker will. George repaid his
devotion by giving him his full confidence and constant support. North was
lazy, yet this defect added strength to the combination of king and minister.
Behind the scenes George was active and anxious, while in parliament the
the 17th, George told him that if he did not accept the great seal then, it
should never be offered to him again. He yielded, and his brother and
Rockingham reproached him bitterly for his compliance. He was in ill-
health and his malady may well have been increased by his agitation. In any
case, he died on the 20th, perhaps by his own hand. His death defeated
Grafton's one hope of strengthening the administration; he had no one in the
cabinet on whose support he could rely except Conway; for Weymouth and
the rest constantly acted contrary to his opinions. He resigned office on the
28th.
George was undaunted; he turned to the one man of
eminence among his remaining ministers and appointed THE KING'S
North to the treasury, to be held along with the POLICY SUCCESSFUL.
chancellorship of the exchequer. Few changes were
made in the ministry; the great seal was put in commission, and Mansfield,
who remained in the cabinet, took the speakership of the house of lords.
Conway retired from the cabinet. Thurlow, a strong advocate of prerogative,
coarse, blunt, yet insincere, became solicitor-general, and the other vacant
places were filled. Yet these changes mark an important epoch. During
Grafton's administration the king became master of the government, but
was forced to employ unsatisfactory instruments for the exercise of his
power. Though differences of opinion still arose in the cabinet, the ministry
gained in solidarity and strength by the loss of its dissentient members.
Above all, George at last found a first minister after his own heart. North
had ability, tact, knowledge, and an unfailing good temper; he was well
educated and of high moral character. Though ungainly in appearance and
with no oratorical talent, he was witty and formidable in debate. In intellect
he was the king's superior, but he allowed George's prejudices to override
his convictions. He would never be called prime minister. George was his
own prime minister, and he merely his manager and representative. His
submission to the king at the cost of his duty to the country did not proceed
from selfish motives; it was the result partly of personal attachment and
partly of the action of the stronger upon the weaker will. George repaid his
devotion by giving him his full confidence and constant support. North was
lazy, yet this defect added strength to the combination of king and minister.
Behind the scenes George was active and anxious, while in parliament the
Page 132
weapons of indignation and sarcasm with which North was assailed failed
to pierce the impenetrable wall of his amiable insouciance. The king's
policy was triumphant. The combination between the obedient responsible
minister and the imperious irresponsible king lasted for twelve years, during
which George ruled as well as reigned.
Again, the point we have reached marks an epoch, because the rise of
modern radicalism has with fair reason been traced to the struggle over the
Middlesex election in 1769, though in accepting this judgment we must not
forget that the radicalism of 1819 was affected by events of later dates. In
1769, however, as in 1819, the representatives of the people were opposed
to the will of the people. Where was sovereignty to reside? In the nation as
represented in parliament, or in the nation external to it? When this question
arises it can only be set at rest by making parliament truly representative of
the nation. Accordingly popular discontent in 1769 was not merely directed
against ministers and measures, it demanded radical changes in the
constitutional machinery, and its demands were expressed by means which,
though not unconstitutional, were not recognised by the constitution, such
as public meetings and associations. Meetings to express discontent and
urge reforms were constantly held, and an association for promoting the
popular demands, called the Bill of Rights Society, was formed by a clerical
demagogue named Horne (afterwards Horne Tooke), Wilkes, Glynn, and
others. Among the changes which they demanded as remedies for the
unsatisfactory state of the representation were annual parliaments, the
exaction of an oath against bribery, and the exclusion from parliament of
holders of places and pensions. At this time, too, constituencies began to
assert a right to control their representatives by sending them instructions as
to their conduct in parliament.
The movement found support in parliament. A few of the
minority were among its leaders; and others, though not CHATHAM AND
BURKE AS
disposed to go so far, maintained the necessity for REFORMERS.
constitutional reforms. Whig tactics were changed since
the beginning of the reign. Beaten by the king and his friends at the game of
corruption, the whigs had become the advocates of purity of election. The
fact need not reflect on personal characters. Some of the whigs of 1769
were consistent in their opposition to corruption. As regards others, it must
be remembered that abuses seldom shock a man who gains by them; they
to pierce the impenetrable wall of his amiable insouciance. The king's
policy was triumphant. The combination between the obedient responsible
minister and the imperious irresponsible king lasted for twelve years, during
which George ruled as well as reigned.
Again, the point we have reached marks an epoch, because the rise of
modern radicalism has with fair reason been traced to the struggle over the
Middlesex election in 1769, though in accepting this judgment we must not
forget that the radicalism of 1819 was affected by events of later dates. In
1769, however, as in 1819, the representatives of the people were opposed
to the will of the people. Where was sovereignty to reside? In the nation as
represented in parliament, or in the nation external to it? When this question
arises it can only be set at rest by making parliament truly representative of
the nation. Accordingly popular discontent in 1769 was not merely directed
against ministers and measures, it demanded radical changes in the
constitutional machinery, and its demands were expressed by means which,
though not unconstitutional, were not recognised by the constitution, such
as public meetings and associations. Meetings to express discontent and
urge reforms were constantly held, and an association for promoting the
popular demands, called the Bill of Rights Society, was formed by a clerical
demagogue named Horne (afterwards Horne Tooke), Wilkes, Glynn, and
others. Among the changes which they demanded as remedies for the
unsatisfactory state of the representation were annual parliaments, the
exaction of an oath against bribery, and the exclusion from parliament of
holders of places and pensions. At this time, too, constituencies began to
assert a right to control their representatives by sending them instructions as
to their conduct in parliament.
The movement found support in parliament. A few of the
minority were among its leaders; and others, though not CHATHAM AND
BURKE AS
disposed to go so far, maintained the necessity for REFORMERS.
constitutional reforms. Whig tactics were changed since
the beginning of the reign. Beaten by the king and his friends at the game of
corruption, the whigs had become the advocates of purity of election. The
fact need not reflect on personal characters. Some of the whigs of 1769
were consistent in their opposition to corruption. As regards others, it must
be remembered that abuses seldom shock a man who gains by them; they
Page 133
become intolerable if they are turned against him. Chatham himself once sat
for Old Sarum, was elected for Seaford apparently through bribery, and as
minister was content that Newcastle should gain him support by corruption.
Chief among the abuses which prevented the house of commons from
representing the people were the defects in its constitution. While the
elections in counties and some large boroughs were comparatively pure, the
representation of the smaller boroughs was a matter of nomination or
corruption. Out of the 513 members for England and Wales, 254 sat for
constituencies which, taken together, numbered only 11,500 voters, and
fifty-six boroughs had each less than forty voters. Forty-four members sat
for Cornish seats; Middlesex, London and Westminster together only
returned eight. Chatham at one time seemed to think that the corrupt
boroughs might be got rid of, but finally feared that such a change would
cause a "public convulsion," and proposed to counteract their effects by
adding one member to each of the county constituencies. After much
hesitation he also advocated a return to triennial parliaments.
Burke, on the other hand, and the Rockingham party generally were
opposed to any change in the constitutional machinery. The constitution
was altogether admirable in Burke's eyes; all that was wanted was the
removal of abuses, which hindered it from working well. Shorter
parliaments would, he argued, only lead to more frequent disorders and
increase the opportunities for corruption; he would have no change in the
system of representation, and held that a place bill would lower the
character of parliament by excluding from it many men of wealth, weight,
and talent. He strongly objected to the growing custom of sending
instructions to members, pointing out that members of parliament should
not be regarded as mere local delegates, but as representatives of the nation,
chosen by various constituent bodies. While he was opposed to changes in
the constitution, he laboured to bring parliament into a sound state by
reforms which allowed the publication of its proceedings, improved the
system of deciding the lawfulness of elections, and checked the
multiplication of places and pensions, as well as by other measures of a like
tendency. The opposition then differed amongst themselves: Chatham and
his followers held that some organic changes in the constitution were
necessary, and more or less sympathised with what (though the name was
not yet invented) may be called the radical party; Burke and those under his
for Old Sarum, was elected for Seaford apparently through bribery, and as
minister was content that Newcastle should gain him support by corruption.
Chief among the abuses which prevented the house of commons from
representing the people were the defects in its constitution. While the
elections in counties and some large boroughs were comparatively pure, the
representation of the smaller boroughs was a matter of nomination or
corruption. Out of the 513 members for England and Wales, 254 sat for
constituencies which, taken together, numbered only 11,500 voters, and
fifty-six boroughs had each less than forty voters. Forty-four members sat
for Cornish seats; Middlesex, London and Westminster together only
returned eight. Chatham at one time seemed to think that the corrupt
boroughs might be got rid of, but finally feared that such a change would
cause a "public convulsion," and proposed to counteract their effects by
adding one member to each of the county constituencies. After much
hesitation he also advocated a return to triennial parliaments.
Burke, on the other hand, and the Rockingham party generally were
opposed to any change in the constitutional machinery. The constitution
was altogether admirable in Burke's eyes; all that was wanted was the
removal of abuses, which hindered it from working well. Shorter
parliaments would, he argued, only lead to more frequent disorders and
increase the opportunities for corruption; he would have no change in the
system of representation, and held that a place bill would lower the
character of parliament by excluding from it many men of wealth, weight,
and talent. He strongly objected to the growing custom of sending
instructions to members, pointing out that members of parliament should
not be regarded as mere local delegates, but as representatives of the nation,
chosen by various constituent bodies. While he was opposed to changes in
the constitution, he laboured to bring parliament into a sound state by
reforms which allowed the publication of its proceedings, improved the
system of deciding the lawfulness of elections, and checked the
multiplication of places and pensions, as well as by other measures of a like
tendency. The opposition then differed amongst themselves: Chatham and
his followers held that some organic changes in the constitution were
necessary, and more or less sympathised with what (though the name was
not yet invented) may be called the radical party; Burke and those under his
Page 134
influence railed at the bill of rights men, deprecated organic changes, and
advocated conservative reforms.
FOOTNOTES:
[76] Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne, ii., 31-37.
[77] James Grenville to Lady Chatham, Feb. 23, 1767, MS. Pitt Papers, 35.
[78] Chatham Corr., iii., 21, 134, 229-30.
[79] Burke's speeches on Jan. 9 and May 8, 1770, Parl. Hist., xvii., 674, 1004-5.
[80] The ablest advocacy of the Franciscan authorship is in Sir L. Stephen's
article on "Francis" in the Dictionary of National Biography; see also English
Historical Review, iii. (1888), 233 sq. A claim is advanced for Temple in the
Grenville Papers, iii.; his co-operation is suggested by Sir W. Anson, Grafton
Memoirs, Introd. xxxi.-xxxiii. It may be noted that Temple's letters in the Pitt
Papers show that he had a peculiarly coarse mind.
[81] Annual Register, xiii. (1770), 58.
advocated conservative reforms.
FOOTNOTES:
[76] Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne, ii., 31-37.
[77] James Grenville to Lady Chatham, Feb. 23, 1767, MS. Pitt Papers, 35.
[78] Chatham Corr., iii., 21, 134, 229-30.
[79] Burke's speeches on Jan. 9 and May 8, 1770, Parl. Hist., xvii., 674, 1004-5.
[80] The ablest advocacy of the Franciscan authorship is in Sir L. Stephen's
article on "Francis" in the Dictionary of National Biography; see also English
Historical Review, iii. (1888), 233 sq. A claim is advanced for Temple in the
Grenville Papers, iii.; his co-operation is suggested by Sir W. Anson, Grafton
Memoirs, Introd. xxxi.-xxxiii. It may be noted that Temple's letters in the Pitt
Papers show that he had a peculiarly coarse mind.
[81] Annual Register, xiii. (1770), 58.
Page 135
CHAPTER VI.
THE KING'S RULE.
It was generally thought that North's administration would be short-lived.
The opposition was strong and apparently united, and it had a large part of
the people at its back. The public expectation was ill-grounded. The king's
influence in parliament was not to be overborne; as many as 192 members
of the house of commons held office under government.[82] North was a
first-rate leader and the king was industrious and determined. Yet the
strength of the ministry was largely derived from the conduct of their
opponents. The violence of the extreme section of the popular party led to a
revulsion of feeling in the country. In parliament Chatham was not
effective, for his declamatory speeches and dictatorial manner were out of
place in the lords; and in the commons Burke was apt to weary the house,
and lost ground through constant breaches of good taste. Above all, the two
parties in the opposition, the extreme section, with which Chatham had
much sympathy, and the Rockingham whigs, did not work well together. In
the spring of 1770 Burke published his Thoughts on the Causes of the
Present Discontents, a masterly exposition of the existing political abuses
and of the remedies appropriate to them. Its rejection of proposals for
organic changes in the constitution annoyed Chatham, who declared that it
had done much harm to the cause. He was soon irritated with the whigs
generally. "Moderation, moderation," said he, "is the burthen of their song;"
he would be "a scarecrow of violence to the gentle warblers of the grove,
the moderate whigs and temperate statesmen". He tried to force the whigs
to follow his lead, but Rockingham had no mind to court Chatham's loud-
voiced supporters in the city, or to adopt violent measures in order to assure
the people that he was true to their cause. Chatham thought it possible that
it might be expedient to separate himself from "so unorthodox a
congregation" as the whig party, and accused Burke and the Rockinghams
of a spirit of connexion. So bitter were his feelings, that he and his friends
rejoiced when Dowdeswell and Burke, "those positive gentlemen," were
defeated in an attempt to vindicate the rights of juries, because they adopted
a method of procedure of which he did not approve; they were, his friend
THE KING'S RULE.
It was generally thought that North's administration would be short-lived.
The opposition was strong and apparently united, and it had a large part of
the people at its back. The public expectation was ill-grounded. The king's
influence in parliament was not to be overborne; as many as 192 members
of the house of commons held office under government.[82] North was a
first-rate leader and the king was industrious and determined. Yet the
strength of the ministry was largely derived from the conduct of their
opponents. The violence of the extreme section of the popular party led to a
revulsion of feeling in the country. In parliament Chatham was not
effective, for his declamatory speeches and dictatorial manner were out of
place in the lords; and in the commons Burke was apt to weary the house,
and lost ground through constant breaches of good taste. Above all, the two
parties in the opposition, the extreme section, with which Chatham had
much sympathy, and the Rockingham whigs, did not work well together. In
the spring of 1770 Burke published his Thoughts on the Causes of the
Present Discontents, a masterly exposition of the existing political abuses
and of the remedies appropriate to them. Its rejection of proposals for
organic changes in the constitution annoyed Chatham, who declared that it
had done much harm to the cause. He was soon irritated with the whigs
generally. "Moderation, moderation," said he, "is the burthen of their song;"
he would be "a scarecrow of violence to the gentle warblers of the grove,
the moderate whigs and temperate statesmen". He tried to force the whigs
to follow his lead, but Rockingham had no mind to court Chatham's loud-
voiced supporters in the city, or to adopt violent measures in order to assure
the people that he was true to their cause. Chatham thought it possible that
it might be expedient to separate himself from "so unorthodox a
congregation" as the whig party, and accused Burke and the Rockinghams
of a spirit of connexion. So bitter were his feelings, that he and his friends
rejoiced when Dowdeswell and Burke, "those positive gentlemen," were
defeated in an attempt to vindicate the rights of juries, because they adopted
a method of procedure of which he did not approve; they were, his friend
Page 136
Calcraft wrote to him, "completely disgraced," and Chatham styled their bill
"a compound of connexion, tyranny and absurdity".[83] While the
opposition was in this distracted state the ministerial party was united. In
three years' time at most opposition in parliament was practically dead, and
the ministry was thoroughly popular in the country.[84]
During the remainder of the session of 1769-70 the
opposition made a good fight. In the lords Chatham and A DIVIDED
Rockingham co-operated in attempts to persuade the OPPOSITION.
house to condemn the action of the commons with reference to the
Middlesex election, and in debates on American affairs; but Rockingham
refused to join in moving an address to the king to dissolve parliament.
Chatham's motion was avowedly made in order to stimulate popularity out
of doors, and Rockingham, who disliked his demagogic arts, thought it
uncalled for and refused "to be sworn every day to keep his word" to the
people. Chatham persevered, and the motion received little support. In the
commons George Grenville, Dowdeswell, who as Grenville's health
declined became virtually leader of the opposition, Burke, Barré,
Wedderburn, an able and ambitious Scottish lawyer, and others, aided by
the extreme section of which Beckford and Alderman Sawbridge were
conspicuous members, caused the ministry much trouble. North was the
chief speaker on the ministerial side. The court party, or king's friends, so
far as they may in any degree be regarded as distinct from the rest of his
supporters, seem to have been headed by Rigby, who since 1768 had lived
in luxury on the vast profits of the paymaster's office. Dowdeswell's motion
that in matters of election the house is bound to judge according to the law
of the land was so threatening an attack that North met it by tacking to it an
amendment to the effect that the declaration of Wilkes's incapacity was
agreeable to that law, and the minority reached 180 against 244. The king,
anxiously watching all that passed in parliament, felt that even this majority
was satisfactory. "A little spirit," he wrote to North, "will soon restore order
in my service."
The opposition were encouraged, and proceeded to attack two of the
sources from which the crown derived its influence. As the expenses of the
customs, amounting to nearly £600,000 a year, gave ministers a large
amount of patronage which was used for political purposes, Dowdeswell
proposed to disqualify the inferior revenue officers from voting at elections.
"a compound of connexion, tyranny and absurdity".[83] While the
opposition was in this distracted state the ministerial party was united. In
three years' time at most opposition in parliament was practically dead, and
the ministry was thoroughly popular in the country.[84]
During the remainder of the session of 1769-70 the
opposition made a good fight. In the lords Chatham and A DIVIDED
Rockingham co-operated in attempts to persuade the OPPOSITION.
house to condemn the action of the commons with reference to the
Middlesex election, and in debates on American affairs; but Rockingham
refused to join in moving an address to the king to dissolve parliament.
Chatham's motion was avowedly made in order to stimulate popularity out
of doors, and Rockingham, who disliked his demagogic arts, thought it
uncalled for and refused "to be sworn every day to keep his word" to the
people. Chatham persevered, and the motion received little support. In the
commons George Grenville, Dowdeswell, who as Grenville's health
declined became virtually leader of the opposition, Burke, Barré,
Wedderburn, an able and ambitious Scottish lawyer, and others, aided by
the extreme section of which Beckford and Alderman Sawbridge were
conspicuous members, caused the ministry much trouble. North was the
chief speaker on the ministerial side. The court party, or king's friends, so
far as they may in any degree be regarded as distinct from the rest of his
supporters, seem to have been headed by Rigby, who since 1768 had lived
in luxury on the vast profits of the paymaster's office. Dowdeswell's motion
that in matters of election the house is bound to judge according to the law
of the land was so threatening an attack that North met it by tacking to it an
amendment to the effect that the declaration of Wilkes's incapacity was
agreeable to that law, and the minority reached 180 against 244. The king,
anxiously watching all that passed in parliament, felt that even this majority
was satisfactory. "A little spirit," he wrote to North, "will soon restore order
in my service."
The opposition were encouraged, and proceeded to attack two of the
sources from which the crown derived its influence. As the expenses of the
customs, amounting to nearly £600,000 a year, gave ministers a large
amount of patronage which was used for political purposes, Dowdeswell
proposed to disqualify the inferior revenue officers from voting at elections.
Page 137
Again, Grenville urged that parliament had paid the debts of the civil list
without receiving any assurance that further demands of the same kind
would not be made upon the country, and moved for the accounts of the
past year as the only means of preventing the revenues of the crown from
being spent on corruption. On both these motions the ministerial majority
was substantially larger than on the Middlesex question. Nevertheless, the
opposition succeeded in carrying one measure which removed an abuse of
the representative system and raised the character of the house of commons.
The custom, which had lately become usual, of trying the validity of
controverted elections by the whole house, and determining it by vote,
placed the rights of electors in the hands of the minister who commanded a
majority. During the hearing of an election petition the house would be thin,
for the evidence was of little consequence; the decision was a trial of
strength between political parties, each side would muster its full force, and
a seat would be secured or taken away merely in order to swell a triumphant
majority. Grenville proposed to transfer the right of hearing and
determining these cases from the whole house to a committee of fifteen
members, thirteen of whom were to be chosen by ballot, and the other two
nominated by the two candidates. The fifteen were to be sworn to decide
impartially, and to have power to examine witnesses on oath. An effort to
postpone the bill, though supported by North, was defeated by 185 to 123,
the country gentlemen on this occasion voting with the opposition; the bill
was carried, passed the lords, and became law on April 12. The measure
reflects lustre on the memory of Grenville, who devised it and carried it
through when suffering from mortal sickness. The act, which was limited in
committee to seven years, was found so useful that it was made perpetual in
1774.
The decision to abandon all the new duties levied in
America, except that on tea, was brought before the THE "BOSTON
MASSACRE".
house of commons by North on March 6, 1770. The idea
of making the Americans pay for their own defence was dropped, and the
tax, which brought in only a trifling sum, was to be maintained as an
assertion of right. Grenville pointed out that a partial repeal would not
conciliate the colonists, that the troubles in America had been caused by
vacillation, and that what was wanted was a plan of government steadily
pursued and enforced. The opposition desired complete repeal, and the
without receiving any assurance that further demands of the same kind
would not be made upon the country, and moved for the accounts of the
past year as the only means of preventing the revenues of the crown from
being spent on corruption. On both these motions the ministerial majority
was substantially larger than on the Middlesex question. Nevertheless, the
opposition succeeded in carrying one measure which removed an abuse of
the representative system and raised the character of the house of commons.
The custom, which had lately become usual, of trying the validity of
controverted elections by the whole house, and determining it by vote,
placed the rights of electors in the hands of the minister who commanded a
majority. During the hearing of an election petition the house would be thin,
for the evidence was of little consequence; the decision was a trial of
strength between political parties, each side would muster its full force, and
a seat would be secured or taken away merely in order to swell a triumphant
majority. Grenville proposed to transfer the right of hearing and
determining these cases from the whole house to a committee of fifteen
members, thirteen of whom were to be chosen by ballot, and the other two
nominated by the two candidates. The fifteen were to be sworn to decide
impartially, and to have power to examine witnesses on oath. An effort to
postpone the bill, though supported by North, was defeated by 185 to 123,
the country gentlemen on this occasion voting with the opposition; the bill
was carried, passed the lords, and became law on April 12. The measure
reflects lustre on the memory of Grenville, who devised it and carried it
through when suffering from mortal sickness. The act, which was limited in
committee to seven years, was found so useful that it was made perpetual in
1774.
The decision to abandon all the new duties levied in
America, except that on tea, was brought before the THE "BOSTON
MASSACRE".
house of commons by North on March 6, 1770. The idea
of making the Americans pay for their own defence was dropped, and the
tax, which brought in only a trifling sum, was to be maintained as an
assertion of right. Grenville pointed out that a partial repeal would not
conciliate the colonists, that the troubles in America had been caused by
vacillation, and that what was wanted was a plan of government steadily
pursued and enforced. The opposition desired complete repeal, and the
Page 138
ministerial majority was only 62. On the evening before this debate an
event took place at Boston which strengthened the spirit of resistance. The
cowardly insults to which the soldiers were exposed after the reduction of
their number led to various scuffles; but their discipline prevented them
from effectually retaliating on their persecutors, and baiting the soldiers
became a popular pastime. On the evening of the 5th Captain Preston of the
29th regiment and about a dozen soldiers went to the rescue of a sentinel
who was being ill-treated by the mob. After some provocation his men fired
without orders, three of the mob were killed on the spot, two others were
mortally and several more slightly wounded. The next day the townspeople,
led by Samuel Adams, insisted on the removal of the troops. Hutchinson
yielded to their demand, and both regiments were withdrawn to Castle
William. Preston and his men were brought to trial, and were treated with
remarkable fairness. All were acquitted except two soldiers, who were
slightly punished. The decision of parliament with reference to the new
duties reached the colonies when the temper of the people was excited by
this untoward event, the "Boston massacre" as it was called, and was
regarded rather as a partial acknowledgment of defeat than as an attempt at
conciliation. Disputes, however, arose over the non-importation agreements.
Self-interest proved stronger than political feeling: the agreements were
constantly broken; indeed, the imports to New England and Pennsylvania
increased to one-half more than their usual amount. In October the
agreements were everywhere definitely abandoned, and new agreements
were made against the importation of tea only. With that exception,
commerce with England again revived.
Outside parliament a strong party in the city, led by Beckford and supported
by Chatham, was clamorous against the government. In spite of the
disapproval of nearly all the aldermen, Beckford held a meeting of the
livery to complain that the petition of the city with reference to the
Middlesex election had not been answered. The meeting adopted an
arrogantly worded remonstrance to the king, declaring that "a secret and
malign influence" deprived the people of their dearest rights, and desiring
the dissolution of parliament and the removal of evil ministers. In
accordance with a prescriptive right, this remonstrance was received by the
king in person on March 14. George replied to it with a severe rebuke; the
remonstrance was, he said, disrespectful to himself, injurious to his
event took place at Boston which strengthened the spirit of resistance. The
cowardly insults to which the soldiers were exposed after the reduction of
their number led to various scuffles; but their discipline prevented them
from effectually retaliating on their persecutors, and baiting the soldiers
became a popular pastime. On the evening of the 5th Captain Preston of the
29th regiment and about a dozen soldiers went to the rescue of a sentinel
who was being ill-treated by the mob. After some provocation his men fired
without orders, three of the mob were killed on the spot, two others were
mortally and several more slightly wounded. The next day the townspeople,
led by Samuel Adams, insisted on the removal of the troops. Hutchinson
yielded to their demand, and both regiments were withdrawn to Castle
William. Preston and his men were brought to trial, and were treated with
remarkable fairness. All were acquitted except two soldiers, who were
slightly punished. The decision of parliament with reference to the new
duties reached the colonies when the temper of the people was excited by
this untoward event, the "Boston massacre" as it was called, and was
regarded rather as a partial acknowledgment of defeat than as an attempt at
conciliation. Disputes, however, arose over the non-importation agreements.
Self-interest proved stronger than political feeling: the agreements were
constantly broken; indeed, the imports to New England and Pennsylvania
increased to one-half more than their usual amount. In October the
agreements were everywhere definitely abandoned, and new agreements
were made against the importation of tea only. With that exception,
commerce with England again revived.
Outside parliament a strong party in the city, led by Beckford and supported
by Chatham, was clamorous against the government. In spite of the
disapproval of nearly all the aldermen, Beckford held a meeting of the
livery to complain that the petition of the city with reference to the
Middlesex election had not been answered. The meeting adopted an
arrogantly worded remonstrance to the king, declaring that "a secret and
malign influence" deprived the people of their dearest rights, and desiring
the dissolution of parliament and the removal of evil ministers. In
accordance with a prescriptive right, this remonstrance was received by the
king in person on March 14. George replied to it with a severe rebuke; the
remonstrance was, he said, disrespectful to himself, injurious to his
Page 139
parliament, and irreconcilable with the principles of the constitution. The
court party was much excited, and at the Cocoa-tree Tavern, the meeting-
place or club of the supporters of the ministry, talked loudly of
impeachments. North wisely held them back.[85] The house of commons
could not allow the insult to itself to pass unnoticed, and a copy of the
remonstrance was moved for. Beckford and his friends in the house
defended it, and Burke passionately urged the folly and injustice of
quarrelling with the city for exercising the right of petition and
remonstrance. North calmed down the heat of the debate, and pointed out
the unconstitutional character of the remonstrance, which virtually denied
the authority of the existing parliament. The motion was carried, and further
debates took place. The whigs, though firm in asserting the right of petition,
disliked the tone that had been adopted by the city, and an address to the
king condemning the remonstrance was carried by 248 to 94. Chatham was
furious. With his warm approval a remonstrance to the king was sent from
Westminster, and Middlesex and Kent followed suit; but Rockingham's
refusal to support his motion in favour of a dissolution plainly showed him
that he could not force the whigs to adopt violent measures.
court party was much excited, and at the Cocoa-tree Tavern, the meeting-
place or club of the supporters of the ministry, talked loudly of
impeachments. North wisely held them back.[85] The house of commons
could not allow the insult to itself to pass unnoticed, and a copy of the
remonstrance was moved for. Beckford and his friends in the house
defended it, and Burke passionately urged the folly and injustice of
quarrelling with the city for exercising the right of petition and
remonstrance. North calmed down the heat of the debate, and pointed out
the unconstitutional character of the remonstrance, which virtually denied
the authority of the existing parliament. The motion was carried, and further
debates took place. The whigs, though firm in asserting the right of petition,
disliked the tone that had been adopted by the city, and an address to the
king condemning the remonstrance was carried by 248 to 94. Chatham was
furious. With his warm approval a remonstrance to the king was sent from
Westminster, and Middlesex and Kent followed suit; but Rockingham's
refusal to support his motion in favour of a dissolution plainly showed him
that he could not force the whigs to adopt violent measures.
Page 140
The city would not endure the king's rebuke in silence,
and another remonstrance was adopted to the same THE KING AND
effect as the former, though it addressed the king in THE CITY OF
LONDON.
more dutiful language. George received it on May 23,
and replied that his sentiments on the subject of the first address were
unchanged. As soon as he ceased speaking, Beckford made a harangue to
which the king returned no answer. The words attributed to Beckford, and
afterwards inscribed in gilt letters in the Guildhall, were that whoever
alienated the king's mind from his people in general and the city of London
in particular was his majesty's enemy and "a betrayer of our happy
constitution as it was established at the glorious and necessary revolution".
Brave words which, as there is reason to believe, were invented for him and
never spoken.[86] Beckford's friends believed that he had got the better of
the king, and Chatham in a grandiose letter to him declared that "the spirit
of old England spoke that never-to-be-forgotten day". Nevertheless,
Beckford's conduct was highly indecorous. The sovereign never performs a
public act on his own responsibility, and accordingly all addresses on public
affairs which are to be answered in person are sent beforehand to the proper
officer that the king may receive the advice of his ministers as to his reply.
Beckford tried to entrap the king into entering into a personal altercation
and replying without consultation with his constitutional advisers. George,
who in public never fell short of his kingly part, defeated his purpose by
silence and afterwards ordered that his unexpected speech was not to be
looked upon as precedent.
He prorogued parliament a few days before this incident. For some months
his mind had been tried severely. His power, which he loved so well and
conscientiously believed himself bound to maintain, was at stake in the
political conflict. His letters to North prove how eagerly and anxiously he
watched the progress of that conflict in which he was really, though not
ostensibly, engaged in person. If Chatham and the city had succeeded in
forcing him to dissolve parliament on the ground that its authority was
vitiated by the nomination of Luttrell as a member for Middlesex, he would
have suffered a defeat which even his dogged perseverance would have
failed to retrieve. Rather than that, "I will," he said to Conway, "have
recourse to this," and he laid his hand on his sword. The opposition had a
good cause, but, as we have seen, they played their part badly. Among the
and another remonstrance was adopted to the same THE KING AND
effect as the former, though it addressed the king in THE CITY OF
LONDON.
more dutiful language. George received it on May 23,
and replied that his sentiments on the subject of the first address were
unchanged. As soon as he ceased speaking, Beckford made a harangue to
which the king returned no answer. The words attributed to Beckford, and
afterwards inscribed in gilt letters in the Guildhall, were that whoever
alienated the king's mind from his people in general and the city of London
in particular was his majesty's enemy and "a betrayer of our happy
constitution as it was established at the glorious and necessary revolution".
Brave words which, as there is reason to believe, were invented for him and
never spoken.[86] Beckford's friends believed that he had got the better of
the king, and Chatham in a grandiose letter to him declared that "the spirit
of old England spoke that never-to-be-forgotten day". Nevertheless,
Beckford's conduct was highly indecorous. The sovereign never performs a
public act on his own responsibility, and accordingly all addresses on public
affairs which are to be answered in person are sent beforehand to the proper
officer that the king may receive the advice of his ministers as to his reply.
Beckford tried to entrap the king into entering into a personal altercation
and replying without consultation with his constitutional advisers. George,
who in public never fell short of his kingly part, defeated his purpose by
silence and afterwards ordered that his unexpected speech was not to be
looked upon as precedent.
He prorogued parliament a few days before this incident. For some months
his mind had been tried severely. His power, which he loved so well and
conscientiously believed himself bound to maintain, was at stake in the
political conflict. His letters to North prove how eagerly and anxiously he
watched the progress of that conflict in which he was really, though not
ostensibly, engaged in person. If Chatham and the city had succeeded in
forcing him to dissolve parliament on the ground that its authority was
vitiated by the nomination of Luttrell as a member for Middlesex, he would
have suffered a defeat which even his dogged perseverance would have
failed to retrieve. Rather than that, "I will," he said to Conway, "have
recourse to this," and he laid his hand on his sword. The opposition had a
good cause, but, as we have seen, they played their part badly. Among the
Page 141
reasons of their failure a conspicuous place must be assigned to the
displeasure excited by the attacks made on the king by the more violent
section, the vile letter of Junius, the rudeness of the city, and the like. The
constant references which were made to some secret influence, presumably
that of his mother or Bute, which was supposed to guide him were as
foolish as they were rude, for George's policy was his own. His anxieties
and troubles were almost more than he could bear. "At the [royal] gardening
(sic) party" on June 2 he burst into tears and talked somewhat strangely; he
had, it was believed, "for some time been much agitated and lived (as usual
when he is so) on vegetables and fruit".[87] The symptoms happily passed
away. He had, indeed, cause for cheerfulness, for the ministry was in a far
stronger position at the end of the session than when North took office.
The next session began early, on November 13, for a war
with Spain seemed imminent. Choiseul was anxious to SPAIN AND THE
FALKLAND
make the Family Compact the means of humbling ISLANDS.
England and of regaining for France the territories she
had lost. He patiently built up a new navy, until France had afloat sixty-four
ships of the line and fifty frigates; and he organised the naval artillery.
Grimaldi, the foreign minister of Spain, shared his hopes and followed his
example; the Spanish navy was increased, and the dockyards well stocked,
though as usual the seamen were few. For some time both powers showed
an inclination to treat England with contempt; they believed her to be
enfeebled by domestic discord, and her conduct with reference to the
Manila ransom, the annexation of Corsica, and some other matters,
strengthened this opinion. In 1770 the ministers of the two Bourbon courts
went a step too far. The Falkland islands, to the east of the straits of
Magellan, though in reality only fit for sheep-farming, were generally
believed to be fertile. Acting on this belief, France took possession of the
eastern island in 1764, and shortly afterwards handed it over to Spain.
Meanwhile, in 1765, England took possession of the western island and
formed a settlement on it, which was named Port Egmont, after the first lord
of the admiralty. In November, 1769, Captain Hunt of the Tamar, sloop of
war, observed a Spanish schooner hovering off this settlement and warned
her to depart. The Spanish captain asserted that the island belonged to his
master, and two Spanish frigates arrived soon afterwards and repeated the
claim. Hunt gave them a decided answer, and as it was agreed that both
displeasure excited by the attacks made on the king by the more violent
section, the vile letter of Junius, the rudeness of the city, and the like. The
constant references which were made to some secret influence, presumably
that of his mother or Bute, which was supposed to guide him were as
foolish as they were rude, for George's policy was his own. His anxieties
and troubles were almost more than he could bear. "At the [royal] gardening
(sic) party" on June 2 he burst into tears and talked somewhat strangely; he
had, it was believed, "for some time been much agitated and lived (as usual
when he is so) on vegetables and fruit".[87] The symptoms happily passed
away. He had, indeed, cause for cheerfulness, for the ministry was in a far
stronger position at the end of the session than when North took office.
The next session began early, on November 13, for a war
with Spain seemed imminent. Choiseul was anxious to SPAIN AND THE
FALKLAND
make the Family Compact the means of humbling ISLANDS.
England and of regaining for France the territories she
had lost. He patiently built up a new navy, until France had afloat sixty-four
ships of the line and fifty frigates; and he organised the naval artillery.
Grimaldi, the foreign minister of Spain, shared his hopes and followed his
example; the Spanish navy was increased, and the dockyards well stocked,
though as usual the seamen were few. For some time both powers showed
an inclination to treat England with contempt; they believed her to be
enfeebled by domestic discord, and her conduct with reference to the
Manila ransom, the annexation of Corsica, and some other matters,
strengthened this opinion. In 1770 the ministers of the two Bourbon courts
went a step too far. The Falkland islands, to the east of the straits of
Magellan, though in reality only fit for sheep-farming, were generally
believed to be fertile. Acting on this belief, France took possession of the
eastern island in 1764, and shortly afterwards handed it over to Spain.
Meanwhile, in 1765, England took possession of the western island and
formed a settlement on it, which was named Port Egmont, after the first lord
of the admiralty. In November, 1769, Captain Hunt of the Tamar, sloop of
war, observed a Spanish schooner hovering off this settlement and warned
her to depart. The Spanish captain asserted that the island belonged to his
master, and two Spanish frigates arrived soon afterwards and repeated the
claim. Hunt gave them a decided answer, and as it was agreed that both
Page 142
parties should refer the claim of right to their governments, sailed for
England leaving a small garrison in Port Egmont. During his absence
Buccarelli, the governor of Buenos Ayres, took forcible possession of the
island, and, in order to ensure being the first to send the news to Spain, had
the impudence to remove the rudder of a British ship of war, and detained
her for twenty days.
Harris, afterwards first Earl of Malmesbury, the British chargé d'affaires at
Madrid, at once made a suitable remonstrance, but, as Grimaldi expected
support from France, received no satisfaction. The British government,
which had not bestirred itself on receiving Hunt's report in June, at once
prepared for war, and the king's speech declared that proper reparation
would be required. The navy in that year numbered 337 ships, only forty-
two less than in 1763, of which three were first-rates, fifteen second-rates,
and 100 third-rates, besides forty-four sloops.[88] Some of these, however,
were thoroughly rotten, and many more in bad repair, and the dockyards
were short of seasoned timber. For some years the navy had been neglected,
and, though the votes for the service had been large, much money had been
eaten up by abuses. Hawke, however, had done something in breaking-up
worn-out vessels, repairing, and building. Forty ships of the line besides
frigates were soon nearly ready for sea. There was some difficulty in
manning them, for the peace establishment was only 16,000 men. North
said that 9,000 additional seamen were wanted at once, and raised the land
tax to four shillings. Bounties were offered and press-gangs were busy. The
new lord mayor, Trecothick, one of the violent party in the city, refused to
sign the press-warrants. Chatham praised his "firmness," but disapproved
his action, for impressment was, he said, constitutional and in times of
emergency necessary. Grimaldi looked to France in vain. Louis, who was
then under the influence of Madame du Barri, was determined not to go to
war; "my minister," he wrote to Charles of Spain, "would have war, but I
will not". Choiseul was dismissed in disgrace, and was succeeded by the
Duc d'Aiguillon. Spain had no choice but to yield to the demands of Great
Britain, and on January 22, 1771, disowned Buccarelli's action, and agreed
to deliver up Port Egmont as it was before it was seized. Throughout the
whole progress of the affair the opposition attacked the government,
alleging that it was careless of the honour of England, had exhibited a lack
of promptitude, and had made a secret agreement with Spain to abandon the
England leaving a small garrison in Port Egmont. During his absence
Buccarelli, the governor of Buenos Ayres, took forcible possession of the
island, and, in order to ensure being the first to send the news to Spain, had
the impudence to remove the rudder of a British ship of war, and detained
her for twenty days.
Harris, afterwards first Earl of Malmesbury, the British chargé d'affaires at
Madrid, at once made a suitable remonstrance, but, as Grimaldi expected
support from France, received no satisfaction. The British government,
which had not bestirred itself on receiving Hunt's report in June, at once
prepared for war, and the king's speech declared that proper reparation
would be required. The navy in that year numbered 337 ships, only forty-
two less than in 1763, of which three were first-rates, fifteen second-rates,
and 100 third-rates, besides forty-four sloops.[88] Some of these, however,
were thoroughly rotten, and many more in bad repair, and the dockyards
were short of seasoned timber. For some years the navy had been neglected,
and, though the votes for the service had been large, much money had been
eaten up by abuses. Hawke, however, had done something in breaking-up
worn-out vessels, repairing, and building. Forty ships of the line besides
frigates were soon nearly ready for sea. There was some difficulty in
manning them, for the peace establishment was only 16,000 men. North
said that 9,000 additional seamen were wanted at once, and raised the land
tax to four shillings. Bounties were offered and press-gangs were busy. The
new lord mayor, Trecothick, one of the violent party in the city, refused to
sign the press-warrants. Chatham praised his "firmness," but disapproved
his action, for impressment was, he said, constitutional and in times of
emergency necessary. Grimaldi looked to France in vain. Louis, who was
then under the influence of Madame du Barri, was determined not to go to
war; "my minister," he wrote to Charles of Spain, "would have war, but I
will not". Choiseul was dismissed in disgrace, and was succeeded by the
Duc d'Aiguillon. Spain had no choice but to yield to the demands of Great
Britain, and on January 22, 1771, disowned Buccarelli's action, and agreed
to deliver up Port Egmont as it was before it was seized. Throughout the
whole progress of the affair the opposition attacked the government,
alleging that it was careless of the honour of England, had exhibited a lack
of promptitude, and had made a secret agreement with Spain to abandon the
Page 143
island; they even insinuated that the minister had truckled to France in order
to prevent her from taking part with Spain. Their attacks were factious. The
government had no desire to rush needlessly into war, but it acted with
vigour and decision, and carried the matter through with a sufficiently high
hand. The islands were soon afterwards deserted as unprofitable, but the
British right to them was not abandoned.
The dispute with Spain caused a temporary increase in the manning of the
navy, and in 1771 the number mustered was 25,836. Though the condition
of the navy was unsatisfactory, the sea-power of Great Britain was an
important factor in European politics. With regard to them the guiding
principle of England was the maintenance of a good understanding with
Russia. Commercially this was of first-rate importance, while politically it
counterbalanced the alliance of the Bourbon courts. During the war between
Catherine of Russia and the Turks which began in 1769, Russia owed much
to the good-will of England; a Russian fleet was allowed to refit at Spithead
and soldiers to land for refreshment, an English admiral and other officers
were employed by the empress, and one of her ships of war was docked and
altered at Portsmouth. A Russian fleet for the first time appeared in the
Levant and inflicted a severe defeat on the Turks. France was anxious to
interfere on the side of the Turks, but was held back by the declaration that
the appearance of French ships in the Archipelago would bring British ships
thither also. A revolution effected in Sweden by Gustavus III. in 1772
opened the way for the increase of French influence in that kingdom. This
displeased Russia, and D'Aiguillon made naval preparations for the defence
of Sweden against any attack from Russia and Denmark. Lord Stormont,
the nephew and afterwards successor of the Earl of Mansfield, who was
then ambassador at Paris, insisted that if a French fleet sailed for the Baltic,
so too would a British fleet. The government was ready to support his
words. In view of the increasing signs of the desire of France to push her
interests in Europe, North in December, 1772, obtained a vote for 20,000
men for the navy. In the end France discontinued her preparations. Her
attitude was closely connected with the arrangement by which, in 1772,
Austria, Russia, and Prussia divided a large part of Poland between
themselves. This act of spoliation, the first partition of Poland, drew forth
no remonstrance from England; in itself it did not concern us, and its effect
on the balance of power in Europe was regarded with complacency as
to prevent her from taking part with Spain. Their attacks were factious. The
government had no desire to rush needlessly into war, but it acted with
vigour and decision, and carried the matter through with a sufficiently high
hand. The islands were soon afterwards deserted as unprofitable, but the
British right to them was not abandoned.
The dispute with Spain caused a temporary increase in the manning of the
navy, and in 1771 the number mustered was 25,836. Though the condition
of the navy was unsatisfactory, the sea-power of Great Britain was an
important factor in European politics. With regard to them the guiding
principle of England was the maintenance of a good understanding with
Russia. Commercially this was of first-rate importance, while politically it
counterbalanced the alliance of the Bourbon courts. During the war between
Catherine of Russia and the Turks which began in 1769, Russia owed much
to the good-will of England; a Russian fleet was allowed to refit at Spithead
and soldiers to land for refreshment, an English admiral and other officers
were employed by the empress, and one of her ships of war was docked and
altered at Portsmouth. A Russian fleet for the first time appeared in the
Levant and inflicted a severe defeat on the Turks. France was anxious to
interfere on the side of the Turks, but was held back by the declaration that
the appearance of French ships in the Archipelago would bring British ships
thither also. A revolution effected in Sweden by Gustavus III. in 1772
opened the way for the increase of French influence in that kingdom. This
displeased Russia, and D'Aiguillon made naval preparations for the defence
of Sweden against any attack from Russia and Denmark. Lord Stormont,
the nephew and afterwards successor of the Earl of Mansfield, who was
then ambassador at Paris, insisted that if a French fleet sailed for the Baltic,
so too would a British fleet. The government was ready to support his
words. In view of the increasing signs of the desire of France to push her
interests in Europe, North in December, 1772, obtained a vote for 20,000
men for the navy. In the end France discontinued her preparations. Her
attitude was closely connected with the arrangement by which, in 1772,
Austria, Russia, and Prussia divided a large part of Poland between
themselves. This act of spoliation, the first partition of Poland, drew forth
no remonstrance from England; in itself it did not concern us, and its effect
on the balance of power in Europe was regarded with complacency as
Page 144
lowering to France and as an aggrandisement of powers which would act as
a counterpoise to the Bourbon alliance.
During the winter of 1770-71 some changes took place
in the ministry. Weymouth, finding himself unequal to MINISTERIAL
meet the Spanish crisis, resigned the seals, and Rochford CHANGES.
took the southern and Halifax the northern department. Hawke was
succeeded at the admiralty by Sandwich, who worked hard, though he
appears to have applied his industry and abilities too largely to personal
arrangements. Bathurst, an insignificant person, became lord chancellor,
Thurlow attorney-general, and Wedderburn, hitherto a bitter opponent of the
ministry, solicitor-general; he ratted disgracefully, and was perhaps
insincere from the first. Determined to attain the chancellorship, he may
have intended to force North to give him office, by showing himself
dangerous in opposition. George Grenville died in November, 1770, and
several of his friends, headed by the Earl of Suffolk, a man of small ability,
went over to the ministerial side. Suffolk was made privy seal and, on the
death of Halifax in the following June, became secretary of state. He was
succeeded as privy seal by Grafton, who, in accepting the office, showed
his lack of confidence in his colleagues by stipulating that he should not be
summoned to cabinet meetings. Besides the serious blow which the
opposition at large sustained in the death of Grenville, Beckford's death,
soon after his egregious performance at St. James's, deprived Chatham of an
eager follower and the city party of its leader. Later in the year, too, died
Granby, who a few months before repented of the support he had given to
the ministry and had joined the opposition.
The violent language employed by the newspapers on the opposition side
laid them open to reprisals. Constant resort to indictments by the attorney-
general, and the exception of seditious libels from privilege of parliament,
indicate the desire of the king's party to treat press offences in a special
way. They were gratified by a ruling of Chief-justice Mansfield in the case
of Almon, a bookseller, who was tried on an ex officio indictment for selling
Junius's Letter to the King. Mansfield laid down that in cases of libel the
jury could only deal with the facts of printing and publishing; it belonged to
the judge to decide the character of the statement. This was not a new
doctrine; it had been declared and acted upon by many earlier judges. The
newspaper press, however, had by this time become important, and
a counterpoise to the Bourbon alliance.
During the winter of 1770-71 some changes took place
in the ministry. Weymouth, finding himself unequal to MINISTERIAL
meet the Spanish crisis, resigned the seals, and Rochford CHANGES.
took the southern and Halifax the northern department. Hawke was
succeeded at the admiralty by Sandwich, who worked hard, though he
appears to have applied his industry and abilities too largely to personal
arrangements. Bathurst, an insignificant person, became lord chancellor,
Thurlow attorney-general, and Wedderburn, hitherto a bitter opponent of the
ministry, solicitor-general; he ratted disgracefully, and was perhaps
insincere from the first. Determined to attain the chancellorship, he may
have intended to force North to give him office, by showing himself
dangerous in opposition. George Grenville died in November, 1770, and
several of his friends, headed by the Earl of Suffolk, a man of small ability,
went over to the ministerial side. Suffolk was made privy seal and, on the
death of Halifax in the following June, became secretary of state. He was
succeeded as privy seal by Grafton, who, in accepting the office, showed
his lack of confidence in his colleagues by stipulating that he should not be
summoned to cabinet meetings. Besides the serious blow which the
opposition at large sustained in the death of Grenville, Beckford's death,
soon after his egregious performance at St. James's, deprived Chatham of an
eager follower and the city party of its leader. Later in the year, too, died
Granby, who a few months before repented of the support he had given to
the ministry and had joined the opposition.
The violent language employed by the newspapers on the opposition side
laid them open to reprisals. Constant resort to indictments by the attorney-
general, and the exception of seditious libels from privilege of parliament,
indicate the desire of the king's party to treat press offences in a special
way. They were gratified by a ruling of Chief-justice Mansfield in the case
of Almon, a bookseller, who was tried on an ex officio indictment for selling
Junius's Letter to the King. Mansfield laid down that in cases of libel the
jury could only deal with the facts of printing and publishing; it belonged to
the judge to decide the character of the statement. This was not a new
doctrine; it had been declared and acted upon by many earlier judges. The
newspaper press, however, had by this time become important, and
Page 145
Mansfield's ruling infringed on the liberties of those engaged upon it, for,
while that was the law, a man after being indicted by the attorney-general,
who held office by, and at the pleasure of the crown, was deprived of his
right to be judged by his peers on the substantial point at issue. Indignant
juries refused to convict in libel cases, and Mansfield's ruling was attacked
by the opposition in parliament. Chatham and Camden denied its legality. In
the commons, though a proposal to abolish ex officio informations received
little support, a motion for a committee of inquiry into the rights of juries
was only defeated by 184 to 176. Dowdeswell and Burke believed that the
question of law was likely to hinder a satisfactory settlement, and in March,
1771, Dowdeswell moved for an act to give juries the powers denied to
them. A section of the opposition, however, held with Chatham and Camden
that the matter should be settled by a bill declaring that the law gave them
these powers. They would not support the motion, which was lost by an
overwhelming majority; and Mansfield's ruling was received as law until
1792.
Another matter connected with the press engaged the
house of commons for the most part of the remainder of HOUSE OF
the session of 1771. Parliament, as we have seen, was so COMMONS AND
THE PRINTERS.
constituted that occasions might and did arise on which
the will of the people was not fairly represented. This constitutional
difficulty was increased by the secrecy in which parliament shrouded its
proceedings. Once useful as a means of securing freedom of debate, this
secrecy was maintained as a matter of privilege after it had become useless
and, indeed, pernicious. It was carried to an extreme point by the present
parliament, the "unreported parliament" as it was called. Strangers were
constantly made to withdraw from both houses, specially when a popular
member of the opposition rose to speak. This caused a silly quarrel between
the two houses in 1770, and either shut its doors against the members of the
other. The publication of reports, forbidden by a standing order of 1762, had
for some time been carried on under various disguises, and the reports,
which were founded on scanty information, were often unfair and
scurrilous. In February, 1771, Colonel Onslow complained of two
newspapers which misrepresented his conduct in the house, and held him
up to contempt by describing him as "little cocking George". Disregarding a
warning from Burke as to the folly of entering into a quarrel with the press
while that was the law, a man after being indicted by the attorney-general,
who held office by, and at the pleasure of the crown, was deprived of his
right to be judged by his peers on the substantial point at issue. Indignant
juries refused to convict in libel cases, and Mansfield's ruling was attacked
by the opposition in parliament. Chatham and Camden denied its legality. In
the commons, though a proposal to abolish ex officio informations received
little support, a motion for a committee of inquiry into the rights of juries
was only defeated by 184 to 176. Dowdeswell and Burke believed that the
question of law was likely to hinder a satisfactory settlement, and in March,
1771, Dowdeswell moved for an act to give juries the powers denied to
them. A section of the opposition, however, held with Chatham and Camden
that the matter should be settled by a bill declaring that the law gave them
these powers. They would not support the motion, which was lost by an
overwhelming majority; and Mansfield's ruling was received as law until
1792.
Another matter connected with the press engaged the
house of commons for the most part of the remainder of HOUSE OF
the session of 1771. Parliament, as we have seen, was so COMMONS AND
THE PRINTERS.
constituted that occasions might and did arise on which
the will of the people was not fairly represented. This constitutional
difficulty was increased by the secrecy in which parliament shrouded its
proceedings. Once useful as a means of securing freedom of debate, this
secrecy was maintained as a matter of privilege after it had become useless
and, indeed, pernicious. It was carried to an extreme point by the present
parliament, the "unreported parliament" as it was called. Strangers were
constantly made to withdraw from both houses, specially when a popular
member of the opposition rose to speak. This caused a silly quarrel between
the two houses in 1770, and either shut its doors against the members of the
other. The publication of reports, forbidden by a standing order of 1762, had
for some time been carried on under various disguises, and the reports,
which were founded on scanty information, were often unfair and
scurrilous. In February, 1771, Colonel Onslow complained of two
newspapers which misrepresented his conduct in the house, and held him
up to contempt by describing him as "little cocking George". Disregarding a
warning from Burke as to the folly of entering into a quarrel with the press
Page 146
and attempting to keep its proceedings from the public, the house ordered
the printers, Wheble and Thompson, to attend at the bar. The serjeant-at-
arms failed to find them, and was jeered at by their workmen. A
proclamation was then issued for their arrest. While this affair was pending
several newspapers commented on the proceedings of the house, and
attacked various members, and specially Onslow, describing him as "a
paltry insignificant insect" and so on. On March 12 he moved to proceed
against six other printers. The opposition, led by Dowdeswell, Burke, and
Barré, made a determined stand. They divided the house twenty-three times,
and it sat till 5 a.m. "Posterity," said Burke, "will bless the pertinaciousness
of that day." Onslow's motion was carried; some of the printers were
reprimanded, one, Miller, refused to attend.
The city reformers seized the opportunity of renewing their quarrel with the
house. Wheble and Thompson were collusively arrested and were
discharged, Wheble by alderman Wilkes and Thompson by alderman
Oliver, as not being accused of any crime. Worse was to come. Miller was
arrested by a messenger of the house, and gave the messenger in charge for
assaulting him. Both were brought before Brass Crosby, the lord mayor,
Wilkes, and Oliver; Miller was discharged, the messenger held to bail. The
house ordered Crosby and Oliver, who were both members of it, to attend in
their places, and Wilkes, who was at the bottom of the affair, at the bar.
Wilkes refused to attend unless as member for Middlesex, and the house,
with more discretion than valour, shrank from another conflict with him.
The king, who was deeply interested in the quarrel, approved; he would, he
said, "have nothing more to do with that devil Wilkes". Crosby and Oliver
defended their conduct, and were committed to the Tower. During the
proceedings an angry crowd interrupted the business of the house, pelted
several members, roughly handled North and Charles Fox, who was
conspicuous as a defender of privilege, and broke their carriages. The lord
mayor and Oliver were visited in the Tower by Rockingham, Burke, and
other members of the opposition. On their release, at the end of the session,
on May 8, they were saluted by the cannon of the artillery company and by
vociferous applause, and the city was illuminated. Proceedings against the
messenger were stopped by the attorney-general. Though the house was
victorious, its dignity suffered so greatly in the conflict that it forbore to
follow up its victory. Burke's words proved true; for though the publication
the printers, Wheble and Thompson, to attend at the bar. The serjeant-at-
arms failed to find them, and was jeered at by their workmen. A
proclamation was then issued for their arrest. While this affair was pending
several newspapers commented on the proceedings of the house, and
attacked various members, and specially Onslow, describing him as "a
paltry insignificant insect" and so on. On March 12 he moved to proceed
against six other printers. The opposition, led by Dowdeswell, Burke, and
Barré, made a determined stand. They divided the house twenty-three times,
and it sat till 5 a.m. "Posterity," said Burke, "will bless the pertinaciousness
of that day." Onslow's motion was carried; some of the printers were
reprimanded, one, Miller, refused to attend.
The city reformers seized the opportunity of renewing their quarrel with the
house. Wheble and Thompson were collusively arrested and were
discharged, Wheble by alderman Wilkes and Thompson by alderman
Oliver, as not being accused of any crime. Worse was to come. Miller was
arrested by a messenger of the house, and gave the messenger in charge for
assaulting him. Both were brought before Brass Crosby, the lord mayor,
Wilkes, and Oliver; Miller was discharged, the messenger held to bail. The
house ordered Crosby and Oliver, who were both members of it, to attend in
their places, and Wilkes, who was at the bottom of the affair, at the bar.
Wilkes refused to attend unless as member for Middlesex, and the house,
with more discretion than valour, shrank from another conflict with him.
The king, who was deeply interested in the quarrel, approved; he would, he
said, "have nothing more to do with that devil Wilkes". Crosby and Oliver
defended their conduct, and were committed to the Tower. During the
proceedings an angry crowd interrupted the business of the house, pelted
several members, roughly handled North and Charles Fox, who was
conspicuous as a defender of privilege, and broke their carriages. The lord
mayor and Oliver were visited in the Tower by Rockingham, Burke, and
other members of the opposition. On their release, at the end of the session,
on May 8, they were saluted by the cannon of the artillery company and by
vociferous applause, and the city was illuminated. Proceedings against the
messenger were stopped by the attorney-general. Though the house was
victorious, its dignity suffered so greatly in the conflict that it forbore to
follow up its victory. Burke's words proved true; for though the publication
Page 147
of debates was still held to be a breach of privilege, no further attempt was
made to punish it. Soon after this dispute with the house of commons the
city reformers quarrelled amongst themselves, and the party was split up.
Though political disputes dulled the interest excited by
theological questions in the earlier half of the century, THE ROYAL
the house of commons was invited on February 6, 1772, MARRIAGE ACT.
to abolish the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles which was demanded
of all clergymen and of all students matriculating at Oxford and Cambridge.
The movement was connected with a tendency towards unitarianism,
which, besides attracting many dissenters, exercised an influence within the
Church. Some churchmen seceded; others, less decided, sought to be
relieved of an unwelcome obligation. An association which met at the
Feathers Tavern, in the Strand, sent a petition to the house signed by about
two hundred and fifty men, clergy, doctors, and lawyers, praying to be
relieved of subscription. The king was hostile to the petition, and North
opposed it in moderate terms. Burke spoke against it with remarkable
ability, pointing out that a standard of faith was necessary to insure order in
the Church, and that subscription to the Bible would not, as the petitioners
maintained, afford any criterion of belief. The petition was rejected by a
large majority, though several members on both sides expressed a dislike to
requiring subscription at the universities from youths who were not of an
age to judge of such matters. The house, though it refused to allow
clergymen to evade the formularies of their Church, was not averse from
toleration. A bill to relieve dissenting ministers and teachers from
subscription to certain of the articles, which was indeed rarely exacted, was
carried in the commons with little opposition, but the king and the bishops
were strongly opposed to it; the royal influence was used against it in the
house of lords, which threw out the bill both in 1772 and 1773, and it did
not become law until six years later.
The opposition was moribund. An annual motion was made for shortening
the duration of parliaments; but it attracted little attention, and other
questions which had lately agitated men's minds fell equally out of date. A
momentary revival of political excitement was caused by a bill which
affected the king personally. George had family troubles. His sister
Caroline, Queen of Denmark, was accused of adultery and imprisoned; she
was allowed to retire to Hanover, and remained there until her death. Soon
made to punish it. Soon after this dispute with the house of commons the
city reformers quarrelled amongst themselves, and the party was split up.
Though political disputes dulled the interest excited by
theological questions in the earlier half of the century, THE ROYAL
the house of commons was invited on February 6, 1772, MARRIAGE ACT.
to abolish the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles which was demanded
of all clergymen and of all students matriculating at Oxford and Cambridge.
The movement was connected with a tendency towards unitarianism,
which, besides attracting many dissenters, exercised an influence within the
Church. Some churchmen seceded; others, less decided, sought to be
relieved of an unwelcome obligation. An association which met at the
Feathers Tavern, in the Strand, sent a petition to the house signed by about
two hundred and fifty men, clergy, doctors, and lawyers, praying to be
relieved of subscription. The king was hostile to the petition, and North
opposed it in moderate terms. Burke spoke against it with remarkable
ability, pointing out that a standard of faith was necessary to insure order in
the Church, and that subscription to the Bible would not, as the petitioners
maintained, afford any criterion of belief. The petition was rejected by a
large majority, though several members on both sides expressed a dislike to
requiring subscription at the universities from youths who were not of an
age to judge of such matters. The house, though it refused to allow
clergymen to evade the formularies of their Church, was not averse from
toleration. A bill to relieve dissenting ministers and teachers from
subscription to certain of the articles, which was indeed rarely exacted, was
carried in the commons with little opposition, but the king and the bishops
were strongly opposed to it; the royal influence was used against it in the
house of lords, which threw out the bill both in 1772 and 1773, and it did
not become law until six years later.
The opposition was moribund. An annual motion was made for shortening
the duration of parliaments; but it attracted little attention, and other
questions which had lately agitated men's minds fell equally out of date. A
momentary revival of political excitement was caused by a bill which
affected the king personally. George had family troubles. His sister
Caroline, Queen of Denmark, was accused of adultery and imprisoned; she
was allowed to retire to Hanover, and remained there until her death. Soon
Page 148
after hearing of her daughter's disgrace the king's mother died of cancer.
She had long ceased to have any political influence and was eminently
charitable, yet the sufferings of her last days were exulted over by scribblers
opposed to the court, and her funeral was hailed with the cheers of the city
mob. About the same time one of George's brothers, the Duke of
Cumberland, after disgracing him by his flagrant immorality, married Mrs.
Horton, the widowed daughter of Lord Irnham, and sister of Luttrell, the
Middlesex member; and the private marriage of another brother, the Duke
of Gloucester, to the widow of Lord Waldegrave, a bastard daughter of
Horace Walpole's brother, was publicly announced. George was deeply
annoyed by these marriages and forbade the offenders to appear at court. At
his wish the royal marriage bill was laid before parliament. By this act no
descendant of George II. under the age of twenty-six can enter into a valid
marriage without the sovereign's consent; nor above that age, should the
sovereign's consent be withheld, except by giving a year's notice to the
privy council, so that parliament may, if it chooses, forbid the marriage. The
doctrine implied in this act, that the whole royal family forms a class apart
from the rest of the nation, was foreign to English ideas and smacked rather
of German than English royalty. Yet, whatever the effects of the act may
have been on those most nearly concerned, they have been beneficial to the
nation.
The bill excited much disapproval and was vigorously opposed in
parliament. In the commons the preamble, which acknowledged the
prerogative asserted by the crown, was passed only by a majority of thirty-
six, and the bill was finally carried by 165 to 115. Among its opponents
were Burke and Charles Fox, by that time a power in the house. No man
probably has ever enjoyed greater popularity than Fox. His disposition was
amiable and generous, his good nature inexhaustible, his heart full of warm
and humane feelings. As a mere lad he had been initiated into vice by his
father's folly; he drank, lived loosely, dressed extravagantly, and was an
inveterate and most unlucky gambler; his losses were indeed too constant to
be wholly due to ill-luck. At twenty-five he owed £140,000, which his
father paid for him. He was a keen sportsman, and he cared for higher
things than sport. He was accomplished, a lover of learning and art, and
found unfailing pleasure in the masterpieces of Greek, Latin, English,
French, Italian, and, in later days, Spanish literature. In parliament he had
She had long ceased to have any political influence and was eminently
charitable, yet the sufferings of her last days were exulted over by scribblers
opposed to the court, and her funeral was hailed with the cheers of the city
mob. About the same time one of George's brothers, the Duke of
Cumberland, after disgracing him by his flagrant immorality, married Mrs.
Horton, the widowed daughter of Lord Irnham, and sister of Luttrell, the
Middlesex member; and the private marriage of another brother, the Duke
of Gloucester, to the widow of Lord Waldegrave, a bastard daughter of
Horace Walpole's brother, was publicly announced. George was deeply
annoyed by these marriages and forbade the offenders to appear at court. At
his wish the royal marriage bill was laid before parliament. By this act no
descendant of George II. under the age of twenty-six can enter into a valid
marriage without the sovereign's consent; nor above that age, should the
sovereign's consent be withheld, except by giving a year's notice to the
privy council, so that parliament may, if it chooses, forbid the marriage. The
doctrine implied in this act, that the whole royal family forms a class apart
from the rest of the nation, was foreign to English ideas and smacked rather
of German than English royalty. Yet, whatever the effects of the act may
have been on those most nearly concerned, they have been beneficial to the
nation.
The bill excited much disapproval and was vigorously opposed in
parliament. In the commons the preamble, which acknowledged the
prerogative asserted by the crown, was passed only by a majority of thirty-
six, and the bill was finally carried by 165 to 115. Among its opponents
were Burke and Charles Fox, by that time a power in the house. No man
probably has ever enjoyed greater popularity than Fox. His disposition was
amiable and generous, his good nature inexhaustible, his heart full of warm
and humane feelings. As a mere lad he had been initiated into vice by his
father's folly; he drank, lived loosely, dressed extravagantly, and was an
inveterate and most unlucky gambler; his losses were indeed too constant to
be wholly due to ill-luck. At twenty-five he owed £140,000, which his
father paid for him. He was a keen sportsman, and he cared for higher
things than sport. He was accomplished, a lover of learning and art, and
found unfailing pleasure in the masterpieces of Greek, Latin, English,
French, Italian, and, in later days, Spanish literature. In parliament he had
Page 149
hitherto opposed all popular measures, sometimes with insolent flippancy.
He was appointed a lord of the admiralty in 1770. He gradually came under
Burke's influence and showed signs of remarkable talents in debate. His
speeches were unprepared, his statement of a case was often made
confusedly, but he was splendid in reply. His career as a statesman was
marred, like his private character, by an utter lack of principle. His
opposition to the royal marriage bill seems to have been a matter of private
feeling. His father had united the plebeian family of Fox with a house
descended from a royal bastard by a runaway marriage with Lady Caroline
Lennox; and Charles was hot against a bill which annulled a marriage made
without legal consent, and must have derived special satisfaction in
opposing the wish to preserve the royal family from derogatory marriages
on the part of the faithless lover of his favourite aunt, Lady Sarah. He
resigned office, but re-entered the ministry the following December.
The strength of the ministry caused a stagnation in
matters of domestic policy, and parliament turned its NORTH'S
REGULATING
attention towards a settlement of the government of ACT.
India. In 1772 the East India Company was on the verge
of bankruptcy, owing chiefly to expensive wars, large pensions to native
rulers, and the greed of the proprietors. The successes of Haidar in the
Karnatic and the famine in Bengal sent down the price of stock, as we have
seen, 60 per cent. The company applied to government for a loan of at least
£1,000,000. North, with statesmanlike decision, seized the opportunity of
asserting the right of the crown to the territorial revenue and of placing the
government under the control of its ministers. The king upheld his policy.
Select and secret committees were appointed by the commons to inquire
into the condition of the company and of the British affairs in India. Acting
on the recommendation of the secret committee, North foiled an attempt of
the company to keep its affairs in its own hands by carrying a bill to restrain
it from appointing supervisors in India. Burke violently opposed this and
every step by which the territorial power of the company was brought into
subjection to parliament. It was, indeed, with some justice that he urged that
the violation of the royal charter held by the company was a dangerous
precedent, that the claim to the territorial revenue was arbitrary, and that
parliament had increased the company's distress by extorting from it the
payment of £400,000 a year, and had done nothing for it in return. The case
He was appointed a lord of the admiralty in 1770. He gradually came under
Burke's influence and showed signs of remarkable talents in debate. His
speeches were unprepared, his statement of a case was often made
confusedly, but he was splendid in reply. His career as a statesman was
marred, like his private character, by an utter lack of principle. His
opposition to the royal marriage bill seems to have been a matter of private
feeling. His father had united the plebeian family of Fox with a house
descended from a royal bastard by a runaway marriage with Lady Caroline
Lennox; and Charles was hot against a bill which annulled a marriage made
without legal consent, and must have derived special satisfaction in
opposing the wish to preserve the royal family from derogatory marriages
on the part of the faithless lover of his favourite aunt, Lady Sarah. He
resigned office, but re-entered the ministry the following December.
The strength of the ministry caused a stagnation in
matters of domestic policy, and parliament turned its NORTH'S
REGULATING
attention towards a settlement of the government of ACT.
India. In 1772 the East India Company was on the verge
of bankruptcy, owing chiefly to expensive wars, large pensions to native
rulers, and the greed of the proprietors. The successes of Haidar in the
Karnatic and the famine in Bengal sent down the price of stock, as we have
seen, 60 per cent. The company applied to government for a loan of at least
£1,000,000. North, with statesmanlike decision, seized the opportunity of
asserting the right of the crown to the territorial revenue and of placing the
government under the control of its ministers. The king upheld his policy.
Select and secret committees were appointed by the commons to inquire
into the condition of the company and of the British affairs in India. Acting
on the recommendation of the secret committee, North foiled an attempt of
the company to keep its affairs in its own hands by carrying a bill to restrain
it from appointing supervisors in India. Burke violently opposed this and
every step by which the territorial power of the company was brought into
subjection to parliament. It was, indeed, with some justice that he urged that
the violation of the royal charter held by the company was a dangerous
precedent, that the claim to the territorial revenue was arbitrary, and that
parliament had increased the company's distress by extorting from it the
payment of £400,000 a year, and had done nothing for it in return. The case
Page 150
for the company was supported in both houses by the Rockingham party
generally.
North was supreme in both houses, and, in June 1773, carried his regulating
bill. The company received from government a loan of £1,400,000 at 4 per
cent., its annual payment of £400,000 was remitted until the loan was
repaid; its future dividends were restricted in amount, and its authority in
accepting bills from India curtailed; it was to submit its accounts to the
treasury, and to export British goods to a certain yearly value. In order to
assist the company which had a large stock of tea on hand, it was agreed
that it might export this tea direct and duty free to America, a decision
which proved of momentous import. A court of supreme jurisdiction was
created, consisting of a chief justice and three puisne judges, appointed by
the crown and with fixed salaries. The governor of Bengal was made
governor-general of British India and was to act with a council of four. The
first governor-general, Warren Hastings, then governor of Bengal, and his
council were appointed by the act; their successors were to be appointed by
the directors and approved by the crown. All military and civil matters
which came before the directors were to be submitted to the crown. No
officer of the crown or of the company was to accept any presents. The act
transferred the government of India from a trading company to the crown.
Constitutionally, its weakest point was the appointment of executive
officers in parliament; for all officers should be appointed by the crown,
and its action should be subject to parliamentary check. As regards the
arrangement of government, the act should have defined the relations
between the supreme court and the council, and between the governor-
general, the directors, and the crown, and should not have left the governor-
general in a position to be overruled by his council.
During the debates on these measures the publication of the report of the
select committee excited public feeling against the "nabobs," and specially
against Clive, and a parliamentary inquiry was held into his conduct. Before
the select committee he admitted and defended the deceit which he had
practised on Omichand in 1757, and declared that he was justified in
accepting enormous sums from Mír Jafar. They were as nothing compared
to what he might have had; "Mr. Chairman," said he, "at this moment I
stand astonished at my own moderation". Resolutions condemning his
conduct were moved by Burgoyne. He defended himself with force and
generally.
North was supreme in both houses, and, in June 1773, carried his regulating
bill. The company received from government a loan of £1,400,000 at 4 per
cent., its annual payment of £400,000 was remitted until the loan was
repaid; its future dividends were restricted in amount, and its authority in
accepting bills from India curtailed; it was to submit its accounts to the
treasury, and to export British goods to a certain yearly value. In order to
assist the company which had a large stock of tea on hand, it was agreed
that it might export this tea direct and duty free to America, a decision
which proved of momentous import. A court of supreme jurisdiction was
created, consisting of a chief justice and three puisne judges, appointed by
the crown and with fixed salaries. The governor of Bengal was made
governor-general of British India and was to act with a council of four. The
first governor-general, Warren Hastings, then governor of Bengal, and his
council were appointed by the act; their successors were to be appointed by
the directors and approved by the crown. All military and civil matters
which came before the directors were to be submitted to the crown. No
officer of the crown or of the company was to accept any presents. The act
transferred the government of India from a trading company to the crown.
Constitutionally, its weakest point was the appointment of executive
officers in parliament; for all officers should be appointed by the crown,
and its action should be subject to parliamentary check. As regards the
arrangement of government, the act should have defined the relations
between the supreme court and the council, and between the governor-
general, the directors, and the crown, and should not have left the governor-
general in a position to be overruled by his council.
During the debates on these measures the publication of the report of the
select committee excited public feeling against the "nabobs," and specially
against Clive, and a parliamentary inquiry was held into his conduct. Before
the select committee he admitted and defended the deceit which he had
practised on Omichand in 1757, and declared that he was justified in
accepting enormous sums from Mír Jafar. They were as nothing compared
to what he might have had; "Mr. Chairman," said he, "at this moment I
stand astonished at my own moderation". Resolutions condemning his
conduct were moved by Burgoyne. He defended himself with force and
Page 151
dignity. Finally, after many debates, the house voted that he had through the
power entrusted to him possessed himself of £234,000, refused to vote that
he had abused his power, and voted instead that "he did at the same time
render great and meritorious services to this country". The matter was not
made a party question, and the decision was worthy of the assembly which
pronounced it. The king, while fully acknowledging Clive's services,
thought him guilty of "rapine," and disapproved of his virtual acquittal.
Thurlow attacked, Wedderburn zealously defended him. The court party
voted different ways. Physical suffering together with the strain of these
proceedings affected Clive's mind, and he died by his own hand on
November 22, 1774.
In 1773 the king's political predominance was firmly
established. His will was law to his ministers, and they THE KING'S
commanded overwhelming majorities in both houses of POLITICAL
PREDOMINANCE.
parliament. The country was satisfied that it should be
so, for the quarrel between the people and parliament had died out. It was a
time of political apathy. The balance of power, which during Walpole's
administration had shifted from the lords to the commons, was shifting
from parliament to the crown. The house of commons was losing its spirit
of independence, and the control which it should have exercised on the
executive was endangered by the growth of the king's personal authority. So
long as George ruled the country successfully this danger was likely to
increase. He had so skilfully strengthened his position that he had
triumphed over domestic agitation. The just working of the constitution was
finally restored through national calamity. American discontents were to
lead to a revolt which the enemies of England used as an opportunity for
attacking her. Their attacks were formidable in themselves, and had the
humiliating result of forcing Great Britain to give up the struggle with her
revolted colonies and acknowledge their independence. George had chosen
to be his own prime minister, and his policy was to suffer defeat. A period
of storm was ahead, and as the ship of state passed through it, the king's
personal rule, and much else besides, went overboard. All this was still far
off. From 1770 to 1774 the affairs of the American colonies excited little
attention in England, though, as we shall see in the next chapter, they were
tending towards open revolt.
power entrusted to him possessed himself of £234,000, refused to vote that
he had abused his power, and voted instead that "he did at the same time
render great and meritorious services to this country". The matter was not
made a party question, and the decision was worthy of the assembly which
pronounced it. The king, while fully acknowledging Clive's services,
thought him guilty of "rapine," and disapproved of his virtual acquittal.
Thurlow attacked, Wedderburn zealously defended him. The court party
voted different ways. Physical suffering together with the strain of these
proceedings affected Clive's mind, and he died by his own hand on
November 22, 1774.
In 1773 the king's political predominance was firmly
established. His will was law to his ministers, and they THE KING'S
commanded overwhelming majorities in both houses of POLITICAL
PREDOMINANCE.
parliament. The country was satisfied that it should be
so, for the quarrel between the people and parliament had died out. It was a
time of political apathy. The balance of power, which during Walpole's
administration had shifted from the lords to the commons, was shifting
from parliament to the crown. The house of commons was losing its spirit
of independence, and the control which it should have exercised on the
executive was endangered by the growth of the king's personal authority. So
long as George ruled the country successfully this danger was likely to
increase. He had so skilfully strengthened his position that he had
triumphed over domestic agitation. The just working of the constitution was
finally restored through national calamity. American discontents were to
lead to a revolt which the enemies of England used as an opportunity for
attacking her. Their attacks were formidable in themselves, and had the
humiliating result of forcing Great Britain to give up the struggle with her
revolted colonies and acknowledge their independence. George had chosen
to be his own prime minister, and his policy was to suffer defeat. A period
of storm was ahead, and as the ship of state passed through it, the king's
personal rule, and much else besides, went overboard. All this was still far
off. From 1770 to 1774 the affairs of the American colonies excited little
attention in England, though, as we shall see in the next chapter, they were
tending towards open revolt.
Page 152
FOOTNOTES:
[82] Annual Register, xiii. (1770), 72.
[83] Life of Shelburne, ii., 221; Calcraft to Chatham, March 8, 1771, MS. Pitt
Papers, 25.
[84] Speeches of Barré, March 23, and Burke, April 6, 1773, Parl. Hist., xvii.,
826, 836.
[85] Calcraft to Chatham, March 12, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.
[86] Letters of H. Walpole, v., 238-39 n.; Mitford, Gray and Mason
Correspondence, pp. 438-39; Stephens, Memoirs of J. H. Tooke, i., 157.
[87] Calcraft to Chatham, June 10, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.
[88] The State of the Navy, MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, R.O.
[82] Annual Register, xiii. (1770), 72.
[83] Life of Shelburne, ii., 221; Calcraft to Chatham, March 8, 1771, MS. Pitt
Papers, 25.
[84] Speeches of Barré, March 23, and Burke, April 6, 1773, Parl. Hist., xvii.,
826, 836.
[85] Calcraft to Chatham, March 12, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.
[86] Letters of H. Walpole, v., 238-39 n.; Mitford, Gray and Mason
Correspondence, pp. 438-39; Stephens, Memoirs of J. H. Tooke, i., 157.
[87] Calcraft to Chatham, June 10, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.
[88] The State of the Navy, MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, R.O.
Page 153
CHAPTER VII.
THE QUARREL WITH AMERICA.
The failure of the non-importation agreements in 1770 led Englishmen to
expect a peaceable end to the quarrel with America, and the colonists were
for the most part inclined to let it die out. Samuel Adams had no such
inclination, and did all in his power to fan the smouldering embers of strife.
For some time longer he and his friends professed loyalty, but he at least
was consciously working for separation. A rising in North Carolina, called
the regulators' war, because the insurgents claimed to regulate their own
police affairs, was smartly quelled by the governor, Tryon, in 1771; it need
not detain us, for it had no connexion with the quarrel with England. There
was much lawlessness elsewhere. Mobs tyrannised over their more loyal
neighbours, tarring and feathering some of those who would not comply
with their demands, and using other barbarous modes of advancing the
cause of liberty. In Boston the revenue officers were exposed to insult and
violence. Hutchinson held the assembly of the province at Cambridge, and
further disgusted his opponents by informing them that he was no longer
dependent on their votes for his salary; it would thenceforward be paid by
the king. The more peaceable Americans were gratified in 1772 by the
appointment of the Earl of Dartmouth to succeed Hillsborough as secretary
for the colonies, for Dartmouth, a pious and amiable person of no political
ability, was known to be anxious for conciliation. Fresh cause of offence,
however, was found in a decision of the ministers that the salaries of the
Massachusetts judges should be paid by the crown instead of by the colony.
This change, which was designed to render the judges independent of
popular feeling, was resented as an attempt to make them subservient to the
crown, for they held office during the king's pleasure.
Meanwhile the contempt with which the authority of the
crown was regarded, and the necessity for restraining the HUTCHINSON'S
provincial judges from political partisanship, were LETTERS.
forcibly illustrated. Smuggling was carried on freely, especially in Rhode
Island. The duty of preventing it in Narragansett Bay was discharged by
THE QUARREL WITH AMERICA.
The failure of the non-importation agreements in 1770 led Englishmen to
expect a peaceable end to the quarrel with America, and the colonists were
for the most part inclined to let it die out. Samuel Adams had no such
inclination, and did all in his power to fan the smouldering embers of strife.
For some time longer he and his friends professed loyalty, but he at least
was consciously working for separation. A rising in North Carolina, called
the regulators' war, because the insurgents claimed to regulate their own
police affairs, was smartly quelled by the governor, Tryon, in 1771; it need
not detain us, for it had no connexion with the quarrel with England. There
was much lawlessness elsewhere. Mobs tyrannised over their more loyal
neighbours, tarring and feathering some of those who would not comply
with their demands, and using other barbarous modes of advancing the
cause of liberty. In Boston the revenue officers were exposed to insult and
violence. Hutchinson held the assembly of the province at Cambridge, and
further disgusted his opponents by informing them that he was no longer
dependent on their votes for his salary; it would thenceforward be paid by
the king. The more peaceable Americans were gratified in 1772 by the
appointment of the Earl of Dartmouth to succeed Hillsborough as secretary
for the colonies, for Dartmouth, a pious and amiable person of no political
ability, was known to be anxious for conciliation. Fresh cause of offence,
however, was found in a decision of the ministers that the salaries of the
Massachusetts judges should be paid by the crown instead of by the colony.
This change, which was designed to render the judges independent of
popular feeling, was resented as an attempt to make them subservient to the
crown, for they held office during the king's pleasure.
Meanwhile the contempt with which the authority of the
crown was regarded, and the necessity for restraining the HUTCHINSON'S
provincial judges from political partisanship, were LETTERS.
forcibly illustrated. Smuggling was carried on freely, especially in Rhode
Island. The duty of preventing it in Narragansett Bay was discharged by
Page 154
Lieutenant Duddingston, in command of the Gaspee schooner. He was
zealous, and, according to American accounts, was guilty of illegal and
oppressive acts. On June 9, while engaged in a chase, the Gaspee ran
aground, and on the night of the 10th was boarded by eight boat-loads of
men. Duddingston was treacherously shot at and wounded; he and his men
were set on shore, and the schooner was burnt. This destruction of one of
the king's ships, an act alike of rebellion and piracy, and, as Thurlow said,
"an event five times the magnitude of the stamp act," was unpunished. A
law, enacted in the previous April, and evoked by a fire in an English
dockyard, provided that the setting on fire of a public dockyard or a king's
ship should be felony, and that those accused of such an offence should be
tried in England. Commissioners were appointed by the crown to inquire
into the destruction of the Gaspee, and send those concerned in it to
England for trial. On their applying for warrants to the chief justice of the
province, he declared that he would allow no one to be arrested with a view
to deportation, and the commission was fruitless. The colonists were
angered by this attempt to enforce the law; and in 1773 took an important
step towards union and a future congress by establishing committees of
correspondence between the provinces.
Samuel Adams unexpectedly found an opportunity of rousing fresh
excitement in Massachusetts. A number of private letters written by
Hutchinson and Oliver, the deputy governor, to a gentleman of England,
named Whately, and stolen after his death, were sent over by Franklin to the
committee of correspondence at Boston, were read by Adams to the
assembly, and were subsequently published. Hutchinson, a patriotic
American, was a faithful servant of the crown and believed in the
supremacy of parliament. His letters contained no statements that were not
true and no comments discreditable to a man of honour, holding the
opinions on which he had consistently acted. They were declared to be
evidences of malice and bad faith; he and Oliver were, John Adams said,
"cool-thinking, deliberate villains," and the assembly sent a petition to the
king for their removal. The letters were industriously circulated throughout
the province, and were denounced by preachers in their Sunday sermons.
Such was the state of affairs when, in accordance with the act of parliament
authorising the East India Company to export its surplus stock of tea direct
to America, three ships laden with tea appeared in Boston harbour. Other
zealous, and, according to American accounts, was guilty of illegal and
oppressive acts. On June 9, while engaged in a chase, the Gaspee ran
aground, and on the night of the 10th was boarded by eight boat-loads of
men. Duddingston was treacherously shot at and wounded; he and his men
were set on shore, and the schooner was burnt. This destruction of one of
the king's ships, an act alike of rebellion and piracy, and, as Thurlow said,
"an event five times the magnitude of the stamp act," was unpunished. A
law, enacted in the previous April, and evoked by a fire in an English
dockyard, provided that the setting on fire of a public dockyard or a king's
ship should be felony, and that those accused of such an offence should be
tried in England. Commissioners were appointed by the crown to inquire
into the destruction of the Gaspee, and send those concerned in it to
England for trial. On their applying for warrants to the chief justice of the
province, he declared that he would allow no one to be arrested with a view
to deportation, and the commission was fruitless. The colonists were
angered by this attempt to enforce the law; and in 1773 took an important
step towards union and a future congress by establishing committees of
correspondence between the provinces.
Samuel Adams unexpectedly found an opportunity of rousing fresh
excitement in Massachusetts. A number of private letters written by
Hutchinson and Oliver, the deputy governor, to a gentleman of England,
named Whately, and stolen after his death, were sent over by Franklin to the
committee of correspondence at Boston, were read by Adams to the
assembly, and were subsequently published. Hutchinson, a patriotic
American, was a faithful servant of the crown and believed in the
supremacy of parliament. His letters contained no statements that were not
true and no comments discreditable to a man of honour, holding the
opinions on which he had consistently acted. They were declared to be
evidences of malice and bad faith; he and Oliver were, John Adams said,
"cool-thinking, deliberate villains," and the assembly sent a petition to the
king for their removal. The letters were industriously circulated throughout
the province, and were denounced by preachers in their Sunday sermons.
Such was the state of affairs when, in accordance with the act of parliament
authorising the East India Company to export its surplus stock of tea direct
to America, three ships laden with tea appeared in Boston harbour. Other
Page 155
ships with like cargoes had also been despatched to New York,
Philadelphia, and Charleston. At Boston, on the night of December 16, a
large body of men, disguised as Indians and encouraged by Samuel Adams
and his friends, boarded the ships and emptied their cargoes, 340 chests of
tea valued at £18,000, into the sea. The ships for Philadelphia and New
York returned to London without discharging their cargoes. At Charleston
the tea was landed, but the consignees were forced to renounce their
engagement, and the tea rotted in the cellars of the custom-house.
In England the Boston riot caused much irritation. The news came when the
publication of Hutchinson's letters was exciting strong feelings. Who was
responsible for their abstraction from Whately's correspondence was for
some time a mystery. Franklin kept his counsel, and a duel took place
between Whately's brother and a Bostonian who was suspected of stealing
them. Then Franklin declared that he alone had obtained them and sent
them to Boston. As agent for Massachusetts he appeared before a
committee of the privy council on January 29, 1774, in support of the
petition against Hutchinson and Oliver. Both sides were heard by counsel.
Wedderburn, who spoke against the petition, made a violent attack on
Franklin; he described him as a thief and accused him of acting from the
meanest motives. The temper of his audience was irritated by the news from
Boston, and his speech was received with manifestations of delight,
indecent on the part of men sitting as judges in that august court. The
petition was rejected as groundless and scandalous, and men went away
"almost ready to throw up their hats for joy," as though a lawyer's bitter
tongue had given England a victory. Franklin was at once dismissed from
his office of deputy postmaster. Wedderburn's speech and the spirit in which
it was received were impolitic as well as discreditable. While strongly
opposed to the ministerial policy in America, Franklin had shown himself
anxious to maintain the tie between Great Britain and her colonies. This
attack upon his character made him one of England's enemies, and, as it
proved, one of the most dangerous of them. His conduct is not palliated by
the indecency of his opponents. It has been urged in his defence that, as
Whately had shown the letters to certain English politicians, it was fair that
Boston politicians should also see them, that as agent he was bound to do
the best for his province, and that governments did intercept and use
Philadelphia, and Charleston. At Boston, on the night of December 16, a
large body of men, disguised as Indians and encouraged by Samuel Adams
and his friends, boarded the ships and emptied their cargoes, 340 chests of
tea valued at £18,000, into the sea. The ships for Philadelphia and New
York returned to London without discharging their cargoes. At Charleston
the tea was landed, but the consignees were forced to renounce their
engagement, and the tea rotted in the cellars of the custom-house.
In England the Boston riot caused much irritation. The news came when the
publication of Hutchinson's letters was exciting strong feelings. Who was
responsible for their abstraction from Whately's correspondence was for
some time a mystery. Franklin kept his counsel, and a duel took place
between Whately's brother and a Bostonian who was suspected of stealing
them. Then Franklin declared that he alone had obtained them and sent
them to Boston. As agent for Massachusetts he appeared before a
committee of the privy council on January 29, 1774, in support of the
petition against Hutchinson and Oliver. Both sides were heard by counsel.
Wedderburn, who spoke against the petition, made a violent attack on
Franklin; he described him as a thief and accused him of acting from the
meanest motives. The temper of his audience was irritated by the news from
Boston, and his speech was received with manifestations of delight,
indecent on the part of men sitting as judges in that august court. The
petition was rejected as groundless and scandalous, and men went away
"almost ready to throw up their hats for joy," as though a lawyer's bitter
tongue had given England a victory. Franklin was at once dismissed from
his office of deputy postmaster. Wedderburn's speech and the spirit in which
it was received were impolitic as well as discreditable. While strongly
opposed to the ministerial policy in America, Franklin had shown himself
anxious to maintain the tie between Great Britain and her colonies. This
attack upon his character made him one of England's enemies, and, as it
proved, one of the most dangerous of them. His conduct is not palliated by
the indecency of his opponents. It has been urged in his defence that, as
Whately had shown the letters to certain English politicians, it was fair that
Boston politicians should also see them, that as agent he was bound to do
the best for his province, and that governments did intercept and use
Page 156
correspondence which was believed to contain important political
information.[89] Conduct befitting a man of honour needs no defence.
The general opinion in England was that Boston should
be punished, and that if the government made an FOX DISMISSED
FROM OFFICE.
example of that rebellious town, the Americans would
learn a wholesome lesson. The king held this opinion, and was delighted
when General Gage told him that the Americans "would be lions whilst we
are lambs, but if we take the resolute part they will undoubtedly prove very
meek". He determined to force Boston to submission, and his ministers
were at his command. A junior lord of the treasury was insubordinate, and
was promptly dismissed. It seemed a small matter, but it had important
consequences, for the rebel was Charles Fox. He had more than one grudge
against the king, and he was perhaps growing impatient of serving under a
minister who was virtually the king's representative, though his actual revolt
may have been an unpremeditated ebullition of youthful vanity. A libel on
the speaker, of which the turbulent parson, Horne, was the author, gave him
an opportunity for self-display; he usurped the functions of leader of the
house, persuaded it to enter on proceedings which might have ended in
another awkward quarrel with a printer, and placed North in a most
embarrassing position. The king, whom he had already offended by his
opposition to the royal marriage bill, heartily disliked him, and urged North
to get rid of him. He was curtly dismissed from office on February 24. He at
once went into opposition, and acted generally with the Rockingham party,
though he did not distinctly join it until a later period. He was already
intimate with Burke, who soon gained much influence over him. On almost
every question he combated the opinions which he had previously
supported, and constantly attacked his former chief with great bitterness. In
debate the opposition gained enormously by his alliance, but it was in the
end injurious to their cause. His sympathy with the enemies of his country
in time of war strengthened the king and his ministers in their efforts to
maintain the honour of England by persevering in the struggle, for it
revolted the patriotic feelings of the nation and kept it steadfast in its
support of the government.
On March 14 North began to lay before the commons
the measures by which the government hoped to bring THE PENAL ACTS.
the Americans to submission. By the first of these penal
information.[89] Conduct befitting a man of honour needs no defence.
The general opinion in England was that Boston should
be punished, and that if the government made an FOX DISMISSED
FROM OFFICE.
example of that rebellious town, the Americans would
learn a wholesome lesson. The king held this opinion, and was delighted
when General Gage told him that the Americans "would be lions whilst we
are lambs, but if we take the resolute part they will undoubtedly prove very
meek". He determined to force Boston to submission, and his ministers
were at his command. A junior lord of the treasury was insubordinate, and
was promptly dismissed. It seemed a small matter, but it had important
consequences, for the rebel was Charles Fox. He had more than one grudge
against the king, and he was perhaps growing impatient of serving under a
minister who was virtually the king's representative, though his actual revolt
may have been an unpremeditated ebullition of youthful vanity. A libel on
the speaker, of which the turbulent parson, Horne, was the author, gave him
an opportunity for self-display; he usurped the functions of leader of the
house, persuaded it to enter on proceedings which might have ended in
another awkward quarrel with a printer, and placed North in a most
embarrassing position. The king, whom he had already offended by his
opposition to the royal marriage bill, heartily disliked him, and urged North
to get rid of him. He was curtly dismissed from office on February 24. He at
once went into opposition, and acted generally with the Rockingham party,
though he did not distinctly join it until a later period. He was already
intimate with Burke, who soon gained much influence over him. On almost
every question he combated the opinions which he had previously
supported, and constantly attacked his former chief with great bitterness. In
debate the opposition gained enormously by his alliance, but it was in the
end injurious to their cause. His sympathy with the enemies of his country
in time of war strengthened the king and his ministers in their efforts to
maintain the honour of England by persevering in the struggle, for it
revolted the patriotic feelings of the nation and kept it steadfast in its
support of the government.
On March 14 North began to lay before the commons
the measures by which the government hoped to bring THE PENAL ACTS.
the Americans to submission. By the first of these penal
Page 157
laws, as they are called, Boston was to be punished by the transference of
the seat of government to Salem, and by the closing of its harbour, which
entailed the suspension of its trade, until the town had made good the loss
inflicted on the East India Company, and the king was satisfied that the
laws would be observed. North spoke with remarkable moderation. Both he
and Dartmouth disliked violent measures, and their tone with regard to
America was so different from that of their colleagues, that it indicated a
division in the cabinet.[90] The bill met with little opposition in the
commons, though Dowdeswell and Burke spoke against it. In the lords,
Rockingham and Shelburne opposed it, Chatham was absent through ill-
health, and Mansfield strongly advocated it, declaring that Boston had
committed "the last overt act of treason," and that it was a lucky event, for
if the bill passed we should have crossed the Rubicon, the Americans would
see that we would temporise no longer, and if it passed unanimously,
Boston would submit without bloodshed. The bill passed both houses
without a division. The next bill, "for regulating the government of
Massachusetts Bay," overthrew the charter of the colony; it increased the
power of the governor, vested the nomination of the council in the crown,
altered the system by which juries were chosen, and prohibited town
meetings, the principal engine of democratic rule, from being held without
the consent of the governor. The abrogation of chartered rights excited
strong, though ineffectual, opposition; the bill was passed in the commons
by 239 to 64, and in the lords by 92 to 20, eleven peers signing a protest
against it.
This measure was calculated to alarm and irritate the colonies generally, for
the alteration of the charter of one of them would be taken as a menace to
the constitutional liberties of all. In the hope of counteracting this effect, the
opposition wished the house of commons, before it passed the bill, to
conciliate the Americans by repealing the tax on tea.[91] A motion was made
for the repeal on April 19, and was supported by Burke in a speech of
remarkable power. He maintained that the concession would be well
received, and entreated the house to resort to its old principles, to be content
to bind the colonies by laws of trade, to disregard the question of its right,
and to refrain from taxation. Only forty-nine voted for the motion. A third
bill ordered that any one accused of a capital offence should, if the act was
done in the execution of the law in Massachusetts, be tried in Nova Scotia
the seat of government to Salem, and by the closing of its harbour, which
entailed the suspension of its trade, until the town had made good the loss
inflicted on the East India Company, and the king was satisfied that the
laws would be observed. North spoke with remarkable moderation. Both he
and Dartmouth disliked violent measures, and their tone with regard to
America was so different from that of their colleagues, that it indicated a
division in the cabinet.[90] The bill met with little opposition in the
commons, though Dowdeswell and Burke spoke against it. In the lords,
Rockingham and Shelburne opposed it, Chatham was absent through ill-
health, and Mansfield strongly advocated it, declaring that Boston had
committed "the last overt act of treason," and that it was a lucky event, for
if the bill passed we should have crossed the Rubicon, the Americans would
see that we would temporise no longer, and if it passed unanimously,
Boston would submit without bloodshed. The bill passed both houses
without a division. The next bill, "for regulating the government of
Massachusetts Bay," overthrew the charter of the colony; it increased the
power of the governor, vested the nomination of the council in the crown,
altered the system by which juries were chosen, and prohibited town
meetings, the principal engine of democratic rule, from being held without
the consent of the governor. The abrogation of chartered rights excited
strong, though ineffectual, opposition; the bill was passed in the commons
by 239 to 64, and in the lords by 92 to 20, eleven peers signing a protest
against it.
This measure was calculated to alarm and irritate the colonies generally, for
the alteration of the charter of one of them would be taken as a menace to
the constitutional liberties of all. In the hope of counteracting this effect, the
opposition wished the house of commons, before it passed the bill, to
conciliate the Americans by repealing the tax on tea.[91] A motion was made
for the repeal on April 19, and was supported by Burke in a speech of
remarkable power. He maintained that the concession would be well
received, and entreated the house to resort to its old principles, to be content
to bind the colonies by laws of trade, to disregard the question of its right,
and to refrain from taxation. Only forty-nine voted for the motion. A third
bill ordered that any one accused of a capital offence should, if the act was
done in the execution of the law in Massachusetts, be tried in Nova Scotia
Page 158
or Great Britain; and a fourth provided for the quartering of troops. When
the quartering bill was before the lords, Chatham returned to parliament. He
opposed the bill, declared his dislike of the Boston port bill, which, he said,
punished a whole town for the crime of a few; and while he condemned the
turbulence of the Americans, declared that their discontent was due to the
irritating treatment they had received, and urged that England should act
towards them as a fond and forgiving parent, for the time was at hand when
she would "need the help of her most distant friends". On all these bills the
numbers of the minority were very low, and the king declared himself
"infinitely pleased" with the reception they met with. Meanwhile
Hutchinson was recalled, and Gage was appointed governor of
Massachusetts as well as commander-in-chief.
Another bill, closely connected with the state of affairs
in America, though not devised merely with reference to THE QUEBEC
ACT.
it, provided for the government of Canada, which had
remained as it had been settled temporarily by royal proclamation in 1763.
The province of Quebec, as it was called, only extended eastward to the St.
John's river on the north of the St. Lawrence, the territory beyond being
annexed to the jurisdiction of Newfoundland, while on the south the islands
of Cape Breton and St. John (Prince Edward's island) belonged to Nova
Scotia. No settlement was made as to the country west of the Appalachian
range, which was claimed by the old colonies, nor as to the vast tract
between Lake Nipissing and the Mississippi, the boundary of the Spanish
land. The government of Canada was in the hands of a military governor-
general and a council. In 1764 the English-speaking and protestant
population was a mere handful; in 1774 it numbered about 360, while the
French Roman catholics were at the least 80,000. In accordance with the
treaty of Paris the catholics had full liberty of worship. English was,
however, the only official language, and all offices were held by men of
British nationality. The administration of the law was confused, and, though
the king's proclamation held out a prospect that an assembly might be
called, it required oaths and declarations which would have shut Roman
catholics out from it. The French disliked the English law with reference to
land, and as far as possible evaded it. Constant difficulties arose, and, in
1766, Charles Yorke, then attorney-general, advised that English should
cease to be the only official language, and that French law should be
the quartering bill was before the lords, Chatham returned to parliament. He
opposed the bill, declared his dislike of the Boston port bill, which, he said,
punished a whole town for the crime of a few; and while he condemned the
turbulence of the Americans, declared that their discontent was due to the
irritating treatment they had received, and urged that England should act
towards them as a fond and forgiving parent, for the time was at hand when
she would "need the help of her most distant friends". On all these bills the
numbers of the minority were very low, and the king declared himself
"infinitely pleased" with the reception they met with. Meanwhile
Hutchinson was recalled, and Gage was appointed governor of
Massachusetts as well as commander-in-chief.
Another bill, closely connected with the state of affairs
in America, though not devised merely with reference to THE QUEBEC
ACT.
it, provided for the government of Canada, which had
remained as it had been settled temporarily by royal proclamation in 1763.
The province of Quebec, as it was called, only extended eastward to the St.
John's river on the north of the St. Lawrence, the territory beyond being
annexed to the jurisdiction of Newfoundland, while on the south the islands
of Cape Breton and St. John (Prince Edward's island) belonged to Nova
Scotia. No settlement was made as to the country west of the Appalachian
range, which was claimed by the old colonies, nor as to the vast tract
between Lake Nipissing and the Mississippi, the boundary of the Spanish
land. The government of Canada was in the hands of a military governor-
general and a council. In 1764 the English-speaking and protestant
population was a mere handful; in 1774 it numbered about 360, while the
French Roman catholics were at the least 80,000. In accordance with the
treaty of Paris the catholics had full liberty of worship. English was,
however, the only official language, and all offices were held by men of
British nationality. The administration of the law was confused, and, though
the king's proclamation held out a prospect that an assembly might be
called, it required oaths and declarations which would have shut Roman
catholics out from it. The French disliked the English law with reference to
land, and as far as possible evaded it. Constant difficulties arose, and, in
1766, Charles Yorke, then attorney-general, advised that English should
cease to be the only official language, and that French law should be
Page 159
recognised in cases which concerned land. On the other hand the British
minority, largely consisting of immigrants from New England, pressed for
an assembly, which would have strengthened and perpetuated their
supremacy over their French neighbours.
The discontent in the American colonies made the ministers specially
anxious to conciliate the French Canadians, and with the advice of Sir Guy
Carleton, the governor, they brought in a bill for the government of the
province. The Quebec act of 1774 included in Canada the territory
previously annexed to Newfoundland, and extended its boundaries to the
Ohio and the Mississippi. It confirmed freedom of worship to the Roman
catholics and secured to their priests, with the exception of the religious
orders, their former tithes and dues, so far as concerned their own people
only, for protestants were exempted from such payments. Civil cases were
to be decided according to the French law, criminal cases according to the
English law, by juries. It was declared inexpedient to call an assembly; a
legislative council was nominated by the crown, and taxation was reserved
to the parliament of Great Britain. The bill was strenuously opposed,
Chatham in the lords, and Burke and Barré in the commons speaking
strongly against it. The government, it was urged, was setting up a
despotism and was depressing the British population to please the French
noblesse, and the trial of civil cases without juries and the withholding of
the habeas corpus were represented as intolerable grievances.
The conflict was hottest on the religious question. The whigs, who secured
the support of the dissenters by posing as the protestant party, had a
hereditary claim to the popular cry of No popery. They denounced the bill
as establishing popery, while it merely permitted protestantism. It was,
Chatham declared, a breach of the reformation, of the revolution, and of the
king's coronation oath. The City petitioned against the bill, and when, on
June 22, the king went to give his assent to it and to prorogue parliament, he
was received in the streets with angry cries of "No popery". The agitation
soon died out, for the government was popular. In America the act caused
much irritation; New York, Virginia, and other colonies complained that it
deprived them of the right to extend their territories; the revolutionary party
saw with uneasiness the establishment of the power of the crown over a vast
district on their borders, and religious prejudices were aroused by the
favour shown to the catholics. Strong protestant as he was, the king was
minority, largely consisting of immigrants from New England, pressed for
an assembly, which would have strengthened and perpetuated their
supremacy over their French neighbours.
The discontent in the American colonies made the ministers specially
anxious to conciliate the French Canadians, and with the advice of Sir Guy
Carleton, the governor, they brought in a bill for the government of the
province. The Quebec act of 1774 included in Canada the territory
previously annexed to Newfoundland, and extended its boundaries to the
Ohio and the Mississippi. It confirmed freedom of worship to the Roman
catholics and secured to their priests, with the exception of the religious
orders, their former tithes and dues, so far as concerned their own people
only, for protestants were exempted from such payments. Civil cases were
to be decided according to the French law, criminal cases according to the
English law, by juries. It was declared inexpedient to call an assembly; a
legislative council was nominated by the crown, and taxation was reserved
to the parliament of Great Britain. The bill was strenuously opposed,
Chatham in the lords, and Burke and Barré in the commons speaking
strongly against it. The government, it was urged, was setting up a
despotism and was depressing the British population to please the French
noblesse, and the trial of civil cases without juries and the withholding of
the habeas corpus were represented as intolerable grievances.
The conflict was hottest on the religious question. The whigs, who secured
the support of the dissenters by posing as the protestant party, had a
hereditary claim to the popular cry of No popery. They denounced the bill
as establishing popery, while it merely permitted protestantism. It was,
Chatham declared, a breach of the reformation, of the revolution, and of the
king's coronation oath. The City petitioned against the bill, and when, on
June 22, the king went to give his assent to it and to prorogue parliament, he
was received in the streets with angry cries of "No popery". The agitation
soon died out, for the government was popular. In America the act caused
much irritation; New York, Virginia, and other colonies complained that it
deprived them of the right to extend their territories; the revolutionary party
saw with uneasiness the establishment of the power of the crown over a vast
district on their borders, and religious prejudices were aroused by the
favour shown to the catholics. Strong protestant as he was, the king was
Page 160
thoroughly in favour of the bill. It was a wise and a just measure. It gave the
French Canadians all that they really needed: they thought it absurd that
rights to land should be decided by juries; they had no political ambitions,
and only desired to enjoy in peace the ministrations of their own priests and
the right to deal with their lands according to their ancient customs. They
rejoiced that their priests were satisfied, and in the coming struggle between
Great Britain and her colonies the priests were mindful of the justice with
which they were treated and used their boundless influence with good effect
on the British side.
The Rubicon, as Mansfield said, was passed, but the event was to be
different from the expectation of the king and the nation at large. When
Gage went out to enforce the repressive acts neither he nor those who sent
him thought that his task would be hard. Four regiments, he believed, would
be enough to settle the business. The Americans, Sandwich said, were
cowardly and undisciplined; they would not stand a cannon-shot. That they
would not fight was the firm opinion of all but a very few. More than this, it
was generally expected that Massachusetts would not be supported by the
other colonies, and no special military preparation was thought necessary.
On June 1, Boston harbour was closed. The busy little town lay desolate, its
wharfs were deserted, its warehouses shut up, its streets silent; its merchants
were threatened with ruin, its seamen, shipwrights, and labourers and their
families with starvation. The act was enforced to the utmost, and small as
Gage's force was, it was sufficient to keep the town in subjection. Its
punishment was heavy, but surely not heavier than its offences. Be this as it
may, it was worse than ineffectual. The penal acts irritated the Americans
and did not intimidate them. Boston was regarded as suffering for the
common cause. Supplies poured in from the towns and villages of New
England, from the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland; and a continental
congress was decided on. Encouraged by the prospect of support, the
revolutionary party in Massachusetts defied Gage's authority; gatherings of
armed men took place, and warlike preparations were set on foot. Gage
began to fortify Boston Neck and brought in some guns which might
otherwise have been seized by the people.
On September 5 the continental congress met at Philadelphia. Of the
thirteen colonies only Georgia was unrepresented. Yet the delegates came
with different instructions and different intentions, and even among
French Canadians all that they really needed: they thought it absurd that
rights to land should be decided by juries; they had no political ambitions,
and only desired to enjoy in peace the ministrations of their own priests and
the right to deal with their lands according to their ancient customs. They
rejoiced that their priests were satisfied, and in the coming struggle between
Great Britain and her colonies the priests were mindful of the justice with
which they were treated and used their boundless influence with good effect
on the British side.
The Rubicon, as Mansfield said, was passed, but the event was to be
different from the expectation of the king and the nation at large. When
Gage went out to enforce the repressive acts neither he nor those who sent
him thought that his task would be hard. Four regiments, he believed, would
be enough to settle the business. The Americans, Sandwich said, were
cowardly and undisciplined; they would not stand a cannon-shot. That they
would not fight was the firm opinion of all but a very few. More than this, it
was generally expected that Massachusetts would not be supported by the
other colonies, and no special military preparation was thought necessary.
On June 1, Boston harbour was closed. The busy little town lay desolate, its
wharfs were deserted, its warehouses shut up, its streets silent; its merchants
were threatened with ruin, its seamen, shipwrights, and labourers and their
families with starvation. The act was enforced to the utmost, and small as
Gage's force was, it was sufficient to keep the town in subjection. Its
punishment was heavy, but surely not heavier than its offences. Be this as it
may, it was worse than ineffectual. The penal acts irritated the Americans
and did not intimidate them. Boston was regarded as suffering for the
common cause. Supplies poured in from the towns and villages of New
England, from the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland; and a continental
congress was decided on. Encouraged by the prospect of support, the
revolutionary party in Massachusetts defied Gage's authority; gatherings of
armed men took place, and warlike preparations were set on foot. Gage
began to fortify Boston Neck and brought in some guns which might
otherwise have been seized by the people.
On September 5 the continental congress met at Philadelphia. Of the
thirteen colonies only Georgia was unrepresented. Yet the delegates came
with different instructions and different intentions, and even among
Page 161
delegates from the same province there was much difference of opinion. As
a body the congress did not meet with any predetermined revolutionary
purpose. Many loyalists and indeed moderate men of both parties believed
that it would be a means of arranging a reconciliation with Great Britain,
and though the most decided loyalists would have nothing to do with it,
even they hoped for a good result:[92] one-third of the delegates, John
Adams said, were whigs, one-third tories (loyalists), and the rest mongrel. A
proposal for a new constitution with a president over all the colonies to be
appointed by the crown, and a grand council to be elected by the several
assemblies and to act in connexion with parliament, was only negatived by
the votes of six colonies to five. Yet the revolutionists gained a decided
preponderance, largely through the skilful management of Samuel Adams,
who persuaded the congress to approve the "resolves" passed at a meeting
of Suffolk county, Massachusetts. These "resolves" rejected the act for the
government of the province, required tax collectors not to pay money into
the governor's treasury, and advised towns to appoint their own officers of
militia. Besides endorsing a policy of armed resistance to government,
congress further demanded the revocation of a series of acts of parliament,
including the Quebec act and the late penal legislation, drew up a
declaration of rights, agreed on non-exportation and non-importation, sent a
petition to the king, and published an address to the English people. It
arranged that a new congress should meet the following May, and invited
the Canadians to join in it, suggesting grounds of discontent with the
English government and pretending a zeal for religious equality. But the
Canadians were not to be caught.
Congress separated without having laid down any basis
for conciliation save complete surrender on the part of AMERICAN
LOYALISM.
parliament, which was clearly impossible. It professed
loyalty to the crown, and it is probable that certain eminent Americans,
who, like George Washington, declared that they knew of no wish for
independence, really desired to maintain the connexion with England, if
they could bring affairs back to their condition before 1763, and actually
believed that by cutting off commercial relations with her, they could
compel her to assent to their demands without an appeal to arms. Like the
vast majority of Englishmen, who did not believe that the Americans would
fight, they failed to understand the situation. In the case of others, like
a body the congress did not meet with any predetermined revolutionary
purpose. Many loyalists and indeed moderate men of both parties believed
that it would be a means of arranging a reconciliation with Great Britain,
and though the most decided loyalists would have nothing to do with it,
even they hoped for a good result:[92] one-third of the delegates, John
Adams said, were whigs, one-third tories (loyalists), and the rest mongrel. A
proposal for a new constitution with a president over all the colonies to be
appointed by the crown, and a grand council to be elected by the several
assemblies and to act in connexion with parliament, was only negatived by
the votes of six colonies to five. Yet the revolutionists gained a decided
preponderance, largely through the skilful management of Samuel Adams,
who persuaded the congress to approve the "resolves" passed at a meeting
of Suffolk county, Massachusetts. These "resolves" rejected the act for the
government of the province, required tax collectors not to pay money into
the governor's treasury, and advised towns to appoint their own officers of
militia. Besides endorsing a policy of armed resistance to government,
congress further demanded the revocation of a series of acts of parliament,
including the Quebec act and the late penal legislation, drew up a
declaration of rights, agreed on non-exportation and non-importation, sent a
petition to the king, and published an address to the English people. It
arranged that a new congress should meet the following May, and invited
the Canadians to join in it, suggesting grounds of discontent with the
English government and pretending a zeal for religious equality. But the
Canadians were not to be caught.
Congress separated without having laid down any basis
for conciliation save complete surrender on the part of AMERICAN
LOYALISM.
parliament, which was clearly impossible. It professed
loyalty to the crown, and it is probable that certain eminent Americans,
who, like George Washington, declared that they knew of no wish for
independence, really desired to maintain the connexion with England, if
they could bring affairs back to their condition before 1763, and actually
believed that by cutting off commercial relations with her, they could
compel her to assent to their demands without an appeal to arms. Like the
vast majority of Englishmen, who did not believe that the Americans would
fight, they failed to understand the situation. In the case of others, like
Page 162
Patrick Henry and the Adamses, it is useless to attach any weight to loyal
expressions. Too much, indeed, has been made of the American professions
of loyalty, for men's loyalty is better judged by their actions than by their
words. Thousands of Americans proved their loyalty by tremendous
sacrifices. Loyalism on its religious side was connected with the teaching of
the English Church; politically it was the outcome of attachment to law,
monarchy, and the unity of the empire as against revolution, democracy, and
separation.[93] The loyalists, however, included men of various religious
persuasions and of different shades of political opinion. As Americans, they
felt the British colonial system burdensome, and only the more extreme
among them approved of the stamp act and the Townshend duties. Many
took the American view of the rights of the colonies; they desired reforms
and redress of grievances, and some of them were not averse from the
milder forms of resistance. Yet all were loyal to the crown and
acknowledged the supremacy of parliament. The hopes of the moderate
section were disappointed by the congress of 1774; in common with the
more extreme loyalists they held that it exceeded its powers, and their
denial of its authority united the loyalist party.
The loyalists, or tories as they were called, comprised, in addition to the
royal officers, many of the best and most cultivated people in the colonies, a
majority of the larger landowners, by far the greater number of the
episcopal clergy together with some other religious teachers, very many
physicians, fewer lawyers, though some of the most eminent among them,
and many of the wealthier merchants, who disliked the interruption of trade
and believed that its prosperity depended on British commerce. Among the
lower classes some farmers, mechanics, and labourers were loyalists. They
were weakest in New England, though fairly numerous in Connecticut.
New York was throughout the loyalist stronghold, and, of the other middle
colonies, Pennsylvania was disinclined to revolution and New Jersey
contained a strong loyalist minority. In the southern colonies they were
about as numerous as the whigs, and in South Carolina and Georgia perhaps
outnumbered them. John Adams, who would be inclined to underestimate
their number, thought that they were a third of the population of the thirteen
colonies. The number on each side fluctuated from time to time; the
loyalists claimed to be in a majority, and it is probable that at least half of
the most respected part of the population were throughout the struggle
expressions. Too much, indeed, has been made of the American professions
of loyalty, for men's loyalty is better judged by their actions than by their
words. Thousands of Americans proved their loyalty by tremendous
sacrifices. Loyalism on its religious side was connected with the teaching of
the English Church; politically it was the outcome of attachment to law,
monarchy, and the unity of the empire as against revolution, democracy, and
separation.[93] The loyalists, however, included men of various religious
persuasions and of different shades of political opinion. As Americans, they
felt the British colonial system burdensome, and only the more extreme
among them approved of the stamp act and the Townshend duties. Many
took the American view of the rights of the colonies; they desired reforms
and redress of grievances, and some of them were not averse from the
milder forms of resistance. Yet all were loyal to the crown and
acknowledged the supremacy of parliament. The hopes of the moderate
section were disappointed by the congress of 1774; in common with the
more extreme loyalists they held that it exceeded its powers, and their
denial of its authority united the loyalist party.
The loyalists, or tories as they were called, comprised, in addition to the
royal officers, many of the best and most cultivated people in the colonies, a
majority of the larger landowners, by far the greater number of the
episcopal clergy together with some other religious teachers, very many
physicians, fewer lawyers, though some of the most eminent among them,
and many of the wealthier merchants, who disliked the interruption of trade
and believed that its prosperity depended on British commerce. Among the
lower classes some farmers, mechanics, and labourers were loyalists. They
were weakest in New England, though fairly numerous in Connecticut.
New York was throughout the loyalist stronghold, and, of the other middle
colonies, Pennsylvania was disinclined to revolution and New Jersey
contained a strong loyalist minority. In the southern colonies they were
about as numerous as the whigs, and in South Carolina and Georgia perhaps
outnumbered them. John Adams, who would be inclined to underestimate
their number, thought that they were a third of the population of the thirteen
colonies. The number on each side fluctuated from time to time; the
loyalists claimed to be in a majority, and it is probable that at least half of
the most respected part of the population were throughout the struggle
Page 163
either avowedly or secretly averse from revolution.[94] At the lowest
computation 20,000 loyalists joined the British army, and some thirty
regiments or battalions of them were regularly organised and paid. Most of
them were peaceable men, not more inclined for fighting than the mass of
their opponents who were forced into war by an active minority. Through
the skilful management of this minority the loyalists were disarmed
everywhere at the beginning of the struggle. They suffered terrible
persecution. A man suspected of loyalism would be summoned to a meeting
of the "sons of liberty," and ordered to take an oath to them. If he refused he
was tarred and feathered, or set to ride upon a rail, and his house was
defiled with filth. Loyalists were declared liable to imprisonment, exile, and
confiscation. These men were not less patriotic than the revolutionists; they
believed that the welfare of their country depended on its remaining part of
the British empire; and holding this belief they suffered, fought, and died
for their country's sake.
Although parliament had not lasted its full term of seven
years, it was dissolved on September 30. The king was A GENERAL
ELECTION.
probably anxious that a new parliament should be
elected before any event took place which might suggest doubt as to the
success of his American policy. Besides, he was anxious to secure more
men of landed property as members, and reckoned that a sudden dissolution
would foil "the nabobs, planters, and other volunteers," who would not be
ready for the battle.[95] His design was successful, and the election as a
whole was marked by the predominance of the country gentlemen, at that
period the best element in a house of commons. Much to George's
annoyance the Grenville election act had been made perpetual during the
last session. Its good effects were apparent in the election of 1774; it made
the bribery of borough electors dangerous, and there was far less of it than
before. Bargains, however, could still be made with the owners and patrons
of boroughs, and the king made himself responsible for the money North
expended. North offered Lord Falmouth £2,500 a piece for three Cornish
seats and had "to make it guineas". Other bargains of the same kind were
made. George, who was great at electioneering manœuvres, took much
interest in the proceedings. He was unable to find a candidate to stand
against Wilkes, then lord mayor elect, and Wilkes and Glynn were returned
for Middlesex without opposition. Wilkes took his seat without
computation 20,000 loyalists joined the British army, and some thirty
regiments or battalions of them were regularly organised and paid. Most of
them were peaceable men, not more inclined for fighting than the mass of
their opponents who were forced into war by an active minority. Through
the skilful management of this minority the loyalists were disarmed
everywhere at the beginning of the struggle. They suffered terrible
persecution. A man suspected of loyalism would be summoned to a meeting
of the "sons of liberty," and ordered to take an oath to them. If he refused he
was tarred and feathered, or set to ride upon a rail, and his house was
defiled with filth. Loyalists were declared liable to imprisonment, exile, and
confiscation. These men were not less patriotic than the revolutionists; they
believed that the welfare of their country depended on its remaining part of
the British empire; and holding this belief they suffered, fought, and died
for their country's sake.
Although parliament had not lasted its full term of seven
years, it was dissolved on September 30. The king was A GENERAL
ELECTION.
probably anxious that a new parliament should be
elected before any event took place which might suggest doubt as to the
success of his American policy. Besides, he was anxious to secure more
men of landed property as members, and reckoned that a sudden dissolution
would foil "the nabobs, planters, and other volunteers," who would not be
ready for the battle.[95] His design was successful, and the election as a
whole was marked by the predominance of the country gentlemen, at that
period the best element in a house of commons. Much to George's
annoyance the Grenville election act had been made perpetual during the
last session. Its good effects were apparent in the election of 1774; it made
the bribery of borough electors dangerous, and there was far less of it than
before. Bargains, however, could still be made with the owners and patrons
of boroughs, and the king made himself responsible for the money North
expended. North offered Lord Falmouth £2,500 a piece for three Cornish
seats and had "to make it guineas". Other bargains of the same kind were
made. George, who was great at electioneering manœuvres, took much
interest in the proceedings. He was unable to find a candidate to stand
against Wilkes, then lord mayor elect, and Wilkes and Glynn were returned
for Middlesex without opposition. Wilkes took his seat without
Page 164
encountering any difficulties and his political importance virtually ended
with his exclusion. Bristol returned Burke, who was recommended to that
great commercial city by his desire for conciliation with America, and his
knowledge of mercantile affairs. At the declaration of the poll he dwelt on
the relations which should exist between a member and his constituents: he
should, he said, as their representative in all cases prefer their interests to
his own, but he should not sacrifice his mature judgment to their opinion, or
be subservient to their mandates. As a whole the election satisfied the king,
for the ministers had a large and indeed an increased majority.
"I am not sorry," George wrote on hearing of the proceedings of congress,
"that the line of conduct seems now chalked out; the New England colonies
are in a state of rebellion, blows must decide whether they are to be subject
to this country or independent." He expressed the feeling of by far the larger
part of his people. Not of all, for his ministers North and Dartmouth and a
few of their party, were averse from violent measures; the merchants who
traded with America were anxious for conciliation; and the whigs as a body
were opposed to the king's policy. Chatham exulted in "the manly wisdom
and calm resolution of congress". The experience and sentiments of his
great days led him to foresee that, in case of war France and Spain would
seize the opportunity of attacking England. Unfortunately his theory that the
colonies owed only a limited obedience to the crown, that while parliament
had a right to crush disobedience and to pass acts regulating trade, it had no
right to impose taxes, his violence, his inveterate habit of "talking fustian,"
[96]
and his friendship with Franklin, who was commonly regarded as a
rebel, deprived his warnings of the weight which they deserved. The
Rockingham party did not act cordially with him. It was inspired by Burke
who urged that parliament should disregard the question of right, should act
in accordance with the spirit rather than the letter of the constitution, should
respect a desire for free institutions, and should be guided by what was
practicable and what was advisable, specially with reference to England's
trade. His influence was somewhat injured by the fact that since 1771 he
had been the paid agent of the province of New York. Equally with
Chatham, he considered that colonial trade and industry should be
restrained in order to bring wealth to the mother-country, nor does either of
them seem to have perceived that the root of American discontent lay in
these restrictions.
with his exclusion. Bristol returned Burke, who was recommended to that
great commercial city by his desire for conciliation with America, and his
knowledge of mercantile affairs. At the declaration of the poll he dwelt on
the relations which should exist between a member and his constituents: he
should, he said, as their representative in all cases prefer their interests to
his own, but he should not sacrifice his mature judgment to their opinion, or
be subservient to their mandates. As a whole the election satisfied the king,
for the ministers had a large and indeed an increased majority.
"I am not sorry," George wrote on hearing of the proceedings of congress,
"that the line of conduct seems now chalked out; the New England colonies
are in a state of rebellion, blows must decide whether they are to be subject
to this country or independent." He expressed the feeling of by far the larger
part of his people. Not of all, for his ministers North and Dartmouth and a
few of their party, were averse from violent measures; the merchants who
traded with America were anxious for conciliation; and the whigs as a body
were opposed to the king's policy. Chatham exulted in "the manly wisdom
and calm resolution of congress". The experience and sentiments of his
great days led him to foresee that, in case of war France and Spain would
seize the opportunity of attacking England. Unfortunately his theory that the
colonies owed only a limited obedience to the crown, that while parliament
had a right to crush disobedience and to pass acts regulating trade, it had no
right to impose taxes, his violence, his inveterate habit of "talking fustian,"
[96]
and his friendship with Franklin, who was commonly regarded as a
rebel, deprived his warnings of the weight which they deserved. The
Rockingham party did not act cordially with him. It was inspired by Burke
who urged that parliament should disregard the question of right, should act
in accordance with the spirit rather than the letter of the constitution, should
respect a desire for free institutions, and should be guided by what was
practicable and what was advisable, specially with reference to England's
trade. His influence was somewhat injured by the fact that since 1771 he
had been the paid agent of the province of New York. Equally with
Chatham, he considered that colonial trade and industry should be
restrained in order to bring wealth to the mother-country, nor does either of
them seem to have perceived that the root of American discontent lay in
these restrictions.
Page 165
It was not until 1776 that Adam Smith in his famous
Wealth of Nations showed that such restrictions were THE CRISIS
actually injurious to the prosperity of the country which UNDER-
ESTIMATED.
imposed them, and combated the theories on which the
relations of England with her colonies had been built up. He desired that the
colonies should be represented in parliament, a proposal which found some
advocates both here and in America, but was condemned by Burke and did
not enter into practical politics. Meanwhile a pamphleteer of originality and
genius, Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, maintained that separation was
inevitable and advisable, that the Americans were a turbulent and ill-
conditioned people, a source of expense to which they would not contribute,
and that England would be better off without them. She would not, he
contended, lose commercially; for, like Adam Smith, he pointed out that
trade goes to the best market, and that so long as England remained superior
to other countries in capital and industry, she would keep the American
trade, and, as war was destructive of trade, he would have had her separate
herself peacefully from her rebellious colonies. His proposal was
denounced by Burke and found no acceptance with either party in England.
Numerically weak as the opposition in parliament was, it made a vigorous
fight over American affairs. Parliament opened on November 30, and the
king's speech took note of the resistance to the law which prevailed in
Massachusetts, and the "unwarrantable combinations for the obstruction" of
trade. In both houses an amendment to the address was proposed. The
divisions illustrate the strength of the two parties; in the lords it was
defeated by 63 to 13, and in the commons by 264 to 73. The ministers
asserted that the force already in America was sufficient to bring the
colonies to obedience; the naval establishment was reduced to a peace
footing, and no extra soldiers were voted. Gage, however, who had only
some 3,000 troops, asked for a large reinforcement, and wrote that, if
matters came to an extremity, 20,000 men would be needed for the conquest
of New England, a number which, Dartmouth said, "the nation would not
be able to furnish in a twelvemonth".[97] The ministers resolved to send a
small reinforcement from Ireland, they were encouraged to believe that the
Americans would yield by tidings that the New York assembly had rejected
the decisions of congress and by more hopeful news from Gage. After the
recess the campaign opened in earnest. On January 20, 1775, Chatham
Wealth of Nations showed that such restrictions were THE CRISIS
actually injurious to the prosperity of the country which UNDER-
ESTIMATED.
imposed them, and combated the theories on which the
relations of England with her colonies had been built up. He desired that the
colonies should be represented in parliament, a proposal which found some
advocates both here and in America, but was condemned by Burke and did
not enter into practical politics. Meanwhile a pamphleteer of originality and
genius, Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, maintained that separation was
inevitable and advisable, that the Americans were a turbulent and ill-
conditioned people, a source of expense to which they would not contribute,
and that England would be better off without them. She would not, he
contended, lose commercially; for, like Adam Smith, he pointed out that
trade goes to the best market, and that so long as England remained superior
to other countries in capital and industry, she would keep the American
trade, and, as war was destructive of trade, he would have had her separate
herself peacefully from her rebellious colonies. His proposal was
denounced by Burke and found no acceptance with either party in England.
Numerically weak as the opposition in parliament was, it made a vigorous
fight over American affairs. Parliament opened on November 30, and the
king's speech took note of the resistance to the law which prevailed in
Massachusetts, and the "unwarrantable combinations for the obstruction" of
trade. In both houses an amendment to the address was proposed. The
divisions illustrate the strength of the two parties; in the lords it was
defeated by 63 to 13, and in the commons by 264 to 73. The ministers
asserted that the force already in America was sufficient to bring the
colonies to obedience; the naval establishment was reduced to a peace
footing, and no extra soldiers were voted. Gage, however, who had only
some 3,000 troops, asked for a large reinforcement, and wrote that, if
matters came to an extremity, 20,000 men would be needed for the conquest
of New England, a number which, Dartmouth said, "the nation would not
be able to furnish in a twelvemonth".[97] The ministers resolved to send a
small reinforcement from Ireland, they were encouraged to believe that the
Americans would yield by tidings that the New York assembly had rejected
the decisions of congress and by more hopeful news from Gage. After the
recess the campaign opened in earnest. On January 20, 1775, Chatham
Page 166
moved for the recall of the troops from Boston, and declared that, if the
ministers persisted in their policy, they would mislead the king and the
kingdom would be undone. He was defeated by a large majority. Petitions
against coercion were presented from London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow,
and other trading towns, and were virtually shelved. Meanwhile Lord
Howe, encouraged by the dislike of North and Dartmouth to coercive
measures, made ineffectual attempts to arrange terms of conciliation
through Franklin.
On February 1 Chatham, who was in constant
communication with Franklin, brought in a conciliation CONCILIATORY
RESOLUTIONS.
bill. It was a strange composition, florid in terms,
embracing a multiplicity of subjects, and depending for its operation on the
good-will of the Americans. He proposed to assert the supremacy of
parliament, specially in matters of trade, to confine taxation to the
provincial assemblies, and to legalise the coming congress in order that it
might make a perpetual free grant to the crown, which was to be
appropriated by parliament to the reduction of the national debt. Having
obtained this grant, parliament was to reduce the power of the admiralty
courts, which checked illicit trading, and to suspend all the acts, including
the Quebec act, of which the Americans complained. The bill was not
allowed a second reading. Soon after its ignominious rejection the gout laid
hold on Chatham, and he did not appear in parliament again for two years.
Franklin returned to America about this time; he disclaimed responsibility
for Chatham's proposals, which, he considered, would only have been
useful as a basis for future arrangement. North at last informed parliament
of the threatening state of affairs. Massachusetts was declared in rebellion;
votes were passed for 2,000 additional seamen and about 4,400 soldiers; it
was resolved to increase the force at Boston to 10,000 men; and a bill was
passed confining the commerce of the New England provinces to Great
Britain and the West Indies, and shutting them out from the Newfoundland
fishery. These restraints, which were evoked by the American non-
intercourse agreements, were soon extended to five other provinces.
While George promoted these strong measures, he willingly fell in with
North's desire to "hold out the olive-branch"; and on the 20th North moved
a resolution to the effect that if any colony provided what parliament
considered its fair proportion towards the common defence and the
ministers persisted in their policy, they would mislead the king and the
kingdom would be undone. He was defeated by a large majority. Petitions
against coercion were presented from London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow,
and other trading towns, and were virtually shelved. Meanwhile Lord
Howe, encouraged by the dislike of North and Dartmouth to coercive
measures, made ineffectual attempts to arrange terms of conciliation
through Franklin.
On February 1 Chatham, who was in constant
communication with Franklin, brought in a conciliation CONCILIATORY
RESOLUTIONS.
bill. It was a strange composition, florid in terms,
embracing a multiplicity of subjects, and depending for its operation on the
good-will of the Americans. He proposed to assert the supremacy of
parliament, specially in matters of trade, to confine taxation to the
provincial assemblies, and to legalise the coming congress in order that it
might make a perpetual free grant to the crown, which was to be
appropriated by parliament to the reduction of the national debt. Having
obtained this grant, parliament was to reduce the power of the admiralty
courts, which checked illicit trading, and to suspend all the acts, including
the Quebec act, of which the Americans complained. The bill was not
allowed a second reading. Soon after its ignominious rejection the gout laid
hold on Chatham, and he did not appear in parliament again for two years.
Franklin returned to America about this time; he disclaimed responsibility
for Chatham's proposals, which, he considered, would only have been
useful as a basis for future arrangement. North at last informed parliament
of the threatening state of affairs. Massachusetts was declared in rebellion;
votes were passed for 2,000 additional seamen and about 4,400 soldiers; it
was resolved to increase the force at Boston to 10,000 men; and a bill was
passed confining the commerce of the New England provinces to Great
Britain and the West Indies, and shutting them out from the Newfoundland
fishery. These restraints, which were evoked by the American non-
intercourse agreements, were soon extended to five other provinces.
While George promoted these strong measures, he willingly fell in with
North's desire to "hold out the olive-branch"; and on the 20th North moved
a resolution to the effect that if any colony provided what parliament
considered its fair proportion towards the common defence and the
Page 167
expenses of its civil administration, no duty or tax should be imposed upon
it, except for the regulation of trade. His proposal excited the indignation of
the high prerogative party, who thought themselves betrayed; his followers
rose in revolt; "the treasury bench seemed to totter". The storm was stilled
at last, and then Barré, Burke, and Dunning fell upon the bill, describing it
as a mean attempt to divide the Americans, and a plan for coercing each
province separately. The motion was, however, carried. As the opposition
scorned North's plan, which Burke called "a project of ransom by auction,"
it behoved them to bring forward a plan of their own which would be
acceptable to the Americans. Accordingly, on March 22, Burke propounded
a series of conciliatory resolutions which he enforced in one of his most
famous speeches. He urged the house to return to its old policy, to respect
the Americans' love of freedom, to look to the colonial assemblies to supply
the expenses of their government and defence, to abandon the futile attempt
to impose taxation, and to extend to Americans the privileges of
Englishmen. His proposal was defeated. Nevertheless, by accepting North's
resolution parliament showed a desire for pacification. The resolution
proposed a compromise; while it maintained the authority of parliament, it
offered the Americans self-taxation. It was made with a sincere desire to
end the quarrel. At one time it might have led to pacification, but it came
too late.
Gage found the fortification of Boston Neck no easy matter; the people
would not sell him materials, and somehow his barges sank, his waggons
were bogged, and their loads caught fire. The work was finished at last, and
with his small force he could do little else. In Rhode Island the people
seized the cannon mounted for the defence of the harbour, and in New
Hampshire they surprised a small fort, and carried off ordnance and stores.
Manufactories of arms and powder-mills were set up in different places. In
February, 1775, the Massachusetts provincial congress met, and urged the
militia, and specially the "minute-men"—militiamen ready to serve on the
shortest notice—to perfect their discipline. Virginia, Maryland, and the
Carolinas were astir with warlike preparations; in Massachusetts men were
practising the use of arms on every village green, a number of Stockbridge
Indians were enlisted as minute-men, and efforts were made to induce the
Six Nations to "whet the hatchet" against the English.[98] Express-riders
kept the country people well supplied with intelligence, in order that they
it, except for the regulation of trade. His proposal excited the indignation of
the high prerogative party, who thought themselves betrayed; his followers
rose in revolt; "the treasury bench seemed to totter". The storm was stilled
at last, and then Barré, Burke, and Dunning fell upon the bill, describing it
as a mean attempt to divide the Americans, and a plan for coercing each
province separately. The motion was, however, carried. As the opposition
scorned North's plan, which Burke called "a project of ransom by auction,"
it behoved them to bring forward a plan of their own which would be
acceptable to the Americans. Accordingly, on March 22, Burke propounded
a series of conciliatory resolutions which he enforced in one of his most
famous speeches. He urged the house to return to its old policy, to respect
the Americans' love of freedom, to look to the colonial assemblies to supply
the expenses of their government and defence, to abandon the futile attempt
to impose taxation, and to extend to Americans the privileges of
Englishmen. His proposal was defeated. Nevertheless, by accepting North's
resolution parliament showed a desire for pacification. The resolution
proposed a compromise; while it maintained the authority of parliament, it
offered the Americans self-taxation. It was made with a sincere desire to
end the quarrel. At one time it might have led to pacification, but it came
too late.
Gage found the fortification of Boston Neck no easy matter; the people
would not sell him materials, and somehow his barges sank, his waggons
were bogged, and their loads caught fire. The work was finished at last, and
with his small force he could do little else. In Rhode Island the people
seized the cannon mounted for the defence of the harbour, and in New
Hampshire they surprised a small fort, and carried off ordnance and stores.
Manufactories of arms and powder-mills were set up in different places. In
February, 1775, the Massachusetts provincial congress met, and urged the
militia, and specially the "minute-men"—militiamen ready to serve on the
shortest notice—to perfect their discipline. Virginia, Maryland, and the
Carolinas were astir with warlike preparations; in Massachusetts men were
practising the use of arms on every village green, a number of Stockbridge
Indians were enlisted as minute-men, and efforts were made to induce the
Six Nations to "whet the hatchet" against the English.[98] Express-riders
kept the country people well supplied with intelligence, in order that they
Page 168
might anticipate any projected movement of the British troops. On the 26th
Gage sent a detachment to Salem to bring in some guns, but the people
removed them in time. Some opposition was offered to the troops, but they
were kept well in hand and no blood was shed.
He determined to be beforehand at Concord, where the
provincials had gathered a quantity of military stores, SKIRMISH AT
LEXINGTON.
and on April 18 sent some companies of grenadiers and
light infantry under Colonel Smith and Major Pitcairn to destroy them.
They went by night up the Charles river in boats, landed, and began their
march. The alarm had been given and the country was aroused. When they
arrived at Lexington at 5 in the morning of the 19th they found a body of
militia on the green. "Disperse, you rebels!" shouted Pitcairn, and the troops
advanced with a cheer. As the militia dispersed some shots were fired. From
which side the first shot came is not clear. A soldier was hit and Pitcairn's
horse was wounded. The troops fired a volley, a few militiamen were killed
and others wounded, and the soldiers marched on. While the grenadiers
were destroying the stores at Concord a sharp engagement took place with
the militia, and several on both sides were killed and wounded. The troops,
having accomplished their purpose as far as was possible, for part of the
stores had already been removed, set out to return to Boston. As they
marched back, tired and impeded by their wounded, militiamen and
volunteers fired upon them from every hedge, and wall, and house, and the
shots told heavily on their close ranks. Forced on by the ceaseless fire, like
a driven flock of sheep, thick together and helpless, they staggered back to
Lexington, where they arrived completely exhausted. There they were met
by a large detachment under Lord Percy, which had been sent to their relief.
After a rest the whole body marched back, harassed all the way by an
incessant fire from cover, which they were for the most part unable to
return. The British loss was sixty-five killed, about 157 wounded, and a few
missing; the American casualties are stated as ninety-three in all. Not,
unhappily, for the last time did our soldiers find that farmers and the like,
who know their country, are accustomed to shoot, and understand the
importance of taking cover, may be more than a match for brave and
disciplined soldiers with no knowledge of war save the drill of a parade
ground. It was evident that there was fighting stuff in the Americans, that
they had some good marksmen, and that, undisciplined as they were, like
Gage sent a detachment to Salem to bring in some guns, but the people
removed them in time. Some opposition was offered to the troops, but they
were kept well in hand and no blood was shed.
He determined to be beforehand at Concord, where the
provincials had gathered a quantity of military stores, SKIRMISH AT
LEXINGTON.
and on April 18 sent some companies of grenadiers and
light infantry under Colonel Smith and Major Pitcairn to destroy them.
They went by night up the Charles river in boats, landed, and began their
march. The alarm had been given and the country was aroused. When they
arrived at Lexington at 5 in the morning of the 19th they found a body of
militia on the green. "Disperse, you rebels!" shouted Pitcairn, and the troops
advanced with a cheer. As the militia dispersed some shots were fired. From
which side the first shot came is not clear. A soldier was hit and Pitcairn's
horse was wounded. The troops fired a volley, a few militiamen were killed
and others wounded, and the soldiers marched on. While the grenadiers
were destroying the stores at Concord a sharp engagement took place with
the militia, and several on both sides were killed and wounded. The troops,
having accomplished their purpose as far as was possible, for part of the
stores had already been removed, set out to return to Boston. As they
marched back, tired and impeded by their wounded, militiamen and
volunteers fired upon them from every hedge, and wall, and house, and the
shots told heavily on their close ranks. Forced on by the ceaseless fire, like
a driven flock of sheep, thick together and helpless, they staggered back to
Lexington, where they arrived completely exhausted. There they were met
by a large detachment under Lord Percy, which had been sent to their relief.
After a rest the whole body marched back, harassed all the way by an
incessant fire from cover, which they were for the most part unable to
return. The British loss was sixty-five killed, about 157 wounded, and a few
missing; the American casualties are stated as ninety-three in all. Not,
unhappily, for the last time did our soldiers find that farmers and the like,
who know their country, are accustomed to shoot, and understand the
importance of taking cover, may be more than a match for brave and
disciplined soldiers with no knowledge of war save the drill of a parade
ground. It was evident that there was fighting stuff in the Americans, that
they had some good marksmen, and that, undisciplined as they were, like
Page 169
the Boers of our own day, they knew how to use such advantages as they
possessed.
Thus was the first blood shed in this long quarrel. The revolution was
begun. Sooner or later it must have come, though the date of its coming and
the violent means by which it was accomplished were decided by individual
action. The spirit which underlay it can be traced with growing distinctness
since 1690; it was a spirit of independence, puritan in religion and
republican in politics, impatient of control, self-assertive, and disposed to
opposition. It was irritated by restraints on industry and commerce, and
found opportunities for expression in a system which gave the colonies
representative assemblies while it withheld rights of self-government. Great
Britain has since then adopted a more enlightened colonial policy; yet the
statesmen of past times are not to be condemned because they were men of
their own days and lacked the experience of a future age. And it is to be
remembered that England's colonial policy was then, as it is now, the most
liberal in the world. American discontent existed before the reign of George
III.; it was kept in check by the fear of French invasion. It was when that
fear was removed that England began to enforce the restraints on
commerce. This change in policy fell most heavily on the New England
provinces, where whig tendencies were strongest, and specially on
Massachusetts. A small and violent party in the province fanned the flame
of discontent, and the attempts at taxation, which added to the grievances of
the colonists, afforded a respectable cry to the fomenters of resistance. Their
work was aided by the apprehension aroused in the minds of their fellow-
countrymen, by the increase in the part played by the prerogative, and by
the predominance of the tories in England. While men in other provinces, as
Patrick Henry in Virginia, worked in sympathy with Samuel Adams and his
associates, the revolution was at its outset engineered at Boston, and was
immediately determined by the quarrel between Great Britain and
Massachusetts. In the events which led to the revolution the British
government appears to have shown a short-sighted insistence on legal rights
and a contemptuous disregard of the sentiments and opinions of the
colonists; the revolutionists generally a turbulent, insolent, and
unreasonable temper.
FOOTNOTES:
possessed.
Thus was the first blood shed in this long quarrel. The revolution was
begun. Sooner or later it must have come, though the date of its coming and
the violent means by which it was accomplished were decided by individual
action. The spirit which underlay it can be traced with growing distinctness
since 1690; it was a spirit of independence, puritan in religion and
republican in politics, impatient of control, self-assertive, and disposed to
opposition. It was irritated by restraints on industry and commerce, and
found opportunities for expression in a system which gave the colonies
representative assemblies while it withheld rights of self-government. Great
Britain has since then adopted a more enlightened colonial policy; yet the
statesmen of past times are not to be condemned because they were men of
their own days and lacked the experience of a future age. And it is to be
remembered that England's colonial policy was then, as it is now, the most
liberal in the world. American discontent existed before the reign of George
III.; it was kept in check by the fear of French invasion. It was when that
fear was removed that England began to enforce the restraints on
commerce. This change in policy fell most heavily on the New England
provinces, where whig tendencies were strongest, and specially on
Massachusetts. A small and violent party in the province fanned the flame
of discontent, and the attempts at taxation, which added to the grievances of
the colonists, afforded a respectable cry to the fomenters of resistance. Their
work was aided by the apprehension aroused in the minds of their fellow-
countrymen, by the increase in the part played by the prerogative, and by
the predominance of the tories in England. While men in other provinces, as
Patrick Henry in Virginia, worked in sympathy with Samuel Adams and his
associates, the revolution was at its outset engineered at Boston, and was
immediately determined by the quarrel between Great Britain and
Massachusetts. In the events which led to the revolution the British
government appears to have shown a short-sighted insistence on legal rights
and a contemptuous disregard of the sentiments and opinions of the
colonists; the revolutionists generally a turbulent, insolent, and
unreasonable temper.
FOOTNOTES:
Page 170
[89] Franklin, Works, v., 189-90, 205-7, 305-14, ed. Bigelow.
[90] Chatham Corr., iv. 339.
[91] Parl. Hist., xvii., 1197.
[92] Jones, History of New York, i., 34-35, 449, sq.; Flick, Loyalism in New York,
pp. 24-25.
[93] Flick, Loyalism in New York, pp. 9-12.
[94] Sabine, The American Loyalists, pp. 51-55, 65.
[95] Corr. with North, i., 201.
[96] Burke to Flood, May 18, 1765, Works, i., 41.
[97] Dartmouth Papers, America, Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep., xiv., App. x., 251.
[98] The Border Warfare of the Revolution, in Narr. and Crit. Hist., vi., 612-14.
[90] Chatham Corr., iv. 339.
[91] Parl. Hist., xvii., 1197.
[92] Jones, History of New York, i., 34-35, 449, sq.; Flick, Loyalism in New York,
pp. 24-25.
[93] Flick, Loyalism in New York, pp. 9-12.
[94] Sabine, The American Loyalists, pp. 51-55, 65.
[95] Corr. with North, i., 201.
[96] Burke to Flood, May 18, 1765, Works, i., 41.
[97] Dartmouth Papers, America, Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep., xiv., App. x., 251.
[98] The Border Warfare of the Revolution, in Narr. and Crit. Hist., vi., 612-14.
Page 171
CHAPTER VIII.
THE COLONIAL REBELLION.
Scarcely had the night passed after the skirmish at Lexington before the
whole of Massachusetts was in arms. The provincial assembly voted that an
army of 30,000 men should be raised in New England, fixed on Cambridge
as its headquarters and sent to their neighbours for support. From New
Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island the answer was prompt.
Numerous bands of volunteers marched to join the forces of Massachusetts,
and an army of 16,000 men soon invested Boston from the Mystic river to
Roxbury. It was an army without unity, for the troops of each colony acted
under their own leaders; and its numbers varied from day to day, the
Massachusetts volunteers, who formed its principal part, taking leave of
absence whenever they chose. Many of the provincials had seen service
against the French, and understood a soldier's work, and many more had
received some training in the militia, but the mass of the volunteers had no
military experience or discipline. Yet they were men well used to shoot and
to handle the spade and axe, implements of first-rate importance in war;
they belonged as a whole to a higher class than the privates of the British
army, they were more resourceful and intelligent, and were able to obtain
provisions and other supplies without difficulty. Such as they were, Gage
judged them too formidable in number for him to attack. The neck of land
which joins Boston to the continent had been fortified so strongly that the
provincials could not hope to storm it, and he decided to remain behind it
and await the arrival of the reinforcements which were already on their way.
He made no effort to prevent the insurgents from shutting up his army on
the landward side, and early in May they began to form entrenchments. At
the same time they took measures to distress the beleaguered force by
clearing off the live-stock, hay, and other supplies from the islands in the
harbour. Gage tried in vain to stop them, and there were several skirmishes
in the harbour, in which the British suffered more heavily than the
provincials.
THE COLONIAL REBELLION.
Scarcely had the night passed after the skirmish at Lexington before the
whole of Massachusetts was in arms. The provincial assembly voted that an
army of 30,000 men should be raised in New England, fixed on Cambridge
as its headquarters and sent to their neighbours for support. From New
Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island the answer was prompt.
Numerous bands of volunteers marched to join the forces of Massachusetts,
and an army of 16,000 men soon invested Boston from the Mystic river to
Roxbury. It was an army without unity, for the troops of each colony acted
under their own leaders; and its numbers varied from day to day, the
Massachusetts volunteers, who formed its principal part, taking leave of
absence whenever they chose. Many of the provincials had seen service
against the French, and understood a soldier's work, and many more had
received some training in the militia, but the mass of the volunteers had no
military experience or discipline. Yet they were men well used to shoot and
to handle the spade and axe, implements of first-rate importance in war;
they belonged as a whole to a higher class than the privates of the British
army, they were more resourceful and intelligent, and were able to obtain
provisions and other supplies without difficulty. Such as they were, Gage
judged them too formidable in number for him to attack. The neck of land
which joins Boston to the continent had been fortified so strongly that the
provincials could not hope to storm it, and he decided to remain behind it
and await the arrival of the reinforcements which were already on their way.
He made no effort to prevent the insurgents from shutting up his army on
the landward side, and early in May they began to form entrenchments. At
the same time they took measures to distress the beleaguered force by
clearing off the live-stock, hay, and other supplies from the islands in the
harbour. Gage tried in vain to stop them, and there were several skirmishes
in the harbour, in which the British suffered more heavily than the
provincials.
Page 172
The insurgents were not content with fighting on their own ground. The
command of the line of the Hudson would prevent the British from cutting
off New England from the middle colonies, would secure New York from
attack from the north, and would open a way for an invasion of Canada. On
the north the approaches to the river were dominated by the forts of
Ticonderoga and Crown Point, which had played a conspicuous part in the
great war with France; and in them were laid up some 200 cannon, small
arms, and other military stores. Important as these forts were, no adequate
garrisons were maintained in them. Benedict Arnold, the leader of a band of
volunteers from New Haven, Connecticut, a druggist and West India trader,
was informed of their defenceless condition, and made an offer to the
Massachusetts committee of safety to capture them. His offer was accepted,
and he was authorised to raise a force. The same plan had been formed in
Connecticut; and Ethan Allen, the leader of an association in Vermont, was
sent with his followers to carry it out. Arnold met him on the march; he
refused to yield the command, and Arnold joined his force, which included
a body of Indians. At dawn on May 10 they surprised the garrison of
Ticonderoga, consisting of less than fifty men, and compelled the governor
to surrender without striking a blow. A detachment from the force seized
Crown Point, and a few days later Arnold sailed down Lake Champlain and
captured St. John's, which was recovered by the British in the course of the
summer and garrisoned.
In England the news of the fighting at Lexington and
Concord was received with astonishment. People were OPINION IN
ENGLAND.
by no means distressed, for they believed that Gage
would soon take his revenge. Military men were puzzled and provoked at
the state of affairs at Boston. "How often," said a general at the war office
to one who had held command in America, "have I heard you American
colonels boast that with four battalions you would march through America,
and now you think that Gage with 4,000 men and forty pieces of cannon
mayn't venture out of Boston."[99] However, things would, it was expected,
soon wear a different face, for about 5,500 men were on their way to
Boston, and three new generals had embarked on April 21 to serve under
Gage. They were Howe, a younger brother of Lord Howe, the admiral, a
fine gentleman and a gallant soldier, reputed to be a left-handed cousin of
the king through his mother, a daughter of the Countess of Darlington, a
command of the line of the Hudson would prevent the British from cutting
off New England from the middle colonies, would secure New York from
attack from the north, and would open a way for an invasion of Canada. On
the north the approaches to the river were dominated by the forts of
Ticonderoga and Crown Point, which had played a conspicuous part in the
great war with France; and in them were laid up some 200 cannon, small
arms, and other military stores. Important as these forts were, no adequate
garrisons were maintained in them. Benedict Arnold, the leader of a band of
volunteers from New Haven, Connecticut, a druggist and West India trader,
was informed of their defenceless condition, and made an offer to the
Massachusetts committee of safety to capture them. His offer was accepted,
and he was authorised to raise a force. The same plan had been formed in
Connecticut; and Ethan Allen, the leader of an association in Vermont, was
sent with his followers to carry it out. Arnold met him on the march; he
refused to yield the command, and Arnold joined his force, which included
a body of Indians. At dawn on May 10 they surprised the garrison of
Ticonderoga, consisting of less than fifty men, and compelled the governor
to surrender without striking a blow. A detachment from the force seized
Crown Point, and a few days later Arnold sailed down Lake Champlain and
captured St. John's, which was recovered by the British in the course of the
summer and garrisoned.
In England the news of the fighting at Lexington and
Concord was received with astonishment. People were OPINION IN
ENGLAND.
by no means distressed, for they believed that Gage
would soon take his revenge. Military men were puzzled and provoked at
the state of affairs at Boston. "How often," said a general at the war office
to one who had held command in America, "have I heard you American
colonels boast that with four battalions you would march through America,
and now you think that Gage with 4,000 men and forty pieces of cannon
mayn't venture out of Boston."[99] However, things would, it was expected,
soon wear a different face, for about 5,500 men were on their way to
Boston, and three new generals had embarked on April 21 to serve under
Gage. They were Howe, a younger brother of Lord Howe, the admiral, a
fine gentleman and a gallant soldier, reputed to be a left-handed cousin of
the king through his mother, a daughter of the Countess of Darlington, a
Page 173
mistress of George I., kindly, careless, and frivolous, who had distinguished
himself at the taking of Quebec; Clinton, who had served in Germany; and
Burgoyne, who had made a successful campaign in Portugal under Lippe
Bückeburg, a man of fashion, a dramatist, a politician, and a keen soldier,
eager for employment and promotion. North and Dartmouth were vexed at
the news of the encounter, for they had entertained strong hopes, expressed
by the king in closing parliament on May 26, that the conciliation bill
would lead to a pacification. Gage's attempt at Concord was, Dartmouth
said, fatal.
The whigs were dismayed, for they did not share the confidence of the
nation at large. Though Burke expected that the Americans would suffer
"some heavy blows," he did not believe that a war with them would be
ended quickly; and Richmond thought it probable that America would be
lost and "with it our trade and opulence".[100] In England every war gives an
opportunity to some vain and foolish persons for condemning their own
country and showing sympathy with its enemies. So it was in 1775. Wilkes,
then lord mayor, and the livery of the city tried to force the king to receive
on the throne a petition which declared that an attempt was being made to
establish arbitrary power in America. They were foiled by the king and
adopted an address expressed in more decent terms, to which he returned
answer that so long as constitutional authority was resisted he would
continue to maintain it by force. The constitutional society, of which Horne
was the leading spirit, sent Franklin £100 for, as Horne wrote in the
Evening Post, "the widows and orphans of our beloved American fellow-
subjects inhumanly murdered by the king's troops at or near Lexington and
Concord". Horne was indicted for this libel in 1777, and was sentenced to a
year's imprisonment and a fine of £200.
In America the news of the affair at Lexington called forth in every colony a
spirit of union, a determination to stand by their New England brethren. No
answers were sent to North's conciliatory proposals; all alike agreed in
referring them to the continental congress. This was equivalent to a
rejection of them, for it was well known that the British government would
hold no communication with that body. The congress met for the second
time at Philadelphia on May 10. It rejected North's proposals and agreed
that garrisons should be maintained at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, a
decision which implied an approval of the offensive war levied against the
himself at the taking of Quebec; Clinton, who had served in Germany; and
Burgoyne, who had made a successful campaign in Portugal under Lippe
Bückeburg, a man of fashion, a dramatist, a politician, and a keen soldier,
eager for employment and promotion. North and Dartmouth were vexed at
the news of the encounter, for they had entertained strong hopes, expressed
by the king in closing parliament on May 26, that the conciliation bill
would lead to a pacification. Gage's attempt at Concord was, Dartmouth
said, fatal.
The whigs were dismayed, for they did not share the confidence of the
nation at large. Though Burke expected that the Americans would suffer
"some heavy blows," he did not believe that a war with them would be
ended quickly; and Richmond thought it probable that America would be
lost and "with it our trade and opulence".[100] In England every war gives an
opportunity to some vain and foolish persons for condemning their own
country and showing sympathy with its enemies. So it was in 1775. Wilkes,
then lord mayor, and the livery of the city tried to force the king to receive
on the throne a petition which declared that an attempt was being made to
establish arbitrary power in America. They were foiled by the king and
adopted an address expressed in more decent terms, to which he returned
answer that so long as constitutional authority was resisted he would
continue to maintain it by force. The constitutional society, of which Horne
was the leading spirit, sent Franklin £100 for, as Horne wrote in the
Evening Post, "the widows and orphans of our beloved American fellow-
subjects inhumanly murdered by the king's troops at or near Lexington and
Concord". Horne was indicted for this libel in 1777, and was sentenced to a
year's imprisonment and a fine of £200.
In America the news of the affair at Lexington called forth in every colony a
spirit of union, a determination to stand by their New England brethren. No
answers were sent to North's conciliatory proposals; all alike agreed in
referring them to the continental congress. This was equivalent to a
rejection of them, for it was well known that the British government would
hold no communication with that body. The congress met for the second
time at Philadelphia on May 10. It rejected North's proposals and agreed
that garrisons should be maintained at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, a
decision which implied an approval of the offensive war levied against the
Page 174
king in the expedition against those forts. As, however, it was expedient to
lull the suspicions of the French Canadians, who were not likely to have
forgotten the religious bitterness exhibited by the Americans with reference
to the Quebec act, it declared that no invasion of Canada would be made.
The congress assumed executive powers; in the name of the "United
Colonies" it adopted the army of New England then before Boston as the
continental army, took measures for its organisation and payment,
authorised a loan, and on June 15 chose George Washington, the colonel of
the Virginia militia, as commander-in-chief.
No wiser choice could have been made. Washington was a gentleman of
Virginia, of independent fortune, descended from an English family of good
position; he had served with distinction against the French, and as aide-de-
camp to Braddock had behaved with remarkable intrepidity in the battle on
the Monongahela river in 1755. Thoroughly unselfish, he devoted himself
with all his heart to public duty; his integrity was above suspicion; he was
free from personal ambition, and was never swayed by jealousy. His
education had been neglected, but his intellect was clear and his judgment
sound. He was naturally hot-tempered, and when his anger was roused he
was a terror to evil-doers, to the officer who disobeyed his orders and to the
rascally contractor who supplied his army with inferior stores. Yet he
habitually kept his temper under control. Steadfast in purpose, he was never
overwhelmed by misfortune and never yielded to factious opposition. And
strong as his will was, it did not degenerate into obstinacy; he would gladly
listen to the advice of others, and in military matters was sometimes too
ready to act upon it. At first he made mistakes in generalship, but his
military skill grew with his experience. In army administration he was
excellent; his industry was unwearying; the smallest details received his
personal attention. He was conscious of the difficulties of the task which lay
before him; he believed, so he told Patrick Henry, that from the day of his
appointment his reputation would begin to decline. The congress was an
unorganised body without any constitutional status, conducting its business
by means of constantly changing and irresponsible committees, and was
utterly unfit to exercise executive functions; it had no means of enforcing
its decrees, no revenue, and no munitions of war. The army which it
adopted was little better than an assembly of armed men; many were
volunteers, and it was decided to enlist men only for seven months. There
lull the suspicions of the French Canadians, who were not likely to have
forgotten the religious bitterness exhibited by the Americans with reference
to the Quebec act, it declared that no invasion of Canada would be made.
The congress assumed executive powers; in the name of the "United
Colonies" it adopted the army of New England then before Boston as the
continental army, took measures for its organisation and payment,
authorised a loan, and on June 15 chose George Washington, the colonel of
the Virginia militia, as commander-in-chief.
No wiser choice could have been made. Washington was a gentleman of
Virginia, of independent fortune, descended from an English family of good
position; he had served with distinction against the French, and as aide-de-
camp to Braddock had behaved with remarkable intrepidity in the battle on
the Monongahela river in 1755. Thoroughly unselfish, he devoted himself
with all his heart to public duty; his integrity was above suspicion; he was
free from personal ambition, and was never swayed by jealousy. His
education had been neglected, but his intellect was clear and his judgment
sound. He was naturally hot-tempered, and when his anger was roused he
was a terror to evil-doers, to the officer who disobeyed his orders and to the
rascally contractor who supplied his army with inferior stores. Yet he
habitually kept his temper under control. Steadfast in purpose, he was never
overwhelmed by misfortune and never yielded to factious opposition. And
strong as his will was, it did not degenerate into obstinacy; he would gladly
listen to the advice of others, and in military matters was sometimes too
ready to act upon it. At first he made mistakes in generalship, but his
military skill grew with his experience. In army administration he was
excellent; his industry was unwearying; the smallest details received his
personal attention. He was conscious of the difficulties of the task which lay
before him; he believed, so he told Patrick Henry, that from the day of his
appointment his reputation would begin to decline. The congress was an
unorganised body without any constitutional status, conducting its business
by means of constantly changing and irresponsible committees, and was
utterly unfit to exercise executive functions; it had no means of enforcing
its decrees, no revenue, and no munitions of war. The army which it
adopted was little better than an assembly of armed men; many were
volunteers, and it was decided to enlist men only for seven months. There
Page 175
was little discipline; the officers were for the most part ignorant of their
duties and were of the same social standing as their men; and the New
England privates, self-opiniated and obstinate, showed little respect for their
orders. Washington had not merely to command an army in the field, he had
to create one and, what was harder still, to keep it together.
Inside Boston life was by no means pleasant. All
marketing from the country was at an end, for the town THE SIEGE OF
was closely beset by land and the islands were cleared of BOSTON.
provisions; no fresh meat was to be had, and the besieged lived alternately
on salt beef and salt pork. Attacks from fire-rafts and whale-boats were
daily threatened, and fears were entertained that the inhabitants might set
fire to the town in order to force the British to leave it.[101] On May 25 the
three new generals landed, and the arrival of the reinforcements raised the
number of Gage's army to about 10,000 men. Believing that the rebellion
would soon be quelled, he issued a foolish proclamation, offering pardon to
all rebels who laid down their arms, except Samuel Adams and Hancock,
then president of the congress, and threatening those who continued in arms
with punishment as traitors. As the insurgents had no ships, while the
British had floating batteries and ships of war in the harbour, they could not
hope to destroy Gage's army, or reduce it to surrender through famine. Their
object was to compel him to evacuate the place and sail off. The peninsula
on which the town stands was commanded by hills both on the north and
south-east. On the north were the hills of the Charlestown peninsula, which
was separated from Boston by the Charles river; it had the Mystic river on
its northern side, and was joined to the mainland by a narrow neck. On the
south-east it was commanded by the hills of another peninsula called
Dorchester Neck. A battery on either the Charlestown hills or the
Dorchester heights would have rendered Gage's position untenable; for,
independently of any loss which his troops might sustain from
bombardment, the British shipping would be drawn from its anchorage, and
if he remained he would be practically imprisoned in the town and cut off
from supplies. It should therefore have been Gage's first care to shut the
insurgents out from those positions.
Hitherto he had not attempted to occupy the hills on either side, but after the
arrival of the new generals it was decided to include them within the lines.
On June 13 the insurgents heard that the British were about to occupy
duties and were of the same social standing as their men; and the New
England privates, self-opiniated and obstinate, showed little respect for their
orders. Washington had not merely to command an army in the field, he had
to create one and, what was harder still, to keep it together.
Inside Boston life was by no means pleasant. All
marketing from the country was at an end, for the town THE SIEGE OF
was closely beset by land and the islands were cleared of BOSTON.
provisions; no fresh meat was to be had, and the besieged lived alternately
on salt beef and salt pork. Attacks from fire-rafts and whale-boats were
daily threatened, and fears were entertained that the inhabitants might set
fire to the town in order to force the British to leave it.[101] On May 25 the
three new generals landed, and the arrival of the reinforcements raised the
number of Gage's army to about 10,000 men. Believing that the rebellion
would soon be quelled, he issued a foolish proclamation, offering pardon to
all rebels who laid down their arms, except Samuel Adams and Hancock,
then president of the congress, and threatening those who continued in arms
with punishment as traitors. As the insurgents had no ships, while the
British had floating batteries and ships of war in the harbour, they could not
hope to destroy Gage's army, or reduce it to surrender through famine. Their
object was to compel him to evacuate the place and sail off. The peninsula
on which the town stands was commanded by hills both on the north and
south-east. On the north were the hills of the Charlestown peninsula, which
was separated from Boston by the Charles river; it had the Mystic river on
its northern side, and was joined to the mainland by a narrow neck. On the
south-east it was commanded by the hills of another peninsula called
Dorchester Neck. A battery on either the Charlestown hills or the
Dorchester heights would have rendered Gage's position untenable; for,
independently of any loss which his troops might sustain from
bombardment, the British shipping would be drawn from its anchorage, and
if he remained he would be practically imprisoned in the town and cut off
from supplies. It should therefore have been Gage's first care to shut the
insurgents out from those positions.
Hitherto he had not attempted to occupy the hills on either side, but after the
arrival of the new generals it was decided to include them within the lines.
On June 13 the insurgents heard that the British were about to occupy
Page 176
Dorchester heights. They determined to frustrate this move by occupying
the ridge stretching along the Charlestown peninsula, and called by the
general name of Bunker hill. Accordingly on the evening of the 16th a
detachment of 1,200 men, with six field-pieces, was sent from Cambridge
for that purpose. When they arrived at the summit their leaders determined
to advance farther and to fortify a lower eminence of the ridge nearer
Boston, which was distinguished by the name of Breeds hill. There during
the night they formed a redoubt and breastwork. At daybreak on the 17th
they were discovered from the sloop Lively, and her guns roused the British
army. Before long a battery in Boston and the guns of other ships opened
fire, but did little mischief. The insurgents received a small reinforcement,
and formed a line of defence, protected by a low wall and rail, from their
redoubt northward to the Mystic, in order to secure themselves from a flank
attack. If Gage had placed a floating battery on the Mystic, which would
have taken them on the left flank, and had landed troops to the rear of the
redoubt, held the neck, and so cut them off from their main body, he would
have had them at his mercy. This would have been easy, for by taking up a
more advanced position than was laid down in their orders, they left their
rear exposed to attack. He decided, however, to storm their works.
Not till midday did a detachment of British troops,
grenadiers and light infantry, begin to land on the BATTLE OF
BUNKER HILL.
peninsula under the command of Howe and Pigot. They
waited for reinforcements, which brought their number up to over 2,000
men, with artillery. Hot as the weather was, the men were burdened with
knapsacks containing provisions for three days. At 3 p.m. they advanced in
two divisions, the light infantry under Howe against the line of defence, the
grenadiers under Pigot against the redoubt. At first their advance was
covered by their artillery, but the guns stuck in the mire, and it is said that a
fresh supply of ball sent from Boston was too large for the cannon. Even if
this was the case, it could have made no difference, for the supply taken
with the guns was not exhausted.[102] Up the steep hill, through long tangled
grass, the red-coats toiled on towards the redoubt, each burdened with a
weight of some 125 pounds. With admirable coolness the Americans held
their fire until the enemy was about fifty yards from them, and then poured
a volley into their ranks. For a few minutes the men stood steady and
returned the fire, then they turned and retreated in disorder. The attack on
the ridge stretching along the Charlestown peninsula, and called by the
general name of Bunker hill. Accordingly on the evening of the 16th a
detachment of 1,200 men, with six field-pieces, was sent from Cambridge
for that purpose. When they arrived at the summit their leaders determined
to advance farther and to fortify a lower eminence of the ridge nearer
Boston, which was distinguished by the name of Breeds hill. There during
the night they formed a redoubt and breastwork. At daybreak on the 17th
they were discovered from the sloop Lively, and her guns roused the British
army. Before long a battery in Boston and the guns of other ships opened
fire, but did little mischief. The insurgents received a small reinforcement,
and formed a line of defence, protected by a low wall and rail, from their
redoubt northward to the Mystic, in order to secure themselves from a flank
attack. If Gage had placed a floating battery on the Mystic, which would
have taken them on the left flank, and had landed troops to the rear of the
redoubt, held the neck, and so cut them off from their main body, he would
have had them at his mercy. This would have been easy, for by taking up a
more advanced position than was laid down in their orders, they left their
rear exposed to attack. He decided, however, to storm their works.
Not till midday did a detachment of British troops,
grenadiers and light infantry, begin to land on the BATTLE OF
BUNKER HILL.
peninsula under the command of Howe and Pigot. They
waited for reinforcements, which brought their number up to over 2,000
men, with artillery. Hot as the weather was, the men were burdened with
knapsacks containing provisions for three days. At 3 p.m. they advanced in
two divisions, the light infantry under Howe against the line of defence, the
grenadiers under Pigot against the redoubt. At first their advance was
covered by their artillery, but the guns stuck in the mire, and it is said that a
fresh supply of ball sent from Boston was too large for the cannon. Even if
this was the case, it could have made no difference, for the supply taken
with the guns was not exhausted.[102] Up the steep hill, through long tangled
grass, the red-coats toiled on towards the redoubt, each burdened with a
weight of some 125 pounds. With admirable coolness the Americans held
their fire until the enemy was about fifty yards from them, and then poured
a volley into their ranks. For a few minutes the men stood steady and
returned the fire, then they turned and retreated in disorder. The attack on
Page 177
the fence was equally unsuccessful. While the officers were rallying their
men, the battery on Cops hill burnt the wooden houses of the almost
deserted village of Charlestown, from which the troops had been fired upon
as they advanced. Then a second attack was made, and again the British
were sent staggering back by the enemy's fire. At this crisis Clinton came
over from Boston, took command of two battalions, a body of marines, and
the 47th, and did good service in helping to rally the troops. With fine
persistency they made ready for a third attack. More rational orders were
given; the force was not divided, and only a feint was made against the line
of defence, the men laid aside their knapsacks, advanced in column against
the redoubt, and attacked with the bayonet. The Americans, who had
received little support of any kind from headquarters, were weary, and their
ammunition was almost exhausted; they were driven from their works and
retreated across the neck. Their retreat was covered with bravery and
military skill[103] by the body stationed along the line of defence on their
left, but as they passed over the neck they suffered severely from the guns
of the Glasgow sloop of war. Howe would not pursue them, and at once
began to fortify the peninsula.
The victory was decisive, for it gave the English the ground for which they
fought, and enabled them to hold Boston for nine months longer. It was
dearly purchased by the loss of 19 officers and 207 men killed, and 70
officers and 758 men wounded, making a total of 1,054 casualties, an
extraordinarily large proportion of the number engaged, apparently about
2,500. This was the natural result of sending troops up a hill to deliver a
frontal attack on an earthwork held by a body of men well used to shoot. It
will be observed that the loss of officers was extremely heavy; they
fearlessly exposed themselves, as the British officer always does, in order to
encourage their men. The Americans, who for the most part fought behind
cover, stated their loss at 449. After Bunker hill, no one whose judgment
was not warped by prejudice could believe that the Americans were
cowards. They were not, so Gage wrote, the disorderly rabble too many
have supposed; he had seen enough to convince him that the conquest of the
country could only be effected by perseverance and strong armies.[104] The
behaviour of the insurgent troops greatly encouraged their party. When
Washington heard how they had fought he declared that the liberties of the
country were safe.
men, the battery on Cops hill burnt the wooden houses of the almost
deserted village of Charlestown, from which the troops had been fired upon
as they advanced. Then a second attack was made, and again the British
were sent staggering back by the enemy's fire. At this crisis Clinton came
over from Boston, took command of two battalions, a body of marines, and
the 47th, and did good service in helping to rally the troops. With fine
persistency they made ready for a third attack. More rational orders were
given; the force was not divided, and only a feint was made against the line
of defence, the men laid aside their knapsacks, advanced in column against
the redoubt, and attacked with the bayonet. The Americans, who had
received little support of any kind from headquarters, were weary, and their
ammunition was almost exhausted; they were driven from their works and
retreated across the neck. Their retreat was covered with bravery and
military skill[103] by the body stationed along the line of defence on their
left, but as they passed over the neck they suffered severely from the guns
of the Glasgow sloop of war. Howe would not pursue them, and at once
began to fortify the peninsula.
The victory was decisive, for it gave the English the ground for which they
fought, and enabled them to hold Boston for nine months longer. It was
dearly purchased by the loss of 19 officers and 207 men killed, and 70
officers and 758 men wounded, making a total of 1,054 casualties, an
extraordinarily large proportion of the number engaged, apparently about
2,500. This was the natural result of sending troops up a hill to deliver a
frontal attack on an earthwork held by a body of men well used to shoot. It
will be observed that the loss of officers was extremely heavy; they
fearlessly exposed themselves, as the British officer always does, in order to
encourage their men. The Americans, who for the most part fought behind
cover, stated their loss at 449. After Bunker hill, no one whose judgment
was not warped by prejudice could believe that the Americans were
cowards. They were not, so Gage wrote, the disorderly rabble too many
have supposed; he had seen enough to convince him that the conquest of the
country could only be effected by perseverance and strong armies.[104] The
behaviour of the insurgent troops greatly encouraged their party. When
Washington heard how they had fought he declared that the liberties of the
country were safe.
Page 178
Already some colonies were making temporary
arrangements for popular government and issuing bills THE INVASION OF
for the expenses of defence, and in July Georgia CANADA.
expressed its adherence to the general policy of armed resistance. For a
while, however, royal governors still remained, and government was
everywhere in a chaotic state. In New York the mob committed many
outrages on the persons and property of loyalists, and hostilities took place
with crews of the king's ships in the bay. Yet the town was not prepared to
take a decided part; and it received Tryon, the royal governor, and
Washington with the same tokens of respect. A like incongruity marked the
proceedings of congress. Besides adopting addresses to the people of Great
Britain and Ireland, it sent a petition to the king on whom it was levying
war from his "faithful subjects," expressing attachment to his "person,
family, and government" and beseeching him to "settle peace". At the same
time, in spite of its declaration to the contrary, it ordered an invasion of
Canada. The Americans flattered themselves that the Canadians would rise
against the British, and Allen, puffed up by his recent success, made a dash
at Montreal with only 150 men. He was defeated and taken prisoner.
Meanwhile Montgomery started from Ticonderoga in August with over
2,000 men, captured Chamblée, where he found a good supply of military
stores, and laid siege to St. John's. Canada was practically defenceless, for
Carleton had only 900 regular troops; the English-speaking Canadians were
disaffected, the French for the most part either apathetic or hostile. He sent
to Gage for reinforcements, but the admiral, Samuel Graves, declined to
transport troops to Quebec, for as it was then late in October the voyage
from Boston would have been dangerous. Carleton's efforts to relieve St.
John's were unsuccessful, and after a stout resistance the garrison
surrendered on November 13. The fall of St. John's involved the surrender
of Montreal, which was defenceless, and Carleton hastened to the defence
of Quebec.
His presence was needed there, for on September 13 a detachment of about
1,500 men under the command of Arnold was sent from the army at
Cambridge to surprise and capture the city. It was to proceed by land and
water up the Kennebec, and down the Chaudière to the St. Lawrence. The
route, though used by trappers and Indians, was dimly traced, and the
equipment of the expedition was too cumbersome for the rough work which
arrangements for popular government and issuing bills THE INVASION OF
for the expenses of defence, and in July Georgia CANADA.
expressed its adherence to the general policy of armed resistance. For a
while, however, royal governors still remained, and government was
everywhere in a chaotic state. In New York the mob committed many
outrages on the persons and property of loyalists, and hostilities took place
with crews of the king's ships in the bay. Yet the town was not prepared to
take a decided part; and it received Tryon, the royal governor, and
Washington with the same tokens of respect. A like incongruity marked the
proceedings of congress. Besides adopting addresses to the people of Great
Britain and Ireland, it sent a petition to the king on whom it was levying
war from his "faithful subjects," expressing attachment to his "person,
family, and government" and beseeching him to "settle peace". At the same
time, in spite of its declaration to the contrary, it ordered an invasion of
Canada. The Americans flattered themselves that the Canadians would rise
against the British, and Allen, puffed up by his recent success, made a dash
at Montreal with only 150 men. He was defeated and taken prisoner.
Meanwhile Montgomery started from Ticonderoga in August with over
2,000 men, captured Chamblée, where he found a good supply of military
stores, and laid siege to St. John's. Canada was practically defenceless, for
Carleton had only 900 regular troops; the English-speaking Canadians were
disaffected, the French for the most part either apathetic or hostile. He sent
to Gage for reinforcements, but the admiral, Samuel Graves, declined to
transport troops to Quebec, for as it was then late in October the voyage
from Boston would have been dangerous. Carleton's efforts to relieve St.
John's were unsuccessful, and after a stout resistance the garrison
surrendered on November 13. The fall of St. John's involved the surrender
of Montreal, which was defenceless, and Carleton hastened to the defence
of Quebec.
His presence was needed there, for on September 13 a detachment of about
1,500 men under the command of Arnold was sent from the army at
Cambridge to surprise and capture the city. It was to proceed by land and
water up the Kennebec, and down the Chaudière to the St. Lawrence. The
route, though used by trappers and Indians, was dimly traced, and the
equipment of the expedition was too cumbersome for the rough work which
Page 179
lay before it.[105] Soon after leaving their transports at Fort Western, where,
fifty-eight miles from its mouth, the Kennebec ceased to be navigable
except by bateaux, the troops began to suffer great hardships. Their stores
were conveyed in bateaux, which they were constantly forced to haul
against currents and carry over land. Many of them leaked, some were
abandoned, and provisions ran short. The weather became cold and rainy.
The whole rear division, with its officers, lost heart and turned back, taking
with them a large share of food and ammunition. The rest toiled on through
swamps and mire, half-starved and benumbed with cold. Many perished,
some lost their way, and the men of one company were reduced to eating
their dogs and gnawing the leather of their shoes. It was not until November
9 that Arnold's troops, a ragged and shivering crowd of about 600 men, with
some Indians who had joined them, reached Point Levi. Montgomery, who
was to have met them, was not there; they crossed the St. Lawrence, and
Arnold sent an absurd summons to the garrison of Quebec. He then
retreated to Pointe-aux-Trembles to wait for Montgomery.
The defences of Quebec were in bad condition, the garrison was small, and
there was much disaffection among the inhabitants. The whole country was
in the power of the invaders, the people were on their side, and it seemed as
though the hopes of the Americans would be fulfilled. But while Quebec
remained untaken, Canada would still be unconquered, and the defence was
in good hands. The garrison was commanded by Colonel Maclean of the
84th, or Royal Highland Emigrants, a regiment largely raised by him from
Frazer's Highlanders who had done good service under Wolfe. Carleton
soon entered the place, and while Arnold was waiting for Montgomery, took
vigorous measures for securing its safety. Montgomery arrived at Pointe-
aux-Trembles on December 1, and on the night of the 31st the rebels
attempted to carry Quebec by storm. They were repulsed with heavy loss,
Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded. They continued the siege, but
were too weak either to invest the city completely or make any offensive
movement. Carleton waited quietly until the breaking up of the ice should
allow reinforcements to come up the river. Before long the French
Canadians began to transfer their sympathies to the British. Their priests
were too well satisfied with the Quebec act to desire change. Bishop Briand
published a mandement, reminding his people of the benefits they received
from English rule and calling upon them to defend their province. His
fifty-eight miles from its mouth, the Kennebec ceased to be navigable
except by bateaux, the troops began to suffer great hardships. Their stores
were conveyed in bateaux, which they were constantly forced to haul
against currents and carry over land. Many of them leaked, some were
abandoned, and provisions ran short. The weather became cold and rainy.
The whole rear division, with its officers, lost heart and turned back, taking
with them a large share of food and ammunition. The rest toiled on through
swamps and mire, half-starved and benumbed with cold. Many perished,
some lost their way, and the men of one company were reduced to eating
their dogs and gnawing the leather of their shoes. It was not until November
9 that Arnold's troops, a ragged and shivering crowd of about 600 men, with
some Indians who had joined them, reached Point Levi. Montgomery, who
was to have met them, was not there; they crossed the St. Lawrence, and
Arnold sent an absurd summons to the garrison of Quebec. He then
retreated to Pointe-aux-Trembles to wait for Montgomery.
The defences of Quebec were in bad condition, the garrison was small, and
there was much disaffection among the inhabitants. The whole country was
in the power of the invaders, the people were on their side, and it seemed as
though the hopes of the Americans would be fulfilled. But while Quebec
remained untaken, Canada would still be unconquered, and the defence was
in good hands. The garrison was commanded by Colonel Maclean of the
84th, or Royal Highland Emigrants, a regiment largely raised by him from
Frazer's Highlanders who had done good service under Wolfe. Carleton
soon entered the place, and while Arnold was waiting for Montgomery, took
vigorous measures for securing its safety. Montgomery arrived at Pointe-
aux-Trembles on December 1, and on the night of the 31st the rebels
attempted to carry Quebec by storm. They were repulsed with heavy loss,
Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded. They continued the siege, but
were too weak either to invest the city completely or make any offensive
movement. Carleton waited quietly until the breaking up of the ice should
allow reinforcements to come up the river. Before long the French
Canadians began to transfer their sympathies to the British. Their priests
were too well satisfied with the Quebec act to desire change. Bishop Briand
published a mandement, reminding his people of the benefits they received
from English rule and calling upon them to defend their province. His
Page 180
exhortation had a powerful effect, for priests refused to confess men who
joined the rebels.
The victory of Bunker hill made no change in the
position of Gage's army, which suffered from the want PAUCITY OF THE
of wholesome food and from other privations. As BRITISH ARMY.
England had command of the sea the troops could have been removed, and
the generals wrote to the government suggesting that Boston should be
evacuated and the royal forces concentrated at New York, which was more
open to communication by sea, and in every respect a better base for future
operations. The government, however, was unwilling to give up the town,
and things remained as they were, for the generals considered that nothing
was to be gained by an attack on the enemy's lines, because their army was
not supplied with the materials necessary to move at a distance. Plans were
indeed proposed for embarrassing the enemy by sending out a detachment
to make a descent on Rhode Island;[106] but Gage did nothing, and the
government, convinced of his incapacity, recalled him to England. He sailed
from Boston in October, and Howe was appointed to the chief command.
By sea there was as little done as by land, for the naval force under Graves
was so inefficient that he was unable even to prevent the whale-boats of the
rebels from intercepting supplies and destroying lighthouses. He was
unjustly blamed for inaction, both by the army in Boston and the
government. His removal was, the king thought, "as necessary as the mild
general's".[107] This and every other matter connected with the war was
directed by the king. His industry and his knowledge of details, military and
naval, were extraordinary, and North, Dartmouth, and Barrington, whatever
their own opinions were, had no choice but to carry out his orders.
On the outbreak of the war the army of Great Britain was on its normal
peace establishment of about 17,000 men, besides the Irish army of 15,235,
the garrison of Gibraltar 3,500, and of Minorca 2,500. It was an amazingly
small number, considering the accessions made to the empire by the late
war. George always wished for a larger permanent force; but his ministers
shrank from raising a storm by increasing the estimates or provoking the
popular jealousy of a standing army. Men were wanted at once. The first
reinforcements were obtained from Ireland, and the Irish parliament agreed
that 4,000 men should be drafted out of the country beyond the number
allowed by statute. It soon became evident that the war required the
joined the rebels.
The victory of Bunker hill made no change in the
position of Gage's army, which suffered from the want PAUCITY OF THE
of wholesome food and from other privations. As BRITISH ARMY.
England had command of the sea the troops could have been removed, and
the generals wrote to the government suggesting that Boston should be
evacuated and the royal forces concentrated at New York, which was more
open to communication by sea, and in every respect a better base for future
operations. The government, however, was unwilling to give up the town,
and things remained as they were, for the generals considered that nothing
was to be gained by an attack on the enemy's lines, because their army was
not supplied with the materials necessary to move at a distance. Plans were
indeed proposed for embarrassing the enemy by sending out a detachment
to make a descent on Rhode Island;[106] but Gage did nothing, and the
government, convinced of his incapacity, recalled him to England. He sailed
from Boston in October, and Howe was appointed to the chief command.
By sea there was as little done as by land, for the naval force under Graves
was so inefficient that he was unable even to prevent the whale-boats of the
rebels from intercepting supplies and destroying lighthouses. He was
unjustly blamed for inaction, both by the army in Boston and the
government. His removal was, the king thought, "as necessary as the mild
general's".[107] This and every other matter connected with the war was
directed by the king. His industry and his knowledge of details, military and
naval, were extraordinary, and North, Dartmouth, and Barrington, whatever
their own opinions were, had no choice but to carry out his orders.
On the outbreak of the war the army of Great Britain was on its normal
peace establishment of about 17,000 men, besides the Irish army of 15,235,
the garrison of Gibraltar 3,500, and of Minorca 2,500. It was an amazingly
small number, considering the accessions made to the empire by the late
war. George always wished for a larger permanent force; but his ministers
shrank from raising a storm by increasing the estimates or provoking the
popular jealousy of a standing army. Men were wanted at once. The first
reinforcements were obtained from Ireland, and the Irish parliament agreed
that 4,000 men should be drafted out of the country beyond the number
allowed by statute. It soon became evident that the war required the
Page 181
immediate supply of a far greater number of men than could be spared from
the present establishment or could be raised quickly. Parliament was not in
session, and the king determined to obtain the services of foreign troops. As
Elector of Hanover he lent 2,355 Hanoverians to garrison Gibraltar and
Minorca, and so set a corresponding number of the British garrisons free to
be employed in the war. He sought to hire men from other sovereigns. A
proposal made to Catherine of Russia for the hire of 20,000 men was
scornfully declined, and the States-General refused to sell him their Scots
brigade. With the petty princes of Germany he was more lucky; the Duke of
Brunswick, the Landgrave and the hereditary Prince of Hesse Cassel, and
the Prince of Waldeck were happy to sell their subjects, and agreed to
supply 17,742 in return for a liberal payment. These arrangements enraged
the Americans, who spoke of them as though the king was delivering a
loyal people to be massacred by foreign mercenaries. As a matter of fact
they were making war on the king, and he had as good a right to buy troops
to fight in his quarrel as he had to buy cannon. It is on the princes who sold
the blood of their subjects that the disgrace of these transactions must rest.
Frederick of Prussia expressed his disgust at their greediness in bitter terms,
and is said to have jeeringly declared that when any of the unfortunate men
whose lives they were selling passed through his dominions he would levy
toll on them at so much a head as though they were cattle.
Nothing was gained by the recall of Gage, for Howe was
equally incompetent. Privateers were fitted out in great EVACUATION OF
BOSTON.
number in the New England ports, which did mischief to
English commerce and intercepted the supplies sent out to the army. In
order to check this privateering business two ships-of-war sailed from
Boston in October, under a lieutenant named Mowat, with orders to burn
the shipping along the coast. Mowat exceeded his orders and destroyed the
town of Falmouth. This useless act of barbarity, which excited violent
indignation among the Americans, was reprehended by the British
government. In Boston sickness continued rife among the troops, and in
November there was an outbreak of small-pox. Washington, however, was
not in a position to attack; he had great difficulty in obtaining ammunition
and not less in raising men. The revolutionary spirit was spreading, but
there was little military ardour. In December the period of enlistment ended;
his army was disbanded, and he could not obtain quite 10,000 men to take
the present establishment or could be raised quickly. Parliament was not in
session, and the king determined to obtain the services of foreign troops. As
Elector of Hanover he lent 2,355 Hanoverians to garrison Gibraltar and
Minorca, and so set a corresponding number of the British garrisons free to
be employed in the war. He sought to hire men from other sovereigns. A
proposal made to Catherine of Russia for the hire of 20,000 men was
scornfully declined, and the States-General refused to sell him their Scots
brigade. With the petty princes of Germany he was more lucky; the Duke of
Brunswick, the Landgrave and the hereditary Prince of Hesse Cassel, and
the Prince of Waldeck were happy to sell their subjects, and agreed to
supply 17,742 in return for a liberal payment. These arrangements enraged
the Americans, who spoke of them as though the king was delivering a
loyal people to be massacred by foreign mercenaries. As a matter of fact
they were making war on the king, and he had as good a right to buy troops
to fight in his quarrel as he had to buy cannon. It is on the princes who sold
the blood of their subjects that the disgrace of these transactions must rest.
Frederick of Prussia expressed his disgust at their greediness in bitter terms,
and is said to have jeeringly declared that when any of the unfortunate men
whose lives they were selling passed through his dominions he would levy
toll on them at so much a head as though they were cattle.
Nothing was gained by the recall of Gage, for Howe was
equally incompetent. Privateers were fitted out in great EVACUATION OF
BOSTON.
number in the New England ports, which did mischief to
English commerce and intercepted the supplies sent out to the army. In
order to check this privateering business two ships-of-war sailed from
Boston in October, under a lieutenant named Mowat, with orders to burn
the shipping along the coast. Mowat exceeded his orders and destroyed the
town of Falmouth. This useless act of barbarity, which excited violent
indignation among the Americans, was reprehended by the British
government. In Boston sickness continued rife among the troops, and in
November there was an outbreak of small-pox. Washington, however, was
not in a position to attack; he had great difficulty in obtaining ammunition
and not less in raising men. The revolutionary spirit was spreading, but
there was little military ardour. In December the period of enlistment ended;
his army was disbanded, and he could not obtain quite 10,000 men to take
Page 182
its place. Though Howe's army was weakened by sickness, such effective
troops as he had were well-trained soldiers. Yet he made no attempt to force
the American lines. By the beginning of March Washington was able to take
the offensive, and on the night of the 4th occupied Dorchester heights and
began to plant cannon there. It is amazing that Howe should have neglected
this important position. A storm prevented him from sending a force across
the bay to attack the Americans' works before they were completed; their
batteries rendered Boston untenable and endangered the ships in the
harbour. Howe was forced to abandon the town, and on the 17th the British
troops, about 7,600 in number, together with nearly 1,000 loyalists,
embarked for Halifax, where Howe waited for reinforcements which would
enable him to strike at New York.
If the English had abandoned Boston after the battle of Bunker hill, the
evacuation would have merely been a military movement, adopted for the
purpose of obtaining a more convenient base for future operations. The
government decided that the place should be held, and its enforced
evacuation was a moral defeat and a legitimate cause of triumph to the
Americans. Their exultation was dashed by the failure of their attempt on
Canada. Fresh troops were sent to support the invasion, but the feelings of
the people, English as well as French, were turning strongly against the
Americans. After the evacuation of Boston, congress ordered Washington to
send nearly half his effective force into Canada, and despatched Franklin
and other commissioners thither to allure the people with promises. The
Canadians turned a deaf ear to their offers. The moment for which Carleton
waited so patiently came at last. On May 6, before the river was fully
cleared of ice, three British ships made their way to Quebec with
reinforcements. He at once sallied out, and the Americans fled in confusion,
leaving their cannon and baggage behind, and even their pots boiling, so
that the king's troops sat down and ate their dinners from them. Further
reinforcements arrived from Halifax and from Ireland, and in June
Burgoyne, who had spent the winter at home, brought over the Hessian and
Brunswick troops, raising Carleton's army to about 12,000 men. The
Americans, under Sullivan, retreated from the neighbourhood of Quebec to
Sorel. A large detachment was routed at Three Rivers, and Sullivan
retreated to St. John's, leisurely pursued by Burgoyne. There he was joined
by Arnold, and the remnants of the army of Canada, some 5,000 men,
troops as he had were well-trained soldiers. Yet he made no attempt to force
the American lines. By the beginning of March Washington was able to take
the offensive, and on the night of the 4th occupied Dorchester heights and
began to plant cannon there. It is amazing that Howe should have neglected
this important position. A storm prevented him from sending a force across
the bay to attack the Americans' works before they were completed; their
batteries rendered Boston untenable and endangered the ships in the
harbour. Howe was forced to abandon the town, and on the 17th the British
troops, about 7,600 in number, together with nearly 1,000 loyalists,
embarked for Halifax, where Howe waited for reinforcements which would
enable him to strike at New York.
If the English had abandoned Boston after the battle of Bunker hill, the
evacuation would have merely been a military movement, adopted for the
purpose of obtaining a more convenient base for future operations. The
government decided that the place should be held, and its enforced
evacuation was a moral defeat and a legitimate cause of triumph to the
Americans. Their exultation was dashed by the failure of their attempt on
Canada. Fresh troops were sent to support the invasion, but the feelings of
the people, English as well as French, were turning strongly against the
Americans. After the evacuation of Boston, congress ordered Washington to
send nearly half his effective force into Canada, and despatched Franklin
and other commissioners thither to allure the people with promises. The
Canadians turned a deaf ear to their offers. The moment for which Carleton
waited so patiently came at last. On May 6, before the river was fully
cleared of ice, three British ships made their way to Quebec with
reinforcements. He at once sallied out, and the Americans fled in confusion,
leaving their cannon and baggage behind, and even their pots boiling, so
that the king's troops sat down and ate their dinners from them. Further
reinforcements arrived from Halifax and from Ireland, and in June
Burgoyne, who had spent the winter at home, brought over the Hessian and
Brunswick troops, raising Carleton's army to about 12,000 men. The
Americans, under Sullivan, retreated from the neighbourhood of Quebec to
Sorel. A large detachment was routed at Three Rivers, and Sullivan
retreated to St. John's, leisurely pursued by Burgoyne. There he was joined
by Arnold, and the remnants of the army of Canada, some 5,000 men,
Page 183
suffering severely from sickness and privation, escaped to Isle-aux-Noix,
and thence to Crown Point. Canada was evacuated in June. Left almost
defenceless by England, it was preserved to her by Carleton's firmness and
intrepidity.
By the beginning of 1776 the idea of separation from Great Britain was
daily gaining ground in the revolted colonies. It was strengthened by the
publication of a pamphlet entitled Common Sense by Thomas Paine. This
Paine, a staymaker by trade, after he had failed in business in England, and
had been dismissed from employment as an exciseman for neglect of duty,
emigrated to America in 1774, and came into notice through introductions
given him by Franklin. He was bitterly hostile to his own country, a violent
advocate of revolutionary ideas, ignorant and conceited; yet he had much
shrewdness, and expressed his rude opinions with a force and vivacity
which appealed strongly to readers prepared to assent to them. Common
Sense taught thousands of Americans to recognise for the first time their
own thoughts and wishes, and encouraged others, who already knew what
they wanted, to cease from disguising their hopes by empty professions.
Separation would, it was expected in England, be opposed most vigorously
in the southern colonies. In them its cause was forwarded by violence. Lord
Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, took refuge on board a man-of-war in
June, 1775, manned a small flotilla, and attempted to reduce his province by
making descents upon the coast. He enraged the people by offering freedom
to slaves who would enlist under him, and by destroying the town of
Norfolk through setting fire to some wharfs from which his men had been
shot at while landing for water. He further engaged in a scheme for
invading the southern colonies from inland with the help of the Indians. It
failed, and the result of his proceedings was that Virginia was foremost in
urging congress to a declaration of independence.
The governors of the two Carolinas assured the king that
if a force were sent to their provinces the loyalists would THE ATTEMPT ON
rise; the Carolinas might be secured, Virginia coerced, CHARLESTON.
and all the south recovered for the crown. Both George and Dartmouth
believed them, and, against the advice of military men, an expedition was
prepared to sail to Cape Fear. The troops were conveyed in a squadron
under Sir Peter Parker and were under the command of Lord Cornwallis.
Clinton left Boston in December to take the command, but the expedition
and thence to Crown Point. Canada was evacuated in June. Left almost
defenceless by England, it was preserved to her by Carleton's firmness and
intrepidity.
By the beginning of 1776 the idea of separation from Great Britain was
daily gaining ground in the revolted colonies. It was strengthened by the
publication of a pamphlet entitled Common Sense by Thomas Paine. This
Paine, a staymaker by trade, after he had failed in business in England, and
had been dismissed from employment as an exciseman for neglect of duty,
emigrated to America in 1774, and came into notice through introductions
given him by Franklin. He was bitterly hostile to his own country, a violent
advocate of revolutionary ideas, ignorant and conceited; yet he had much
shrewdness, and expressed his rude opinions with a force and vivacity
which appealed strongly to readers prepared to assent to them. Common
Sense taught thousands of Americans to recognise for the first time their
own thoughts and wishes, and encouraged others, who already knew what
they wanted, to cease from disguising their hopes by empty professions.
Separation would, it was expected in England, be opposed most vigorously
in the southern colonies. In them its cause was forwarded by violence. Lord
Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, took refuge on board a man-of-war in
June, 1775, manned a small flotilla, and attempted to reduce his province by
making descents upon the coast. He enraged the people by offering freedom
to slaves who would enlist under him, and by destroying the town of
Norfolk through setting fire to some wharfs from which his men had been
shot at while landing for water. He further engaged in a scheme for
invading the southern colonies from inland with the help of the Indians. It
failed, and the result of his proceedings was that Virginia was foremost in
urging congress to a declaration of independence.
The governors of the two Carolinas assured the king that
if a force were sent to their provinces the loyalists would THE ATTEMPT ON
rise; the Carolinas might be secured, Virginia coerced, CHARLESTON.
and all the south recovered for the crown. Both George and Dartmouth
believed them, and, against the advice of military men, an expedition was
prepared to sail to Cape Fear. The troops were conveyed in a squadron
under Sir Peter Parker and were under the command of Lord Cornwallis.
Clinton left Boston in December to take the command, but the expedition
Page 184
was long a-preparing: it did not leave Cork until February 12, 1776; the
ships met with storms; none arrived at Cape Fear before May 3, some were
even later. Meanwhile Martin, the governor of North Carolina, stirred up
the loyalist Scots settled in the province to take arms; they marched towards
the coast, expecting to meet the royal troops, were intercepted, and utterly
routed. When at last Clinton's force was gathered together, his time for
action was short, for he was under orders to meet Howe at New York at an
early date. He and Parker decided to make an attempt on the harbour of
Charleston, the chief town of South Carolina, for the trade carried on there
was an important source of the insurgents' funds. It was not until June 4 that
the British force, about 2,000 troops, with Parker's squadron arrived at
Charleston harbour.
The entrance was commanded by Sullivan's island and there the insurgents
under Moultrie had erected a fort and mounted guns. Clinton landed his
troops on Long island, intending that at low tide they should wade across to
Sullivan's island and attack the garrison on their rear, while the ships
bombarded them in front. The attempt was made on the 28th. The tide did
not run out sufficiently to allow the troops to ford the shoals and the
engagement was simply an artillery duel. The British ships suffered
severely; one frigate which went aground was set on fire to prevent the
enemy from taking it, Parker's flagship the Bristol and the Experiment, both
of fifty guns, were much knocked about, and some 200 men were killed or
wounded. The attack failed, and on July 21 Clinton's force sailed for New
York under convoy of a single frigate, the rest of Parker's ships being forced
to refit. The expedition strengthened the party of separation and bound the
south closely together. Its failure depressed the loyalists, and for three years
freed the southern colonies from invasion, and enabled them to send help to
other quarters. Less than a week after the unsuccessful attempt on
Charleston, on July 4, the congress at Philadelphia, in which all the thirteen
colonies were represented, put forth a declaration of independence; the
colonies renounced their allegiance, and declared themselves free and
independent states, the United States of America.
The progress of the revolt during the summer of 1775 strengthened the
king's determination to subdue it by force. A proclamation was issued in
August against traitorous correspondence with the Americans, and in
September Penn, who brought over the petition of congress to the king, was
ships met with storms; none arrived at Cape Fear before May 3, some were
even later. Meanwhile Martin, the governor of North Carolina, stirred up
the loyalist Scots settled in the province to take arms; they marched towards
the coast, expecting to meet the royal troops, were intercepted, and utterly
routed. When at last Clinton's force was gathered together, his time for
action was short, for he was under orders to meet Howe at New York at an
early date. He and Parker decided to make an attempt on the harbour of
Charleston, the chief town of South Carolina, for the trade carried on there
was an important source of the insurgents' funds. It was not until June 4 that
the British force, about 2,000 troops, with Parker's squadron arrived at
Charleston harbour.
The entrance was commanded by Sullivan's island and there the insurgents
under Moultrie had erected a fort and mounted guns. Clinton landed his
troops on Long island, intending that at low tide they should wade across to
Sullivan's island and attack the garrison on their rear, while the ships
bombarded them in front. The attempt was made on the 28th. The tide did
not run out sufficiently to allow the troops to ford the shoals and the
engagement was simply an artillery duel. The British ships suffered
severely; one frigate which went aground was set on fire to prevent the
enemy from taking it, Parker's flagship the Bristol and the Experiment, both
of fifty guns, were much knocked about, and some 200 men were killed or
wounded. The attack failed, and on July 21 Clinton's force sailed for New
York under convoy of a single frigate, the rest of Parker's ships being forced
to refit. The expedition strengthened the party of separation and bound the
south closely together. Its failure depressed the loyalists, and for three years
freed the southern colonies from invasion, and enabled them to send help to
other quarters. Less than a week after the unsuccessful attempt on
Charleston, on July 4, the congress at Philadelphia, in which all the thirteen
colonies were represented, put forth a declaration of independence; the
colonies renounced their allegiance, and declared themselves free and
independent states, the United States of America.
The progress of the revolt during the summer of 1775 strengthened the
king's determination to subdue it by force. A proclamation was issued in
August against traitorous correspondence with the Americans, and in
September Penn, who brought over the petition of congress to the king, was
Page 185
informed that no answer would be made to it. George could not have
received it without recognising congress, an unauthorised assemblage of his
subjects engaged in levying war against him. The government was powerful
in parliament, and the great majority of the nation warmly approved the
royal policy, of which the ministers were scarcely more than the agents.
Little doubt was felt as to the successful issue of the war; public spirit was
aroused, and the cause of England was generally held to be just. The landed
gentry and the professions of the Church, the army, and the law were
strongly on the king's side. Self-interest largely decided the attitude of the
mercantile class: some of its members were opposed to the war because it
injured their trade; others were in favour of it; for trade generally was brisk
and was increased by the demands brought by war. In London and Bristol
the opposition had many supporters, but in both cities there was a strong
party in favour of the government. Among the labouring classes the war
was not popular and recruiting was difficult, for service in America entailed
a long voyage full of discomfort, and the prospect of fighting with men of
the same race and language was repellent. The evangelicals and methodists
sided with the government; the dissenters generally were against the war
and their preachers were active in encouraging their dislike to it. Addresses
approving of the king's policy were numerous and unsolicited; they poured
in from all quarters, from tory Oxford and whiggish Cambridge, from
country towns and great commercial centres like Liverpool and Manchester.
Rockingham observed that violent measures were countenanced by a
majority of persons "of all ranks, professions, or occupations in this
country". Scotland almost to a man was of the same persuasion. In Ireland
the nobles and the gentry generally upheld the court, but with the majority
of protestants, and specially with the presbyterians of the north, the war was
highly unpopular.[108]
The opponents of the government were not less resolute
than the king. Lord Effingham resigned his commission CHANGES IN THE
MINISTRY.
in the army lest he should be called upon to serve
against the Americans, and Chatham's eldest son took the same course in
obedience to the wishes of his parents. Grafton wrote to North in August,
1775, expressing his desire for conciliation. On October 20 North sent him
a draft of the king's speech which showed him that the government was
determined to reduce the rebellion by force of arms. He resigned the privy
received it without recognising congress, an unauthorised assemblage of his
subjects engaged in levying war against him. The government was powerful
in parliament, and the great majority of the nation warmly approved the
royal policy, of which the ministers were scarcely more than the agents.
Little doubt was felt as to the successful issue of the war; public spirit was
aroused, and the cause of England was generally held to be just. The landed
gentry and the professions of the Church, the army, and the law were
strongly on the king's side. Self-interest largely decided the attitude of the
mercantile class: some of its members were opposed to the war because it
injured their trade; others were in favour of it; for trade generally was brisk
and was increased by the demands brought by war. In London and Bristol
the opposition had many supporters, but in both cities there was a strong
party in favour of the government. Among the labouring classes the war
was not popular and recruiting was difficult, for service in America entailed
a long voyage full of discomfort, and the prospect of fighting with men of
the same race and language was repellent. The evangelicals and methodists
sided with the government; the dissenters generally were against the war
and their preachers were active in encouraging their dislike to it. Addresses
approving of the king's policy were numerous and unsolicited; they poured
in from all quarters, from tory Oxford and whiggish Cambridge, from
country towns and great commercial centres like Liverpool and Manchester.
Rockingham observed that violent measures were countenanced by a
majority of persons "of all ranks, professions, or occupations in this
country". Scotland almost to a man was of the same persuasion. In Ireland
the nobles and the gentry generally upheld the court, but with the majority
of protestants, and specially with the presbyterians of the north, the war was
highly unpopular.[108]
The opponents of the government were not less resolute
than the king. Lord Effingham resigned his commission CHANGES IN THE
MINISTRY.
in the army lest he should be called upon to serve
against the Americans, and Chatham's eldest son took the same course in
obedience to the wishes of his parents. Grafton wrote to North in August,
1775, expressing his desire for conciliation. On October 20 North sent him
a draft of the king's speech which showed him that the government was
determined to reduce the rebellion by force of arms. He resigned the privy
Page 186
seal and went into opposition. The changes which followed proved that a
vigorous policy would be carried out. Dartmouth took Grafton's place and
was succeeded as secretary of state for the colonies by Lord George
Germain, previously known as Lord George Sackville. Germain was at this
time one of North's followers, and was appointed in order that he might
help him in the commons. Violent in his feelings against the Americans, he
was acceptable to the king and acquired influence over him. His
appointment was unpopular. He had fair ability, but as minister allowed
himself to be swayed by personal motives, and he pursued a system already
adopted by the king of directing military operations in America from
London which had disastrous consequences. Rochford retired with a
pension of £2,500 and was succeeded by Weymouth as secretary of the
southern department.
The king's speech at the opening of parliament on October 26, 1775, stated
that the Americans were in rebellion and were seeking to "establish an
independent empire". Eight months had yet to pass before the colonies
declared their independence, and the effect of events which hastened their
decision, such as the employment of German troops and the refusal to
answer the petition of congress, was not yet known in England. It will,
however, scarcely be denied that between the proceedings of congress and a
formal declaration of independence the distance was not great. The strength
of the king's position lay in his recognition of this fact and of the course
which alone might have quelled the growing spirit of rebellion without
humiliation to Great Britain. The opposition did not see facts as they really
were, and called for remedies which were either vague, of various import,
insufficient, or such as would have placed the crown in a humiliating
position. In the lords' debate on the address, Rockingham urged a vague
undertaking to adopt measures of conciliation, Grafton the repeal of the acts
relating to America since 1763, and Shelburne that the petition of congress
proved that the colonies were not "planning independence". In the
commons Burke taunted the ministers with failure; and Fox, who was
coming to the front, praised the spirit of the Americans, denied that they
were aiming at independence, and bitterly attacked North, who, said he, had
lost more in one campaign than Chatham, Frederick of Prussia, or
Alexander the Great had ever gained—he had lost a whole continent. The
vigorous policy would be carried out. Dartmouth took Grafton's place and
was succeeded as secretary of state for the colonies by Lord George
Germain, previously known as Lord George Sackville. Germain was at this
time one of North's followers, and was appointed in order that he might
help him in the commons. Violent in his feelings against the Americans, he
was acceptable to the king and acquired influence over him. His
appointment was unpopular. He had fair ability, but as minister allowed
himself to be swayed by personal motives, and he pursued a system already
adopted by the king of directing military operations in America from
London which had disastrous consequences. Rochford retired with a
pension of £2,500 and was succeeded by Weymouth as secretary of the
southern department.
The king's speech at the opening of parliament on October 26, 1775, stated
that the Americans were in rebellion and were seeking to "establish an
independent empire". Eight months had yet to pass before the colonies
declared their independence, and the effect of events which hastened their
decision, such as the employment of German troops and the refusal to
answer the petition of congress, was not yet known in England. It will,
however, scarcely be denied that between the proceedings of congress and a
formal declaration of independence the distance was not great. The strength
of the king's position lay in his recognition of this fact and of the course
which alone might have quelled the growing spirit of rebellion without
humiliation to Great Britain. The opposition did not see facts as they really
were, and called for remedies which were either vague, of various import,
insufficient, or such as would have placed the crown in a humiliating
position. In the lords' debate on the address, Rockingham urged a vague
undertaking to adopt measures of conciliation, Grafton the repeal of the acts
relating to America since 1763, and Shelburne that the petition of congress
proved that the colonies were not "planning independence". In the
commons Burke taunted the ministers with failure; and Fox, who was
coming to the front, praised the spirit of the Americans, denied that they
were aiming at independence, and bitterly attacked North, who, said he, had
lost more in one campaign than Chatham, Frederick of Prussia, or
Alexander the Great had ever gained—he had lost a whole continent. The
Page 187
address was carried in the lords by 76 to 33, and in the commons by 176 to
72.
Motions were made in both houses declaring that the employment of
Hanoverian troops within the king's dominions, at Gibraltar and Minorca,
without previous consent of parliament was unconstitutional. It was, the
opposition maintained, a violation of the bill of rights, which declared that
"the keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it
be with consent of parliament, is against law". On the government side it
was pointed out that it was not a time of peace and that the clause did not
apply to the dependencies of the kingdom. North, however, consented to a
bill of indemnity which was thrown out by the lords, the opposition
objecting to it on the ground that it asserted the legality of the measure, the
government that it was totally unnecessary. Numerically weak as the
opposition was, it maintained the fight with spirit. Motions more or less
directly aimed at the war policy of the government were made in the lords
by Grafton and Richmond, and in the commons by Luttrell, Fox, Burke,
Oliver, Hartley, Lowther, and Sawbridge. On none of these did the minority
vote stronger than 33 in the lords and 105 in the commons. Burke, in
bringing in a bill on November 16 for composing the troubles in America,
urged that the right way was by concessions to be followed by treaty. He
would maintain the declaratory act of 1766 as necessary to the authority of
parliament, and certain acts passed since 1763 as necessary to British trade;
and he desired that parliament should enact that no tax should be levied on
the colonies other than by their voluntary grant, and should repeal coercive
acts such as that closing Boston harbour. These concessions, while greater
than the government would make, would not, it was pointed out, have
satisfied the Americans; they did not go to the root of American discontent,
which lay in the revenue laws, and dated not from the year 1766, but
reached back to 1672. After a long debate, of which we have virtually no
record, for strangers were excluded from the house, the bill was lost by 210
votes to 105.
The government was successful in its proposals for the
maintenance of the war. Only 15,230 seamen were in THE STATE OF
THE NAVY.
pay in 1775; for 1776 the number voted was 28,000. In
the debate serious charges were brought against the administration of the
navy. Sandwich was diligent; he constantly inspected the dockyards, an
72.
Motions were made in both houses declaring that the employment of
Hanoverian troops within the king's dominions, at Gibraltar and Minorca,
without previous consent of parliament was unconstitutional. It was, the
opposition maintained, a violation of the bill of rights, which declared that
"the keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it
be with consent of parliament, is against law". On the government side it
was pointed out that it was not a time of peace and that the clause did not
apply to the dependencies of the kingdom. North, however, consented to a
bill of indemnity which was thrown out by the lords, the opposition
objecting to it on the ground that it asserted the legality of the measure, the
government that it was totally unnecessary. Numerically weak as the
opposition was, it maintained the fight with spirit. Motions more or less
directly aimed at the war policy of the government were made in the lords
by Grafton and Richmond, and in the commons by Luttrell, Fox, Burke,
Oliver, Hartley, Lowther, and Sawbridge. On none of these did the minority
vote stronger than 33 in the lords and 105 in the commons. Burke, in
bringing in a bill on November 16 for composing the troubles in America,
urged that the right way was by concessions to be followed by treaty. He
would maintain the declaratory act of 1766 as necessary to the authority of
parliament, and certain acts passed since 1763 as necessary to British trade;
and he desired that parliament should enact that no tax should be levied on
the colonies other than by their voluntary grant, and should repeal coercive
acts such as that closing Boston harbour. These concessions, while greater
than the government would make, would not, it was pointed out, have
satisfied the Americans; they did not go to the root of American discontent,
which lay in the revenue laws, and dated not from the year 1766, but
reached back to 1672. After a long debate, of which we have virtually no
record, for strangers were excluded from the house, the bill was lost by 210
votes to 105.
The government was successful in its proposals for the
maintenance of the war. Only 15,230 seamen were in THE STATE OF
THE NAVY.
pay in 1775; for 1776 the number voted was 28,000. In
the debate serious charges were brought against the administration of the
navy. Sandwich was diligent; he constantly inspected the dockyards, an
Page 188
excellent custom which he instituted when first lord in 1749, and he kept
the navy board to its duties.[109] At his office early in the morning he got
through an amount of work surprising in the case of a man who habitually
spent the later part of his day and his nights in drinking, gambling, and
debauchery. The effect of his diligence was spoilt by corrupt practices.
Many abuses prevailed in the administration of the navy before his time;
money voted for repairs was applied to other purposes, stores were paid for
which were used for private gain, sea-pay was drawn for men who existed
only on paper. Under Sandwich abuses of all kinds seem to have been
carried further than before. The navy in 1776 consisted of 317 ships of
various sizes and 49 sloops.[110] Of these 123 ships were "of the line of
battle," a term then generally restricted to the first three rates, ships of sixty-
four guns and upwards. In spite of the large sums voted for repairs, many of
the king's ships were utterly unseaworthy, and it was alleged with truth that
ships, perfectly capable of repair, were sold as useless, while others, for
which much money had been voted, had not had a penny spent upon them.
On this matter more must be said later.
A bill enabling the king to embody the militia in times of rebellion met with
strong opposition on the ground that it would place a dangerous power in
the hands of the crown, and was subversive of the constitutional idea of the
militia as a purely local force to be used only for domestic defence; it was,
however, finally carried by large majorities. On the other hand, North's
proposal to extend the militia to Scotland was defeated by 112 to 95, for the
country gentlemen, who regarded the militia system with extreme jealousy,
voted against it. For the army a vote was obtained for 55,000 men, of which
25,000 were to be employed in America. It was easier to vote the money
than to find the men. The difficulty of recruiting was alleged by government
to be a result of the briskness of trade and such like causes. Already the
Irish army was reduced by drafts to less than the 12,000 men that by statute
were to be kept in that kingdom, and the government excited the
indignation of an independent section in the Irish parliament and of the
protestants of Ulster by obtaining leave to withdraw 4,000 men more. The
conduct of the government in this matter and in that of the hiring of German
troops was strenuously though ineffectually attacked in the British
parliament. The supplies voted for the year 1776 amounted to £9,097,000.
The land tax was raised to four shillings in the pound, and that with other
the navy board to its duties.[109] At his office early in the morning he got
through an amount of work surprising in the case of a man who habitually
spent the later part of his day and his nights in drinking, gambling, and
debauchery. The effect of his diligence was spoilt by corrupt practices.
Many abuses prevailed in the administration of the navy before his time;
money voted for repairs was applied to other purposes, stores were paid for
which were used for private gain, sea-pay was drawn for men who existed
only on paper. Under Sandwich abuses of all kinds seem to have been
carried further than before. The navy in 1776 consisted of 317 ships of
various sizes and 49 sloops.[110] Of these 123 ships were "of the line of
battle," a term then generally restricted to the first three rates, ships of sixty-
four guns and upwards. In spite of the large sums voted for repairs, many of
the king's ships were utterly unseaworthy, and it was alleged with truth that
ships, perfectly capable of repair, were sold as useless, while others, for
which much money had been voted, had not had a penny spent upon them.
On this matter more must be said later.
A bill enabling the king to embody the militia in times of rebellion met with
strong opposition on the ground that it would place a dangerous power in
the hands of the crown, and was subversive of the constitutional idea of the
militia as a purely local force to be used only for domestic defence; it was,
however, finally carried by large majorities. On the other hand, North's
proposal to extend the militia to Scotland was defeated by 112 to 95, for the
country gentlemen, who regarded the militia system with extreme jealousy,
voted against it. For the army a vote was obtained for 55,000 men, of which
25,000 were to be employed in America. It was easier to vote the money
than to find the men. The difficulty of recruiting was alleged by government
to be a result of the briskness of trade and such like causes. Already the
Irish army was reduced by drafts to less than the 12,000 men that by statute
were to be kept in that kingdom, and the government excited the
indignation of an independent section in the Irish parliament and of the
protestants of Ulster by obtaining leave to withdraw 4,000 men more. The
conduct of the government in this matter and in that of the hiring of German
troops was strenuously though ineffectually attacked in the British
parliament. The supplies voted for the year 1776 amounted to £9,097,000.
The land tax was raised to four shillings in the pound, and that with other
Page 189
ordinary ways and means would, North calculated, bring in £7,143,000. He
proposed to make up the deficiency by borrowing £2,000,000; the loan was
to be funded, and the interest of the new stock was provided for by new
taxes on carriages and stage coaches, dice and cards, by an additional stamp
duty, and by raising the penny stamp on newspapers to three-halfpence.
Acting on the ground taken up by the king's speech that
the colonies were waging a rebellious war, North, on COMMISSIONERS
FOR
November 20, 1775, brought in a "prohibitory" bill, PACIFICATION.
which forbade all trade and intercourse with the
Americans, provided that American ships and goods taken at sea should be
forfeited to the captors, being officers and crews of the king's ships, and
repealed certain acts as no longer appropriate in the present state of war. It
also empowered the crown to appoint commissioners to inquire into
grievances, to grant pardons to individuals, and to receive into the king's
peace any districts or colonies which would return to obedience. North
declared himself ready to repeal the tea duty and to suspend all exercise of
the right of taxation if the Americans would bear their share of the burden
of national defence. The bill was carried after violent opposition in both
houses. Fox described the war as unjust and impracticable, and said that the
bill exhibited the folly of the ministers. It was, the opposition urged, cruel
and indiscriminate in its scope; it excited our seamen to "promiscuous
rapine," and provided that American sailors who were taken prisoners might
be compelled to serve in the British navy against their own people. Such
severity, they said, would drive the Americans to a permanent separation
and would eventually land us in a war with European powers. On the other
hand it was reasonably maintained that, as the Americans were already at
war with us, the war must be carried on as if against alien enemies. In April,
1776, the king appointed Admiral Richard Lord Howe, then about to take
the command in American waters, and his brother, General Howe, as
commissioners in pursuance of the act. Their appointment testifies to the
sincerity of the king's desire for peace, for the Howes were friendly to the
Americans and had already made efforts to bring the quarrel to a peaceful
ending; the admiral, indeed, declared in the lords that if he were ordered to
take part in the war, it would be painful to him as a man, though he should
obey as an officer. George, however, was determined not to sacrifice any of
the rights of his crown. Submission would be rewarded with pardon,
proposed to make up the deficiency by borrowing £2,000,000; the loan was
to be funded, and the interest of the new stock was provided for by new
taxes on carriages and stage coaches, dice and cards, by an additional stamp
duty, and by raising the penny stamp on newspapers to three-halfpence.
Acting on the ground taken up by the king's speech that
the colonies were waging a rebellious war, North, on COMMISSIONERS
FOR
November 20, 1775, brought in a "prohibitory" bill, PACIFICATION.
which forbade all trade and intercourse with the
Americans, provided that American ships and goods taken at sea should be
forfeited to the captors, being officers and crews of the king's ships, and
repealed certain acts as no longer appropriate in the present state of war. It
also empowered the crown to appoint commissioners to inquire into
grievances, to grant pardons to individuals, and to receive into the king's
peace any districts or colonies which would return to obedience. North
declared himself ready to repeal the tea duty and to suspend all exercise of
the right of taxation if the Americans would bear their share of the burden
of national defence. The bill was carried after violent opposition in both
houses. Fox described the war as unjust and impracticable, and said that the
bill exhibited the folly of the ministers. It was, the opposition urged, cruel
and indiscriminate in its scope; it excited our seamen to "promiscuous
rapine," and provided that American sailors who were taken prisoners might
be compelled to serve in the British navy against their own people. Such
severity, they said, would drive the Americans to a permanent separation
and would eventually land us in a war with European powers. On the other
hand it was reasonably maintained that, as the Americans were already at
war with us, the war must be carried on as if against alien enemies. In April,
1776, the king appointed Admiral Richard Lord Howe, then about to take
the command in American waters, and his brother, General Howe, as
commissioners in pursuance of the act. Their appointment testifies to the
sincerity of the king's desire for peace, for the Howes were friendly to the
Americans and had already made efforts to bring the quarrel to a peaceful
ending; the admiral, indeed, declared in the lords that if he were ordered to
take part in the war, it would be painful to him as a man, though he should
obey as an officer. George, however, was determined not to sacrifice any of
the rights of his crown. Submission would be rewarded with pardon,
Page 190
obstinacy in rebellion met by war. He feared lest Lord Howe should
concede too much, and wished that he would decline the commission.[111]
He did not decline, and sailed for America with offers of pardon. The king's
speech at the close of the session on May 23 expressed the earnest hope that
his rebellious subjects would "voluntarily return to their duty". Peace was
only to be obtained by obedience.
FOOTNOTES:
[99] P. O. Hutchinson, Hutchinson's Diary and Letters, i., 461.
[100] Burke's Correspondence, i., 272, 274, 276.
[101] Hutchinson's Diary and Letters, i., 459, 469.
[102] Cp. Stedman, History of the American War, i., 129, and Duncan, History
Of the Royal Artillery, i., 303.
[103] Burgoyne to Rochfort, Fonblanque, Burgoyne, p. 147.
[104] Gage to Dartmouth, June 25, 1775, Dartmouth Papers, ii., 320.
[105] Codman, Arnold's Expedition to Quebec, pp. 22-25, 141.
[106] Fonblanque, Burgoyne, p. 195; Dartmouth Papers, ii., 357.
[107] The King to North, July 28, 1775, Correspondence with North, i., 256.
[108] On national feeling generally see Annual Reg., xix. (1776), 38-39; Burke
to Champion, Jan. 10, 1775, and Rockingham to Burke, Sept. 24, Burke's Works,
i., 259 sq., 291-92; Lecky, History, iii., 528-34.
[109] Barrow, Life of Anson, pp. 214-16.
[110] Progress of the Navy, MS. Admiralty, Miscell., 567, R.O.
[111] George to North, April 13, 1776, Corr. with North, ii., 18.
concede too much, and wished that he would decline the commission.[111]
He did not decline, and sailed for America with offers of pardon. The king's
speech at the close of the session on May 23 expressed the earnest hope that
his rebellious subjects would "voluntarily return to their duty". Peace was
only to be obtained by obedience.
FOOTNOTES:
[99] P. O. Hutchinson, Hutchinson's Diary and Letters, i., 461.
[100] Burke's Correspondence, i., 272, 274, 276.
[101] Hutchinson's Diary and Letters, i., 459, 469.
[102] Cp. Stedman, History of the American War, i., 129, and Duncan, History
Of the Royal Artillery, i., 303.
[103] Burgoyne to Rochfort, Fonblanque, Burgoyne, p. 147.
[104] Gage to Dartmouth, June 25, 1775, Dartmouth Papers, ii., 320.
[105] Codman, Arnold's Expedition to Quebec, pp. 22-25, 141.
[106] Fonblanque, Burgoyne, p. 195; Dartmouth Papers, ii., 357.
[107] The King to North, July 28, 1775, Correspondence with North, i., 256.
[108] On national feeling generally see Annual Reg., xix. (1776), 38-39; Burke
to Champion, Jan. 10, 1775, and Rockingham to Burke, Sept. 24, Burke's Works,
i., 259 sq., 291-92; Lecky, History, iii., 528-34.
[109] Barrow, Life of Anson, pp. 214-16.
[110] Progress of the Navy, MS. Admiralty, Miscell., 567, R.O.
[111] George to North, April 13, 1776, Corr. with North, ii., 18.
Page 191
CHAPTER IX.
SARATOGA.
On June 11, 1776, Howe sailed from Halifax with his army of 9,000 men,
and on July 3 occupied Staten Island without opposition. There he was
joined by the reinforcements from England, conveyed by Lord Howe, and
by Clinton and his troops, so that in August he had with him some 25,000
men, English and German. Washington's army at New York numbered
about 19,000 effectives.[112] Mindful of his commission to restore
tranquillity, Lord Howe wrote to him enclosing a copy of the king's offers.
Washington would not receive the letter because the address did not
acknowledge his military rank, and observed that the powers of the
commissioners extended only to granting pardons, and that his people had
done nothing for which they needed pardon. The pacific mission of the
Howes having so far failed, the general on August 22-25 landed an army on
Long Island, which is separated from New York by the East river. Brooklyn
heights on Long Island, opposite New York, were strongly fortified and
held by the Americans. Washington, believing that a larger British force was
left in Staten Island than was really the case, thought it necessary to keep a
numerous garrison in New York to meet a direct attack on the place, and
detached only some 9,000 men under Putnam to Long Island. They were for
the most part posted so as to hold a belt of wooded hills lying between their
lines and the royal army. During the night of the 26th Howe outflanked
them and brought his main body to a position on their rear. The next day an
attack was made on their front; they were caught between two divisions of
the king's troops and were defeated. Howe put their loss at 3,300, which is
certainly an overestimate, though he made nearly 1,100 prisoners, among
them the generals Sullivan and Lord Stirling, as the Americans called him,
an unsuccessful claimant of that earldom.[113] The British casualties were
377. The Americans retreated within their inner lines. If Howe had allowed
his troops to storm their entrenchments he would probably have destroyed
or taken the whole force on the island. He considered, however, that the
lines could in a few days be taken "at a very cheap rate" by regular
SARATOGA.
On June 11, 1776, Howe sailed from Halifax with his army of 9,000 men,
and on July 3 occupied Staten Island without opposition. There he was
joined by the reinforcements from England, conveyed by Lord Howe, and
by Clinton and his troops, so that in August he had with him some 25,000
men, English and German. Washington's army at New York numbered
about 19,000 effectives.[112] Mindful of his commission to restore
tranquillity, Lord Howe wrote to him enclosing a copy of the king's offers.
Washington would not receive the letter because the address did not
acknowledge his military rank, and observed that the powers of the
commissioners extended only to granting pardons, and that his people had
done nothing for which they needed pardon. The pacific mission of the
Howes having so far failed, the general on August 22-25 landed an army on
Long Island, which is separated from New York by the East river. Brooklyn
heights on Long Island, opposite New York, were strongly fortified and
held by the Americans. Washington, believing that a larger British force was
left in Staten Island than was really the case, thought it necessary to keep a
numerous garrison in New York to meet a direct attack on the place, and
detached only some 9,000 men under Putnam to Long Island. They were for
the most part posted so as to hold a belt of wooded hills lying between their
lines and the royal army. During the night of the 26th Howe outflanked
them and brought his main body to a position on their rear. The next day an
attack was made on their front; they were caught between two divisions of
the king's troops and were defeated. Howe put their loss at 3,300, which is
certainly an overestimate, though he made nearly 1,100 prisoners, among
them the generals Sullivan and Lord Stirling, as the Americans called him,
an unsuccessful claimant of that earldom.[113] The British casualties were
377. The Americans retreated within their inner lines. If Howe had allowed
his troops to storm their entrenchments he would probably have destroyed
or taken the whole force on the island. He considered, however, that the
lines could in a few days be taken "at a very cheap rate" by regular
Page 192
approaches, and decided not to risk the loss of any more men.[114] He let his
opportunity slip, and on the night of the 29th Washington, helped by a fog,
cleverly withdrew his troops across the river.
Lord Howe took advantage of the American defeat to
invite congress to send some of its members to confer NEW YORK
TAKEN.
with him unofficially as to possible terms of peace.
Congress, though it refused to sanction any unofficial negotiations, sent
commissioners from its own body to confer with him. Nothing came of the
conference, for the American commissioners would not treat except on the
basis of independence. On September 15 the British army descended on
Manhattan Island, on which New York stands, and the American militia fled
in disorder. The British took possession of New York and of sixty-six of the
enemy's guns. If Howe's movements had been more prompt he might have
cut off a large number of the enemy; he is said to have wasted time by
lingering over luncheon at the house of the mother of Lindley Murray, the
grammar-writer, who detained him by her crafty hospitality. Washington
drew off his troops to Haarlem heights, in the northern part of the island.
The next day there was some skirmishing in which the Americans held their
ground. The loyalists of New York had been shamefully treated by the
dominant faction, and the British were received with joy.[115] A few days
later a large part of the city was destroyed by fires evidently kindled by
incendiaries. Washington and other generals had wished for military reasons
to burn the place. They were prevented by congress, but the idea was taken
up by some violent revolutionists. The Americans were disheartened by
their ill-success; Washington's troops deserted in large numbers, and the
greatest disorder prevailed in his army. In England the news of Howe's
victory and his occupation of New York was received with delight, and the
king rewarded him with the Order of the Bath.
The acquisition of New York gave the army an excellent base for operations
either in the northern or southern provinces; it was easily accessible by sea,
and lay in the midst of a district where loyalism was strong. According to
the ministerial plan, Howe should have been joined by Carleton's army,
which was to have taken Crown Point and Ticonderoga, gained possession
of the upper Hudson, and invaded the province of New York from the north.
After the Americans were chased out of Canada, Carleton's operations were
stopped by the lack of a fleet to wrest the command of Lake Champlain
opportunity slip, and on the night of the 29th Washington, helped by a fog,
cleverly withdrew his troops across the river.
Lord Howe took advantage of the American defeat to
invite congress to send some of its members to confer NEW YORK
TAKEN.
with him unofficially as to possible terms of peace.
Congress, though it refused to sanction any unofficial negotiations, sent
commissioners from its own body to confer with him. Nothing came of the
conference, for the American commissioners would not treat except on the
basis of independence. On September 15 the British army descended on
Manhattan Island, on which New York stands, and the American militia fled
in disorder. The British took possession of New York and of sixty-six of the
enemy's guns. If Howe's movements had been more prompt he might have
cut off a large number of the enemy; he is said to have wasted time by
lingering over luncheon at the house of the mother of Lindley Murray, the
grammar-writer, who detained him by her crafty hospitality. Washington
drew off his troops to Haarlem heights, in the northern part of the island.
The next day there was some skirmishing in which the Americans held their
ground. The loyalists of New York had been shamefully treated by the
dominant faction, and the British were received with joy.[115] A few days
later a large part of the city was destroyed by fires evidently kindled by
incendiaries. Washington and other generals had wished for military reasons
to burn the place. They were prevented by congress, but the idea was taken
up by some violent revolutionists. The Americans were disheartened by
their ill-success; Washington's troops deserted in large numbers, and the
greatest disorder prevailed in his army. In England the news of Howe's
victory and his occupation of New York was received with delight, and the
king rewarded him with the Order of the Bath.
The acquisition of New York gave the army an excellent base for operations
either in the northern or southern provinces; it was easily accessible by sea,
and lay in the midst of a district where loyalism was strong. According to
the ministerial plan, Howe should have been joined by Carleton's army,
which was to have taken Crown Point and Ticonderoga, gained possession
of the upper Hudson, and invaded the province of New York from the north.
After the Americans were chased out of Canada, Carleton's operations were
stopped by the lack of a fleet to wrest the command of Lake Champlain
Page 193
from the rebels. During the summer he devoted himself with extraordinary
energy to collecting and building vessels. Ships sent out from England were
taken to pieces, carried overland to St. John's and put together again, little
gunboats and transports were built, and by the beginning of October a larger
and better fleet than that of the Americans was afloat on the lake. It engaged
the enemy's fleet, under Arnold, off Valcour island, on the 11th and again on
the 13th, and utterly destroyed it; only three of their vessels escaped.[116]
Carleton occupied Crown Point, but as the season was so far advanced did
not attack Ticonderoga, or stay long enough to put Crown Point in a
defensible condition; he placed his army in winter quarters and returned to
Quebec. He might have done more. His decision disappointed the king, and
was represented to him in an unfavourable light, for Germain had a personal
grudge against Carleton, and had already, in August, sent an order, which
failed to reach him, that beyond his province the command was to be taken
by Burgoyne. George, conscious of Carleton's signal services, at first
declared himself satisfied that he had good reason for his decision; but
Germain had the royal ear, and when the news came that Carleton had
actually closed the campaign, the king accused him of slackness.
energy to collecting and building vessels. Ships sent out from England were
taken to pieces, carried overland to St. John's and put together again, little
gunboats and transports were built, and by the beginning of October a larger
and better fleet than that of the Americans was afloat on the lake. It engaged
the enemy's fleet, under Arnold, off Valcour island, on the 11th and again on
the 13th, and utterly destroyed it; only three of their vessels escaped.[116]
Carleton occupied Crown Point, but as the season was so far advanced did
not attack Ticonderoga, or stay long enough to put Crown Point in a
defensible condition; he placed his army in winter quarters and returned to
Quebec. He might have done more. His decision disappointed the king, and
was represented to him in an unfavourable light, for Germain had a personal
grudge against Carleton, and had already, in August, sent an order, which
failed to reach him, that beyond his province the command was to be taken
by Burgoyne. George, conscious of Carleton's signal services, at first
declared himself satisfied that he had good reason for his decision; but
Germain had the royal ear, and when the news came that Carleton had
actually closed the campaign, the king accused him of slackness.
Page 194
An example of real slackness was being given by Howe
at New York. He should with the aid of the fleet have WASHINGTON'S
made a prompt effort to prevent Washington from RETREAT.
retreating from Manhattan island, and to cut off his communications with
Connecticut whence he was drawing supplies. Even before occupying New
York he might have conveyed his army by water to a point from which
White Plains, where the land begins to broaden out rapidly, might have
been reached with ease. He wasted four weeks of precious time at New
York, and did not embark his troops till October 12. Washington left his
narrow position on Haarlem heights, gained White Plains before him, and
fortified his camp. Howe attacked him on the 28th with the object of
outflanking him. Although part of his army by a frontal attack drove the
American right from a strong position, this success was fruitless as well as
costly. The insurgents' centre was weak, and if he had attacked it in force he
might have crushed them completely. He made no further attempt in that
direction, and Washington retreated to a good position behind Croton river.
Howe returned to New York. There, however, he dealt the Americans a
serious blow. Fort Washington, on Manhattan island, and Fort Lee, opposite
to it on the Jersey shore, were intended to bar the Hudson and so secure
communications with the country to the west of it. Congress, which often
interfered in military matters, ordered that Fort Washington should be held,
though in fact the forts did not prevent our ships from passing up the river.
On November 16 a well-planned attack was made upon the fort; it was
forced to surrender, and 2,858 prisoners, forty-three cannon, and a large
quantity of small arms were taken by the British.
Two days later Cornwallis took possession of Fort Lee, together with 140
cannon and stores of various kinds. He rapidly overran New Jersey.
Washington had been drawn down thither, and Lee, whom he left at the
Croton, failed to support him. He retreated hastily through New Jersey with
a force daily diminished by desertion. Cornwallis pressed upon him, but
was detained by Howe's orders for a week at Brunswick; and Washington,
who left Princeton only an hour before Cornwallis entered it, had just time
to convey his army, then reduced to some 3,300 men,[117] across the
Delaware on December 8 before the British came up. They were unable to
follow him at once for no boats were left on the eastern bank. Howe, who
had joined Cornwallis, decided that no more could be done and placed the
at New York. He should with the aid of the fleet have WASHINGTON'S
made a prompt effort to prevent Washington from RETREAT.
retreating from Manhattan island, and to cut off his communications with
Connecticut whence he was drawing supplies. Even before occupying New
York he might have conveyed his army by water to a point from which
White Plains, where the land begins to broaden out rapidly, might have
been reached with ease. He wasted four weeks of precious time at New
York, and did not embark his troops till October 12. Washington left his
narrow position on Haarlem heights, gained White Plains before him, and
fortified his camp. Howe attacked him on the 28th with the object of
outflanking him. Although part of his army by a frontal attack drove the
American right from a strong position, this success was fruitless as well as
costly. The insurgents' centre was weak, and if he had attacked it in force he
might have crushed them completely. He made no further attempt in that
direction, and Washington retreated to a good position behind Croton river.
Howe returned to New York. There, however, he dealt the Americans a
serious blow. Fort Washington, on Manhattan island, and Fort Lee, opposite
to it on the Jersey shore, were intended to bar the Hudson and so secure
communications with the country to the west of it. Congress, which often
interfered in military matters, ordered that Fort Washington should be held,
though in fact the forts did not prevent our ships from passing up the river.
On November 16 a well-planned attack was made upon the fort; it was
forced to surrender, and 2,858 prisoners, forty-three cannon, and a large
quantity of small arms were taken by the British.
Two days later Cornwallis took possession of Fort Lee, together with 140
cannon and stores of various kinds. He rapidly overran New Jersey.
Washington had been drawn down thither, and Lee, whom he left at the
Croton, failed to support him. He retreated hastily through New Jersey with
a force daily diminished by desertion. Cornwallis pressed upon him, but
was detained by Howe's orders for a week at Brunswick; and Washington,
who left Princeton only an hour before Cornwallis entered it, had just time
to convey his army, then reduced to some 3,300 men,[117] across the
Delaware on December 8 before the British came up. They were unable to
follow him at once for no boats were left on the eastern bank. Howe, who
had joined Cornwallis, decided that no more could be done and placed the
Page 195
army in winter quarters. He divided it into small detachments, and for the
sake of protecting and encouraging the loyalists, extended his line of
communication for eighty miles. The fortunes of the insurgents were at low
ebb. Not only were the loyalists strong in New Jersey, but crowds of the
rebel party, many of them men of high standing, took advantage of the
amnesty which Howe was empowered to offer. The Delaware would soon
be frozen over, and, if the British crossed it, Washington had not a sufficient
force to hinder them from marching on Philadelphia. The town was panic-
stricken, and congress removed to Baltimore. Washington's army dwindled.
The period for which his regular troops were enlisted would end on January
1, and as for the militia, that "destructive, expensive, and disorderly mob"
as he called them, they came and went as they pleased. "The game," he
thought, "was pretty well played out."[118] The Americans' distress was
heightened by the capture of Lee, who was on his way to join Washington.
They reckoned him their ablest general, though his insubordination and
self-seeking rendered the loss of him an actual gain. About the same time
Clinton sailed to Rhode Island with Sir Peter Parker, and occupied Newport
without opposition.
Washington's only chance lay in immediate action. The foolish disposition
of the British army gave him an opportunity. Their central cantonments,
nearest to the enemy, were weak. Trenton was held by only 1,200 Hessians;
their discipline was relaxed, they were hindered by difference of language
from gaining intelligence, and they lived in careless security. Washington
was reinforced by Lee's troops and by three regiments from Ticonderoga,
which Carleton's inaction had rendered available for service in the south.
On the night of December 25 he crossed the Delaware, and before daybreak
took Trenton by surprise. The startled garrison could make no resistance;
about 200 escaped and 918 were taken prisoners. Of the Americans only
two were killed and six wounded. Cornwallis, who was on the point of
embarking for England, hastened back to the Jersey army. Washington
avoided a general engagement, defeated two regiments employed in an
operation for the defence of Princeton, and before the middle of January,
1777, compelled the British by a series of well-conducted movements to
evacuate West Jersey and withdraw to Brunswick and Amboy, where they
went into quarters. The king's troops, British and German, committed many
excesses, plundering friends and foes alike; and the inhabitants, indignant at
sake of protecting and encouraging the loyalists, extended his line of
communication for eighty miles. The fortunes of the insurgents were at low
ebb. Not only were the loyalists strong in New Jersey, but crowds of the
rebel party, many of them men of high standing, took advantage of the
amnesty which Howe was empowered to offer. The Delaware would soon
be frozen over, and, if the British crossed it, Washington had not a sufficient
force to hinder them from marching on Philadelphia. The town was panic-
stricken, and congress removed to Baltimore. Washington's army dwindled.
The period for which his regular troops were enlisted would end on January
1, and as for the militia, that "destructive, expensive, and disorderly mob"
as he called them, they came and went as they pleased. "The game," he
thought, "was pretty well played out."[118] The Americans' distress was
heightened by the capture of Lee, who was on his way to join Washington.
They reckoned him their ablest general, though his insubordination and
self-seeking rendered the loss of him an actual gain. About the same time
Clinton sailed to Rhode Island with Sir Peter Parker, and occupied Newport
without opposition.
Washington's only chance lay in immediate action. The foolish disposition
of the British army gave him an opportunity. Their central cantonments,
nearest to the enemy, were weak. Trenton was held by only 1,200 Hessians;
their discipline was relaxed, they were hindered by difference of language
from gaining intelligence, and they lived in careless security. Washington
was reinforced by Lee's troops and by three regiments from Ticonderoga,
which Carleton's inaction had rendered available for service in the south.
On the night of December 25 he crossed the Delaware, and before daybreak
took Trenton by surprise. The startled garrison could make no resistance;
about 200 escaped and 918 were taken prisoners. Of the Americans only
two were killed and six wounded. Cornwallis, who was on the point of
embarking for England, hastened back to the Jersey army. Washington
avoided a general engagement, defeated two regiments employed in an
operation for the defence of Princeton, and before the middle of January,
1777, compelled the British by a series of well-conducted movements to
evacuate West Jersey and withdraw to Brunswick and Amboy, where they
went into quarters. The king's troops, British and German, committed many
excesses, plundering friends and foes alike; and the inhabitants, indignant at
Page 196
their conduct, took advantage of Washington's success and turned against
them. Many joined Washington's army. The British were in the midst of a
hostile population, and though they had communication with New York by
water, were almost besieged by land, for their supplies were constantly
intercepted. The Jersey loyalists were left to the vengeance of their
neighbours and were mercilessly plundered. Many of them fled to New
York where several thousand provincial troops were embodied. Howe
remained inactive at New York until the spring, and Washington also stayed
quietly at his headquarters at Morristown.
Parliament was opened on October 31, 1776. An
amendment to the address referring to American affairs A PARTIAL
was defeated in the lords by 91 to 26 and in the SECESSION FROM
PARLIAMENT.
commons by 242 to 87. The news of the victory at
Brooklyn—"the terrible news," as Fox indecently called it—and of the
occupation of New York strengthened the ministers; and on a motion to
revise the acts by which the Americans considered themselves aggrieved,
the minority in the commons sank to 47. Depressed by the exhibition of
their weakness, the Rockingham section ceased to attend parliament except
on the occasion of private bills in which they were interested. Petulance and
a false notion of dignity led them to neglect their duty to their country and
their party. Their conduct was blamed by other whigs, and their secession,
though it occasioned discord in the opposition, did not paralyse its efforts.
Fox, by that time its most effective orator, went off to Paris, and the king
advised North to proceed with as much business as possible in his absence.
The split in the opposition was specially manifested on the introduction of a
government bill in February, 1777, for a partial suspension of the habeas
corpus act, in order to secure the detention of persons charged with high
treason in America or on the high seas; Rockingham, Burke, and others
adhered to their secession, while Dunning and Fox headed the minority in
the commons. Fox warned the house not to be deceived by the amicable
professions of the French ministers, who, he said, were holding conferences
with delegates from congress while he was in Paris, and were only delaying
to take part against England until the French navy was in good order. He
declared that our losses were far greater and our successes far smaller than
they were represented by government, and inveighed against the
inhumanity with which he asserted the war was conducted on our side. He
them. Many joined Washington's army. The British were in the midst of a
hostile population, and though they had communication with New York by
water, were almost besieged by land, for their supplies were constantly
intercepted. The Jersey loyalists were left to the vengeance of their
neighbours and were mercilessly plundered. Many of them fled to New
York where several thousand provincial troops were embodied. Howe
remained inactive at New York until the spring, and Washington also stayed
quietly at his headquarters at Morristown.
Parliament was opened on October 31, 1776. An
amendment to the address referring to American affairs A PARTIAL
was defeated in the lords by 91 to 26 and in the SECESSION FROM
PARLIAMENT.
commons by 242 to 87. The news of the victory at
Brooklyn—"the terrible news," as Fox indecently called it—and of the
occupation of New York strengthened the ministers; and on a motion to
revise the acts by which the Americans considered themselves aggrieved,
the minority in the commons sank to 47. Depressed by the exhibition of
their weakness, the Rockingham section ceased to attend parliament except
on the occasion of private bills in which they were interested. Petulance and
a false notion of dignity led them to neglect their duty to their country and
their party. Their conduct was blamed by other whigs, and their secession,
though it occasioned discord in the opposition, did not paralyse its efforts.
Fox, by that time its most effective orator, went off to Paris, and the king
advised North to proceed with as much business as possible in his absence.
The split in the opposition was specially manifested on the introduction of a
government bill in February, 1777, for a partial suspension of the habeas
corpus act, in order to secure the detention of persons charged with high
treason in America or on the high seas; Rockingham, Burke, and others
adhered to their secession, while Dunning and Fox headed the minority in
the commons. Fox warned the house not to be deceived by the amicable
professions of the French ministers, who, he said, were holding conferences
with delegates from congress while he was in Paris, and were only delaying
to take part against England until the French navy was in good order. He
declared that our losses were far greater and our successes far smaller than
they were represented by government, and inveighed against the
inhumanity with which he asserted the war was conducted on our side. He
Page 197
attacked the solicitor-general, who in answering him pointed out that if, as
he asserted, France was secretly intriguing against us the bill was specially
necessary. In a personal encounter Wedderburn was a dangerous antagonist,
and Fox met more than his match. Dunning urged an amendment to prevent
any abuse of the act; and North, always averse from violent measures,
accepted his proposal. The bill was carried by 112 to 33. Public feeling had
lately been excited on the subject of treason by incendiary fires which did
much damage in the Portsmouth dockyard and destroyed some buildings on
Bristol quay. They were found to have been the work of one James Aitken,
commonly called John the painter, who had lately returned from America,
and who stated in his confession that he had acted at the instigation of Silas
Deane, one of the emissaries of congress in Paris.[119] He was hanged at
Portsmouth on March 10.
The expenses of the war were growing. For 1777 parliament voted 45,000
seamen, including 1,000 marines. The difficulty was to get them. A
seaman's service was not continuous; when his ship was paid off he could
go whither he would. The peace establishment of the navy was ridiculously
small, and when a war broke out it was always difficult to get men in a
hurry. Many of the best seamen would have taken service on board
merchant ships and would, perhaps, be at sea; and life on the king's ships in
time of war was often so rough that it is not surprising that men should have
avoided it. The usual difficulty of manning the fleet at the beginning of a
war was increased at the present time, for it was calculated that the revolt of
the colonies deprived England of 1,800 seamen. The navy in time of war
was recruited by impressment, a system which, though recognised by
common law, entailed much hardship. Seamen were kidnapped, often after
a bloody struggle, and if caught inland were sent to the ports ironed like
criminals. Men who had been at sea for years were liable, as soon as their
ships neared home, to be taken out of them, put into a press tender and sent
to sea again. Merchant ships were stripped of their best men, and were left
to be brought into port by the master and a few lads. The press gangs looked
for trained seamen, though when a war lasted for some years they took what
they could get; landsmen were impressed, and the press was sometimes
abused as a means of getting rid of a personal enemy, a rival in love, or an
inconvenient claimant. The system was expensive; it was stated that from
4,000 to 5,000 seamen were employed on the business, and that every
he asserted, France was secretly intriguing against us the bill was specially
necessary. In a personal encounter Wedderburn was a dangerous antagonist,
and Fox met more than his match. Dunning urged an amendment to prevent
any abuse of the act; and North, always averse from violent measures,
accepted his proposal. The bill was carried by 112 to 33. Public feeling had
lately been excited on the subject of treason by incendiary fires which did
much damage in the Portsmouth dockyard and destroyed some buildings on
Bristol quay. They were found to have been the work of one James Aitken,
commonly called John the painter, who had lately returned from America,
and who stated in his confession that he had acted at the instigation of Silas
Deane, one of the emissaries of congress in Paris.[119] He was hanged at
Portsmouth on March 10.
The expenses of the war were growing. For 1777 parliament voted 45,000
seamen, including 1,000 marines. The difficulty was to get them. A
seaman's service was not continuous; when his ship was paid off he could
go whither he would. The peace establishment of the navy was ridiculously
small, and when a war broke out it was always difficult to get men in a
hurry. Many of the best seamen would have taken service on board
merchant ships and would, perhaps, be at sea; and life on the king's ships in
time of war was often so rough that it is not surprising that men should have
avoided it. The usual difficulty of manning the fleet at the beginning of a
war was increased at the present time, for it was calculated that the revolt of
the colonies deprived England of 1,800 seamen. The navy in time of war
was recruited by impressment, a system which, though recognised by
common law, entailed much hardship. Seamen were kidnapped, often after
a bloody struggle, and if caught inland were sent to the ports ironed like
criminals. Men who had been at sea for years were liable, as soon as their
ships neared home, to be taken out of them, put into a press tender and sent
to sea again. Merchant ships were stripped of their best men, and were left
to be brought into port by the master and a few lads. The press gangs looked
for trained seamen, though when a war lasted for some years they took what
they could get; landsmen were impressed, and the press was sometimes
abused as a means of getting rid of a personal enemy, a rival in love, or an
inconvenient claimant. The system was expensive; it was stated that from
4,000 to 5,000 seamen were employed on the business, and that every
Page 198
pressed man who was found to be fit for sea cost the nation £30. High
bounties were offered, but they failed to entice men to enter a service which
the press might make practically continuous, and a proposal for a limited
term of service was rejected by the commons. The supplies for the year
amounted to £12,592,534. New taxes calculated to yield £237,000 were laid
on male servants, a guinea on each, stamps, imported glass, auctioneers,
and sales by auction; and the deficiency of £5,500,000 was met by a loan,
raised at 4 per cent., with a premium of ½ per cent. to meet the state of the
stocks.
While war was thus increasing the burden of the nation,
the king again applied to parliament for payment of the ARREARS OF THE
CIVIL LIST.
arrears of the civil list, amounting to £618,000. The
ministers exhibited accounts which failed to satisfy the opposition. Wilkes
pointed out that payments since 1769 of £171,000 and £114,000 for secret
service were each noted in a single line, and that there was a general charge
of £438,000 for pensions. As in 1769, the arrears must be traced to an
expenditure which increased the king's influence. Wilkes said this plainly,
Burke in less broad terms, and Fox taunted North with the pledge given
when he was in office in 1769 that no such demand should be made again.
Besides money deliberately spent in corruption, vast sums were wasted on
abuses in the royal household, on sinecures, and on other useless places of
profit. One of the king's turnspits was a member of the house of commons,
and paid £5 a year to a humble deputy, and no fewer than twenty-three
separate tables were kept up, eleven for the nurses. For such abuses George
was only partially responsible. Though he lived with a frugality which was
almost meanness, he was in dire distress for money; the wages of his menial
servants were six quarters in arrear, and he owed his coal-merchant £6,000.
[120]
After much discussion the money was voted, and the civil list was
increased to £900,000 a year. In presenting the bill to the king the speaker,
Sir Fletcher Norton, dwelt on the magnificence of the gift, and added that
the commons were confident that he would apply wisely what they had
granted liberally. Though the court party in the commons declared that he
had not expressed the feeling of the house, he received a vote of thanks for
his speech. Towards the close of the session Chatham was sufficiently
recovered from his long illness again to attend parliament, and moved an
address to the crown to put an end to the war. He pointed out the danger of
bounties were offered, but they failed to entice men to enter a service which
the press might make practically continuous, and a proposal for a limited
term of service was rejected by the commons. The supplies for the year
amounted to £12,592,534. New taxes calculated to yield £237,000 were laid
on male servants, a guinea on each, stamps, imported glass, auctioneers,
and sales by auction; and the deficiency of £5,500,000 was met by a loan,
raised at 4 per cent., with a premium of ½ per cent. to meet the state of the
stocks.
While war was thus increasing the burden of the nation,
the king again applied to parliament for payment of the ARREARS OF THE
CIVIL LIST.
arrears of the civil list, amounting to £618,000. The
ministers exhibited accounts which failed to satisfy the opposition. Wilkes
pointed out that payments since 1769 of £171,000 and £114,000 for secret
service were each noted in a single line, and that there was a general charge
of £438,000 for pensions. As in 1769, the arrears must be traced to an
expenditure which increased the king's influence. Wilkes said this plainly,
Burke in less broad terms, and Fox taunted North with the pledge given
when he was in office in 1769 that no such demand should be made again.
Besides money deliberately spent in corruption, vast sums were wasted on
abuses in the royal household, on sinecures, and on other useless places of
profit. One of the king's turnspits was a member of the house of commons,
and paid £5 a year to a humble deputy, and no fewer than twenty-three
separate tables were kept up, eleven for the nurses. For such abuses George
was only partially responsible. Though he lived with a frugality which was
almost meanness, he was in dire distress for money; the wages of his menial
servants were six quarters in arrear, and he owed his coal-merchant £6,000.
[120]
After much discussion the money was voted, and the civil list was
increased to £900,000 a year. In presenting the bill to the king the speaker,
Sir Fletcher Norton, dwelt on the magnificence of the gift, and added that
the commons were confident that he would apply wisely what they had
granted liberally. Though the court party in the commons declared that he
had not expressed the feeling of the house, he received a vote of thanks for
his speech. Towards the close of the session Chatham was sufficiently
recovered from his long illness again to attend parliament, and moved an
address to the crown to put an end to the war. He pointed out the danger of
Page 199
foreign intervention, and declared that France was already destroying our
commerce. The idea of conquering America was absurd; America would not
be conquered by the loss of ten pitched battles. He was against American
independence, but this country, he said, was the aggressor, and "instead of
exacting unconditional submission from the colonies, we should grant them
unconditional redress". His motion was negatived by 99 votes to 28.
A fresh plan for obtaining the mastery of the line of the
Hudson was already in course of preparation. Burgoyne, THE PLAN OF
who returned home in December, obtained the command CAMPAIGN.
of the northern army, and, on February 28, laid a project of campaign before
the government. He proposed to secure Ticonderoga and the lakes, and
march down the Hudson to Albany, where he was to effect a junction with
Howe, previously detaching a small force to create a diversion by
advancing from Oswego and down the Mohawk river to Albany. The object
of this plan was to open communication between New York and Canada,
cut off New England from the southern provinces, and enable Howe to
operate in the south with an overwhelming force. He pointed out the
difficulties of the proposed march and suggested alternative schemes; but
his first project was chosen by the king, and he was ordered to carry it out.
The projected campaign, if successful, would have been disastrous to the
Americans. Its success depended on Howe's co-operation. An invasion by
distinct armies, such as Burgoyne proposed, with bases far apart and acting
on converging lines, can only be undertaken with safety when
intercommunication is secure and co-operation assured. Otherwise one of
the invading armies is liable to be crushed before it can receive help from
another, specially when, as was the case here, the enemy can act on lines
interior to those on which the invaders move. Burgoyne fell into the error,
common throughout the war, of trusting too much to loyalist help. Apart
from that, however, his project assumed that Howe would be advancing up
the Hudson in time to get between him and any large force which might
advance against him, and it failed miserably, because Howe did not co-
operate with him. Germain informed Carleton of the plan and ordered him
to resign the command of the northern army to Burgoyne; he was to
command only within his own province, keeping 3,700 men with him, and
was to forward Burgoyne's expedition. Germain reproached him for his
retirement from Ticonderoga, which, he said, gave Washington the means of
commerce. The idea of conquering America was absurd; America would not
be conquered by the loss of ten pitched battles. He was against American
independence, but this country, he said, was the aggressor, and "instead of
exacting unconditional submission from the colonies, we should grant them
unconditional redress". His motion was negatived by 99 votes to 28.
A fresh plan for obtaining the mastery of the line of the
Hudson was already in course of preparation. Burgoyne, THE PLAN OF
who returned home in December, obtained the command CAMPAIGN.
of the northern army, and, on February 28, laid a project of campaign before
the government. He proposed to secure Ticonderoga and the lakes, and
march down the Hudson to Albany, where he was to effect a junction with
Howe, previously detaching a small force to create a diversion by
advancing from Oswego and down the Mohawk river to Albany. The object
of this plan was to open communication between New York and Canada,
cut off New England from the southern provinces, and enable Howe to
operate in the south with an overwhelming force. He pointed out the
difficulties of the proposed march and suggested alternative schemes; but
his first project was chosen by the king, and he was ordered to carry it out.
The projected campaign, if successful, would have been disastrous to the
Americans. Its success depended on Howe's co-operation. An invasion by
distinct armies, such as Burgoyne proposed, with bases far apart and acting
on converging lines, can only be undertaken with safety when
intercommunication is secure and co-operation assured. Otherwise one of
the invading armies is liable to be crushed before it can receive help from
another, specially when, as was the case here, the enemy can act on lines
interior to those on which the invaders move. Burgoyne fell into the error,
common throughout the war, of trusting too much to loyalist help. Apart
from that, however, his project assumed that Howe would be advancing up
the Hudson in time to get between him and any large force which might
advance against him, and it failed miserably, because Howe did not co-
operate with him. Germain informed Carleton of the plan and ordered him
to resign the command of the northern army to Burgoyne; he was to
command only within his own province, keeping 3,700 men with him, and
was to forward Burgoyne's expedition. Germain reproached him for his
retirement from Ticonderoga, which, he said, gave Washington the means of
Page 200
breaking the British line at Trenton. Carleton was indignant at this
unworthy treatment, and though he did what he could to help Burgoyne, he
resigned the governor-generalship.[121]
During the winter Howe formed a plan for taking Philadelphia, and on
December 20, 1776, expounded it by letter to Germain, observing that the
northern army would not reach Albany before September. Germain wrote
on March 8 approving of his plan,[122] which might have been executed
without preventing the junction contemplated by the minister. After some
unimportant operations Howe took the field in June, and on the 5th received
a copy of Carleton's instructions relating to Burgoyne's campaign.
Washington's difficulties were then somewhat relieved; he encamped at
Middlebrook in a position too strong to be forced; he would not be enticed
to a general engagement, and Howe could not leave him in his rear and
push on to Philadelphia. Time was passing, yet Howe was still set on
prosecuting his design on Philadelphia. Finally he embarked an army of
14,000 men at Sandy Hook, and instead of remaining to be in readiness to
co-operate with Burgoyne, left Clinton with 8,500 men to garrison New
York and "act as circumstances may direct," and on July 23 sailed for the
Delaware, where he considered he would be sufficiently near to New York
to act with Burgoyne, if necessary, and yet could carry out his own main
design. The naval officers were unwilling to risk disembarkation in the
Delaware, and Howe, determined not to give up his design, sailed for
Chesapeake bay. The fleet met with contrary winds, and it was not until
August 25 that his army landed at the head of Elk river. Washington with
about an equal force marched to the north of the Brandywine to defend
Philadelphia. The two armies met on September 11. Howe, who well knew
how to handle an army in the field, out-manœuvred him, and after some
sharp fighting the American army was defeated with a loss of over 1,400
men, killed, wounded, and taken, and eleven guns. Congress again
decamped, and on the 27th Cornwallis took possession of Philadelphia amid
the acclamations of a large part of the inhabitants, while Howe and the main
army encamped at Germantown, five miles to the north.
In order to secure communication with New York and to
supply the army, it was all-important that the fleet HOWE'S OBJECT
ATTAINED.
should be able to pass up the Delaware, which was
strongly defended by forts, a bar, and a fleet of little vessels; and Howe
unworthy treatment, and though he did what he could to help Burgoyne, he
resigned the governor-generalship.[121]
During the winter Howe formed a plan for taking Philadelphia, and on
December 20, 1776, expounded it by letter to Germain, observing that the
northern army would not reach Albany before September. Germain wrote
on March 8 approving of his plan,[122] which might have been executed
without preventing the junction contemplated by the minister. After some
unimportant operations Howe took the field in June, and on the 5th received
a copy of Carleton's instructions relating to Burgoyne's campaign.
Washington's difficulties were then somewhat relieved; he encamped at
Middlebrook in a position too strong to be forced; he would not be enticed
to a general engagement, and Howe could not leave him in his rear and
push on to Philadelphia. Time was passing, yet Howe was still set on
prosecuting his design on Philadelphia. Finally he embarked an army of
14,000 men at Sandy Hook, and instead of remaining to be in readiness to
co-operate with Burgoyne, left Clinton with 8,500 men to garrison New
York and "act as circumstances may direct," and on July 23 sailed for the
Delaware, where he considered he would be sufficiently near to New York
to act with Burgoyne, if necessary, and yet could carry out his own main
design. The naval officers were unwilling to risk disembarkation in the
Delaware, and Howe, determined not to give up his design, sailed for
Chesapeake bay. The fleet met with contrary winds, and it was not until
August 25 that his army landed at the head of Elk river. Washington with
about an equal force marched to the north of the Brandywine to defend
Philadelphia. The two armies met on September 11. Howe, who well knew
how to handle an army in the field, out-manœuvred him, and after some
sharp fighting the American army was defeated with a loss of over 1,400
men, killed, wounded, and taken, and eleven guns. Congress again
decamped, and on the 27th Cornwallis took possession of Philadelphia amid
the acclamations of a large part of the inhabitants, while Howe and the main
army encamped at Germantown, five miles to the north.
In order to secure communication with New York and to
supply the army, it was all-important that the fleet HOWE'S OBJECT
ATTAINED.
should be able to pass up the Delaware, which was
strongly defended by forts, a bar, and a fleet of little vessels; and Howe
Page 201
detached troops to act against the forts. Washington lay a few miles to the
north; he was joined by strong reinforcements, and determined to take
advantage of the division of the British troops. He formed a plan for
surprising and driving in their advanced posts, cutting their force in two,
crushing their right wing, and then doubling the whole army back on the
Schuylkill river where it would be at his mercy. He attacked at daybreak on
October 4 under cover of a fog. The head of the British position was
insufficiently guarded and the 40th regiment was driven back. At this
critical moment its commander, Musgrave, and a party of his men stopped
the enemy's advance by seizing a house which stood in their way and
holding it against them until the army had time to form. His gallant conduct
saved the army. The Americans fought well until, misled by the fog, one of
their brigades fired on another. This threw them into disorder, which was
increased by the drunkenness of some of their officers and men. Cornwallis
came up from Philadelphia in hot haste and pressed upon them. They
retreated with a loss of 673 killed and wounded, and 400 taken; on the
British side the casualties were 551. Both in this action and in the battle on
the Brandywine the Americans showed that they had learned to fight with
resolution and to retreat in good order. The two engagements proved that
though they might be defeated in the field, the war would not come to a
speedy end, and this enlisted foreign sympathy and encouraged France to
intervene on their side.
For a month Howe was engaged in opening the passage of the Delaware.
He sent for 4,000 men from New York. This reduction of the garrison was
most unfortunate, for, as we shall see, it put an end to Clinton's attempt to
co-operate with Burgoyne.[123] At last the defences of the river were
destroyed, and communication was established between the army and the
fleet. Washington retreated to Valley Forge, about twenty-five miles from
Philadelphia, and there put his army into quarters. During the winter his
troops suffered terribly from lack of clothing and provisions. By Christmas
nearly 3,000 were unfit for duty because they were "barefoot or otherwise
naked". They deserted in parties, a large number came to the British
quarters, and scarcely a day passed without the resignation of an officer. In
February, 1778, there was almost a famine in the camp, and Washington
feared a general mutiny and dispersion.[124]
north; he was joined by strong reinforcements, and determined to take
advantage of the division of the British troops. He formed a plan for
surprising and driving in their advanced posts, cutting their force in two,
crushing their right wing, and then doubling the whole army back on the
Schuylkill river where it would be at his mercy. He attacked at daybreak on
October 4 under cover of a fog. The head of the British position was
insufficiently guarded and the 40th regiment was driven back. At this
critical moment its commander, Musgrave, and a party of his men stopped
the enemy's advance by seizing a house which stood in their way and
holding it against them until the army had time to form. His gallant conduct
saved the army. The Americans fought well until, misled by the fog, one of
their brigades fired on another. This threw them into disorder, which was
increased by the drunkenness of some of their officers and men. Cornwallis
came up from Philadelphia in hot haste and pressed upon them. They
retreated with a loss of 673 killed and wounded, and 400 taken; on the
British side the casualties were 551. Both in this action and in the battle on
the Brandywine the Americans showed that they had learned to fight with
resolution and to retreat in good order. The two engagements proved that
though they might be defeated in the field, the war would not come to a
speedy end, and this enlisted foreign sympathy and encouraged France to
intervene on their side.
For a month Howe was engaged in opening the passage of the Delaware.
He sent for 4,000 men from New York. This reduction of the garrison was
most unfortunate, for, as we shall see, it put an end to Clinton's attempt to
co-operate with Burgoyne.[123] At last the defences of the river were
destroyed, and communication was established between the army and the
fleet. Washington retreated to Valley Forge, about twenty-five miles from
Philadelphia, and there put his army into quarters. During the winter his
troops suffered terribly from lack of clothing and provisions. By Christmas
nearly 3,000 were unfit for duty because they were "barefoot or otherwise
naked". They deserted in parties, a large number came to the British
quarters, and scarcely a day passed without the resignation of an officer. In
February, 1778, there was almost a famine in the camp, and Washington
feared a general mutiny and dispersion.[124]
Page 202
Meanwhile the British were in comfortable quarters in Philadelphia. Howe's
object was attained; but though the capture of their capital discouraged the
Americans, the loss of Philadelphia is not to be compared with the loss of a
capital of an organised state; it did not paralyse an administrative machinery
or lessen the means of resistance. Howe's anxiety for its capture largely
proceeded from his expectation that it would be followed by a rising of the
loyalists; he placed too high a value on professions of loyalty and on
loyalist support. In itself the place was important; it was the largest of the
American towns, and it opened communication between the northern and
southern provinces, though so long as an insurgent army existed in
Pennsylvania, an invader could not safely take advantage of its position.
British officers marvelled that Howe did not attack Washington while his
army was in so miserable a state. His inactivity cannot be defended
satisfactorily. He was looking forward to be relieved of his command; he
was disgusted by the inadequate response made by the government to his
repeated demands for large reinforcements; he informed Germain that
without 10,000 more troops the war would not be ended in the next
campaign, and on October 22 wrote resigning his command. He allowed the
discipline of his army to become lax. The winter was spent in idleness and
dissipation. A bank at faro was opened, and many officers were ruined by
gambling. All ranks were demoralised, and sober townspeople who had
welcomed the arrival of the troops were disgusted by their disorderly
behaviour. The only fruit of Howe's victories during the campaign of 1777
was the acquisition of good winter quarters at Philadelphia, and that he
purchased at the price of an appalling disaster to a British army.[125]
Burgoyne took the field in June with 7,251 rank and file of regular troops,
of which 3,116 were Germans, 148 militia, and 503 Indians, in all 7,902.
Shortly before he left Canada a small force set out under Colonel St. Leger
to march from Lake Ontario, take Fort Stanwix, and form a junction with
him by an advance through the Mohawk valley. Burgoyne's army was in
fine order, but the arrangements for the carriage of supplies and the making
of roads were insufficient. His troops were carried up Lake Champlain and
landed at Crown Point, where he made a speech to his Indian allies,
commanding them to observe the customs of civilised warfare and to
behave with humanity. He was to find that such orders could not be
enforced. On July 6, almost as soon as he arrived at Ticonderoga, the
object was attained; but though the capture of their capital discouraged the
Americans, the loss of Philadelphia is not to be compared with the loss of a
capital of an organised state; it did not paralyse an administrative machinery
or lessen the means of resistance. Howe's anxiety for its capture largely
proceeded from his expectation that it would be followed by a rising of the
loyalists; he placed too high a value on professions of loyalty and on
loyalist support. In itself the place was important; it was the largest of the
American towns, and it opened communication between the northern and
southern provinces, though so long as an insurgent army existed in
Pennsylvania, an invader could not safely take advantage of its position.
British officers marvelled that Howe did not attack Washington while his
army was in so miserable a state. His inactivity cannot be defended
satisfactorily. He was looking forward to be relieved of his command; he
was disgusted by the inadequate response made by the government to his
repeated demands for large reinforcements; he informed Germain that
without 10,000 more troops the war would not be ended in the next
campaign, and on October 22 wrote resigning his command. He allowed the
discipline of his army to become lax. The winter was spent in idleness and
dissipation. A bank at faro was opened, and many officers were ruined by
gambling. All ranks were demoralised, and sober townspeople who had
welcomed the arrival of the troops were disgusted by their disorderly
behaviour. The only fruit of Howe's victories during the campaign of 1777
was the acquisition of good winter quarters at Philadelphia, and that he
purchased at the price of an appalling disaster to a British army.[125]
Burgoyne took the field in June with 7,251 rank and file of regular troops,
of which 3,116 were Germans, 148 militia, and 503 Indians, in all 7,902.
Shortly before he left Canada a small force set out under Colonel St. Leger
to march from Lake Ontario, take Fort Stanwix, and form a junction with
him by an advance through the Mohawk valley. Burgoyne's army was in
fine order, but the arrangements for the carriage of supplies and the making
of roads were insufficient. His troops were carried up Lake Champlain and
landed at Crown Point, where he made a speech to his Indian allies,
commanding them to observe the customs of civilised warfare and to
behave with humanity. He was to find that such orders could not be
enforced. On July 6, almost as soon as he arrived at Ticonderoga, the
Page 203
Americans hastily abandoned it, leaving their guns behind them. They were
promptly pursued and suffered heavy losses. The fugitives joined Schuyler,
the commander of the army in the north, at Fort Edward; he evacuated the
place and retreated southwards in the direction of Albany. The news of
Burgoyne's success caused much rejoicing in England. George is said to
have rushed into the queen's room as soon as he heard of it crying, "I have
beat them! beat all the Americans!" For the moment the Americans were
panic-struck. Men said angrily that their troops would never hold a place
until a general had been shot, and Schuyler was superseded by Gates.
On July 10 Burgoyne set out to march from
Skenesborough to Fort Edward, sending his artillery and BURGOYNE IN
DIFFICULTIES.
stores by water to Fort George. His route, though not
more than twenty miles, was extremely difficult; it was obstructed by trees
felled by the enemy and lay through swamps and forests, and at least forty
bridges had to be constructed in its course. He might have avoided these
difficulties by returning to Ticonderoga and conveying his army by water
up Lake George; but he rejected that route because he thought that a
retrograde movement would discourage his troops and abate the panic of
the enemy. His army did not reach the Hudson until the 30th. At Fort
Edward his supplies ran short and he had to wait there, for his means of
transport were not sufficient to bring his stores from Fort George. Garrisons
had to be found for Ticonderoga and for posts of communication, and this
diminished his army. Meanwhile the enemy was increasing in force. While
at Ticonderoga he published a foolish proclamation reminding those who
persisted in rebellion that he had it in his power to let loose the Indians
upon them. Nothing would have induced him to commit so hideous a crime,
and his proclamation only served to enrage the Americans and swell the
number of their troops. The Indians were offended by his efforts to restrain
them, and deserted him; they were no loss, for they caused more trouble
than they were worth, and some excesses which they committed, and
specially the murder of a Miss McCrae by an Indian who, it is said, was
sent by her betrothed to bring her into the British lines, excited widespread
indignation. Burgoyne was in sore need of supplies and made an attempt to
seize the insurgents' stores and horses collected at Bennington. He sent only
some 500 men on this service, for he was assured that the district was
friendly. It was far otherwise. The party was surrounded on August 16, and
promptly pursued and suffered heavy losses. The fugitives joined Schuyler,
the commander of the army in the north, at Fort Edward; he evacuated the
place and retreated southwards in the direction of Albany. The news of
Burgoyne's success caused much rejoicing in England. George is said to
have rushed into the queen's room as soon as he heard of it crying, "I have
beat them! beat all the Americans!" For the moment the Americans were
panic-struck. Men said angrily that their troops would never hold a place
until a general had been shot, and Schuyler was superseded by Gates.
On July 10 Burgoyne set out to march from
Skenesborough to Fort Edward, sending his artillery and BURGOYNE IN
DIFFICULTIES.
stores by water to Fort George. His route, though not
more than twenty miles, was extremely difficult; it was obstructed by trees
felled by the enemy and lay through swamps and forests, and at least forty
bridges had to be constructed in its course. He might have avoided these
difficulties by returning to Ticonderoga and conveying his army by water
up Lake George; but he rejected that route because he thought that a
retrograde movement would discourage his troops and abate the panic of
the enemy. His army did not reach the Hudson until the 30th. At Fort
Edward his supplies ran short and he had to wait there, for his means of
transport were not sufficient to bring his stores from Fort George. Garrisons
had to be found for Ticonderoga and for posts of communication, and this
diminished his army. Meanwhile the enemy was increasing in force. While
at Ticonderoga he published a foolish proclamation reminding those who
persisted in rebellion that he had it in his power to let loose the Indians
upon them. Nothing would have induced him to commit so hideous a crime,
and his proclamation only served to enrage the Americans and swell the
number of their troops. The Indians were offended by his efforts to restrain
them, and deserted him; they were no loss, for they caused more trouble
than they were worth, and some excesses which they committed, and
specially the murder of a Miss McCrae by an Indian who, it is said, was
sent by her betrothed to bring her into the British lines, excited widespread
indignation. Burgoyne was in sore need of supplies and made an attempt to
seize the insurgents' stores and horses collected at Bennington. He sent only
some 500 men on this service, for he was assured that the district was
friendly. It was far otherwise. The party was surrounded on August 16, and
Page 204
another detachment formed of German troops which was despatched to help
them marched so slowly that it did not come up in time. Both bodies were
defeated with a loss, perhaps, of about 500 men.
News came of the failure of St. Leger's expedition. On his arrival at
Oswego he was joined by Sir John Johnson and Butler with their loyalist
regiments, and by a force of Indians whom Johnson, one of their
superintendents, and the Mohawk leader, Brant, persuaded to march with
them. He besieged Fort Stanwix, and, on August 6, defeated a force sent to
relieve it. But his guns were too light for siege operations; the garrison held
out, and his Indians forced him to raise the siege. During his retreat they
mutinied; he was barely able to bring off his regular troops, and lost his
guns and stores. Burgoyne was in a dangerous position; the country
swarmed with enemies; "wherever the king's troops point," he wrote,
"militia to the number of three or four thousand assemble in a few hours".
He might have retreated to Fort Edward, where he would have had
communication with Lake George; but he held that he was bound by his
orders to advance, and on September 15, after collecting provisions for
about a month, he conveyed his force to the western bank of the Hudson
and cut himself off from communication with the lakes. Besides artillery, he
had then with him only 5,000 men under arms.[126] On the 19th his force
was partially engaged by Arnold at Freeman's Farm. The British held their
ground but lost over 500 men, and Gates, the American commander, with
11,000 men, who did not take part in the fight, occupied a strong position in
front of them. A message came from Clinton that he was about to attack the
forts on the Hudson below Albany, and Burgoyne sent answer that he hoped
to be able to hold his ground until October 20. He fortified his position and
waited for further news. None came to him. The insurgent forces grew to at
least 16,000 men; Burgoyne's provisions were becoming exhausted and on
October 3 he put his little army on half rations. Despite the overwhelming
number of the enemy, he moved forward on the 7th to ascertain whether he
could force a passage through their lines. He was defeated with heavy loss
and fell back on Saratoga.
A council of war held on the 12th decided on a retreat to
Fort Edward. It was too late; the Americans held the SURRENDER OF
BURGOYNE'S
fords and had a strong force encamped between Fort ARMY.
George and Fort Edward. Only 3,500 fighting men were
them marched so slowly that it did not come up in time. Both bodies were
defeated with a loss, perhaps, of about 500 men.
News came of the failure of St. Leger's expedition. On his arrival at
Oswego he was joined by Sir John Johnson and Butler with their loyalist
regiments, and by a force of Indians whom Johnson, one of their
superintendents, and the Mohawk leader, Brant, persuaded to march with
them. He besieged Fort Stanwix, and, on August 6, defeated a force sent to
relieve it. But his guns were too light for siege operations; the garrison held
out, and his Indians forced him to raise the siege. During his retreat they
mutinied; he was barely able to bring off his regular troops, and lost his
guns and stores. Burgoyne was in a dangerous position; the country
swarmed with enemies; "wherever the king's troops point," he wrote,
"militia to the number of three or four thousand assemble in a few hours".
He might have retreated to Fort Edward, where he would have had
communication with Lake George; but he held that he was bound by his
orders to advance, and on September 15, after collecting provisions for
about a month, he conveyed his force to the western bank of the Hudson
and cut himself off from communication with the lakes. Besides artillery, he
had then with him only 5,000 men under arms.[126] On the 19th his force
was partially engaged by Arnold at Freeman's Farm. The British held their
ground but lost over 500 men, and Gates, the American commander, with
11,000 men, who did not take part in the fight, occupied a strong position in
front of them. A message came from Clinton that he was about to attack the
forts on the Hudson below Albany, and Burgoyne sent answer that he hoped
to be able to hold his ground until October 20. He fortified his position and
waited for further news. None came to him. The insurgent forces grew to at
least 16,000 men; Burgoyne's provisions were becoming exhausted and on
October 3 he put his little army on half rations. Despite the overwhelming
number of the enemy, he moved forward on the 7th to ascertain whether he
could force a passage through their lines. He was defeated with heavy loss
and fell back on Saratoga.
A council of war held on the 12th decided on a retreat to
Fort Edward. It was too late; the Americans held the SURRENDER OF
BURGOYNE'S
fords and had a strong force encamped between Fort ARMY.
George and Fort Edward. Only 3,500 fighting men were
Page 205
left with Burgoyne; he was completely surrounded, and on the 14th he
opened negotiations with Gates. Even then he refused to surrender
unconditionally, and the convention of Saratoga was concluded on the 17th.
His troops marched out with the honours of war, and were to be allowed to
return to England on condition of not serving again in the war. The whole
number which surrendered, including camp-followers, labourers, and
detachments, was 5,762. Gates's behaviour at the surrender was such as
became an officer and a gentleman. Congress shamefully broke the
engagement. The captive troops were marched to Boston, but when the
transports called for them, they were not allowed to embark. The paltry
subterfuges by which congress defended its conduct only throw a specially
odious light on its sacrifice of honour to policy. From the beginning of the
war both sides made frequent complaints as to the treatment of prisoners,
and both apparently with justice. Burgoyne's men were shamefully treated.
He and his staff were allowed to return home in the spring of 1778; others
were exchanged from time to time, but the mass of the army never came
back. Clinton, who was then unaware of Burgoyne's distress, did what he
could to render his position secure in case he arrived at Albany. As soon as
he received reinforcements from England, he pushed up the Hudson and on
October 6 destroyed the forts which barred the passage of our ships. He
could do no more, for he was forced to send 4,000 men to Howe and could
not leave New York without a sufficient garrison. A messenger from
Burgoyne at last reached him. The way being cleared, the ships ascended
the river and burnt the batteries and town at Esopus creek. The news of
Clinton's activity doubtless secured Burgoyne more favourable terms than
Gates was at first inclined to grant.
The chief blame for this disaster must rest on Howe. His assertion that
Philadelphia was the prime object of his campaign made Germain uneasy,
and he wrote to him on May 18 that whatever he might meditate, he was not
to neglect to co-operate with the northern army.[127] This despatch did not
reach Howe until August 16, when he had made co-operation with
Burgoyne impossible. A few days later Germain wrote again; the despatch
was not ready for his signature at the time at which he wished to go into the
country, and when he came back it was forgotten. It was a piece of gross
carelessness, but an undue importance has been attached to it.[128] Howe
was well aware of Burgoyne's expedition. On June 5 he had received a copy
opened negotiations with Gates. Even then he refused to surrender
unconditionally, and the convention of Saratoga was concluded on the 17th.
His troops marched out with the honours of war, and were to be allowed to
return to England on condition of not serving again in the war. The whole
number which surrendered, including camp-followers, labourers, and
detachments, was 5,762. Gates's behaviour at the surrender was such as
became an officer and a gentleman. Congress shamefully broke the
engagement. The captive troops were marched to Boston, but when the
transports called for them, they were not allowed to embark. The paltry
subterfuges by which congress defended its conduct only throw a specially
odious light on its sacrifice of honour to policy. From the beginning of the
war both sides made frequent complaints as to the treatment of prisoners,
and both apparently with justice. Burgoyne's men were shamefully treated.
He and his staff were allowed to return home in the spring of 1778; others
were exchanged from time to time, but the mass of the army never came
back. Clinton, who was then unaware of Burgoyne's distress, did what he
could to render his position secure in case he arrived at Albany. As soon as
he received reinforcements from England, he pushed up the Hudson and on
October 6 destroyed the forts which barred the passage of our ships. He
could do no more, for he was forced to send 4,000 men to Howe and could
not leave New York without a sufficient garrison. A messenger from
Burgoyne at last reached him. The way being cleared, the ships ascended
the river and burnt the batteries and town at Esopus creek. The news of
Clinton's activity doubtless secured Burgoyne more favourable terms than
Gates was at first inclined to grant.
The chief blame for this disaster must rest on Howe. His assertion that
Philadelphia was the prime object of his campaign made Germain uneasy,
and he wrote to him on May 18 that whatever he might meditate, he was not
to neglect to co-operate with the northern army.[127] This despatch did not
reach Howe until August 16, when he had made co-operation with
Burgoyne impossible. A few days later Germain wrote again; the despatch
was not ready for his signature at the time at which he wished to go into the
country, and when he came back it was forgotten. It was a piece of gross
carelessness, but an undue importance has been attached to it.[128] Howe
was well aware of Burgoyne's expedition. On June 5 he had received a copy
Page 206
of a despatch from Germain which told him that Burgoyne was ordered to
"force his way to Albany" and join him with the utmost speed.[129]
Nevertheless, he persisted in pursuing his own plan. He must have hesitated
whether to reach Philadelphia by land or water. When in June he at last
made up his mind to move, he evidently tried to reach Philadelphia by land.
If he had succeeded and had swept Washington before him, he might have
kept in communication with Burgoyne and have co-operated with him.
Failing in this, he decided to go by sea, and when he was told that he could
not safely land in the Delaware, went on to Chesapeake bay. When he
gained his object by taking Philadelphia he did so by a course which made
it impossible for him to co-operate with Burgoyne, and put Washington's
army between them.
According to the government plan the chief object of his campaign should
have been his junction with Burgoyne. The government, that is Germain,
certainly erred in not giving him precise orders, while Burgoyne had
virtually no discretionary power. Yet it was for Howe, as commander-in-
chief on the spot, to judge of the situation without explicit instructions.
According to his own statements, his view of the situation was that
Burgoyne would march through a friendly country and encounter no enemy
except the army of 4,000 men under Schuyler, that Clinton would be able to
give him any assistance which he might require, that his own expedition to
Philadelphia would divert the enemy from Burgoyne, that he would be able
to "account for" Washington, and that if Washington gave him the slip, he
would be able to follow him up and prevent him from annoying Burgoyne.
[130]
These considerations may be supposed to have satisfied him that no
direct co-operation with Burgoyne was required of him. Burgoyne had to
encounter foes whom neither he nor Howe reckoned upon, and it was
Howe's duty to be at hand to prevent their crushing him. Burgoyne made
some mistakes in preparing for and prosecuting his campaign, but he and
his men exhibited splendid courage, and he is not to be blamed for trying
his fortune to the utmost. In view of his orders, and of the risk of leaving a
co-operating force unsupported, he was bound to ascertain whether he could
force his way through the enemy. The irregular character of the American
force rendered success possible, and justified his gallant attempt of October
7. He was a fine soldier, and was regarded with confidence and affection by
"force his way to Albany" and join him with the utmost speed.[129]
Nevertheless, he persisted in pursuing his own plan. He must have hesitated
whether to reach Philadelphia by land or water. When in June he at last
made up his mind to move, he evidently tried to reach Philadelphia by land.
If he had succeeded and had swept Washington before him, he might have
kept in communication with Burgoyne and have co-operated with him.
Failing in this, he decided to go by sea, and when he was told that he could
not safely land in the Delaware, went on to Chesapeake bay. When he
gained his object by taking Philadelphia he did so by a course which made
it impossible for him to co-operate with Burgoyne, and put Washington's
army between them.
According to the government plan the chief object of his campaign should
have been his junction with Burgoyne. The government, that is Germain,
certainly erred in not giving him precise orders, while Burgoyne had
virtually no discretionary power. Yet it was for Howe, as commander-in-
chief on the spot, to judge of the situation without explicit instructions.
According to his own statements, his view of the situation was that
Burgoyne would march through a friendly country and encounter no enemy
except the army of 4,000 men under Schuyler, that Clinton would be able to
give him any assistance which he might require, that his own expedition to
Philadelphia would divert the enemy from Burgoyne, that he would be able
to "account for" Washington, and that if Washington gave him the slip, he
would be able to follow him up and prevent him from annoying Burgoyne.
[130]
These considerations may be supposed to have satisfied him that no
direct co-operation with Burgoyne was required of him. Burgoyne had to
encounter foes whom neither he nor Howe reckoned upon, and it was
Howe's duty to be at hand to prevent their crushing him. Burgoyne made
some mistakes in preparing for and prosecuting his campaign, but he and
his men exhibited splendid courage, and he is not to be blamed for trying
his fortune to the utmost. In view of his orders, and of the risk of leaving a
co-operating force unsupported, he was bound to ascertain whether he could
force his way through the enemy. The irregular character of the American
force rendered success possible, and justified his gallant attempt of October
7. He was a fine soldier, and was regarded with confidence and affection by
Page 207
his subordinates. Clinton seems to have done all that was in his power
considering the small force left with him in New York.[131]
The surrender of Burgoyne's army could not in itself
affect the issue of the war. Its importance lies in its EFFECT OF THE
SURRENDER.
effect on the policy of foreign nations and specially of
France. So far as the Americans alone were concerned, England had good
reason to expect ultimate success. They would neither enlist in sufficient
numbers to keep up a regular army nor provide for such troops as they had.
The meddlesomeness and incapacity of congress were destroying its army;
generals were intriguing against one another, soldiers were perishing for
lack of necessaries, stores were wasted. Money was scarce and public credit
bad. Early in 1778 congress had 5,500,000 paper dollars in circulation, and
the value of its paper dollar was from half to a quarter of the silver dollar.
Above all, the Americans had no fleet, and were consequently unable to
protect their sea-board. Their alliance with France and subsequently with
Spain brought them, along with other help, the sea-power without which the
issue of the struggle might well have been adverse to them. France and
Spain hoped to recoup themselves for former losses, France by conquests in
the West Indies, Spain by regaining Gibraltar, Minorca, and Jamaica. In
1775 an agent of the French court went over to America with offers of help,
and early in 1776 the Count de Vergennes, foreign minister of Louis XVI.,
proposed as a system of policy that the Bourbon kings should give secret
aid to the Americans and strengthen their own forces, taking care, however,
to persuade England that their intentions were pacific. About the same time
congress sent Deane to France as a secret agent.
In accordance with the proposal of Vergennes the French and Spanish
courts provided money for the Americans; and Beaumarchais, the dramatist,
who masqueraded as a firm of merchants in order to conceal the
participation of his government, spent it in purchasing military stores for
them. The young Marquis de Lafayette and other Frenchmen entered their
army. So too did the Poles, Kosciusko and Pulaski, and the Germans, Kalb
and Steuben. In December Franklin went over to Paris. The philosophic
movement was then at its height in France. The philosophes desired
freedom of thought in religion, constitutional liberty, and the abolition of
privilege of all kinds. They speculated as to the origins of political and
social institutions and the laws of human progress. The works of Voltaire,
considering the small force left with him in New York.[131]
The surrender of Burgoyne's army could not in itself
affect the issue of the war. Its importance lies in its EFFECT OF THE
SURRENDER.
effect on the policy of foreign nations and specially of
France. So far as the Americans alone were concerned, England had good
reason to expect ultimate success. They would neither enlist in sufficient
numbers to keep up a regular army nor provide for such troops as they had.
The meddlesomeness and incapacity of congress were destroying its army;
generals were intriguing against one another, soldiers were perishing for
lack of necessaries, stores were wasted. Money was scarce and public credit
bad. Early in 1778 congress had 5,500,000 paper dollars in circulation, and
the value of its paper dollar was from half to a quarter of the silver dollar.
Above all, the Americans had no fleet, and were consequently unable to
protect their sea-board. Their alliance with France and subsequently with
Spain brought them, along with other help, the sea-power without which the
issue of the struggle might well have been adverse to them. France and
Spain hoped to recoup themselves for former losses, France by conquests in
the West Indies, Spain by regaining Gibraltar, Minorca, and Jamaica. In
1775 an agent of the French court went over to America with offers of help,
and early in 1776 the Count de Vergennes, foreign minister of Louis XVI.,
proposed as a system of policy that the Bourbon kings should give secret
aid to the Americans and strengthen their own forces, taking care, however,
to persuade England that their intentions were pacific. About the same time
congress sent Deane to France as a secret agent.
In accordance with the proposal of Vergennes the French and Spanish
courts provided money for the Americans; and Beaumarchais, the dramatist,
who masqueraded as a firm of merchants in order to conceal the
participation of his government, spent it in purchasing military stores for
them. The young Marquis de Lafayette and other Frenchmen entered their
army. So too did the Poles, Kosciusko and Pulaski, and the Germans, Kalb
and Steuben. In December Franklin went over to Paris. The philosophic
movement was then at its height in France. The philosophes desired
freedom of thought in religion, constitutional liberty, and the abolition of
privilege of all kinds. They speculated as to the origins of political and
social institutions and the laws of human progress. The works of Voltaire,
Page 208
Rousseau, and Montesquieu were eagerly studied by the nobles and fine
ladies of the court with whom philosophisme was fashionable. America they
regarded as a land of freedom and primitive simplicity; and they hailed the
crude assertions of the Declaration of Independence, issued by a body
largely composed of slave-owners, that all men are created equal and with
an inalienable right to liberty, as bringing their theories within the range of
practical politics. Franklin was received with ludicrous adulation as an
embodiment of republican virtue and philosophic thought. He busied
himself in stirring up hostility to England. Another American envoy sought
help from Prussia. Frederick showed his hatred of England by forbidding
some German troops which George had hired to pass through his
dominions; but his quarrel with Austria with reference to the Bavarian
succession rendered him unwilling to provoke Great Britain: he had no
sympathy with the Americans and would not receive their envoy.
Besides the stores sent by Beaumarchais and 1,000
livres in cash, France helped the Americans by THE
neglecting to prevent the violation of her neutrality by INTERVENTION
OF FRANCE.
their ships. Although the Americans could not dispute
with Great Britain on the sea, they had a few ships built by congress, more
belonging to the maritime provinces, and a vast number of privateers. These
ships did much damage to British trade. Already they hovered about the
coasts of England and Ireland, and were so dangerous to our merchant
vessels that merchants embarked their goods on foreign ships to avoid the
risk of capture. By the end of 1778 nearly 1,000 merchant ships were taken
by American privateers. Some of these privateers were fitted out in French
ports, brought their prizes into them, and sailed from them again on fresh
expeditions. Our ambassador, Lord Stormont, complained vigorously of
these open breaches of neutrality, and at last the French government took
some measures to stop them. The opposition in parliament constantly
insisted that, if the war went on, France and Spain would certainly take part
with the Americans. The government could no longer ignore, though it still
strove to discredit, the danger of foreign intervention. The king's speech at
the opening of parliament on October 20, 1777, took note of the naval
preparations of the two powers and recommended an augmentation of the
navy. Tidings of Burgoyne's disaster reached Europe on December 2.
Vergennes at once informed the American agents that his master would
ladies of the court with whom philosophisme was fashionable. America they
regarded as a land of freedom and primitive simplicity; and they hailed the
crude assertions of the Declaration of Independence, issued by a body
largely composed of slave-owners, that all men are created equal and with
an inalienable right to liberty, as bringing their theories within the range of
practical politics. Franklin was received with ludicrous adulation as an
embodiment of republican virtue and philosophic thought. He busied
himself in stirring up hostility to England. Another American envoy sought
help from Prussia. Frederick showed his hatred of England by forbidding
some German troops which George had hired to pass through his
dominions; but his quarrel with Austria with reference to the Bavarian
succession rendered him unwilling to provoke Great Britain: he had no
sympathy with the Americans and would not receive their envoy.
Besides the stores sent by Beaumarchais and 1,000
livres in cash, France helped the Americans by THE
neglecting to prevent the violation of her neutrality by INTERVENTION
OF FRANCE.
their ships. Although the Americans could not dispute
with Great Britain on the sea, they had a few ships built by congress, more
belonging to the maritime provinces, and a vast number of privateers. These
ships did much damage to British trade. Already they hovered about the
coasts of England and Ireland, and were so dangerous to our merchant
vessels that merchants embarked their goods on foreign ships to avoid the
risk of capture. By the end of 1778 nearly 1,000 merchant ships were taken
by American privateers. Some of these privateers were fitted out in French
ports, brought their prizes into them, and sailed from them again on fresh
expeditions. Our ambassador, Lord Stormont, complained vigorously of
these open breaches of neutrality, and at last the French government took
some measures to stop them. The opposition in parliament constantly
insisted that, if the war went on, France and Spain would certainly take part
with the Americans. The government could no longer ignore, though it still
strove to discredit, the danger of foreign intervention. The king's speech at
the opening of parliament on October 20, 1777, took note of the naval
preparations of the two powers and recommended an augmentation of the
navy. Tidings of Burgoyne's disaster reached Europe on December 2.
Vergennes at once informed the American agents that his master would
Page 209
make a treaty with them. The alliance was concluded on February 6, 1778;
it was agreed that, in the event of war between France and England, neither
of the contracting parties should make peace without the consent of the
other or until the independence of the United States should be assured by
treaty. France renounced all claim to Canada. If taken from England, it was
to belong to the United States, while all conquests in the West Indies were
to belong to France. Spain at this time declined to join in the alliance. That
a treaty was signed was soon generally believed in England; it was
officially declared by France on March 13. War between Great Britain and
France began in the summer.
With the intervention of France the war enters on a new phase.
Thenceforward England had to deal with more powerful enemies than the
Americans. The war had lasted for three years and the rebellion was not
crushed. Was it too much for England to expect that she would subdue a
people of her own stock, as the Americans were then, separated from her by
3,000 miles of sea, and spread over a vast and difficult country? Had she
trusted to her navy, as Barrington and others desired, shut the American
ports, and held the towns on the coast and the navigable rivers, the
insurgents might possibly have been driven to submission without any
severe struggle. Conquest by land was decided on. Was Chatham right in
declaring in May, 1777, that England could not conquer the Americans? Six
months later a capable French officer serving in their army wrote to the
French minister of war that, unless his country declared war against
England, the Americans would fail to obtain independence; so little
enthusiasm for the cause was there among them, so keenly did they feel the
privations of the war.[132] In our war in South Africa of 1899-1902 the
Boers showed themselves better soldiers than the Americans, and were not
less brave; they were akin to us in race, and their country was at least as
difficult as America. In both wars our well-drilled troops constantly found
their previous training useless or worse; in both we received loyal support
from numerous colonials on the spot. While improved means of transport
brought South Africa far nearer to us than America was in the eighteenth
century, the Boers were better prepared for war than the Americans, and
were a more martial people. Yet England conquered them. So far, then, as
the Americans alone were concerned, Chatham's assertion must be denied.
it was agreed that, in the event of war between France and England, neither
of the contracting parties should make peace without the consent of the
other or until the independence of the United States should be assured by
treaty. France renounced all claim to Canada. If taken from England, it was
to belong to the United States, while all conquests in the West Indies were
to belong to France. Spain at this time declined to join in the alliance. That
a treaty was signed was soon generally believed in England; it was
officially declared by France on March 13. War between Great Britain and
France began in the summer.
With the intervention of France the war enters on a new phase.
Thenceforward England had to deal with more powerful enemies than the
Americans. The war had lasted for three years and the rebellion was not
crushed. Was it too much for England to expect that she would subdue a
people of her own stock, as the Americans were then, separated from her by
3,000 miles of sea, and spread over a vast and difficult country? Had she
trusted to her navy, as Barrington and others desired, shut the American
ports, and held the towns on the coast and the navigable rivers, the
insurgents might possibly have been driven to submission without any
severe struggle. Conquest by land was decided on. Was Chatham right in
declaring in May, 1777, that England could not conquer the Americans? Six
months later a capable French officer serving in their army wrote to the
French minister of war that, unless his country declared war against
England, the Americans would fail to obtain independence; so little
enthusiasm for the cause was there among them, so keenly did they feel the
privations of the war.[132] In our war in South Africa of 1899-1902 the
Boers showed themselves better soldiers than the Americans, and were not
less brave; they were akin to us in race, and their country was at least as
difficult as America. In both wars our well-drilled troops constantly found
their previous training useless or worse; in both we received loyal support
from numerous colonials on the spot. While improved means of transport
brought South Africa far nearer to us than America was in the eighteenth
century, the Boers were better prepared for war than the Americans, and
were a more martial people. Yet England conquered them. So far, then, as
the Americans alone were concerned, Chatham's assertion must be denied.
Page 210
Why then had England done so little in those three
years? There was much active loyalty on our side: ENGLAND'S
thousands of colonials fought for the crown during the CONDUCTTHE WAR.
OF
course of the war; in the central provinces at least half
the population was for us. Everything depended on the vigour and judgment
with which force was applied. In these respects there was failure both at
home and on the spot. In the first place the effort required was
underestimated. In February, 1774, Gage thought four regiments would
keep things quiet; in 1775 it was believed that 10,000 men would be
enough; in January, 1776, Howe asked for 20,000, in November his
estimate for the next year was 35,000. Germain promised to raise his army
to that number, yet instead of 10,000 men he offered him only 7,800 rank
and file. On March 26 he confessed that he could only send 2,900, and on
April 19 that he had to subtract 400 of these for Canada.[133] The country
was strong for coercion, but recruits were hard to raise; it willed the end but
not the means. The king and Germain interfered too much with the plans of
operations. To direct a war from the other side of the Atlantic in days when
letters between the secretary at war and the commander-in-chief seem often
to have been nearly two months on their way, was to court failure.
At the outset of the war the enemy was unduly despised both by ministers at
home and soldiers in the field. As the British general in command at
Belmont is said to have rejected a proposal for turning the Boers' position,
declaring that he would "put the fear of God into them," so Howe at Bunker
hill delivered a frontal attack on the enemy's entrenchments which cost him
over 1,000 men. Then he went to the opposite extreme of over-caution. It is
needless to recapitulate the occasions on which either from over-caution or
supineness he allowed great opportunities to slip, as notably on Long
Island. He, indeed, in a greater degree than any one else is responsible for
the British failure to bring the war to an end. Every month improved the
fighting qualities of the Americans, under the judicious handling of
Washington, and at last France and the other enemies of England saw that
they might take them seriously and might turn the war to their own profit.
[134]
FOOTNOTES:
years? There was much active loyalty on our side: ENGLAND'S
thousands of colonials fought for the crown during the CONDUCTTHE WAR.
OF
course of the war; in the central provinces at least half
the population was for us. Everything depended on the vigour and judgment
with which force was applied. In these respects there was failure both at
home and on the spot. In the first place the effort required was
underestimated. In February, 1774, Gage thought four regiments would
keep things quiet; in 1775 it was believed that 10,000 men would be
enough; in January, 1776, Howe asked for 20,000, in November his
estimate for the next year was 35,000. Germain promised to raise his army
to that number, yet instead of 10,000 men he offered him only 7,800 rank
and file. On March 26 he confessed that he could only send 2,900, and on
April 19 that he had to subtract 400 of these for Canada.[133] The country
was strong for coercion, but recruits were hard to raise; it willed the end but
not the means. The king and Germain interfered too much with the plans of
operations. To direct a war from the other side of the Atlantic in days when
letters between the secretary at war and the commander-in-chief seem often
to have been nearly two months on their way, was to court failure.
At the outset of the war the enemy was unduly despised both by ministers at
home and soldiers in the field. As the British general in command at
Belmont is said to have rejected a proposal for turning the Boers' position,
declaring that he would "put the fear of God into them," so Howe at Bunker
hill delivered a frontal attack on the enemy's entrenchments which cost him
over 1,000 men. Then he went to the opposite extreme of over-caution. It is
needless to recapitulate the occasions on which either from over-caution or
supineness he allowed great opportunities to slip, as notably on Long
Island. He, indeed, in a greater degree than any one else is responsible for
the British failure to bring the war to an end. Every month improved the
fighting qualities of the Americans, under the judicious handling of
Washington, and at last France and the other enemies of England saw that
they might take them seriously and might turn the war to their own profit.
[134]
FOOTNOTES:
Page 211
[112] Johnston, Campaign of 1776, p. 125.
[113] Mr. Johnston contends that the American casualties were about 1,000 (op.
cit., pp. 202-6); they were probably about double that number (Fortescue,
History of the British Army, iii., 185).
[114] Howe, Narrative of Conduct, pp. 4-5.
[115] Johnston, Campaign of 1776, Documents, p. 117.
[116] Carleton to Douglas, Oct. 14, 1776, Add. MS. 21,699 (Haldimand Papers),
ff. 52-53.
[117] Examination of Joseph Galloway, p. 14.
[118] Washington, Works, iv., 203, 223, 231.
[119] State Trials, xx., 1365.
[120] Parl. Hist., xix., 103-86.
[121] Germain to Carleton, March 26, 1777, Add. MS. 21,697, f. 158; for
Carleton's reply (May 20) and Germain's rejoinder (July 25) see Report on
Canadian Archives for 1885, pp. 132-37.
[122] Hist. MSS. Comm., App. to Report, vi. (Strachey Papers), p. 402.
[123] Jones, History of New York, i., 193, 219.
[124] Washington, Works, v., 193 sqq., 239; Galloway's Evidence, pp. 21, 29.
[125] Stedman, i., 309-11, 317.
[126] Lieut. Hadden, Journal and Orderly Books, p. 153.
[127] Howe to Germain, Jan. 20; Germain to Howe, May 18, 1777; Howe's
Narrative, pp. 12-24.
[128] Life of Shelburne, i., 358-59.
[129] Germain to Carleton, March 26, 1777, Add. MS. 21,697, f. 161; Howe's
Narrative, p. 15.
[130] Howe to Carlton, April 2 and June 16, 1777, printed in Fugitive Pieces, p.
126; Howe to Burgoyne, July 17, in Evidence Concerning the War (1779), pp.
77-78; Howe's Narrative, pp. 21-23; Howe's Observations on Letters, etc., p. 61;
Fonblanque's Burgoyne, pp. 280-81.
[131] Clinton to Burgoyne, Dec. 16, 1777, Fonblanque's Burgoyne, pp. 324-25;
Parl. Hist., xix., 611.
[132] Du Portail to the Comte de St. Germain, Nov. 12, 1777, Stedman, i., 386.
[133] Correspondence between Germain and Howe, Hist. MSS. Comm. Report,
vi., App., p. 402.
[113] Mr. Johnston contends that the American casualties were about 1,000 (op.
cit., pp. 202-6); they were probably about double that number (Fortescue,
History of the British Army, iii., 185).
[114] Howe, Narrative of Conduct, pp. 4-5.
[115] Johnston, Campaign of 1776, Documents, p. 117.
[116] Carleton to Douglas, Oct. 14, 1776, Add. MS. 21,699 (Haldimand Papers),
ff. 52-53.
[117] Examination of Joseph Galloway, p. 14.
[118] Washington, Works, iv., 203, 223, 231.
[119] State Trials, xx., 1365.
[120] Parl. Hist., xix., 103-86.
[121] Germain to Carleton, March 26, 1777, Add. MS. 21,697, f. 158; for
Carleton's reply (May 20) and Germain's rejoinder (July 25) see Report on
Canadian Archives for 1885, pp. 132-37.
[122] Hist. MSS. Comm., App. to Report, vi. (Strachey Papers), p. 402.
[123] Jones, History of New York, i., 193, 219.
[124] Washington, Works, v., 193 sqq., 239; Galloway's Evidence, pp. 21, 29.
[125] Stedman, i., 309-11, 317.
[126] Lieut. Hadden, Journal and Orderly Books, p. 153.
[127] Howe to Germain, Jan. 20; Germain to Howe, May 18, 1777; Howe's
Narrative, pp. 12-24.
[128] Life of Shelburne, i., 358-59.
[129] Germain to Carleton, March 26, 1777, Add. MS. 21,697, f. 161; Howe's
Narrative, p. 15.
[130] Howe to Carlton, April 2 and June 16, 1777, printed in Fugitive Pieces, p.
126; Howe to Burgoyne, July 17, in Evidence Concerning the War (1779), pp.
77-78; Howe's Narrative, pp. 21-23; Howe's Observations on Letters, etc., p. 61;
Fonblanque's Burgoyne, pp. 280-81.
[131] Clinton to Burgoyne, Dec. 16, 1777, Fonblanque's Burgoyne, pp. 324-25;
Parl. Hist., xix., 611.
[132] Du Portail to the Comte de St. Germain, Nov. 12, 1777, Stedman, i., 386.
[133] Correspondence between Germain and Howe, Hist. MSS. Comm. Report,
vi., App., p. 402.
Page 212
[134] Here, and in other passages treating of the American revolutionary war,
much valuable help has been given me by Colonel E. M. Lloyd, late R.E.
much valuable help has been given me by Colonel E. M. Lloyd, late R.E.
Page 213
CHAPTER X.
WAR WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.
The surrender of Burgoyne's army was eagerly used by the opposition as an
opportunity for harassing the government. The nation at large showed a
worthier spirit by seeking to repair its loss. Manchester, Liverpool,
Edinburgh, and Glasgow each raised a regiment; and other regiments and
companies were raised in the Highlands and in Wales. In London and
Bristol the corporations refused to join the movement, but large sums were
subscribed by private persons for raising troops. The opposition absurdly
maintained that these levies were unconstitutional, and Fox accounted for
the zeal displayed by Manchester and Scotland by observing that they were
"accustomed to disgrace". The ministers were bitterly reproached for
employing Germans and Indians. "If," said Chatham, "I were an American,
while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my
arms—never—never—never." He condemned the employment of Indians in
the war in words of fiery eloquence. It was certainly deplorable that they
should have been employed. In that matter, however, England had no
choice. They would have taken part in the war on one side or the other.
They had fought in every war between the English and French in America,
and while Pitt himself was conducting the war in 1760 Amherst used them
with the authority of government.[135] In the present war the Americans
were the first to employ them, and in 1776 congress resolved that it was
expedient to do so and authorised Washington to enlist 2,000 of them. They
were more ready to fight for the king than for the Americans, who had
treated them badly; and as they caused the insurgents trouble and
committed many shocking acts of barbarity, the Americans inveighed
against us for employing them. If we had not done so they would have
fought for the Americans, as some of them did. Otherwise we should have
been better without them, for no dependence could be placed upon them.
Energetic as the opposition was in attack, it was not
united in policy. Chatham, zealous for England's THE OPPOSITION
DISUNITED.
imperial position, declared that he would never consent
WAR WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.
The surrender of Burgoyne's army was eagerly used by the opposition as an
opportunity for harassing the government. The nation at large showed a
worthier spirit by seeking to repair its loss. Manchester, Liverpool,
Edinburgh, and Glasgow each raised a regiment; and other regiments and
companies were raised in the Highlands and in Wales. In London and
Bristol the corporations refused to join the movement, but large sums were
subscribed by private persons for raising troops. The opposition absurdly
maintained that these levies were unconstitutional, and Fox accounted for
the zeal displayed by Manchester and Scotland by observing that they were
"accustomed to disgrace". The ministers were bitterly reproached for
employing Germans and Indians. "If," said Chatham, "I were an American,
while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I would never lay down my
arms—never—never—never." He condemned the employment of Indians in
the war in words of fiery eloquence. It was certainly deplorable that they
should have been employed. In that matter, however, England had no
choice. They would have taken part in the war on one side or the other.
They had fought in every war between the English and French in America,
and while Pitt himself was conducting the war in 1760 Amherst used them
with the authority of government.[135] In the present war the Americans
were the first to employ them, and in 1776 congress resolved that it was
expedient to do so and authorised Washington to enlist 2,000 of them. They
were more ready to fight for the king than for the Americans, who had
treated them badly; and as they caused the insurgents trouble and
committed many shocking acts of barbarity, the Americans inveighed
against us for employing them. If we had not done so they would have
fought for the Americans, as some of them did. Otherwise we should have
been better without them, for no dependence could be placed upon them.
Energetic as the opposition was in attack, it was not
united in policy. Chatham, zealous for England's THE OPPOSITION
DISUNITED.
imperial position, declared that he would never consent
Page 214
to American independence. There was yet time to make peace with the
people of our own blood and so be ready to meet our foreign foes. He
proposed a cessation of hostilities and an immediate offer of terms. All that
the Americans could demand as subjects should be granted, and overtures
made to them on the basis of political dependence and the navigation act;
that is, their trade should still be regulated by duties. They would, he was
sure, accept these terms. If not, they must be compelled to obedience. The
Americans would certainly not have treated on his basis. Chatham had
repeatedly declared that it was impossible for us to conquer them; yet he
proposed that if his basis were rejected we should use coercion after putting
ourselves at a disadvantage by withdrawing our army. Still, as there were
many Americans besides the loyalists who would have welcomed
conciliation, and as the proposed French alliance was unpopular, it is just
possible that had Chatham himself been prime minister some way might
have been found which, while securing to America virtual independence
such as England's self-governing colonies now enjoy, might have prevented
the severance of the bond. On the other hand, the Rockingham party held
that we should prevent the alliance between France and America by
acknowledging American independence. This division between the two
sections of the opposition set them in hostile camps.
When people were convinced that the alliance was certain the nation
became uneasy, and a strong feeling prevailed, which was shared by some
of Chatham's opponents, that at such a crisis England needed him at the
head of affairs. In February, 1778, it was believed that he and Bute were
engaged on some scheme of coalition which might again put him in power.
The report was merely the outcome of the officious meddling of his
physician, Addington, and one of Bute's friends.[136] No one was more
anxious than North for a change of ministry. He begged the king in vain to
accept his resignation. On the 17th he brought in two bills for a scheme of
conciliation to which George had at last given his sanction. He proposed an
express repeal of the tea duty, the surrender of all taxation except for the
regulation of trade, and the appointment of commissioners to be sent to
America with full powers to put an end to hostilities, grant pardons, and
treat with congress on any terms short of independence. His proposals did
not materially differ from those made by Burke three years before. He
declared that he was not responsible for American taxation, that it was the
people of our own blood and so be ready to meet our foreign foes. He
proposed a cessation of hostilities and an immediate offer of terms. All that
the Americans could demand as subjects should be granted, and overtures
made to them on the basis of political dependence and the navigation act;
that is, their trade should still be regulated by duties. They would, he was
sure, accept these terms. If not, they must be compelled to obedience. The
Americans would certainly not have treated on his basis. Chatham had
repeatedly declared that it was impossible for us to conquer them; yet he
proposed that if his basis were rejected we should use coercion after putting
ourselves at a disadvantage by withdrawing our army. Still, as there were
many Americans besides the loyalists who would have welcomed
conciliation, and as the proposed French alliance was unpopular, it is just
possible that had Chatham himself been prime minister some way might
have been found which, while securing to America virtual independence
such as England's self-governing colonies now enjoy, might have prevented
the severance of the bond. On the other hand, the Rockingham party held
that we should prevent the alliance between France and America by
acknowledging American independence. This division between the two
sections of the opposition set them in hostile camps.
When people were convinced that the alliance was certain the nation
became uneasy, and a strong feeling prevailed, which was shared by some
of Chatham's opponents, that at such a crisis England needed him at the
head of affairs. In February, 1778, it was believed that he and Bute were
engaged on some scheme of coalition which might again put him in power.
The report was merely the outcome of the officious meddling of his
physician, Addington, and one of Bute's friends.[136] No one was more
anxious than North for a change of ministry. He begged the king in vain to
accept his resignation. On the 17th he brought in two bills for a scheme of
conciliation to which George had at last given his sanction. He proposed an
express repeal of the tea duty, the surrender of all taxation except for the
regulation of trade, and the appointment of commissioners to be sent to
America with full powers to put an end to hostilities, grant pardons, and
treat with congress on any terms short of independence. His proposals did
not materially differ from those made by Burke three years before. He
declared that he was not responsible for American taxation, that it was the
Page 215
work of his predecessors, and that he had always desired conciliation. He
was heard with general consternation: his own party felt that he was turning
his back on the policy which they had supported under his leadership; the
opposition, that he was, as it were, stealing their thunder. The bills were
carried and the king appointed the commissioners. They arrived in America
in June. Congress refused to listen to any offers short of independence; the
commissioners appealed to the American people, and their manifesto was
treated with contempt.
When the Franco-American alliance was announced,
North was urging the king to invite Chatham to take THE KING'S
office and to allow him to retire, and Shelburne was CONDUCT EXAMINED.
sounded as to the terms on which Chatham would come
in. He replied that he would insist on "an entire new cabinet". George, who
had unwillingly agreed to this negotiation, was prepared to accept any men
of talent with a view of strengthening the existing ministry, but not of
forming another in its place, or of changing its measures. He would not
commission Chatham or any opposition leader to form a new ministry: "no
advantage to this country nor personal danger to himself" would, he wrote
to North, induce him to do so; he would rather "lose his crown". "No
consideration in life," he wrote again, "shall make me stoop to the
opposition;" he would not give himself up "to bondage". His determination
has been pronounced equally criminal with the acts which brought Charles
I. to the scaffold.[137] According to our present ideas he should certainly
have been guided by the assurance of his first minister that the government
was unequal to the situation, have accepted his resignation, and allowed his
new ministers to act as they thought best. These duties, however, were not,
as we have seen, so clearly settled in those days. The prime minister of our
time was not then fully invented, and George's plan of personal government
through ministers was not yet rejected by the country. He could still rely on
the support of parliament. A proposal to request the king to dismiss his
ministers was defeated at that very time by 263 to 113 in the commons and
by 100 to 36 in the lords. Chatham's return to office would doubtless have
been hailed with satisfaction by the nation. Yet, though a change in public
sentiment with regard to the American war was beginning, and was soon to
spread rapidly, the king's policy was still popular with the larger part of his
subjects.[138] When therefore his conduct in March, 1778, is compared with
was heard with general consternation: his own party felt that he was turning
his back on the policy which they had supported under his leadership; the
opposition, that he was, as it were, stealing their thunder. The bills were
carried and the king appointed the commissioners. They arrived in America
in June. Congress refused to listen to any offers short of independence; the
commissioners appealed to the American people, and their manifesto was
treated with contempt.
When the Franco-American alliance was announced,
North was urging the king to invite Chatham to take THE KING'S
office and to allow him to retire, and Shelburne was CONDUCT EXAMINED.
sounded as to the terms on which Chatham would come
in. He replied that he would insist on "an entire new cabinet". George, who
had unwillingly agreed to this negotiation, was prepared to accept any men
of talent with a view of strengthening the existing ministry, but not of
forming another in its place, or of changing its measures. He would not
commission Chatham or any opposition leader to form a new ministry: "no
advantage to this country nor personal danger to himself" would, he wrote
to North, induce him to do so; he would rather "lose his crown". "No
consideration in life," he wrote again, "shall make me stoop to the
opposition;" he would not give himself up "to bondage". His determination
has been pronounced equally criminal with the acts which brought Charles
I. to the scaffold.[137] According to our present ideas he should certainly
have been guided by the assurance of his first minister that the government
was unequal to the situation, have accepted his resignation, and allowed his
new ministers to act as they thought best. These duties, however, were not,
as we have seen, so clearly settled in those days. The prime minister of our
time was not then fully invented, and George's plan of personal government
through ministers was not yet rejected by the country. He could still rely on
the support of parliament. A proposal to request the king to dismiss his
ministers was defeated at that very time by 263 to 113 in the commons and
by 100 to 36 in the lords. Chatham's return to office would doubtless have
been hailed with satisfaction by the nation. Yet, though a change in public
sentiment with regard to the American war was beginning, and was soon to
spread rapidly, the king's policy was still popular with the larger part of his
subjects.[138] When therefore his conduct in March, 1778, is compared with
Page 216
that of Charles I. it should be remembered that George had parliament and
the mass of the nation at his back.
The personal light in which he regarded the question is inexcusable. He had
been disappointed and deeply offended by Chatham's political conduct, and
he had cause to fear that a whig government would rob him of the power
which he loved. As a king he had no right to allow his private feelings to
affect his public action. That he did so was the result partly of his system of
personal rule, partly of serious defects in his character, his implacability of
temper, and his habit of regarding all things as they affected himself. North
struggled in vain against his determination, and gave way before it. It is a
mistake, however, to regard the king as solely responsible for the
continuance of the war. If he is to be blamed because, rather than submit to
the loss of the colonies, which nearly all men believed would be the end of
England's greatness and prosperity, he determined to carry on the struggle,
the blame must be shared by others. Had North been true to his convictions
George could not have formed another administration willing to act on the
same system. Had the majority of the commons refused to support the king,
the constitution afforded the means of over-ruling his will.[139]
Questions as to Chatham's return to power were soon to be brought to an
end. On April 7 he appeared in the lords after a severe attack of illness, and,
in faltering sentences, though with some remains of his peculiar fire,
protested against the surrender of the sovereignty of America, "the
dismemberment of this ancient and most glorious monarchy". He urged that
England should refuse to bow before the house of Bourbon; "if we fall let
us fall like men". Richmond answered him by dwelling on the expediency
of acknowledging American independence; otherwise, said he, "instead of
Great Britain and America against France and Spain, as in the last war, it
will now be France, Spain, and America against Great Britain". Chatham
rose to reply and fell back in a fit. He died on May 11. Parliament voted
him a public funeral, the stately statue which stands in Westminster Abbey,
£20,000 for the payment of his debts, and a perpetual pension of £4,000 a
year annexed to the earldom of Chatham. Throughout his long career he
was invariably courageous and self-reliant; his genius was bold, his
conceptions magnificent, his political purity unsullied. His rhetoric was
sublime. He did not excel in debate or in prepared speeches. His spirit
burned like fire, and his speeches were the outpourings of his heart in words
the mass of the nation at his back.
The personal light in which he regarded the question is inexcusable. He had
been disappointed and deeply offended by Chatham's political conduct, and
he had cause to fear that a whig government would rob him of the power
which he loved. As a king he had no right to allow his private feelings to
affect his public action. That he did so was the result partly of his system of
personal rule, partly of serious defects in his character, his implacability of
temper, and his habit of regarding all things as they affected himself. North
struggled in vain against his determination, and gave way before it. It is a
mistake, however, to regard the king as solely responsible for the
continuance of the war. If he is to be blamed because, rather than submit to
the loss of the colonies, which nearly all men believed would be the end of
England's greatness and prosperity, he determined to carry on the struggle,
the blame must be shared by others. Had North been true to his convictions
George could not have formed another administration willing to act on the
same system. Had the majority of the commons refused to support the king,
the constitution afforded the means of over-ruling his will.[139]
Questions as to Chatham's return to power were soon to be brought to an
end. On April 7 he appeared in the lords after a severe attack of illness, and,
in faltering sentences, though with some remains of his peculiar fire,
protested against the surrender of the sovereignty of America, "the
dismemberment of this ancient and most glorious monarchy". He urged that
England should refuse to bow before the house of Bourbon; "if we fall let
us fall like men". Richmond answered him by dwelling on the expediency
of acknowledging American independence; otherwise, said he, "instead of
Great Britain and America against France and Spain, as in the last war, it
will now be France, Spain, and America against Great Britain". Chatham
rose to reply and fell back in a fit. He died on May 11. Parliament voted
him a public funeral, the stately statue which stands in Westminster Abbey,
£20,000 for the payment of his debts, and a perpetual pension of £4,000 a
year annexed to the earldom of Chatham. Throughout his long career he
was invariably courageous and self-reliant; his genius was bold, his
conceptions magnificent, his political purity unsullied. His rhetoric was
sublime. He did not excel in debate or in prepared speeches. His spirit
burned like fire, and his speeches were the outpourings of his heart in words
Page 217
which, while they owed something to art, came spontaneously to his lips,
and were not less lofty than his thoughts. As a statesman he had serious
defects; he was haughty, vain, and overbearing, his opinions were unsettled,
his far-reaching views often nebulous; his passion was stronger than his
judgment, and he was immoderately given to bombast. In spite of his true
greatness he lacked simplicity, and he imported the arts of a charlatan into
political life. Yet Englishmen must ever reverence his memory, for he loved
England with all the ardour of his soul, and, as Richmond said as he praised
him to his face on the day that he was stricken for death, "he raised the
glory of the nation to a higher pitch than had been known at any former
period".
In 1778 the losses and expenses of the war and disappointment at its results
began to work a change in the feeling of the country. In parliament tories
sometimes voted with the opposition. North continued to strive in vain to be
released from office. He made some overtures to the opposition. Fox, in
spite of the violence of his attacks, was anxious for a coalition, which
would have given him office, though he held first that Germain only, and in
1779 that North himself and Sandwich, must be excluded.[140] He was
restrained by Rockingham, and North's efforts failed. The death of
Chatham, though it united the opposition, on the whole strengthened the
ministry, and in June, 1778, it gained in ability by the appointment of
Thurlow as chancellor and Wedderburn as attorney-general. Burgoyne, who
was unfairly treated by Germain, was defended by Fox, and on his return
joined the opposition. The struggle in parliament had a constitutional
importance not overlooked by either party. On the issue of the American
war, "the king's war" as it was called, depended the question whether
George would be able to establish his system of government by influence.
The opposition reckoned on failure in America, and hoped that, by exposing
the errors and corrupt practices of the government, they would so rouse
public feeling that, when the war ended in national humiliation, the king
would be forced to accept a minister imposed on him by his people. No
party can reckon on national humiliation as a means of attaining its ends,
however praiseworthy they may be, without serious consequences to its
own character. When England was in extreme peril, the opposition, and Fox
above all, magnified her losses, encouraged her enemies by exposing her
weakness, and, not content with insisting on the maladministration of the
and were not less lofty than his thoughts. As a statesman he had serious
defects; he was haughty, vain, and overbearing, his opinions were unsettled,
his far-reaching views often nebulous; his passion was stronger than his
judgment, and he was immoderately given to bombast. In spite of his true
greatness he lacked simplicity, and he imported the arts of a charlatan into
political life. Yet Englishmen must ever reverence his memory, for he loved
England with all the ardour of his soul, and, as Richmond said as he praised
him to his face on the day that he was stricken for death, "he raised the
glory of the nation to a higher pitch than had been known at any former
period".
In 1778 the losses and expenses of the war and disappointment at its results
began to work a change in the feeling of the country. In parliament tories
sometimes voted with the opposition. North continued to strive in vain to be
released from office. He made some overtures to the opposition. Fox, in
spite of the violence of his attacks, was anxious for a coalition, which
would have given him office, though he held first that Germain only, and in
1779 that North himself and Sandwich, must be excluded.[140] He was
restrained by Rockingham, and North's efforts failed. The death of
Chatham, though it united the opposition, on the whole strengthened the
ministry, and in June, 1778, it gained in ability by the appointment of
Thurlow as chancellor and Wedderburn as attorney-general. Burgoyne, who
was unfairly treated by Germain, was defended by Fox, and on his return
joined the opposition. The struggle in parliament had a constitutional
importance not overlooked by either party. On the issue of the American
war, "the king's war" as it was called, depended the question whether
George would be able to establish his system of government by influence.
The opposition reckoned on failure in America, and hoped that, by exposing
the errors and corrupt practices of the government, they would so rouse
public feeling that, when the war ended in national humiliation, the king
would be forced to accept a minister imposed on him by his people. No
party can reckon on national humiliation as a means of attaining its ends,
however praiseworthy they may be, without serious consequences to its
own character. When England was in extreme peril, the opposition, and Fox
above all, magnified her losses, encouraged her enemies by exposing her
weakness, and, not content with insisting on the maladministration of the
Page 218
government, cavilled at every measure proposed for the defence of her
empire. Their conduct irritated their fellow-countrymen, for the spirit of the
nation was roused by the intervention of France in the war with the
colonies.
Ample grounds existed for dissatisfaction with the
government. Unfortunately, this was specially the case ADMIRALTY
with respect to the navy. Its expenses had greatly ABUSES.
increased. During the eight years of the late war, 1755 to 1762, the money
spent upon it, exclusive of ordnance and votes for men, amounted to no
more than £3,390,000; during eight years of Sandwich's administration,
1771 to 1778, it was stated in parliament to have been £6,472,000.[141]
During the latter period there had been voted for repairing and building
ships £2,900,000, and for extra stores for them £600,000, in all £3,500,000,
enough, it was said, to build 100 men-of-war and as many frigates. Nothing
is so destructive to efficiency as corruption. Under Sandwich abuses of all
kinds flourished. Many existed before his time, and things grew worse
under him. When in 1778 the naval estimates for the year were laid before
the commons, it was stated that though £27,000 had been voted between
1771 and 1775 for the repair of the Dragon (74), and £10,273 for her stores,
the ship was lying untouched and rotting at Portsmouth, and so in various
degrees with other ships. In reply, Welbore Ellis, the treasurer of the navy,
said that though estimates were the usual way of raising money, the money
once raised was spent at the discretion of the admiralty. Indignant at this
amazing statement, Burke flung the smart book of estimates at the treasury
bench. Ships were built of foreign oak of an inferior kind and needed
constant repair; contracts were jobbed; stores were wasted, stolen, and sold.
The country paid for many more seamen than it got; for example, in
September, 1777, the number returned as victualled was 51,715, though the
seamen actually serving were only 47,407. Greenwich hospital, with a
revenue of £70,000, was a hot-bed of abuses.
What was the result of this corrupt system? How did our navy stand in 1778
in comparison with the navies of France, then at war with us, and Spain,
which was on the eve of joining against us? Choiseul's policy of naval
reform was steadily pursued, and in 1778 France had eighty ships of the
line in good order and 67,000 seamen. Spain followed the lead of France
and, when she entered the war in 1779, had about sixty ships of the line. In
empire. Their conduct irritated their fellow-countrymen, for the spirit of the
nation was roused by the intervention of France in the war with the
colonies.
Ample grounds existed for dissatisfaction with the
government. Unfortunately, this was specially the case ADMIRALTY
with respect to the navy. Its expenses had greatly ABUSES.
increased. During the eight years of the late war, 1755 to 1762, the money
spent upon it, exclusive of ordnance and votes for men, amounted to no
more than £3,390,000; during eight years of Sandwich's administration,
1771 to 1778, it was stated in parliament to have been £6,472,000.[141]
During the latter period there had been voted for repairing and building
ships £2,900,000, and for extra stores for them £600,000, in all £3,500,000,
enough, it was said, to build 100 men-of-war and as many frigates. Nothing
is so destructive to efficiency as corruption. Under Sandwich abuses of all
kinds flourished. Many existed before his time, and things grew worse
under him. When in 1778 the naval estimates for the year were laid before
the commons, it was stated that though £27,000 had been voted between
1771 and 1775 for the repair of the Dragon (74), and £10,273 for her stores,
the ship was lying untouched and rotting at Portsmouth, and so in various
degrees with other ships. In reply, Welbore Ellis, the treasurer of the navy,
said that though estimates were the usual way of raising money, the money
once raised was spent at the discretion of the admiralty. Indignant at this
amazing statement, Burke flung the smart book of estimates at the treasury
bench. Ships were built of foreign oak of an inferior kind and needed
constant repair; contracts were jobbed; stores were wasted, stolen, and sold.
The country paid for many more seamen than it got; for example, in
September, 1777, the number returned as victualled was 51,715, though the
seamen actually serving were only 47,407. Greenwich hospital, with a
revenue of £70,000, was a hot-bed of abuses.
What was the result of this corrupt system? How did our navy stand in 1778
in comparison with the navies of France, then at war with us, and Spain,
which was on the eve of joining against us? Choiseul's policy of naval
reform was steadily pursued, and in 1778 France had eighty ships of the
line in good order and 67,000 seamen. Spain followed the lead of France
and, when she entered the war in 1779, had about sixty ships of the line. In
Page 219
1778 we had 119 first, second, and third rates; of this number there were, on
Sandwich's showing, in November, 1777, excluding ships on foreign
service, only thirty-five manned and ready for sea, and seven which he said
were nearly ready, but some of the thirty-five were short of their full
complement of men, and there was a great scarcity of frigates. By July,
1778, the number ready was stated as forty-five. But when Keppel put to
sea in June, it was with difficulty that twenty-one could be got ready to sail
with him.[142]
Keppel, though an opponent of the government, was
appointed to command the "grand," or, as it was called BATTLE OFF
USHANT.
later, the channel fleet, apparently at the king's wish. On
July 27 he engaged the French fleet from Brest under Count d'Orvilliers,
westward of Ushant, both having thirty ships of the line. An indecisive
action took place, the two fleets passing each other on opposite tacks and
exchanging broadsides. Sir Hugh Palliser, the third in command and one of
the lords of the admiralty, was blamed for the resultless issue of the
engagement. A quarrel ensued between him and Keppel, which was made a
matter of party politics; the government upheld Palliser, the opposition
Keppel, and violent speeches were made in parliament. A court-martial in
1779 honourably acquitted Keppel of the charges which Palliser brought
against him, and he received the thanks of parliament. London was on his
side; the mob gutted Palliser's house and broke the windows of the
admiralty and of some official residences. Another court-martial acquitted
Palliser though with a slight censure. Keppel was annoyed by the position
taken up by the admiralty, notified his wish not to serve again under the
present ministry, and struck his flag. The rot of faction, which was infecting
political life, laid some hold on the navy. Other naval officers declared that
they would not serve under Sandwich; the spirit of insubordination affected
the seamen and symptoms of mutiny appeared in the channel fleet.
The intervention of France forced England to contract her operations in
America. The project of isolating the northern provinces was dropped, and
thenceforward her efforts were mainly directed towards the recovery of the
southern colonies, in order to secure their trade, and the suppression of
privateering expeditions from the New England coast. Howe was recalled at
his own request, and the chief command was given to Clinton, who was
ordered to withdraw from Philadelphia and concentrate upon New York,
Sandwich's showing, in November, 1777, excluding ships on foreign
service, only thirty-five manned and ready for sea, and seven which he said
were nearly ready, but some of the thirty-five were short of their full
complement of men, and there was a great scarcity of frigates. By July,
1778, the number ready was stated as forty-five. But when Keppel put to
sea in June, it was with difficulty that twenty-one could be got ready to sail
with him.[142]
Keppel, though an opponent of the government, was
appointed to command the "grand," or, as it was called BATTLE OFF
USHANT.
later, the channel fleet, apparently at the king's wish. On
July 27 he engaged the French fleet from Brest under Count d'Orvilliers,
westward of Ushant, both having thirty ships of the line. An indecisive
action took place, the two fleets passing each other on opposite tacks and
exchanging broadsides. Sir Hugh Palliser, the third in command and one of
the lords of the admiralty, was blamed for the resultless issue of the
engagement. A quarrel ensued between him and Keppel, which was made a
matter of party politics; the government upheld Palliser, the opposition
Keppel, and violent speeches were made in parliament. A court-martial in
1779 honourably acquitted Keppel of the charges which Palliser brought
against him, and he received the thanks of parliament. London was on his
side; the mob gutted Palliser's house and broke the windows of the
admiralty and of some official residences. Another court-martial acquitted
Palliser though with a slight censure. Keppel was annoyed by the position
taken up by the admiralty, notified his wish not to serve again under the
present ministry, and struck his flag. The rot of faction, which was infecting
political life, laid some hold on the navy. Other naval officers declared that
they would not serve under Sandwich; the spirit of insubordination affected
the seamen and symptoms of mutiny appeared in the channel fleet.
The intervention of France forced England to contract her operations in
America. The project of isolating the northern provinces was dropped, and
thenceforward her efforts were mainly directed towards the recovery of the
southern colonies, in order to secure their trade, and the suppression of
privateering expeditions from the New England coast. Howe was recalled at
his own request, and the chief command was given to Clinton, who was
ordered to withdraw from Philadelphia and concentrate upon New York,
Page 220
where a French attack was expected. Philadelphia was evacuated on June
18, 1778. Of its loyalist citizens 3,000 embarked for New York; those who
remained behind were harshly treated and two quaker gentlemen were
hanged for adhering to the enemy. As Clinton's army was marching through
New Jersey, the Americans tried to cut off his rear-guard near Monmouth,
but after an indecisive engagement failed in their attempt. Clinton reached
New York without further molestation, and soon afterwards Washington
encamped at White Plains. The Toulon fleet under Count d'Estaing arrived
off Sandy Hook on July 11, and Lord Howe with a far inferior force
prepared to defend the entrance to the port. While D'Estaing lay outside, the
wind rose; he was afraid to risk his ships by an attempt to cross the bar, and
sailed away southwards, for Washington persuaded him to attack Newport
in conjunction with an army under Sullivan. Lord Howe followed him, and
arrived at Point Judith on August 9, the day after the French ships passed
the batteries. D'Estaing stood out to sea to meet him. Howe's fleet, though
reinforced, was still much the weaker, but "Black Dick," as the sailors
called him, was master of his profession and out-manœuvred D'Estaing who
was a cavalry officer turned admiral. A storm dispersed both fleets and
D'Estaing, after collecting his ships, sailed off to Boston to refit. Sullivan
retreated and got away from Rhode Island a day before Clinton arrived with
4,000 men. Lord Howe soon afterwards resigned his command, declaring
that he would not serve again under the present ministers. D'Estaing sailed
from Boston to the West Indies, leaving the American populace furious at
his departure from Rhode Island.
Clinton was called upon to send 5,000 men to the West Indies, Washington
was badly supported by congress, and neither was in a position to act
against the other. Successful expeditions were made in the autumn against
the privateering haunts of the insurgents, Buzzard's bay, Martha's Vineyard,
and on the New Jersey coast; many ships were taken and much damage was
done. The western frontiers were raided by the tory troops of Johnson and
Butler and by our Indian allies. Shocking barbarities were committed,
specially in the Wyoming valley, where the prisoners were massacred by the
Indians, though there the women and children were spared, and at Cherry
Valley, where there was a general massacre during the attack. In 1779 the
Americans retaliated on the Indians with fearful severity, and cruelly wasted
the lands of the Senecas and Cayugas and the settlements in the Alleghany.
18, 1778. Of its loyalist citizens 3,000 embarked for New York; those who
remained behind were harshly treated and two quaker gentlemen were
hanged for adhering to the enemy. As Clinton's army was marching through
New Jersey, the Americans tried to cut off his rear-guard near Monmouth,
but after an indecisive engagement failed in their attempt. Clinton reached
New York without further molestation, and soon afterwards Washington
encamped at White Plains. The Toulon fleet under Count d'Estaing arrived
off Sandy Hook on July 11, and Lord Howe with a far inferior force
prepared to defend the entrance to the port. While D'Estaing lay outside, the
wind rose; he was afraid to risk his ships by an attempt to cross the bar, and
sailed away southwards, for Washington persuaded him to attack Newport
in conjunction with an army under Sullivan. Lord Howe followed him, and
arrived at Point Judith on August 9, the day after the French ships passed
the batteries. D'Estaing stood out to sea to meet him. Howe's fleet, though
reinforced, was still much the weaker, but "Black Dick," as the sailors
called him, was master of his profession and out-manœuvred D'Estaing who
was a cavalry officer turned admiral. A storm dispersed both fleets and
D'Estaing, after collecting his ships, sailed off to Boston to refit. Sullivan
retreated and got away from Rhode Island a day before Clinton arrived with
4,000 men. Lord Howe soon afterwards resigned his command, declaring
that he would not serve again under the present ministers. D'Estaing sailed
from Boston to the West Indies, leaving the American populace furious at
his departure from Rhode Island.
Clinton was called upon to send 5,000 men to the West Indies, Washington
was badly supported by congress, and neither was in a position to act
against the other. Successful expeditions were made in the autumn against
the privateering haunts of the insurgents, Buzzard's bay, Martha's Vineyard,
and on the New Jersey coast; many ships were taken and much damage was
done. The western frontiers were raided by the tory troops of Johnson and
Butler and by our Indian allies. Shocking barbarities were committed,
specially in the Wyoming valley, where the prisoners were massacred by the
Indians, though there the women and children were spared, and at Cherry
Valley, where there was a general massacre during the attack. In 1779 the
Americans retaliated on the Indians with fearful severity, and cruelly wasted
the lands of the Senecas and Cayugas and the settlements in the Alleghany.
Page 221
Neither the operations on the coast nor the border
fighting had any material influence on the progress of MISTAKEN NAVAL
the war. By the end of 1778, however, the war entered POLICY.
on a new and, as it proved, decisive phase; it became a struggle for the
southern provinces. In November Clinton sent a small force by sea under
Colonel Campbell to invade Georgia. Campbell routed the Americans and
took Savannah; and General Prevost, who joined him from Florida, easily
obtained possession of the province. Lincoln's attempt to regain it was
defeated at Briar creek on March 3, 1779, and Prevost penetrated into South
Carolina. He finally retired to Georgia, leaving a garrison at Port Royal,
which secured his access to the sea and gave him a footing in South
Carolina, as well as a base for covering Georgia. The campaign was a
promising opening of operations in the south.
When news of the outbreak of the war reached the West Indies, the French
governor of Martinique seized Dominica, while Admiral Barrington, in
command of a small squadron at Barbadoes, was waiting for orders. As
soon as Barrington received the reinforcements sent by Clinton, he attacked
St. Lucia. D'Estaing came over from America with a fleet of twice the size,
but failed to engage our ships closely, and, after some fighting on the island,
in which the French lost heavily, sailed off to Martinique. St. Lucia was
surrendered on December 29. Nothing further of importance took place in
those parts until the summer of 1779, when D'Estaing seized St. Vincent
while Byron, who was then in command, was engaged in guarding a
convoy. D'Estaing then sailed with all his fleet to Grenada and forced the
garrison to surrender. Byron, though encumbered by a number of transports
and with a smaller fleet, engaged him in the hope of relieving the island.
Some of Byron's ships suffered badly, and when he found that the garrison
had surrendered, he sailed off. D'Estaing did not press his advantage, for his
sole object was to secure his conquest, and only one transport ship was
taken. England was no longer supreme by sea. The fault lay not with her
admirals, who were still skilful, nor with her seamen, who were as bold as
ever. Her weakness was due to her government, which first allowed the
navy to fall into an inefficient condition and then adopted a wrong system
of naval warfare. She began the contest unprepared, and instead of
preventing the fleets of the enemy from reaching the ocean, had to fight in
distant parts with inferior forces. As the war went on strenuous efforts
fighting had any material influence on the progress of MISTAKEN NAVAL
the war. By the end of 1778, however, the war entered POLICY.
on a new and, as it proved, decisive phase; it became a struggle for the
southern provinces. In November Clinton sent a small force by sea under
Colonel Campbell to invade Georgia. Campbell routed the Americans and
took Savannah; and General Prevost, who joined him from Florida, easily
obtained possession of the province. Lincoln's attempt to regain it was
defeated at Briar creek on March 3, 1779, and Prevost penetrated into South
Carolina. He finally retired to Georgia, leaving a garrison at Port Royal,
which secured his access to the sea and gave him a footing in South
Carolina, as well as a base for covering Georgia. The campaign was a
promising opening of operations in the south.
When news of the outbreak of the war reached the West Indies, the French
governor of Martinique seized Dominica, while Admiral Barrington, in
command of a small squadron at Barbadoes, was waiting for orders. As
soon as Barrington received the reinforcements sent by Clinton, he attacked
St. Lucia. D'Estaing came over from America with a fleet of twice the size,
but failed to engage our ships closely, and, after some fighting on the island,
in which the French lost heavily, sailed off to Martinique. St. Lucia was
surrendered on December 29. Nothing further of importance took place in
those parts until the summer of 1779, when D'Estaing seized St. Vincent
while Byron, who was then in command, was engaged in guarding a
convoy. D'Estaing then sailed with all his fleet to Grenada and forced the
garrison to surrender. Byron, though encumbered by a number of transports
and with a smaller fleet, engaged him in the hope of relieving the island.
Some of Byron's ships suffered badly, and when he found that the garrison
had surrendered, he sailed off. D'Estaing did not press his advantage, for his
sole object was to secure his conquest, and only one transport ship was
taken. England was no longer supreme by sea. The fault lay not with her
admirals, who were still skilful, nor with her seamen, who were as bold as
ever. Her weakness was due to her government, which first allowed the
navy to fall into an inefficient condition and then adopted a wrong system
of naval warfare. She began the contest unprepared, and instead of
preventing the fleets of the enemy from reaching the ocean, had to fight in
distant parts with inferior forces. As the war went on strenuous efforts
Page 222
brought her navy to a higher pitch; yet she still neglected her first line of
defence, did not concentrate her forces off the ports of the enemy, and
strove to defend the distant parts of her empire with fleets of inadequate
strength.[143]
After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on
April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that
Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting
powers should invade England; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and
Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of the
English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain
desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that the two
fleets might have time to prepare for united action. England received the
news of the combination with spirit; volunteers enlisted for defence and
large sums were subscribed for raising troops, equipping privateers, and
other patriotic purposes. The Spaniards at once blockaded Gibraltar, then
under the command of General Eliott, and began that three years' siege
which is one of the most honourable incidents in our military history.
Though the home fleet, under the command of Sir Charles Hardy, lay in the
Bay of Biscay on the look out for the allied fleets, they effected a junction,
got between him and Plymouth, and in August sixty French and Spanish
ships of the line and a crowd of smaller vessels paraded before the town.
English pride was deeply wounded, and the landing of the enemy was daily
expected. But the vast fleet accomplished nothing save the capture of one
ship of the line. Its crews were wasted by sickness, and when a change of
wind enabled Hardy to enter the Channel, the enemy did not follow him
into its narrower waters and early in September left our shores.
The war was carried on in many parts of the world, and
was full of incidents which, as they had little or no effect VARIOUS
INCIDENTS OF
on its issue, must only be noticed briefly. In October, NAVAL WARFARE.
1778, Pondicherry was taken by the East India
Company's troops, and the French lost all their settlements in India. One of
them, Mahé, was claimed by Haidar as tributary to him, and its capture
afforded him a pretext for making war on us. He overran the Karnatic in
1780, defeated a British force, took Arcot, and reduced Madras to great
straits. In the spring of 1779 the French made a feeble attack on Jersey, and
were repulsed by the 78th regiment and the militia of the island. The British
defence, did not concentrate her forces off the ports of the enemy, and
strove to defend the distant parts of her empire with fleets of inadequate
strength.[143]
After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on
April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that
Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting
powers should invade England; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and
Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of the
English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain
desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that the two
fleets might have time to prepare for united action. England received the
news of the combination with spirit; volunteers enlisted for defence and
large sums were subscribed for raising troops, equipping privateers, and
other patriotic purposes. The Spaniards at once blockaded Gibraltar, then
under the command of General Eliott, and began that three years' siege
which is one of the most honourable incidents in our military history.
Though the home fleet, under the command of Sir Charles Hardy, lay in the
Bay of Biscay on the look out for the allied fleets, they effected a junction,
got between him and Plymouth, and in August sixty French and Spanish
ships of the line and a crowd of smaller vessels paraded before the town.
English pride was deeply wounded, and the landing of the enemy was daily
expected. But the vast fleet accomplished nothing save the capture of one
ship of the line. Its crews were wasted by sickness, and when a change of
wind enabled Hardy to enter the Channel, the enemy did not follow him
into its narrower waters and early in September left our shores.
The war was carried on in many parts of the world, and
was full of incidents which, as they had little or no effect VARIOUS
INCIDENTS OF
on its issue, must only be noticed briefly. In October, NAVAL WARFARE.
1778, Pondicherry was taken by the East India
Company's troops, and the French lost all their settlements in India. One of
them, Mahé, was claimed by Haidar as tributary to him, and its capture
afforded him a pretext for making war on us. He overran the Karnatic in
1780, defeated a British force, took Arcot, and reduced Madras to great
straits. In the spring of 1779 the French made a feeble attack on Jersey, and
were repulsed by the 78th regiment and the militia of the island. The British
Page 223
factories at Senegal were seized by the French, and Goree by the English.
The Spaniards expelled our logwood cutters from Honduras in August, and
about the same time the Spanish governor of Louisiana reduced West
Florida, which was thinly inhabited and almost undefended. The enemies of
England hoped to break her power by destroying her commerce, but it was
too large and various to be ruined by casual losses, and too carefully
protected to incur a series of them. While the trade of France with the West
Indies was almost ruined, the English Jamaica fleet reached home in safety
a few days after the enemy left the Channel. Privateers and king's ships did
so much damage to the commerce of France and Spain in 1779 that it was
held to counterbalance the loss of St. Vincent and Grenada. American
cruisers were still troublesome. Paul Jones, a Scottish sailor, who held a
commission from congress, infested the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, and
in 1779 received a ship from the French government, which he called the
Bonhomme Richard. With her and four smaller vessels he sailed from Brest,
and fell in with the homeward-bound Baltic fleet convoyed by the Serapis,
Captain Pearson, and a sloop of war. Pearson engaged the Bonhomme
Richard, and after a desperate fight the two English ships were forced to
strike. His gallant conduct saved the convoy, and the Bonhomme Richard
was so severely mauled that she sank the next day. The Americans suffered
at least as heavily as the English from this desultory warfare, and their
privateering ventures were checked by operations on their coast.
While Washington was encamped in the high lands north of New York,
guarding his position by forts on the Hudson, and specially by the
fortification of West Point, Clinton took two posts which commanded the
passage of the river, and, in conjunction with Admiral Sir George Collier,
distressed the enemy by various expeditions. The New England coast was
thoroughly scoured by Collier's squadron, some towns on the Chesapeake
were invaded, a great quantity of stores seized, and about a hundred and
twenty vessels taken or destroyed. Partly in the vain hope of drawing
Washington down from his position, and partly in order to cut off one of the
main sources of his supply, a force from New York was landed in
Connecticut, some towns on the coast were destroyed, and stores and
shipping burnt or carried off. Further operations there were stopped by an
expedition from Boston against a British post established in Penobscot bay,
to check the incursions of the enemy into Nova Scotia. As soon as Collier
The Spaniards expelled our logwood cutters from Honduras in August, and
about the same time the Spanish governor of Louisiana reduced West
Florida, which was thinly inhabited and almost undefended. The enemies of
England hoped to break her power by destroying her commerce, but it was
too large and various to be ruined by casual losses, and too carefully
protected to incur a series of them. While the trade of France with the West
Indies was almost ruined, the English Jamaica fleet reached home in safety
a few days after the enemy left the Channel. Privateers and king's ships did
so much damage to the commerce of France and Spain in 1779 that it was
held to counterbalance the loss of St. Vincent and Grenada. American
cruisers were still troublesome. Paul Jones, a Scottish sailor, who held a
commission from congress, infested the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, and
in 1779 received a ship from the French government, which he called the
Bonhomme Richard. With her and four smaller vessels he sailed from Brest,
and fell in with the homeward-bound Baltic fleet convoyed by the Serapis,
Captain Pearson, and a sloop of war. Pearson engaged the Bonhomme
Richard, and after a desperate fight the two English ships were forced to
strike. His gallant conduct saved the convoy, and the Bonhomme Richard
was so severely mauled that she sank the next day. The Americans suffered
at least as heavily as the English from this desultory warfare, and their
privateering ventures were checked by operations on their coast.
While Washington was encamped in the high lands north of New York,
guarding his position by forts on the Hudson, and specially by the
fortification of West Point, Clinton took two posts which commanded the
passage of the river, and, in conjunction with Admiral Sir George Collier,
distressed the enemy by various expeditions. The New England coast was
thoroughly scoured by Collier's squadron, some towns on the Chesapeake
were invaded, a great quantity of stores seized, and about a hundred and
twenty vessels taken or destroyed. Partly in the vain hope of drawing
Washington down from his position, and partly in order to cut off one of the
main sources of his supply, a force from New York was landed in
Connecticut, some towns on the coast were destroyed, and stores and
shipping burnt or carried off. Further operations there were stopped by an
expedition from Boston against a British post established in Penobscot bay,
to check the incursions of the enemy into Nova Scotia. As soon as Collier
Page 224
appeared in the Penobscot river the Americans burnt most of their ships; he
captured the rest, and the whole naval force of Massachusetts was
destroyed.
In the autumn Lincoln persuaded D'Estaing to bring his fleet from the West
Indies and join him in driving the British out of Georgia. The French and
Americans, about 10,000 strong, laid siege to Savannah, which was
defended by Prevost with a force of only 2,500 men. An assault was made
on the place on October 9, and was repulsed with heavy loss. The siege was
abandoned; D'Estaing with most of his ships sailed for France, and the
American army retreated into South Carolina. D'Estaing's arrival on the
coast warned Clinton of the necessity for concentration, and he ordered the
evacuation of Rhode Island. When the French fleet had departed he
prepared to attack Charleston, and on February 11, 1780, landed his army
on the coast of South Carolina. The town, which was defended by Lincoln,
was besieged on April 1, and surrendered on May 12. More than 5,000
prisoners were taken, including seven general officers, besides about 1,000
French and American seamen, 400 guns, and the whole naval force in the
harbour. Cornwallis obtained further successes in the province; South
Carolina was cleared of the enemy, and the inhabitants generally professed
submission. After striking this great blow Clinton was forced to return to
New York, for a French fleet was bringing over troops to act with
Washington, and Cornwallis was left with only 4,000 regulars, besides
provincials, to carry on the war in the south.
By the end of 1779 the garrison of Gibraltar was reduced
to great straits. The West India command had lately been FIGHTING IN
LINE OF BATTLE.
given to Rodney, already a distinguished officer and
destined to take a high place among England's sea-captains. Before he
proceeded to his station he sailed with a large convoy for Gibraltar and
Minorca. On his way he captured a Spanish convoy, sent the sixty-four-gun
ship which protected it to England with the merchandise, and carried the
provisions destined for the besiegers off Gibraltar to the besieged garrison.
Off Cape St. Vincent he came on a Spanish squadron of inferior strength
under the command of Don Juan de Lángara, cut the Spaniards off from
Cadiz, took six of their ships, and destroyed another. He carried out the
relief of Gibraltar and on February 13 sailed for the West Indies, where
Count de Guichen was commanding in place of D'Estaing. Down to this
captured the rest, and the whole naval force of Massachusetts was
destroyed.
In the autumn Lincoln persuaded D'Estaing to bring his fleet from the West
Indies and join him in driving the British out of Georgia. The French and
Americans, about 10,000 strong, laid siege to Savannah, which was
defended by Prevost with a force of only 2,500 men. An assault was made
on the place on October 9, and was repulsed with heavy loss. The siege was
abandoned; D'Estaing with most of his ships sailed for France, and the
American army retreated into South Carolina. D'Estaing's arrival on the
coast warned Clinton of the necessity for concentration, and he ordered the
evacuation of Rhode Island. When the French fleet had departed he
prepared to attack Charleston, and on February 11, 1780, landed his army
on the coast of South Carolina. The town, which was defended by Lincoln,
was besieged on April 1, and surrendered on May 12. More than 5,000
prisoners were taken, including seven general officers, besides about 1,000
French and American seamen, 400 guns, and the whole naval force in the
harbour. Cornwallis obtained further successes in the province; South
Carolina was cleared of the enemy, and the inhabitants generally professed
submission. After striking this great blow Clinton was forced to return to
New York, for a French fleet was bringing over troops to act with
Washington, and Cornwallis was left with only 4,000 regulars, besides
provincials, to carry on the war in the south.
By the end of 1779 the garrison of Gibraltar was reduced
to great straits. The West India command had lately been FIGHTING IN
LINE OF BATTLE.
given to Rodney, already a distinguished officer and
destined to take a high place among England's sea-captains. Before he
proceeded to his station he sailed with a large convoy for Gibraltar and
Minorca. On his way he captured a Spanish convoy, sent the sixty-four-gun
ship which protected it to England with the merchandise, and carried the
provisions destined for the besiegers off Gibraltar to the besieged garrison.
Off Cape St. Vincent he came on a Spanish squadron of inferior strength
under the command of Don Juan de Lángara, cut the Spaniards off from
Cadiz, took six of their ships, and destroyed another. He carried out the
relief of Gibraltar and on February 13 sailed for the West Indies, where
Count de Guichen was commanding in place of D'Estaing. Down to this
Page 225
time the naval battles of the century had generally been inconclusive,
except when one fleet was much stronger than the other. Admirals kept
strictly to the formation known as the line of battle in which one ship
followed another in regular order. If both the admirals of opposing fleets
were willing to bring matters to a decided issue, the fleet to windward
would attack, and the ships go at one another at close quarters all along the
line. English admirals, with sufficient force, always hoped to bring this
about. They were seldom successful, for the French admirals were
unwilling to fight at close quarters, not because they were afraid to meet the
British, but partly because they generally had some other object in view
than the destruction of the enemy's fleet, some conquest to make or some
place to protect, and partly because the French having fewer ships were
indisposed to make free use of them in battle. Accordingly a French admiral
preferred the leeward position. This enabled him to avoid a decisive action,
for when a British fleet bore down on him, he could cripple our leading
ships in their rigging, and then break off the action by running before the
wind.
Rodney made the destruction of the enemy's fleet his first aim. There was
only one way of accomplishing it. That was by deserting the old system of
fighting in line, van to van, centre to centre, rear to rear. He sighted
Guichen's fleet on April 16 as it was sailing northwards and well to leeward
of Dominica. Guichen was convoying merchantmen, and intended
ultimately to attack Barbadoes. The two fleets were nearly of equal
strength. Rodney gained the windward position, and engaged the next
morning. He planned to bring the whole of his force to bear on the French
centre and rear. After much manœuvring the opportunity came.
Unfortunately his captains, accustomed to the old routine, did not
understand his signal. His well-devised plan was defeated and the battle
was as inconclusive as its predecessors. Rodney was bitterly disappointed,
for a decisive victory seemed within his grasp.[144] He considered that some
of his captains did not behave with sufficient promptitude and set himself to
bring his fleet to a high pitch of efficiency. Guichen was joined by a
Spanish fleet which gave him a great numerical superiority. It was no profit
to him; the Spanish ships were hot-beds of disease and he had to convoy
them to San Domingo. Then he sailed off for France with the larger part of
his force. By that time the hurricane season was at hand and Rodney
except when one fleet was much stronger than the other. Admirals kept
strictly to the formation known as the line of battle in which one ship
followed another in regular order. If both the admirals of opposing fleets
were willing to bring matters to a decided issue, the fleet to windward
would attack, and the ships go at one another at close quarters all along the
line. English admirals, with sufficient force, always hoped to bring this
about. They were seldom successful, for the French admirals were
unwilling to fight at close quarters, not because they were afraid to meet the
British, but partly because they generally had some other object in view
than the destruction of the enemy's fleet, some conquest to make or some
place to protect, and partly because the French having fewer ships were
indisposed to make free use of them in battle. Accordingly a French admiral
preferred the leeward position. This enabled him to avoid a decisive action,
for when a British fleet bore down on him, he could cripple our leading
ships in their rigging, and then break off the action by running before the
wind.
Rodney made the destruction of the enemy's fleet his first aim. There was
only one way of accomplishing it. That was by deserting the old system of
fighting in line, van to van, centre to centre, rear to rear. He sighted
Guichen's fleet on April 16 as it was sailing northwards and well to leeward
of Dominica. Guichen was convoying merchantmen, and intended
ultimately to attack Barbadoes. The two fleets were nearly of equal
strength. Rodney gained the windward position, and engaged the next
morning. He planned to bring the whole of his force to bear on the French
centre and rear. After much manœuvring the opportunity came.
Unfortunately his captains, accustomed to the old routine, did not
understand his signal. His well-devised plan was defeated and the battle
was as inconclusive as its predecessors. Rodney was bitterly disappointed,
for a decisive victory seemed within his grasp.[144] He considered that some
of his captains did not behave with sufficient promptitude and set himself to
bring his fleet to a high pitch of efficiency. Guichen was joined by a
Spanish fleet which gave him a great numerical superiority. It was no profit
to him; the Spanish ships were hot-beds of disease and he had to convoy
them to San Domingo. Then he sailed off for France with the larger part of
his force. By that time the hurricane season was at hand and Rodney
Page 226
divided his fleet, leaving about half in the West Indies, and sailing with the
remainder to New York, where he arrived on September 12. England had
full command of the sea in the American waters, and Rodney did little there
and, unfortunately, as we shall see in our next chapter, less than he might
have done. At New York his squadron escaped the hurricane which swept
over the West Indies on October 10. As Rodney was a tory his distinguished
services were peculiarly gratifying to the king and the government. He was
created a Knight of the Bath and received a pension with remainder to his
children.
The war brought Ireland an opportunity for insisting on
a redress of grievances. By 1773 the prodigality of RESTRAINTS ON
IRISH TRADE.
government raised the national expenditure far above the
revenue. Lord Harcourt, the viceroy, recommended a tax of 10 per cent. on
the rents of absentees. The proposal was popular in Ireland, and North was
willing to agree to it. The great Irish landlords of the Rockingham party
were strongly opposed to the tax, and Burke argued that it would hinder
Irishmen from taking part in the political life of Great Britain and would
imply that England was a foreign land. A strong feeling against the tax was
excited in England. North gave way and, in obedience to instructions,
Harcourt procured the rejection of the bill. The grievances of the country
increased. The American war was unpopular with the presbyterians, the
peace and safety of the land were imperilled by the withdrawal of its troops,
its finances were burdened by pensions and by grants for the war, and the
public debt which in 1770 was £669,230, entailing a charge of £26,631,
stood in 1778 at £939,323, with a charge of £82,711. The restrictions on
Irish trade were rendered specially grievous by the war. An embargo laid on
the export of provisions from Ireland ruined her trade in cattle. Debarred
from the woollen manufacture in the interest of English industry, she had
been encouraged to manufacture linen, and her trade in linen prospered. The
war with America deprived her of her principal market. The restraints
placed upon her commerce with England brought her into close commercial
connexion with France, and that source of profit was also cut off in 1778.
Many of her people were driven abroad by want; and the poor who
remained were only kept alive by charity.
In 1778 proposals were made in the English parliament to relax the
restrictions on Irish trade. North approved of the proposals, and they were
remainder to New York, where he arrived on September 12. England had
full command of the sea in the American waters, and Rodney did little there
and, unfortunately, as we shall see in our next chapter, less than he might
have done. At New York his squadron escaped the hurricane which swept
over the West Indies on October 10. As Rodney was a tory his distinguished
services were peculiarly gratifying to the king and the government. He was
created a Knight of the Bath and received a pension with remainder to his
children.
The war brought Ireland an opportunity for insisting on
a redress of grievances. By 1773 the prodigality of RESTRAINTS ON
IRISH TRADE.
government raised the national expenditure far above the
revenue. Lord Harcourt, the viceroy, recommended a tax of 10 per cent. on
the rents of absentees. The proposal was popular in Ireland, and North was
willing to agree to it. The great Irish landlords of the Rockingham party
were strongly opposed to the tax, and Burke argued that it would hinder
Irishmen from taking part in the political life of Great Britain and would
imply that England was a foreign land. A strong feeling against the tax was
excited in England. North gave way and, in obedience to instructions,
Harcourt procured the rejection of the bill. The grievances of the country
increased. The American war was unpopular with the presbyterians, the
peace and safety of the land were imperilled by the withdrawal of its troops,
its finances were burdened by pensions and by grants for the war, and the
public debt which in 1770 was £669,230, entailing a charge of £26,631,
stood in 1778 at £939,323, with a charge of £82,711. The restrictions on
Irish trade were rendered specially grievous by the war. An embargo laid on
the export of provisions from Ireland ruined her trade in cattle. Debarred
from the woollen manufacture in the interest of English industry, she had
been encouraged to manufacture linen, and her trade in linen prospered. The
war with America deprived her of her principal market. The restraints
placed upon her commerce with England brought her into close commercial
connexion with France, and that source of profit was also cut off in 1778.
Many of her people were driven abroad by want; and the poor who
remained were only kept alive by charity.
In 1778 proposals were made in the English parliament to relax the
restrictions on Irish trade. North approved of the proposals, and they were
Page 227
powerfully supported by Burke. Liverpool, Bristol, and other English
manufacturing towns protested loudly against admitting Ireland to compete
with them. North yielded to pressure, and the supporters of the bills were
forced to accept a measure which was wholly insufficient to satisfy the
needs of the Irish. The disappointment in Ireland was bitter. Something,
however, was gained; the system of restriction was no longer intact. The
same year saw the beginning of a relaxation of the penal code. Common
wrongs and common aspirations helped to subdue religious animosity. The
cause of the catholics was urged in the Irish Parliament by the splendid
oratory of Henry Grattan. A bill was passed enabling them to take leases for
999 years and, except in the case of converts, to inherit land as freely as
protestants. The law was no longer to offer an inducement to a man to
abandon his father's faith for the sake of gain; it was no longer to put the
estate of a catholic father under the power of a professedly protestant son.
The failure of the attempt to obtain relief from commercial restrictions
taught the Irish that England would not sacrifice her own interests to relieve
their distress, and that they must help themselves. Following the example of
the Americans, they formed associations for non-importation. These
associations showed the English manufacturers that Ireland could retaliate
upon them. England was, however, forced to concession by another means.
The assent of the Irish parliament to England's proposal that drafts should
be sent to the war from the 12,000 men who should have been kept for the
defence of the country, reduced the number of troops in Ireland to less than
5,000. The coasts were infested by privateers and a French invasion was
expected. England had no troops to spare and her fleets were fully engaged.
Abandoned by government, the Irish protestants took up arms to defend
their own country. The Duke of Leinster and Lord Charlemont threw
themselves eagerly into the movement, which was supported by the
majority of the Irish gentry, catholics as well as protestants; though for
some time the catholics did not volunteer because they were disqualified
from bearing arms. Before long 42,000 volunteers were learning military
discipline, arms were purchased and officers chosen. The Irish government
regarded the movement with uneasiness, but took advantage of it as a
protection against invasion, and distributed 16,000 stands of arms among
the corps. The volunteers, while thoroughly loyal, adopted a distinctly
national policy. England was in difficulties and could not withstand the
manufacturing towns protested loudly against admitting Ireland to compete
with them. North yielded to pressure, and the supporters of the bills were
forced to accept a measure which was wholly insufficient to satisfy the
needs of the Irish. The disappointment in Ireland was bitter. Something,
however, was gained; the system of restriction was no longer intact. The
same year saw the beginning of a relaxation of the penal code. Common
wrongs and common aspirations helped to subdue religious animosity. The
cause of the catholics was urged in the Irish Parliament by the splendid
oratory of Henry Grattan. A bill was passed enabling them to take leases for
999 years and, except in the case of converts, to inherit land as freely as
protestants. The law was no longer to offer an inducement to a man to
abandon his father's faith for the sake of gain; it was no longer to put the
estate of a catholic father under the power of a professedly protestant son.
The failure of the attempt to obtain relief from commercial restrictions
taught the Irish that England would not sacrifice her own interests to relieve
their distress, and that they must help themselves. Following the example of
the Americans, they formed associations for non-importation. These
associations showed the English manufacturers that Ireland could retaliate
upon them. England was, however, forced to concession by another means.
The assent of the Irish parliament to England's proposal that drafts should
be sent to the war from the 12,000 men who should have been kept for the
defence of the country, reduced the number of troops in Ireland to less than
5,000. The coasts were infested by privateers and a French invasion was
expected. England had no troops to spare and her fleets were fully engaged.
Abandoned by government, the Irish protestants took up arms to defend
their own country. The Duke of Leinster and Lord Charlemont threw
themselves eagerly into the movement, which was supported by the
majority of the Irish gentry, catholics as well as protestants; though for
some time the catholics did not volunteer because they were disqualified
from bearing arms. Before long 42,000 volunteers were learning military
discipline, arms were purchased and officers chosen. The Irish government
regarded the movement with uneasiness, but took advantage of it as a
protection against invasion, and distributed 16,000 stands of arms among
the corps. The volunteers, while thoroughly loyal, adopted a distinctly
national policy. England was in difficulties and could not withstand the
Page 228
demands of so powerful a body. In the session of 1779-80 parliament, at
North's instance, abandoned the system of restriction on Ireland's trade;
threw open to her trade with the colonies and repealed the acts restraining
the exportation of her woollens and glass. About the same time the
influence of the volunteers procured the assent of government to a bill
releasing Irish dissenters from the sacramental test. Great as these gains
were, Irish aspirations reached further. On April 19, 1780, Grattan proposed
a declaration of legislative independence. For that the Irish parliament was
not ready. Lord Buckinghamshire, the viceroy, secured support by lavish
promises of recommendations for peerages and other good things, and
parliament deserted the popular cause. In December, Buckinghamshire was
succeeded by Lord Carlisle.
During 1779 North's government lost ground; the
ministers were known to be divided in opinion, and AGITATION FOR
various parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of the ECONOMICAL
REFORM.
war revealed much maladministration. Even the king
said that Germain was "of no use in his department," and Fox's vote of
censure on the admiralty was supported by a minority of 170. Some
changes in the ministry failed to strengthen it. In 1778 Jenkinson succeeded
Barrington as secretary at war; he lived to prove himself a man of ability,
but in his new office he, like his predecessor, had merely to carry out the
orders of others. Gower, a strong advocate of American coercion in 1775,
changed his opinions, resigned the presidentship of the council in
November, 1779, and made a violent attack on the government. He was
succeeded by Lord Bathurst the ex-chancellor. Suffolk died and was
succeeded as southern secretary by Lord Stormont, and Weymouth, the
northern secretary, by Hillsborough. North still urged the king to accept his
resignation. George, conscious of the shortcomings of the ministry, gave
Thurlow authority to treat with Shelburne, as head of the Chatham party,
with a view to the formation of a strong administration, composed of men
of different parties, to be formed without North, and independently of the
existing ministry. Grafton persuaded Shelburne not to act apart from the
Rockingham whigs. The united opposition would have insisted on a
complete change of measures as well as of men, which would have implied
the surrender of America. To this George would not consent, and North was
again persuaded to remain in office. On the meeting of parliament in
North's instance, abandoned the system of restriction on Ireland's trade;
threw open to her trade with the colonies and repealed the acts restraining
the exportation of her woollens and glass. About the same time the
influence of the volunteers procured the assent of government to a bill
releasing Irish dissenters from the sacramental test. Great as these gains
were, Irish aspirations reached further. On April 19, 1780, Grattan proposed
a declaration of legislative independence. For that the Irish parliament was
not ready. Lord Buckinghamshire, the viceroy, secured support by lavish
promises of recommendations for peerages and other good things, and
parliament deserted the popular cause. In December, Buckinghamshire was
succeeded by Lord Carlisle.
During 1779 North's government lost ground; the
ministers were known to be divided in opinion, and AGITATION FOR
various parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of the ECONOMICAL
REFORM.
war revealed much maladministration. Even the king
said that Germain was "of no use in his department," and Fox's vote of
censure on the admiralty was supported by a minority of 170. Some
changes in the ministry failed to strengthen it. In 1778 Jenkinson succeeded
Barrington as secretary at war; he lived to prove himself a man of ability,
but in his new office he, like his predecessor, had merely to carry out the
orders of others. Gower, a strong advocate of American coercion in 1775,
changed his opinions, resigned the presidentship of the council in
November, 1779, and made a violent attack on the government. He was
succeeded by Lord Bathurst the ex-chancellor. Suffolk died and was
succeeded as southern secretary by Lord Stormont, and Weymouth, the
northern secretary, by Hillsborough. North still urged the king to accept his
resignation. George, conscious of the shortcomings of the ministry, gave
Thurlow authority to treat with Shelburne, as head of the Chatham party,
with a view to the formation of a strong administration, composed of men
of different parties, to be formed without North, and independently of the
existing ministry. Grafton persuaded Shelburne not to act apart from the
Rockingham whigs. The united opposition would have insisted on a
complete change of measures as well as of men, which would have implied
the surrender of America. To this George would not consent, and North was
again persuaded to remain in office. On the meeting of parliament in
Page 229
November, 1779, the ministers carried the address by 233 to 134, a majority
which bore out the assertion of the king's speech that parliament was with
him, and the speech added "my people at large".
Yet though the declaration of war by Spain called forth a loyal address,
unanimously voted by the commons, assuring the king of their help against
the Americans, many held that it would be well to withdraw the troops from
America and use the whole strength of the country against its foreign
enemies. The expenses of the war were heavy; additions were made to the
public debt of £6,000,000 in 1778, of £7,000,000 in 1779, and of
£12,000,000 in 1780, and many new taxes were imposed. At the same time
large sums were expended on maintaining useless offices, a crowd of
pensioners, and other abuses, the means by which the king kept his hold on
parliament. The whigs determined to take advantage of the demands made
on the nation to strike at the root of that corrupt influence by insisting on
public economy. The attack was begun unsuccessfully in the lords by
Richmond and Shelburne, and in December Burke gave notice that he
would lay a plan of economical reform before the commons. The whigs
sought to bring pressure to bear on parliament by an appeal to the people
and met with a ready response. A county meeting at York, presided over by
Sir George Savile, sent a petition to the commons for public economy, and
formed an association to promote that object and the restoration of the
independence of parliament. Twenty-five other counties and some cities and
towns sent similar petitions and most of them formed associations. On
February 11, 1780, Burke introduced his plan in a speech of remarkable
ability. He proposed a reform of the king's civil establishment, the abolition
of a crowd of court offices, a reform of certain public departments, the
limitation of pensions, the sale of the crown lands, and the abolition of the
jurisdictions of Wales, Cornwall, Chester, and Lancaster. His bills were
destroyed piecemeal in committee, and the only result of his scheme which,
if fully carried out, would, he calculated, have saved the nation over
£1,000,000 a year, was the abolition of the board of trade.
Meanwhile a sharp struggle went on in the commons. A proposal for an
account of patent places was agreed to, but another for submitting a list of
pensions was lost by two votes. A crowded meeting was held at
Westminster on April 5 and was addressed by Fox who, with vehement
eloquence, recommended annual parliaments and an addition of 100 county
which bore out the assertion of the king's speech that parliament was with
him, and the speech added "my people at large".
Yet though the declaration of war by Spain called forth a loyal address,
unanimously voted by the commons, assuring the king of their help against
the Americans, many held that it would be well to withdraw the troops from
America and use the whole strength of the country against its foreign
enemies. The expenses of the war were heavy; additions were made to the
public debt of £6,000,000 in 1778, of £7,000,000 in 1779, and of
£12,000,000 in 1780, and many new taxes were imposed. At the same time
large sums were expended on maintaining useless offices, a crowd of
pensioners, and other abuses, the means by which the king kept his hold on
parliament. The whigs determined to take advantage of the demands made
on the nation to strike at the root of that corrupt influence by insisting on
public economy. The attack was begun unsuccessfully in the lords by
Richmond and Shelburne, and in December Burke gave notice that he
would lay a plan of economical reform before the commons. The whigs
sought to bring pressure to bear on parliament by an appeal to the people
and met with a ready response. A county meeting at York, presided over by
Sir George Savile, sent a petition to the commons for public economy, and
formed an association to promote that object and the restoration of the
independence of parliament. Twenty-five other counties and some cities and
towns sent similar petitions and most of them formed associations. On
February 11, 1780, Burke introduced his plan in a speech of remarkable
ability. He proposed a reform of the king's civil establishment, the abolition
of a crowd of court offices, a reform of certain public departments, the
limitation of pensions, the sale of the crown lands, and the abolition of the
jurisdictions of Wales, Cornwall, Chester, and Lancaster. His bills were
destroyed piecemeal in committee, and the only result of his scheme which,
if fully carried out, would, he calculated, have saved the nation over
£1,000,000 a year, was the abolition of the board of trade.
Meanwhile a sharp struggle went on in the commons. A proposal for an
account of patent places was agreed to, but another for submitting a list of
pensions was lost by two votes. A crowded meeting was held at
Westminster on April 5 and was addressed by Fox who, with vehement
eloquence, recommended annual parliaments and an addition of 100 county
Page 230
members as a means of freeing parliament from the influence of the crown.
Government apprehended an attempt to overawe parliament and stationed
soldiers in the neighbourhood of Westminster Hall. This step enraged the
opposition, and on the 6th Dunning proposed a resolution in the commons
that "the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be
diminished". This resolution was carried, with a trifling addition, by 233 to
215, and another that the house was competent to correct abuses in the civil
list was adopted without a division. On the 10th, however, a resolution that
certain officers of the household should be disqualified from sitting in the
house of commons was carried by two only. So far did pressure from
without combined with the near prospect of a general election carry the
commons, but the majority did not desire reform and would go no further
than general resolutions. An address to the king, praying that he would not
dissolve nor prorogue parliament until measures had been taken to diminish
the influence of the crown, was rejected by a majority of fifty-one. The
struggle was over, and Fox vented his rage and disappointment in a speech
of unmeasured invective. Throughout the session much heated language
was used in parliament, and both Shelburne and Fox fought duels in
consequence of words uttered by them in debate. On June 2 Richmond,
ultra-democratic as a democratic noble is wont to be, specially on questions
not affecting his own order, was urging annual parliaments and manhood
suffrage on the lords when he was interrupted by an outbreak of mob
violence, a bitter answer to his arguments.
The earlier half of the reign saw an increase in religious
tolerance. Though the whig movement for relieving THE GORDON
RIOTS.
dissenting ministers from subscription to the articles was
defeated by the lords in 1772 and 1773, a bill supported by both parties
granted them relief in 1779, the year in which the Irish dissenters were
relieved from the test act. The whigs, as we have seen with reference to the
Quebec act, were opposed to any measure of relief being granted to Roman
catholics, who were by law liable to cruel oppression. The judges, indeed,
and specially the great chief-justice, Mansfield, did all they could to
mitigate the rigour of the law, yet catholics lived in insecurity, and so late as
1767 a priest was condemned to imprisonment for life, and was actually
imprisoned for four years, for exercising his office. Whig prejudices gave
way, and in 1778 Sir George Savile brought in a bill enabling catholics who
Government apprehended an attempt to overawe parliament and stationed
soldiers in the neighbourhood of Westminster Hall. This step enraged the
opposition, and on the 6th Dunning proposed a resolution in the commons
that "the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be
diminished". This resolution was carried, with a trifling addition, by 233 to
215, and another that the house was competent to correct abuses in the civil
list was adopted without a division. On the 10th, however, a resolution that
certain officers of the household should be disqualified from sitting in the
house of commons was carried by two only. So far did pressure from
without combined with the near prospect of a general election carry the
commons, but the majority did not desire reform and would go no further
than general resolutions. An address to the king, praying that he would not
dissolve nor prorogue parliament until measures had been taken to diminish
the influence of the crown, was rejected by a majority of fifty-one. The
struggle was over, and Fox vented his rage and disappointment in a speech
of unmeasured invective. Throughout the session much heated language
was used in parliament, and both Shelburne and Fox fought duels in
consequence of words uttered by them in debate. On June 2 Richmond,
ultra-democratic as a democratic noble is wont to be, specially on questions
not affecting his own order, was urging annual parliaments and manhood
suffrage on the lords when he was interrupted by an outbreak of mob
violence, a bitter answer to his arguments.
The earlier half of the reign saw an increase in religious
tolerance. Though the whig movement for relieving THE GORDON
RIOTS.
dissenting ministers from subscription to the articles was
defeated by the lords in 1772 and 1773, a bill supported by both parties
granted them relief in 1779, the year in which the Irish dissenters were
relieved from the test act. The whigs, as we have seen with reference to the
Quebec act, were opposed to any measure of relief being granted to Roman
catholics, who were by law liable to cruel oppression. The judges, indeed,
and specially the great chief-justice, Mansfield, did all they could to
mitigate the rigour of the law, yet catholics lived in insecurity, and so late as
1767 a priest was condemned to imprisonment for life, and was actually
imprisoned for four years, for exercising his office. Whig prejudices gave
way, and in 1778 Sir George Savile brought in a bill enabling catholics who
Page 231
abjured the temporal jurisdiction of the pope to purchase and inherit land,
and freeing their priests from liability to imprisonment. The bill, which only
affected England, was passed without a division in either house, and the
government proposed to bring in a like bill for Scotland the next year.
Violent protestant riots took place in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and such
strong feeling was generally manifested in Scotland against the proposed
measure that it was abandoned. The relief act excited discontent in England,
and protestant fanatics, encouraged by the success of their party in
Scotland, agitated for its repeal. A protestant association was formed, a
crack-brained member of parliament, Lord George Gordon, was made
president, and a petition for the repeal of the act was signed by nearly
120,000 persons.
On June 2, 1780, some 60,000 persons marched under Gordon's leadership
to Westminster with their monster petition. They violently assaulted many
peers and compelled members of both houses to cry No popery! and to put
blue cockades in their hats. Gordon addressed them, and named Burke and
other members as specially hostile to their cause. The commons refused to
give the petition immediate consideration; the lobbies were thronged by the
mob, and North sent for the lifeguards to protect parliament. On their
arrival the mob left palace-yard and partially destroyed the chapels of the
Sardinian embassy in Duke street, Lincoln's inn Fields and the Bavarian
embassy in Warwick street, Golden square. The next day was fairly quiet,
but on Sunday, the 4th, finding that no measures were taken to enforce
order, they sacked other catholic chapels and some houses. By Monday the
riots assumed a more dangerous character; the mob passed out of the
leadership of religious fanatics and was bent on plunder and destruction.
East of Charing Cross London was almost at its mercy. There was no
efficient police force; military officers and soldiers had learnt the risk they
would incur by firing on a mob without the order of the civil power, and the
magistrates were for the most part timid and inactive. Wilkes was an
honourable exception, and showed courage and firmness in dealing with the
rioters. Virtually unchecked, the mob sacked chapels and houses, plundered
shops, and burnt Savile's furniture before his door. During the next two days
Newgate was partly burnt and the prison broken open, the other principal
prisons either destroyed or damaged and the prisoners set at liberty. Some
magistrates' houses were plundered and burnt. Mansfield's house in
and freeing their priests from liability to imprisonment. The bill, which only
affected England, was passed without a division in either house, and the
government proposed to bring in a like bill for Scotland the next year.
Violent protestant riots took place in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and such
strong feeling was generally manifested in Scotland against the proposed
measure that it was abandoned. The relief act excited discontent in England,
and protestant fanatics, encouraged by the success of their party in
Scotland, agitated for its repeal. A protestant association was formed, a
crack-brained member of parliament, Lord George Gordon, was made
president, and a petition for the repeal of the act was signed by nearly
120,000 persons.
On June 2, 1780, some 60,000 persons marched under Gordon's leadership
to Westminster with their monster petition. They violently assaulted many
peers and compelled members of both houses to cry No popery! and to put
blue cockades in their hats. Gordon addressed them, and named Burke and
other members as specially hostile to their cause. The commons refused to
give the petition immediate consideration; the lobbies were thronged by the
mob, and North sent for the lifeguards to protect parliament. On their
arrival the mob left palace-yard and partially destroyed the chapels of the
Sardinian embassy in Duke street, Lincoln's inn Fields and the Bavarian
embassy in Warwick street, Golden square. The next day was fairly quiet,
but on Sunday, the 4th, finding that no measures were taken to enforce
order, they sacked other catholic chapels and some houses. By Monday the
riots assumed a more dangerous character; the mob passed out of the
leadership of religious fanatics and was bent on plunder and destruction.
East of Charing Cross London was almost at its mercy. There was no
efficient police force; military officers and soldiers had learnt the risk they
would incur by firing on a mob without the order of the civil power, and the
magistrates were for the most part timid and inactive. Wilkes was an
honourable exception, and showed courage and firmness in dealing with the
rioters. Virtually unchecked, the mob sacked chapels and houses, plundered
shops, and burnt Savile's furniture before his door. During the next two days
Newgate was partly burnt and the prison broken open, the other principal
prisons either destroyed or damaged and the prisoners set at liberty. Some
magistrates' houses were plundered and burnt. Mansfield's house in
Page 232
Bloomsbury square was sacked and his splendid library, pictures, plate, and
furniture destroyed. By Wednesday night thirty-six fires were blazing in
different parts; volumes of flame were rising from the King's bench and
Fleet prisons, the new Bridewell, and the toll gates on Blackfriars bridge,
and the lower end of Holborn was burning fiercely. A great distillery in
Holborn was wrecked; men and women killed themselves by drinking the
unrectified spirits which were brought into the streets, and others who were
drunk perished in the flames or were buried in the ruins. Attacks were made
on the Bank of England and the Pay Office. Both were guarded by soldiers,
and the rioters were repulsed with heavy loss.
By that time the general paralysis of authority was ended
by the king's personal intervention. As his ministers THE KING'S
seemed afraid of incurring responsibility, George PERSONAL INTERVENTION.
summoned a meeting of the council by special command
on Wednesday morning. Finding that the council hesitated to recommend
the employment of troops, he said that if they would not give him advice he
would act without it, and that he could answer for one magistrate who
would do his duty. He bade Wedderburn, the attorney-general, declare the
law on the subject. Wedderburn replied that the king in council could order
soldiers to suppress a riot without the authority of a magistrate. George at
once ordered the military to act, and by Thursday morning the riots were
quelled. Seventy-two houses and four gaols had been destroyed. Of the
rioters, 285 were reported as killed and 173 wounded, but many more lost
their lives during the riots. The trials of the rioters were conducted with
moderation; of the 139 who were tried, fifty-nine were capitally convicted,
and of these only twenty-one were executed. The Surrey prisoners were
tried before Wedderburn, who was made chief-justice of the common pleas
and created Lord Loughborough. Lord George Gordon was acquitted; he
was imprisoned for a libel in 1787, and died in Newgate after having
become a jew. When the lords, who adjourned on the 6th, again assembled,
the great jurist Mansfield, who in his seventy-sixth year retained his
mastery of constitutional law and his facility of expression, authoritatively
declared that soldiers equally with civil persons might, and if required by a
magistrate must, assist in suppressing riots and preventing acts of treason
and felony, and that the red coat of a soldier neither disqualified him from
performing the duty of a citizen nor would protect him if he transgressed it.
furniture destroyed. By Wednesday night thirty-six fires were blazing in
different parts; volumes of flame were rising from the King's bench and
Fleet prisons, the new Bridewell, and the toll gates on Blackfriars bridge,
and the lower end of Holborn was burning fiercely. A great distillery in
Holborn was wrecked; men and women killed themselves by drinking the
unrectified spirits which were brought into the streets, and others who were
drunk perished in the flames or were buried in the ruins. Attacks were made
on the Bank of England and the Pay Office. Both were guarded by soldiers,
and the rioters were repulsed with heavy loss.
By that time the general paralysis of authority was ended
by the king's personal intervention. As his ministers THE KING'S
seemed afraid of incurring responsibility, George PERSONAL INTERVENTION.
summoned a meeting of the council by special command
on Wednesday morning. Finding that the council hesitated to recommend
the employment of troops, he said that if they would not give him advice he
would act without it, and that he could answer for one magistrate who
would do his duty. He bade Wedderburn, the attorney-general, declare the
law on the subject. Wedderburn replied that the king in council could order
soldiers to suppress a riot without the authority of a magistrate. George at
once ordered the military to act, and by Thursday morning the riots were
quelled. Seventy-two houses and four gaols had been destroyed. Of the
rioters, 285 were reported as killed and 173 wounded, but many more lost
their lives during the riots. The trials of the rioters were conducted with
moderation; of the 139 who were tried, fifty-nine were capitally convicted,
and of these only twenty-one were executed. The Surrey prisoners were
tried before Wedderburn, who was made chief-justice of the common pleas
and created Lord Loughborough. Lord George Gordon was acquitted; he
was imprisoned for a libel in 1787, and died in Newgate after having
become a jew. When the lords, who adjourned on the 6th, again assembled,
the great jurist Mansfield, who in his seventy-sixth year retained his
mastery of constitutional law and his facility of expression, authoritatively
declared that soldiers equally with civil persons might, and if required by a
magistrate must, assist in suppressing riots and preventing acts of treason
and felony, and that the red coat of a soldier neither disqualified him from
performing the duty of a citizen nor would protect him if he transgressed it.
Page 233
The riots seem to have improved the position of the government, for the
appeal to popular feeling and the formation of associations by which the
whigs brought pressure on parliament were discredited by them, and for the
moment common danger allayed political animosity.
FOOTNOTES:
[135] Parl. Hist., xix., 368-70, 409, 411, 509-12.
[136] The Bute Transaction, MSS. Pitt Papers 14; Stanhope, History, vi., 213.
[137] Lecky, History, iv., 83.
[138] Rockingham to Chatham, Jan. 21, 1778, Chatham Corr., iv., 488; Burke to
Rockingham, Nov. 5, 1777, Works, ii., 357.
[139] Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 211-12; Sir G. C. Lewis, Administrations of
Great Britain, p. 16.
[140] Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 180, 306-23.
[141] These figures present a difficulty. The votes 1771-78 appear to have been,
for ordinary expenses £3,303,233, for 'extraordinaries' £2,232,694 = £5,535,927.
Clowes, Royal Navy, iii., 327.
[142] On this subject generally see Parl. Hist., xix., 728-30, 818-34, 874-95, xx.,
204-38, 372 sqq.; Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 337-41; MS. Admiralty
Miscell., 567, R.O.; Keppel, Life of Keppel, ii., 15, 19, 21.
[143] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 421 sqq., 523 sqq.
[144] Hannay, Rodney, pp. 117-31; Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 378-81.
appeal to popular feeling and the formation of associations by which the
whigs brought pressure on parliament were discredited by them, and for the
moment common danger allayed political animosity.
FOOTNOTES:
[135] Parl. Hist., xix., 368-70, 409, 411, 509-12.
[136] The Bute Transaction, MSS. Pitt Papers 14; Stanhope, History, vi., 213.
[137] Lecky, History, iv., 83.
[138] Rockingham to Chatham, Jan. 21, 1778, Chatham Corr., iv., 488; Burke to
Rockingham, Nov. 5, 1777, Works, ii., 357.
[139] Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 211-12; Sir G. C. Lewis, Administrations of
Great Britain, p. 16.
[140] Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 180, 306-23.
[141] These figures present a difficulty. The votes 1771-78 appear to have been,
for ordinary expenses £3,303,233, for 'extraordinaries' £2,232,694 = £5,535,927.
Clowes, Royal Navy, iii., 327.
[142] On this subject generally see Parl. Hist., xix., 728-30, 818-34, 874-95, xx.,
204-38, 372 sqq.; Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 337-41; MS. Admiralty
Miscell., 567, R.O.; Keppel, Life of Keppel, ii., 15, 19, 21.
[143] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 421 sqq., 523 sqq.
[144] Hannay, Rodney, pp. 117-31; Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 378-81.
Page 234
CHAPTER XI.
YORKTOWN AND THE KING'S DEFEAT.
In 1780 England's enemies increased in number and her isolation was
complete. From early times all belligerent nations subjected to capture the
goods of an enemy in neutral ships. This usage was interrupted only by
treaties. It was specially disliked by the Dutch, as great carriers by sea, and
they made many treaties with different powers, stipulating that goods
carried in their ships, not being contraband, should be free. In 1778 France,
in order to injure England, declared its adoption of the principle that neutral
ships made neutral goods. The lesser Baltic nations, which largely exported
naval material, were anxious to protect their commerce from England,
specially as she was rigorous in her view with regard to contraband goods;
and they looked to Russia to help them. Frederick of Prussia, always eager
to do England a bad turn, used his influence with the Empress Catherine in
the cause of the freedom of commerce in neutral ships, and was supported
by her minister, Panin. Catherine, though not unfriendly towards England,
yielded to his representations, and in March, 1780, notified England,
France, and Spain that, while in other respects she would maintain strict
neutrality, she would enforce by her fleets four propositions: (1) that neutral
ships may freely sail from port to port of a belligerent nation; (2) that goods
carried by them, not being contraband, should be free from seizure; (3) that
only certain specified goods were contraband; and (4) that no blockade
should be recognised which was not effectual. France, Spain, and the
Americans at once accepted these propositions; Denmark, Sweden, Prussia,
and the Emperor joined the league of "armed neutrality" in the course of the
year, and the accession of Holland was only prevented by its becoming a
belligerent. England did not accept these new rules, which were detrimental
to her as a naval power. The alliance isolated her, threatened to increase the
number of her enemies, and forced her to be cautious in her dealings with
neutral ships. War with the Baltic powers would have ruined her, for since
the American revolt she was dependent on these countries for timber and
other naval stores. Happily, Catherine was by no means inclined to quarrel
with her.
YORKTOWN AND THE KING'S DEFEAT.
In 1780 England's enemies increased in number and her isolation was
complete. From early times all belligerent nations subjected to capture the
goods of an enemy in neutral ships. This usage was interrupted only by
treaties. It was specially disliked by the Dutch, as great carriers by sea, and
they made many treaties with different powers, stipulating that goods
carried in their ships, not being contraband, should be free. In 1778 France,
in order to injure England, declared its adoption of the principle that neutral
ships made neutral goods. The lesser Baltic nations, which largely exported
naval material, were anxious to protect their commerce from England,
specially as she was rigorous in her view with regard to contraband goods;
and they looked to Russia to help them. Frederick of Prussia, always eager
to do England a bad turn, used his influence with the Empress Catherine in
the cause of the freedom of commerce in neutral ships, and was supported
by her minister, Panin. Catherine, though not unfriendly towards England,
yielded to his representations, and in March, 1780, notified England,
France, and Spain that, while in other respects she would maintain strict
neutrality, she would enforce by her fleets four propositions: (1) that neutral
ships may freely sail from port to port of a belligerent nation; (2) that goods
carried by them, not being contraband, should be free from seizure; (3) that
only certain specified goods were contraband; and (4) that no blockade
should be recognised which was not effectual. France, Spain, and the
Americans at once accepted these propositions; Denmark, Sweden, Prussia,
and the Emperor joined the league of "armed neutrality" in the course of the
year, and the accession of Holland was only prevented by its becoming a
belligerent. England did not accept these new rules, which were detrimental
to her as a naval power. The alliance isolated her, threatened to increase the
number of her enemies, and forced her to be cautious in her dealings with
neutral ships. War with the Baltic powers would have ruined her, for since
the American revolt she was dependent on these countries for timber and
other naval stores. Happily, Catherine was by no means inclined to quarrel
with her.
Page 235
The Dutch complained that England violated a treaty
made with them in 1674, which provided that either THE QUARREL
WITH HOLLAND.
power should hold all goods conveyed in the ships of the
other, not being contraband, as free from liability of seizure, and that either
should be free to trade with the enemies of the other. Many Dutch ships
were searched and their cargoes seized by English ships, in some cases
lawfully, because they were carrying contraband of war, in others merely
because they were carrying French goods or were trading with our enemies.
England contended that the treaty of 1674 was superseded by the treaties of
1678 and 1716, which provided that, when either power was attacked, the
other should come to its aid; and that, though the aid of the Dutch was not
demanded, they were at least bound to abstain from helping her enemies.
The Dutch, however, supplied the Americans with vast quantities of naval
and military stores, supplied naval stores also to France and Spain, and
allowed American privateers, and notably Paul Jones, to refit and equip
their ships and to sell their prizes in Dutch ports. The British ambassador,
Sir Joseph Yorke, remonstrated strongly against these unfriendly acts on the
part of a nation in close alliance with his sovereign. He could gain no
satisfaction; for though the party of the stadholder was anxious to keep on
friendly terms, the pensionary and the city of Amsterdam were violently
opposed to England, and the merchants generally were on their side. Late in
1779 a fleet of Dutch merchantmen, laden with timber and naval stores for
France, and sailing under the convoy of an admiral, was met by an English
squadron. The Dutch fired on the boats sent to search their ships; the
English returned the fire, captured some of the ships, and brought them into
Spithead. Bitter complaints were made on both sides, and the Dutch,
encouraged by the declaration of the armed neutrality and the influence of
France and Prussia, showed no inclination to yield to Yorke's
remonstrances.
At last England had an opportunity of putting an end to this course of
unacknowledged hostility. In October, 1780, a British frigate captured an
American packet which was carrying Laurens, lately president of congress,
as ambassador to Holland. He threw his papers overboard, but a British
seaman promptly went after them and brought them back. Among them was
a draft of a proposed treaty of commerce and amity between Holland and
the United States of America, signed by the pensionary of Amsterdam and
made with them in 1674, which provided that either THE QUARREL
WITH HOLLAND.
power should hold all goods conveyed in the ships of the
other, not being contraband, as free from liability of seizure, and that either
should be free to trade with the enemies of the other. Many Dutch ships
were searched and their cargoes seized by English ships, in some cases
lawfully, because they were carrying contraband of war, in others merely
because they were carrying French goods or were trading with our enemies.
England contended that the treaty of 1674 was superseded by the treaties of
1678 and 1716, which provided that, when either power was attacked, the
other should come to its aid; and that, though the aid of the Dutch was not
demanded, they were at least bound to abstain from helping her enemies.
The Dutch, however, supplied the Americans with vast quantities of naval
and military stores, supplied naval stores also to France and Spain, and
allowed American privateers, and notably Paul Jones, to refit and equip
their ships and to sell their prizes in Dutch ports. The British ambassador,
Sir Joseph Yorke, remonstrated strongly against these unfriendly acts on the
part of a nation in close alliance with his sovereign. He could gain no
satisfaction; for though the party of the stadholder was anxious to keep on
friendly terms, the pensionary and the city of Amsterdam were violently
opposed to England, and the merchants generally were on their side. Late in
1779 a fleet of Dutch merchantmen, laden with timber and naval stores for
France, and sailing under the convoy of an admiral, was met by an English
squadron. The Dutch fired on the boats sent to search their ships; the
English returned the fire, captured some of the ships, and brought them into
Spithead. Bitter complaints were made on both sides, and the Dutch,
encouraged by the declaration of the armed neutrality and the influence of
France and Prussia, showed no inclination to yield to Yorke's
remonstrances.
At last England had an opportunity of putting an end to this course of
unacknowledged hostility. In October, 1780, a British frigate captured an
American packet which was carrying Laurens, lately president of congress,
as ambassador to Holland. He threw his papers overboard, but a British
seaman promptly went after them and brought them back. Among them was
a draft of a proposed treaty of commerce and amity between Holland and
the United States of America, signed by the pensionary of Amsterdam and
Page 236
Lee, an American envoy, in September, 1778, when Holland was bound by
treaty to a close alliance with Great Britain. England demanded a disavowal
of the treaty and the punishment of the pensionary. The states-general voted
to join the armed neutrality and, while disavowing the treaty, did not
proceed against the pensionary. England declared war on December 20. The
opposition maintained that the government had behaved arrogantly and was
actuated by a desire for plunder, and that it was unjust to found a war on a
mere proposal emanating from the magistracy of a single city and not
confirmed by the states-general. Yet, if the conduct of Holland is viewed as
a whole, it will be found to justify the course pursued by the government.
England, then, in addition to the war with her rebellious colonies, had to
meet the forces of France, Spain, and Holland. Nevertheless, the new
accession to the number of her foes was of no detriment to her, for the
Dutch were no longer powerful: it was better to have them open enemies
than treacherous friends; England's geographical position enabled her to
prevent their fleet from joining those of her other enemies, and their
commerce and colonies fell an easy prey to her ships.
The recovery of Gibraltar was the principal object for
which Spain fought. During some negotiations for peace DEFENCE OF
carried on by unaccredited British agents in 1780, the GIBRALTAR.
Spanish minister, Florida Blanca, avowed that for the sake of Gibraltar his
master would "break the family compact and every other engagement with
France". Germain was willing that the question should be discussed, but
North forbade the British agents to let the word Gibraltar pass their lips, and
Stormont declared that the map of Spain's empire contained no equivalent
for it, so the negotiations were ineffectual.[145] The Spaniards made
strenuous efforts to take the fortress. On the night of June 6 they delivered a
sudden attack on the small squadron in the harbour with fire-ships and a
crowd of boats. They were foiled by the valour of the British seamen who,
under a heavy fire, grappled the blazing ships and towed them ashore.
Again Eliott found himself in urgent need of supplies; food and ammunition
alike ran short, and early in 1781 it became evident that the place would
have to be surrendered unless it was speedily relieved. Admiral Darby, then
in command of the channel fleet, took out a convoy with supplies. The
French were occupied with their own schemes of conquest, the Spanish
fleet did not dare to meet him, and the relief was accomplished on April 12.
treaty to a close alliance with Great Britain. England demanded a disavowal
of the treaty and the punishment of the pensionary. The states-general voted
to join the armed neutrality and, while disavowing the treaty, did not
proceed against the pensionary. England declared war on December 20. The
opposition maintained that the government had behaved arrogantly and was
actuated by a desire for plunder, and that it was unjust to found a war on a
mere proposal emanating from the magistracy of a single city and not
confirmed by the states-general. Yet, if the conduct of Holland is viewed as
a whole, it will be found to justify the course pursued by the government.
England, then, in addition to the war with her rebellious colonies, had to
meet the forces of France, Spain, and Holland. Nevertheless, the new
accession to the number of her foes was of no detriment to her, for the
Dutch were no longer powerful: it was better to have them open enemies
than treacherous friends; England's geographical position enabled her to
prevent their fleet from joining those of her other enemies, and their
commerce and colonies fell an easy prey to her ships.
The recovery of Gibraltar was the principal object for
which Spain fought. During some negotiations for peace DEFENCE OF
carried on by unaccredited British agents in 1780, the GIBRALTAR.
Spanish minister, Florida Blanca, avowed that for the sake of Gibraltar his
master would "break the family compact and every other engagement with
France". Germain was willing that the question should be discussed, but
North forbade the British agents to let the word Gibraltar pass their lips, and
Stormont declared that the map of Spain's empire contained no equivalent
for it, so the negotiations were ineffectual.[145] The Spaniards made
strenuous efforts to take the fortress. On the night of June 6 they delivered a
sudden attack on the small squadron in the harbour with fire-ships and a
crowd of boats. They were foiled by the valour of the British seamen who,
under a heavy fire, grappled the blazing ships and towed them ashore.
Again Eliott found himself in urgent need of supplies; food and ammunition
alike ran short, and early in 1781 it became evident that the place would
have to be surrendered unless it was speedily relieved. Admiral Darby, then
in command of the channel fleet, took out a convoy with supplies. The
French were occupied with their own schemes of conquest, the Spanish
fleet did not dare to meet him, and the relief was accomplished on April 12.
Page 237
The Spaniards then tried to reduce the place by a continuous bombardment,
and between the 10th of that month and the end of June threw into it 75,000
shot and 25,000 shells. At first Eliott replied even more fiercely; but, always
careful of his ammunition, he relaxed his fire on finding that the Spanish
bombardment did him small harm, for though the town was virtually
destroyed, the garrison lost only fifty-three killed and 260 wounded, and the
fortifications were not seriously damaged. While Spain was thus foiled in
her principal effort, she completed the reduction of West Florida, and her
ships increased the risks which attended the commerce of England. In
August, 1780, a fleet of East and West Indiamen, convoyed by Captain
Moutray, was attacked by the combined fleets of France and Spain, under
Don Luis de Córdova; fifty-five were taken and brought into Cadiz harbour,
at a loss to Great Britain of about £2,000,000, besides 1,800 soldiers who
were on their way to India.
Near home the enemies of England accomplished little. In January about
800 French soldiers landed in Jersey and surprised St. Heliers. The island
was saved by Major Pierson of the 95th, gallantly supported by such troops
and militia as he could gather at once. All the invaders were either killed or
taken prisoners, but Pierson fell at the moment of victory. In July the
combined fleets of France and Spain convoyed 14,000 troops on their way
to Minorca, where they besieged Fort St. Philip, which held out until the
next year. They then sailed, forty-nine ships of the line, into the mouth of
the Channel and cruised about on the look-out for convoys. Darby lay in
Torbay with thirty ships of the line, and they did not dare to attack him;
many of their ships were unseaworthy, and in September the fleets for a
second time retreated from the Channel without accomplishing anything.
Meanwhile the Dutch were rendered incapable of acting with them. As
Admiral Hyde Parker, in command of a squadron, was convoying the Baltic
trade homeward on August 5, he met with a Dutch squadron on the Dogger
Bank convoying their trade to the north. The two squadrons were nominally
nearly equal, but several of the English ships were in bad condition. There
was no manœuvring; both sides went at it in the old fashion, fighting ship
with ship all along the line. Both squadrons were desperately hammered,
and at last parted without definite result. The Dutch loss in men was heavy;
one of their best ships was sunk and two others totally ruined. They became
little more than spectators of the war, and their possessions in the East,
and between the 10th of that month and the end of June threw into it 75,000
shot and 25,000 shells. At first Eliott replied even more fiercely; but, always
careful of his ammunition, he relaxed his fire on finding that the Spanish
bombardment did him small harm, for though the town was virtually
destroyed, the garrison lost only fifty-three killed and 260 wounded, and the
fortifications were not seriously damaged. While Spain was thus foiled in
her principal effort, she completed the reduction of West Florida, and her
ships increased the risks which attended the commerce of England. In
August, 1780, a fleet of East and West Indiamen, convoyed by Captain
Moutray, was attacked by the combined fleets of France and Spain, under
Don Luis de Córdova; fifty-five were taken and brought into Cadiz harbour,
at a loss to Great Britain of about £2,000,000, besides 1,800 soldiers who
were on their way to India.
Near home the enemies of England accomplished little. In January about
800 French soldiers landed in Jersey and surprised St. Heliers. The island
was saved by Major Pierson of the 95th, gallantly supported by such troops
and militia as he could gather at once. All the invaders were either killed or
taken prisoners, but Pierson fell at the moment of victory. In July the
combined fleets of France and Spain convoyed 14,000 troops on their way
to Minorca, where they besieged Fort St. Philip, which held out until the
next year. They then sailed, forty-nine ships of the line, into the mouth of
the Channel and cruised about on the look-out for convoys. Darby lay in
Torbay with thirty ships of the line, and they did not dare to attack him;
many of their ships were unseaworthy, and in September the fleets for a
second time retreated from the Channel without accomplishing anything.
Meanwhile the Dutch were rendered incapable of acting with them. As
Admiral Hyde Parker, in command of a squadron, was convoying the Baltic
trade homeward on August 5, he met with a Dutch squadron on the Dogger
Bank convoying their trade to the north. The two squadrons were nominally
nearly equal, but several of the English ships were in bad condition. There
was no manœuvring; both sides went at it in the old fashion, fighting ship
with ship all along the line. Both squadrons were desperately hammered,
and at last parted without definite result. The Dutch loss in men was heavy;
one of their best ships was sunk and two others totally ruined. They became
little more than spectators of the war, and their possessions in the East,
Page 238
Sumatra, Negapatam, and Trincomali, fell into the hands of the English.
Parker was furious with Sandwich for sending him out with an insufficient
and badly found force. George went down to the Nore and visited his ship
in the hope of appeasing him, but the old admiral insisted on resigning his
command, and when pressed to remain, bluntly told the king that he wished
him "younger men and newer ships".
The temporary success of the opposition in the spring of
1780 showed the king that he could no longer reckon THE NEW
PARLIAMENT.
with certainty on the support of the house of commons.
On September 1 he suddenly dissolved the parliament elected in 1774, and
writs were issued for a new parliament to meet on October 31. The
suddenness of the dissolution and the shortness of the time allowed for the
new elections were held to operate in favour of the court. Nor did George
neglect other means of securing his authority, for he told North that the
general election cost at least twice as much as any other since his accession.
[146]
Rodney headed the poll for Westminster, but Fox secured the second
seat, defeating a ministerial candidate. Bristol, doubly offended by Burke's
efforts on behalf of Irish trade and catholic relief, rejected him as its
member, and he was provided with a seat by Rockingham. Windsor refused
to re-elect Keppel, and it is asserted that George so far forgot his position as
to go into the shop of a silk-mercer of the borough, and say in his hurried
way: "The queen wants a gown, wants a gown. No Keppel! No Keppel!"
[147]
Among the new members were Sheridan, the dramatist, and manager
and part-owner of Drury lane theatre, one of Fox's friends, who became
famous as an orator, and William Pitt, the second son of the great Chatham,
who was returned for Appleby on Sir James Lowther's nomination in
January, 1781, when he was in his twenty-second year. From early youth
Pitt showed signs of a remarkable genius which was carefully cultivated by
his father. Conscious of his ability, he was reserved in manner, though he
was warmly attached to his intimate friends and talked freely with them. He
lived wholly for the service of his country, and took no part in the pleasures
or vices of his contemporaries, save that he habitually drank far too much
port wine. He joined the opposition, and ranged himself with his father's old
followers who acted under Shelburne's leadership. On all questions of
importance he spoke with lofty eloquence, and his speeches, often splendid
as oratory, had the surpassing excellence of appealing to his hearers by
Parker was furious with Sandwich for sending him out with an insufficient
and badly found force. George went down to the Nore and visited his ship
in the hope of appeasing him, but the old admiral insisted on resigning his
command, and when pressed to remain, bluntly told the king that he wished
him "younger men and newer ships".
The temporary success of the opposition in the spring of
1780 showed the king that he could no longer reckon THE NEW
PARLIAMENT.
with certainty on the support of the house of commons.
On September 1 he suddenly dissolved the parliament elected in 1774, and
writs were issued for a new parliament to meet on October 31. The
suddenness of the dissolution and the shortness of the time allowed for the
new elections were held to operate in favour of the court. Nor did George
neglect other means of securing his authority, for he told North that the
general election cost at least twice as much as any other since his accession.
[146]
Rodney headed the poll for Westminster, but Fox secured the second
seat, defeating a ministerial candidate. Bristol, doubly offended by Burke's
efforts on behalf of Irish trade and catholic relief, rejected him as its
member, and he was provided with a seat by Rockingham. Windsor refused
to re-elect Keppel, and it is asserted that George so far forgot his position as
to go into the shop of a silk-mercer of the borough, and say in his hurried
way: "The queen wants a gown, wants a gown. No Keppel! No Keppel!"
[147]
Among the new members were Sheridan, the dramatist, and manager
and part-owner of Drury lane theatre, one of Fox's friends, who became
famous as an orator, and William Pitt, the second son of the great Chatham,
who was returned for Appleby on Sir James Lowther's nomination in
January, 1781, when he was in his twenty-second year. From early youth
Pitt showed signs of a remarkable genius which was carefully cultivated by
his father. Conscious of his ability, he was reserved in manner, though he
was warmly attached to his intimate friends and talked freely with them. He
lived wholly for the service of his country, and took no part in the pleasures
or vices of his contemporaries, save that he habitually drank far too much
port wine. He joined the opposition, and ranged himself with his father's old
followers who acted under Shelburne's leadership. On all questions of
importance he spoke with lofty eloquence, and his speeches, often splendid
as oratory, had the surpassing excellence of appealing to his hearers by
Page 239
raising them to a higher level of thought and feeling than that from which
they had previously regarded the matter in debate. His voice was rich, his
words well chosen, and he was singularly happy in sarcasm.
The king's influence was strong in the new parliament. Sir Fletcher Norton,
a bad-tempered and unprincipled man, who had deeply offended him by his
speech with reference to the civil list in 1777, was again proposed as
speaker by the opposition, and was rejected by 203 votes to 134 in favour of
Cornwall, the ministerial candidate. The session opened languidly and the
attendance of the opposition was scanty. After the Christmas recess the
struggle with the government was carried on with more energy. Little
ground was gained. Burke's bill for a reform of the civil list establishment
was rejected by 233 to 190, and a like fate attended other efforts to destroy
the means by which parliament was subjected to corrupt influences. Though
the Dutch war was popular specially with the mercantile class, which
expected to benefit by it, both the nation and the parliament were
thoroughly weary of the American war, and the opponents of it in the
commons were strengthened by the accession of Pitt who pronounced it "a
most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unnatural, unjust, and diabolical
war".[148] Yet the news of successes in the south, of a mutiny of the
Pennsylvania troops in January, 1781, and of the distress and financial
difficulties of the Americans encouraged the government party. Motions
hostile to the war were feebly supported, and Fox's jeers at British victories,
and his declarations that the money spent on the war was plundered from
the nation, that the cause of the Americans was "the cause of freedom, of
the constitution, and of whiggism, and that he had in its origin wished it
success," excited justifiable indignation.
The most serious attack on the government was caused by North's
disgraceful manipulation of a loan of £12,000,000. Though more than three
times the amount was offered, the loan was arranged on terms so
advantageous to the lenders that the price of the new stock rose at once
from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent. above par. The profits were calculated by
Fox to amount to £900,000, and, as in 1763, the loan was distributed among
the supporters of the government, half of it, so it was said, going to
members of the house of commons, whether as compensation for election
expenses or generally as a means of maintaining a corrupt influence.
North's conduct was severely reprehended in both chambers, and in two
they had previously regarded the matter in debate. His voice was rich, his
words well chosen, and he was singularly happy in sarcasm.
The king's influence was strong in the new parliament. Sir Fletcher Norton,
a bad-tempered and unprincipled man, who had deeply offended him by his
speech with reference to the civil list in 1777, was again proposed as
speaker by the opposition, and was rejected by 203 votes to 134 in favour of
Cornwall, the ministerial candidate. The session opened languidly and the
attendance of the opposition was scanty. After the Christmas recess the
struggle with the government was carried on with more energy. Little
ground was gained. Burke's bill for a reform of the civil list establishment
was rejected by 233 to 190, and a like fate attended other efforts to destroy
the means by which parliament was subjected to corrupt influences. Though
the Dutch war was popular specially with the mercantile class, which
expected to benefit by it, both the nation and the parliament were
thoroughly weary of the American war, and the opponents of it in the
commons were strengthened by the accession of Pitt who pronounced it "a
most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unnatural, unjust, and diabolical
war".[148] Yet the news of successes in the south, of a mutiny of the
Pennsylvania troops in January, 1781, and of the distress and financial
difficulties of the Americans encouraged the government party. Motions
hostile to the war were feebly supported, and Fox's jeers at British victories,
and his declarations that the money spent on the war was plundered from
the nation, that the cause of the Americans was "the cause of freedom, of
the constitution, and of whiggism, and that he had in its origin wished it
success," excited justifiable indignation.
The most serious attack on the government was caused by North's
disgraceful manipulation of a loan of £12,000,000. Though more than three
times the amount was offered, the loan was arranged on terms so
advantageous to the lenders that the price of the new stock rose at once
from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent. above par. The profits were calculated by
Fox to amount to £900,000, and, as in 1763, the loan was distributed among
the supporters of the government, half of it, so it was said, going to
members of the house of commons, whether as compensation for election
expenses or generally as a means of maintaining a corrupt influence.
North's conduct was severely reprehended in both chambers, and in two
Page 240
divisions on the question in the commons the opposition voted 106 to 137
and 163 to 209. The life of the government depended on the fortunes of the
war in America; it was prolonged by gleams of success; it was soon to be
terminated by an overwhelming disaster.
In the summer of 1780 the Americans were, perhaps, more disheartened
than at any other period of the war. They were, as we shall see, losing in the
south, and their hope of decisive help from France was again disappointed.
Congress continued to issue paper money until its notes became of so little
value that ten paper dollars were exchanged for a cent; there was no money
and no credit, and Washington was forced to levy contributions on the
surrounding country to supply his army. The people generally were sick of
the war. France was almost bankrupt; even Vergennes was weary of
American demands for help, and suggested putting an end to the war by a
long truce, the English surrendering New York and keeping Georgia and
South Carolina. The idea was equally displeasing to the king and to the
Americans. It was not without reason that George believed that "America
was distressed to the greatest degree," and that if his ministers persevered in
the war they would wear down its power of resistance.[149]
The depression of the Americans was deepened by the
treachery of Arnold. Conspicuous among their generals MAJOR ANDRÉ.
for energy and dash, he was a vulgar-minded, irritable
man, ruined in fortune by his own extravagance, and with many enemies.
He had been treated badly by congress, and was finally maddened by
receiving a public reprimand ordered by a court-martial which was held to
examine charges affecting his probity. Washington felt kindly towards him,
and gave him the command of West Point, a highland fortress which was
the key of the line of the Hudson. He had for some time contemplated
deserting to the British, and was in correspondence with Clinton, receiving
replies through Major André, a gallant and popular young officer, Clinton's
adjutant-general, who wrote under the name of John Anderson. Determined
to avenge himself on congress, he offered to betray West Point to the
British. An attack was to be made on September 25, and Arnold was to
arrange the American troops in such a way as to ensure its success. Had the
plot succeeded, the Americans would have lost communication between the
northern and southern provinces, and would probably have been forced to
give up the struggle. An interview was necessary, and André sailed up the
and 163 to 209. The life of the government depended on the fortunes of the
war in America; it was prolonged by gleams of success; it was soon to be
terminated by an overwhelming disaster.
In the summer of 1780 the Americans were, perhaps, more disheartened
than at any other period of the war. They were, as we shall see, losing in the
south, and their hope of decisive help from France was again disappointed.
Congress continued to issue paper money until its notes became of so little
value that ten paper dollars were exchanged for a cent; there was no money
and no credit, and Washington was forced to levy contributions on the
surrounding country to supply his army. The people generally were sick of
the war. France was almost bankrupt; even Vergennes was weary of
American demands for help, and suggested putting an end to the war by a
long truce, the English surrendering New York and keeping Georgia and
South Carolina. The idea was equally displeasing to the king and to the
Americans. It was not without reason that George believed that "America
was distressed to the greatest degree," and that if his ministers persevered in
the war they would wear down its power of resistance.[149]
The depression of the Americans was deepened by the
treachery of Arnold. Conspicuous among their generals MAJOR ANDRÉ.
for energy and dash, he was a vulgar-minded, irritable
man, ruined in fortune by his own extravagance, and with many enemies.
He had been treated badly by congress, and was finally maddened by
receiving a public reprimand ordered by a court-martial which was held to
examine charges affecting his probity. Washington felt kindly towards him,
and gave him the command of West Point, a highland fortress which was
the key of the line of the Hudson. He had for some time contemplated
deserting to the British, and was in correspondence with Clinton, receiving
replies through Major André, a gallant and popular young officer, Clinton's
adjutant-general, who wrote under the name of John Anderson. Determined
to avenge himself on congress, he offered to betray West Point to the
British. An attack was to be made on September 25, and Arnold was to
arrange the American troops in such a way as to ensure its success. Had the
plot succeeded, the Americans would have lost communication between the
northern and southern provinces, and would probably have been forced to
give up the struggle. An interview was necessary, and André sailed up the
Page 241
river in the Vulture sloop, and met Arnold secretly on the night of the 21st.
After the interview Arnold persuaded him to take shelter in a house which,
though he was not aware of it, stood within the American lines, and gave
him papers containing arrangements for the attack. The next day André
could not find a boatman to take him to the Vulture, and was forced to set
out for New York by land. He had a pass from Arnold made out for John
Anderson, he changed his uniform for a civilian dress, and passed the
American lines in safety. On the 23rd he fell into the hands of some
American cattle-stealers; Arnold's papers were found in his boots, and his
captors handed him over to a militia officer. Arnold received tidings of his
capture and made his escape on board the Vulture.
André was tried by a court-martial consisting of fourteen general officers,
and was sentenced to death as a spy. Clinton made every effort to obtain his
pardon; Washington was inexorable, and would not even grant André's
request that he might die a soldier's death. He was hanged on October 2,
and met his fate with dignity and courage. Inexpressibly sad as his end was,
he was not treated unjustly; he entered the enemy's lines while attempting to
assist their commander to betray his post, he was within their lines in
disguise, and he was taken with papers upon him arranging the details of
the betrayal. Washington would have been held to have acted with
generosity if he had treated him as a prisoner of war, or even if he had
granted his pathetic request that he might be spared the ignominy of the
gallows. But an officer in command should not allow any consideration to
hinder him from doing what he believes to be best for his army, provided it
is not contrary to the usages of civilised warfare. That Washington was
guided by this principle in sending André to the gallows may fairly be
inferred from all we know of his character, and of the condition of the
American army at the time. His conduct needs no other defence.[150] The
traitor Arnold received £6,300 from the British government, and, it is
painful to remember, a commission in the army, which he entered with a
brevet of brigadier-general.
As soon as war was declared with the Dutch, orders
were sent to Rodney, who returned from America to the RODNEY AT ST.
EUSTATIUS.
Antilles at the end of 1780, to capture St. Eustatius.
From a mass of barren rock this Dutch island had suddenly become a place
of first-rate commercial importance. In order to supply our West India
After the interview Arnold persuaded him to take shelter in a house which,
though he was not aware of it, stood within the American lines, and gave
him papers containing arrangements for the attack. The next day André
could not find a boatman to take him to the Vulture, and was forced to set
out for New York by land. He had a pass from Arnold made out for John
Anderson, he changed his uniform for a civilian dress, and passed the
American lines in safety. On the 23rd he fell into the hands of some
American cattle-stealers; Arnold's papers were found in his boots, and his
captors handed him over to a militia officer. Arnold received tidings of his
capture and made his escape on board the Vulture.
André was tried by a court-martial consisting of fourteen general officers,
and was sentenced to death as a spy. Clinton made every effort to obtain his
pardon; Washington was inexorable, and would not even grant André's
request that he might die a soldier's death. He was hanged on October 2,
and met his fate with dignity and courage. Inexpressibly sad as his end was,
he was not treated unjustly; he entered the enemy's lines while attempting to
assist their commander to betray his post, he was within their lines in
disguise, and he was taken with papers upon him arranging the details of
the betrayal. Washington would have been held to have acted with
generosity if he had treated him as a prisoner of war, or even if he had
granted his pathetic request that he might be spared the ignominy of the
gallows. But an officer in command should not allow any consideration to
hinder him from doing what he believes to be best for his army, provided it
is not contrary to the usages of civilised warfare. That Washington was
guided by this principle in sending André to the gallows may fairly be
inferred from all we know of his character, and of the condition of the
American army at the time. His conduct needs no other defence.[150] The
traitor Arnold received £6,300 from the British government, and, it is
painful to remember, a commission in the army, which he entered with a
brevet of brigadier-general.
As soon as war was declared with the Dutch, orders
were sent to Rodney, who returned from America to the RODNEY AT ST.
EUSTATIUS.
Antilles at the end of 1780, to capture St. Eustatius.
From a mass of barren rock this Dutch island had suddenly become a place
of first-rate commercial importance. In order to supply our West India
Page 242
planters with food for their slaves, parliament allowed trade to be carried on
there with the Americans. In St. Eustatius the goods of all nations were
bought and sold; and British and French planters, American dealers and
Dutch merchants traded with one another as in a time of peace. English
planters and merchants also used it as a place of deposit, believing that their
goods would be safer there than in their own islands, which were open to
attacks from the French. The wealth of the island was prodigious; the rents
of the dwellings and warehouses hastily constructed on it amounted to a
million a year; it had, as Burke said, risen from the waters like another Tyre
to become the mart of the world. Like the British island of Nassau during
the American civil war, it carried on along with legitimate commerce a brisk
contraband trade, and its merchants supplied the Americans and French,
their principal and most favoured customers, with vast quantities of naval
stores and ammunition. It was practically undefended, and, together with its
dependencies, St. Martin and Saba, was surrendered to Rodney without
resistance on February 3, 1781. Over 150 vessels were taken in the bay,
besides a richly laden convoy of Dutch ships which had lately put to sea.
Rodney held that the island was a "nest of villains," and that its "infamous
and deceitful inhabitants" owed their wealth to their support of the king's
enemies by contraband trading; they "deserved scourging," and he vowed
that they should get it. He confiscated all the property on the island, private
as well as public, save what belonged to the French, who were open
enemies. There was much truth in his indictment, but his indiscriminate
confiscation was monstrously unjust.
The spoil of the island was estimated at £4,000,000. The king granted his
rights over the booty to the captors. Rodney was a poor man, and was
greedy for wealth; he seized more than the king could grant, or he could
lawfully hold, for part of the booty belonged to English merchants. His
conduct was severely and, though with some exaggeration, justly attacked
by Burke in parliament, and in after years he was harassed by suits brought
against him for unlawful spoliation. The booty sold on the spot fetched far
less than its value, and much that was sent home fell into the hands of the
French; for while Darby was engaged in the relief of Gibraltar, a French
squadron intercepted the convoy which was bringing it to England, and
carried off several ships laden with spoil. The capture of the island proved
disastrous to England. A French fleet under Count de Grasse was
there with the Americans. In St. Eustatius the goods of all nations were
bought and sold; and British and French planters, American dealers and
Dutch merchants traded with one another as in a time of peace. English
planters and merchants also used it as a place of deposit, believing that their
goods would be safer there than in their own islands, which were open to
attacks from the French. The wealth of the island was prodigious; the rents
of the dwellings and warehouses hastily constructed on it amounted to a
million a year; it had, as Burke said, risen from the waters like another Tyre
to become the mart of the world. Like the British island of Nassau during
the American civil war, it carried on along with legitimate commerce a brisk
contraband trade, and its merchants supplied the Americans and French,
their principal and most favoured customers, with vast quantities of naval
stores and ammunition. It was practically undefended, and, together with its
dependencies, St. Martin and Saba, was surrendered to Rodney without
resistance on February 3, 1781. Over 150 vessels were taken in the bay,
besides a richly laden convoy of Dutch ships which had lately put to sea.
Rodney held that the island was a "nest of villains," and that its "infamous
and deceitful inhabitants" owed their wealth to their support of the king's
enemies by contraband trading; they "deserved scourging," and he vowed
that they should get it. He confiscated all the property on the island, private
as well as public, save what belonged to the French, who were open
enemies. There was much truth in his indictment, but his indiscriminate
confiscation was monstrously unjust.
The spoil of the island was estimated at £4,000,000. The king granted his
rights over the booty to the captors. Rodney was a poor man, and was
greedy for wealth; he seized more than the king could grant, or he could
lawfully hold, for part of the booty belonged to English merchants. His
conduct was severely and, though with some exaggeration, justly attacked
by Burke in parliament, and in after years he was harassed by suits brought
against him for unlawful spoliation. The booty sold on the spot fetched far
less than its value, and much that was sent home fell into the hands of the
French; for while Darby was engaged in the relief of Gibraltar, a French
squadron intercepted the convoy which was bringing it to England, and
carried off several ships laden with spoil. The capture of the island proved
disastrous to England. A French fleet under Count de Grasse was
Page 243
unfortunately allowed to leave Brest in March, for England was
embarrassed by naval conflicts all over the world. Rodney expected its
coming, and sent Sir Samuel Hood, as fine a seaman as himself, and with a
more single eye to the king's service, to blockade Fort Royal, in Martinique,
in order to prevent four French ships which lay there from joining Grasse.
Hood wished to cruise to windward of the island, which would have
enabled him to force Grasse either to fight or to give up his junction with
the four ships. Rodney, who remained at St. Eustatius looking after the loot,
would not consent to this, because, so Hood asserts, he was afraid that the
ships would slip out and attack the island.[151] Hood was forced to keep to
leeward; Grasse got between him and the island, was joined by the ships,
and so gained the superiority in force. Some distant and indecisive fighting
took place on April 29 and 30, and finally Hood, being the inferior in force,
and no longer having any reason to risk his ships, sailed away from the
enemy. The French, though failing in an attack on St. Lucia, took Tobago,
and, what was of graver consequence, Grasse was enabled, apparently
through Rodney's anxiety concerning his booty, to maintain a strong fleet in
the West Indies, which before long helped to bring victory within reach of
the Americans. Grasse sailed for the American coast in August. Rodney was
obliged by ill-health to return to England, and left Hood with only fourteen
ships to follow the French fleet, directing him to join Admiral Graves, then
in command in the American waters, in the neighbourhood of the
Chesapeake.
As the British forces were divided between New York
and the southern provinces, it is obvious that the issue of CORNWALLIS IN
SOUTH
the struggle depended on the command of the sea. So CAROLINA.
long as the British held the ocean way, the southern
army would be able to receive reinforcements and supplies, and could be
aided by diversions, the French alliance would be of little profit to the
Americans, and the long land journey, expensive and open to attacks, would
cut off the southern provinces from succours from the north. The navy, as
both Clinton and Washington saw, "had the casting vote in the contest".[152]
In July, 1780, soon after Clinton returned to New York from South
Carolina, a French squadron brought nearly 6,000 men, commanded by
Count de Rochambeau, to Rhode Island. A few days after the arrival of
Rochambeau, the British fleet under Arbuthnot received reinforcements
embarrassed by naval conflicts all over the world. Rodney expected its
coming, and sent Sir Samuel Hood, as fine a seaman as himself, and with a
more single eye to the king's service, to blockade Fort Royal, in Martinique,
in order to prevent four French ships which lay there from joining Grasse.
Hood wished to cruise to windward of the island, which would have
enabled him to force Grasse either to fight or to give up his junction with
the four ships. Rodney, who remained at St. Eustatius looking after the loot,
would not consent to this, because, so Hood asserts, he was afraid that the
ships would slip out and attack the island.[151] Hood was forced to keep to
leeward; Grasse got between him and the island, was joined by the ships,
and so gained the superiority in force. Some distant and indecisive fighting
took place on April 29 and 30, and finally Hood, being the inferior in force,
and no longer having any reason to risk his ships, sailed away from the
enemy. The French, though failing in an attack on St. Lucia, took Tobago,
and, what was of graver consequence, Grasse was enabled, apparently
through Rodney's anxiety concerning his booty, to maintain a strong fleet in
the West Indies, which before long helped to bring victory within reach of
the Americans. Grasse sailed for the American coast in August. Rodney was
obliged by ill-health to return to England, and left Hood with only fourteen
ships to follow the French fleet, directing him to join Admiral Graves, then
in command in the American waters, in the neighbourhood of the
Chesapeake.
As the British forces were divided between New York
and the southern provinces, it is obvious that the issue of CORNWALLIS IN
SOUTH
the struggle depended on the command of the sea. So CAROLINA.
long as the British held the ocean way, the southern
army would be able to receive reinforcements and supplies, and could be
aided by diversions, the French alliance would be of little profit to the
Americans, and the long land journey, expensive and open to attacks, would
cut off the southern provinces from succours from the north. The navy, as
both Clinton and Washington saw, "had the casting vote in the contest".[152]
In July, 1780, soon after Clinton returned to New York from South
Carolina, a French squadron brought nearly 6,000 men, commanded by
Count de Rochambeau, to Rhode Island. A few days after the arrival of
Rochambeau, the British fleet under Arbuthnot received reinforcements
Page 244
which made it stronger than the French. Clinton took measures for attacking
the French by land and sea, but was called back to New York by a
movement on the part of Washington, and a renewal of the plan was
defeated by a quarrel between him and Arbuthnot. The seven French ships
remained at Newport, blocked up by the British fleet, and though
Washington obtained some help from the land force, the greater part stayed
to guard the ships. Rodney should have attacked these ships as soon as he
arrived at New York in September. He probably thought them of little
importance, as they were thoroughly blockaded, and did not care to risk his
ships within reach of the French batteries on the shore. The destruction of
the squadron was within his power and was well worth some risk. Great as
he was on sea, he did not understand the wide aspects of operations of war.
The presence of the French compelled the British to keep a large force in
New York and so hindered their operations in the south.
Before Clinton left South Carolina, he issued a proclamation which put an
end to all hopes of neutrality; those who would not fulfil the duties of loyal
subjects would be held to be rebels. This step caused many who would
willingly have remained neutral to join the revolutionists rather than fight
against them. The country soon became disturbed; the British were forced
to act with severity, and the Americans, both revolutionists and loyalists,
behaved with great cruelty towards their fellow-countrymen of the opposite
party.[153] Partisan leaders, among whom Sumter and Marion were
conspicuous, raised bands on their own responsibility, and fought against
the British, acting sometimes independently and sometimes in conjunction
with the forces of congress. Cornwallis worked energetically at Charleston,
enrolling militia and providing for the administration, while Lord Rawdon
with the main body of the army kept the border at Camden. Anxious to
press on, Cornwallis desired Clinton to send a force to Chesapeake bay, to
divert the enemy while he invaded North Carolina; but before he could
advance further he had to fight for the southern province. Gates was
appointed to the supreme command in the south and was threatening
Camden. Cornwallis hastened thither with his staff and found Rawdon with
700 sick and less than 2,000 fit for duty. The enemy was greatly superior in
number, without reckoning 1,000 men under Sumter, who was cutting the
British off from their supplies on the west side of the Wateree river.
Cornwallis met them on August 16, and began the engagement with a
the French by land and sea, but was called back to New York by a
movement on the part of Washington, and a renewal of the plan was
defeated by a quarrel between him and Arbuthnot. The seven French ships
remained at Newport, blocked up by the British fleet, and though
Washington obtained some help from the land force, the greater part stayed
to guard the ships. Rodney should have attacked these ships as soon as he
arrived at New York in September. He probably thought them of little
importance, as they were thoroughly blockaded, and did not care to risk his
ships within reach of the French batteries on the shore. The destruction of
the squadron was within his power and was well worth some risk. Great as
he was on sea, he did not understand the wide aspects of operations of war.
The presence of the French compelled the British to keep a large force in
New York and so hindered their operations in the south.
Before Clinton left South Carolina, he issued a proclamation which put an
end to all hopes of neutrality; those who would not fulfil the duties of loyal
subjects would be held to be rebels. This step caused many who would
willingly have remained neutral to join the revolutionists rather than fight
against them. The country soon became disturbed; the British were forced
to act with severity, and the Americans, both revolutionists and loyalists,
behaved with great cruelty towards their fellow-countrymen of the opposite
party.[153] Partisan leaders, among whom Sumter and Marion were
conspicuous, raised bands on their own responsibility, and fought against
the British, acting sometimes independently and sometimes in conjunction
with the forces of congress. Cornwallis worked energetically at Charleston,
enrolling militia and providing for the administration, while Lord Rawdon
with the main body of the army kept the border at Camden. Anxious to
press on, Cornwallis desired Clinton to send a force to Chesapeake bay, to
divert the enemy while he invaded North Carolina; but before he could
advance further he had to fight for the southern province. Gates was
appointed to the supreme command in the south and was threatening
Camden. Cornwallis hastened thither with his staff and found Rawdon with
700 sick and less than 2,000 fit for duty. The enemy was greatly superior in
number, without reckoning 1,000 men under Sumter, who was cutting the
British off from their supplies on the west side of the Wateree river.
Cornwallis met them on August 16, and began the engagement with a
Page 245
vigorous attack on the American left, formed by the Virginia and North
Carolina militia who, as the British advanced, firing and cheering, threw
down their arms and fled. The British victory was complete; the Americans
lost about 1,000 killed and wounded, over 1,000 prisoners, and their
artillery and stores; the British casualties were 324. Two days later Colonel
Tarleton smartly surprised Sumter, and dispersed his band, retaking a
convoy which had fallen into his hands shortly before the battle of Camden.
The defeat of Gates's army drove the Americans almost to despair.
Cornwallis was encouraged to pursue his grand plan of "conquest from
south to north". Clinton, though he did not approve of his forward policy,
[154]
sent General Leslie with 3,200 men to Chesapeake bay to co-operate
with him, and Cornwallis entered North Carolina and advanced as far as
Charlotte. In spite of his brilliant victory he was beset by difficulties. The
loyalists did not give him the help which he expected; as soon as he left
South Carolina it broke into a ferment of disaffection, and his troops were
not suited for the guerilla warfare largely adopted by the enemy, who were,
Rawdon wrote, "mostly mounted militia not to be overtaken by our infantry,
nor to be safely pursued in this strong country by our cavalry".[155] In this
as in many other respects, the experiences of the war were repeated in
South Africa in our own day. Before Cornwallis left South Carolina he
detached a force of 800 militia and 100 regulars under Major Ferguson to
scour the border and keep the country quiet in the rear of the army. They
were met by a partisan army of 3,000 men under different leaders at King's
Mountain on October 7; Ferguson was killed and all his men were either
slain or captured. So severe a loss, combined with the anxiety of Cornwallis
lest the important post called Ninety-six should be taken, put a stop to any
further advance. Cornwallis fell back on Winnsborough, and bade Leslie
convey his force to Charleston, which he was able to do as England had
command of the sea, and reinforce him. The safety of the border was his
first care. No sooner had Tarleton checked the inroads of Marion in the east
than he was summoned westwards to protect Ninety-six from Sumter. He
engaged Sumter's force at Blackstock on November 20, and claimed to have
defeated him. Tarleton was a dashing cavalry officer, given to overrating his
own achievements. His troops were few and weary, and at best he escaped
defeat; but Sumter's band dispersed, for its leader was wounded and
disabled for a while from further action.[156]
Carolina militia who, as the British advanced, firing and cheering, threw
down their arms and fled. The British victory was complete; the Americans
lost about 1,000 killed and wounded, over 1,000 prisoners, and their
artillery and stores; the British casualties were 324. Two days later Colonel
Tarleton smartly surprised Sumter, and dispersed his band, retaking a
convoy which had fallen into his hands shortly before the battle of Camden.
The defeat of Gates's army drove the Americans almost to despair.
Cornwallis was encouraged to pursue his grand plan of "conquest from
south to north". Clinton, though he did not approve of his forward policy,
[154]
sent General Leslie with 3,200 men to Chesapeake bay to co-operate
with him, and Cornwallis entered North Carolina and advanced as far as
Charlotte. In spite of his brilliant victory he was beset by difficulties. The
loyalists did not give him the help which he expected; as soon as he left
South Carolina it broke into a ferment of disaffection, and his troops were
not suited for the guerilla warfare largely adopted by the enemy, who were,
Rawdon wrote, "mostly mounted militia not to be overtaken by our infantry,
nor to be safely pursued in this strong country by our cavalry".[155] In this
as in many other respects, the experiences of the war were repeated in
South Africa in our own day. Before Cornwallis left South Carolina he
detached a force of 800 militia and 100 regulars under Major Ferguson to
scour the border and keep the country quiet in the rear of the army. They
were met by a partisan army of 3,000 men under different leaders at King's
Mountain on October 7; Ferguson was killed and all his men were either
slain or captured. So severe a loss, combined with the anxiety of Cornwallis
lest the important post called Ninety-six should be taken, put a stop to any
further advance. Cornwallis fell back on Winnsborough, and bade Leslie
convey his force to Charleston, which he was able to do as England had
command of the sea, and reinforce him. The safety of the border was his
first care. No sooner had Tarleton checked the inroads of Marion in the east
than he was summoned westwards to protect Ninety-six from Sumter. He
engaged Sumter's force at Blackstock on November 20, and claimed to have
defeated him. Tarleton was a dashing cavalry officer, given to overrating his
own achievements. His troops were few and weary, and at best he escaped
defeat; but Sumter's band dispersed, for its leader was wounded and
disabled for a while from further action.[156]
Page 246
In December Greene, a general of far greater ability than
Gates, took the chief command in the south. Cornwallis BATTLE OF THE
found the enemy on both his flanks. On the east Marion, COWPENS.
then in common with Sumter holding a commission from congress, Henry
Lee, and Greene himself endangered his communications with the coast,
and penetrated as far as Georgetown, and on the west another division
under Morgan threatened Ninety-six. Disaffection was spreading rapidly
through the province. Believing that his one chance of conquering from
south to north lay in pushing forward, he determined to march into North
Carolina. Leslie joined him in January, 1781, and Clinton sent Arnold and
Phillips with a large force to take Leslie's place in Virginia. On setting out
for North Carolina, Cornwallis detached Tarleton to deal with Morgan. He
brought him to bay at the Cowpens, near King's Mountain, on the 17th.
Tarleton's force, numbering about 1,100, was slightly superior to that of the
enemy, but he engaged while his men were weary after a hard night-march.
Some of his troops behaved badly; he was utterly defeated, and lost nearly
800 men. This defeat was a severe blow to Cornwallis, for it deprived him
of the best part of his light troops, which were specially necessary for his
march through a wooded and thinly populated country where much
foraging had to be done. He determined to advance, hoping to get between
Greene and Virginia, and force him to fight before he received
reinforcements. He burnt his superfluous baggage and crossed the Catawba
river. The two divisions of the American army retreated hastily through
North Carolina, succeeded in forming a junction, and crossed the Dan into
Virginia before the British could come up with them. Having thus cleared
the province of the revolutionary troops, Cornwallis encamped at
Hillsborough, and on February 20 summoned the loyalists to join him.
Some were coming in when, on the 23rd, Greene, who had received
reinforcements, recrossed the Dan. Any further loyalist movement was
stopped by an act of revolting barbarity; 200 loyalists were caught by Lee's
horse on their way to the British quarters; they made no resistance and
asked for quarter, but were butchered by their fellow-countrymen.
Cornwallis, finding it difficult to support his troops and being anxious to
encourage the loyalists by showing his superiority in the field, accepted
Greene's offer of battle at Guilford courthouse on March 15. His force
scarcely numbered 2,000, while the enemy, regulars and militia, were 4,300
Gates, took the chief command in the south. Cornwallis BATTLE OF THE
found the enemy on both his flanks. On the east Marion, COWPENS.
then in common with Sumter holding a commission from congress, Henry
Lee, and Greene himself endangered his communications with the coast,
and penetrated as far as Georgetown, and on the west another division
under Morgan threatened Ninety-six. Disaffection was spreading rapidly
through the province. Believing that his one chance of conquering from
south to north lay in pushing forward, he determined to march into North
Carolina. Leslie joined him in January, 1781, and Clinton sent Arnold and
Phillips with a large force to take Leslie's place in Virginia. On setting out
for North Carolina, Cornwallis detached Tarleton to deal with Morgan. He
brought him to bay at the Cowpens, near King's Mountain, on the 17th.
Tarleton's force, numbering about 1,100, was slightly superior to that of the
enemy, but he engaged while his men were weary after a hard night-march.
Some of his troops behaved badly; he was utterly defeated, and lost nearly
800 men. This defeat was a severe blow to Cornwallis, for it deprived him
of the best part of his light troops, which were specially necessary for his
march through a wooded and thinly populated country where much
foraging had to be done. He determined to advance, hoping to get between
Greene and Virginia, and force him to fight before he received
reinforcements. He burnt his superfluous baggage and crossed the Catawba
river. The two divisions of the American army retreated hastily through
North Carolina, succeeded in forming a junction, and crossed the Dan into
Virginia before the British could come up with them. Having thus cleared
the province of the revolutionary troops, Cornwallis encamped at
Hillsborough, and on February 20 summoned the loyalists to join him.
Some were coming in when, on the 23rd, Greene, who had received
reinforcements, recrossed the Dan. Any further loyalist movement was
stopped by an act of revolting barbarity; 200 loyalists were caught by Lee's
horse on their way to the British quarters; they made no resistance and
asked for quarter, but were butchered by their fellow-countrymen.
Cornwallis, finding it difficult to support his troops and being anxious to
encourage the loyalists by showing his superiority in the field, accepted
Greene's offer of battle at Guilford courthouse on March 15. His force
scarcely numbered 2,000, while the enemy, regulars and militia, were 4,300
Page 247
strong. The battle was begun by the British left, consisting of the 22nd and
23rd regiments, supported by grenadiers and guards, which charged and
routed the first line of the enemy with the bayonet. The second line, formed
by Virginians, stood steady and was not driven back without a severe
struggle; so too the First Maryland regiment, in the third line, repulsed the
first attack upon it with heavy loss. The Second Marylanders fell back
before a battalion of guards, who pressed heedlessly after them and were
suddenly engaged by the American dragoons. The guards fought fiercely,
but were broken. For a moment things looked awkward. Then the enemy
was checked by the British artillery and the guards were rallied by their
brigadier O'Hara, who, though severely wounded, was still able to do good
service. The British fought magnificently and won a brilliant victory. Yet it
was dearly bought, for the loss of over 500 rank and file, a full third of his
infantry, left Cornwallis powerless. His little army was in need of supplies
and he marched to Wilmington, where stores brought by sea were laid up
for him.
Being too weak to do anything further without
reinforcements, he decided to leave the Carolinas, effect CORNWALLIS
a junction with Arnold in Virginia, and attempt the ADVANCES
INTO
VIRGINIA.
conquest of that province, reckoning that success there
would check disaffection in South Carolina and ultimately tend to the
conquest of North Carolina.[157] He wished Clinton to prosecute the war in
Virginia with all the strength at his command, even at the expense of giving
up New York. Clinton, however, was throughout opposed to his forward
policy; he would have had him attempt nothing beyond the power of the
force which he left with him, "the defence of South, and most probably the
reduction of North, Carolina," and he did not intend the troops sent to
Virginia to engage in "solid" operations, which he judged to be inadvisable
until he should himself take the field. The king and the cabinet approved
Cornwallis's line of action.[158] He advanced into Virginia on his own
responsibility. This step led to unfriendly relations between the two
commanders, and after the war was the subject of a bitter controversy
between them. Cornwallis effected a junction with Arnold's army on May
20, and in command of over 5,000 troops overran the province, Lafayette,
with a far inferior force, retreating before him. Meantime Rawdon struggled
gallantly, though unsuccessfully, against Greene in South Carolina. He
23rd regiments, supported by grenadiers and guards, which charged and
routed the first line of the enemy with the bayonet. The second line, formed
by Virginians, stood steady and was not driven back without a severe
struggle; so too the First Maryland regiment, in the third line, repulsed the
first attack upon it with heavy loss. The Second Marylanders fell back
before a battalion of guards, who pressed heedlessly after them and were
suddenly engaged by the American dragoons. The guards fought fiercely,
but were broken. For a moment things looked awkward. Then the enemy
was checked by the British artillery and the guards were rallied by their
brigadier O'Hara, who, though severely wounded, was still able to do good
service. The British fought magnificently and won a brilliant victory. Yet it
was dearly bought, for the loss of over 500 rank and file, a full third of his
infantry, left Cornwallis powerless. His little army was in need of supplies
and he marched to Wilmington, where stores brought by sea were laid up
for him.
Being too weak to do anything further without
reinforcements, he decided to leave the Carolinas, effect CORNWALLIS
a junction with Arnold in Virginia, and attempt the ADVANCES
INTO
VIRGINIA.
conquest of that province, reckoning that success there
would check disaffection in South Carolina and ultimately tend to the
conquest of North Carolina.[157] He wished Clinton to prosecute the war in
Virginia with all the strength at his command, even at the expense of giving
up New York. Clinton, however, was throughout opposed to his forward
policy; he would have had him attempt nothing beyond the power of the
force which he left with him, "the defence of South, and most probably the
reduction of North, Carolina," and he did not intend the troops sent to
Virginia to engage in "solid" operations, which he judged to be inadvisable
until he should himself take the field. The king and the cabinet approved
Cornwallis's line of action.[158] He advanced into Virginia on his own
responsibility. This step led to unfriendly relations between the two
commanders, and after the war was the subject of a bitter controversy
between them. Cornwallis effected a junction with Arnold's army on May
20, and in command of over 5,000 troops overran the province, Lafayette,
with a far inferior force, retreating before him. Meantime Rawdon struggled
gallantly, though unsuccessfully, against Greene in South Carolina. He
Page 248
defeated Greene at Hobskirk hill on April 25, but was forced to retire from
Camden. The loyalists saw that the British could not protect them; the
whole province was disaffected, and post after post was taken by Greene,
Lee, Sumter, Marion, and other generals. At last, after Rawdon's return to
England on account of ill-health, a hard-fought battle at Eutaw springs on
September 8, which both sides claimed as a victory, so weakened the
British force that it remained in and about Charleston until it was
withdrawn at the end of the war.
To return to the spring of the year, Cornwallis's invasion of Virginia and the
destruction of property there seemed likely to bring the war to a successful
issue. Washington's army was in grievous want of supplies, the American
marine was annihilated, their finances were in a ruinous state, and their
resources generally almost exhausted. Powerful co-operation with
Cornwallis on the part of Clinton was urgently needed. The issue of the
struggle depended on the power of Great Britain to prevent a French fleet
and army from undertaking a joint enterprise with the Americans. At this
critical juncture England lost the superiority at sea. In May, Washington and
Rochambeau agreed that, as soon as Grasse brought his fleet over, they
would join forces, and either attack New York or, perhaps, march into
Virginia, as circumstances might direct. Clinton discovered their design,
would not spare any troops from New York, and in June called on
Cornwallis to send him part of the force under his command, and ordered
him to take up a defensive position. Cornwallis retired down the James river
to Portsmouth. Clinton withdrew his demand for troops and directed him to
fortify a station on the Yorktown peninsula as a port for ships. He would
there be able to take up a defensive position secured by access to the sea.
Cornwallis concentrated all his forces, about 7,000 men, and fortified
Yorktown and Gloucester. On July 6 Rochambeau, in expectation of the
arrival of Grasse's fleet, brought his troops from Rhode Island (p. 219) and
joined Washington at White Plains. It was agreed between Grasse and
Washington that the united army, 4,000 French and 2,000 Americans,
should march into Virginia and act in co-operation with the French fleet.
Clinton, however, deceived by fictitious letters, written by Washington and
designed to be intercepted, believed that it would attack New York, and
remained quietly there while it marched half through New Jersey. Not until
Camden. The loyalists saw that the British could not protect them; the
whole province was disaffected, and post after post was taken by Greene,
Lee, Sumter, Marion, and other generals. At last, after Rawdon's return to
England on account of ill-health, a hard-fought battle at Eutaw springs on
September 8, which both sides claimed as a victory, so weakened the
British force that it remained in and about Charleston until it was
withdrawn at the end of the war.
To return to the spring of the year, Cornwallis's invasion of Virginia and the
destruction of property there seemed likely to bring the war to a successful
issue. Washington's army was in grievous want of supplies, the American
marine was annihilated, their finances were in a ruinous state, and their
resources generally almost exhausted. Powerful co-operation with
Cornwallis on the part of Clinton was urgently needed. The issue of the
struggle depended on the power of Great Britain to prevent a French fleet
and army from undertaking a joint enterprise with the Americans. At this
critical juncture England lost the superiority at sea. In May, Washington and
Rochambeau agreed that, as soon as Grasse brought his fleet over, they
would join forces, and either attack New York or, perhaps, march into
Virginia, as circumstances might direct. Clinton discovered their design,
would not spare any troops from New York, and in June called on
Cornwallis to send him part of the force under his command, and ordered
him to take up a defensive position. Cornwallis retired down the James river
to Portsmouth. Clinton withdrew his demand for troops and directed him to
fortify a station on the Yorktown peninsula as a port for ships. He would
there be able to take up a defensive position secured by access to the sea.
Cornwallis concentrated all his forces, about 7,000 men, and fortified
Yorktown and Gloucester. On July 6 Rochambeau, in expectation of the
arrival of Grasse's fleet, brought his troops from Rhode Island (p. 219) and
joined Washington at White Plains. It was agreed between Grasse and
Washington that the united army, 4,000 French and 2,000 Americans,
should march into Virginia and act in co-operation with the French fleet.
Clinton, however, deceived by fictitious letters, written by Washington and
designed to be intercepted, believed that it would attack New York, and
remained quietly there while it marched half through New Jersey. Not until
Page 249
September 2 did he discover that it was on its way to join in a combined
attack on Cornwallis. On the 5th it reached the head of Chesapeake bay.
By that time the inferiority of the British fleet rendered
Cornwallis's situation extremely perilous. When Hood CAPITULATION
OF CORNWALLIS.
with the fourteen ships of the line left by Rodney (p.
218) arrived off Cape Henry on August 25, Graves was not there to meet
him; he sailed to Sandy Hook and joined him. The fleet, nineteen ships of
the line, sailed under Graves to Chesapeake bay, and found that during
Hood's absence Grasse had entered the bay with twenty-eight ships of the
line. Grasse at once stood out to sea, for he was anxious to secure a junction
with the squadron from Newport, under Count de Barras, which Rodney
had failed to attack in the previous September. Graves, who should have
caught these ships instead of aiming at the main fleet, engaged him on
September 5, handled his fleet badly, and got his ships knocked about.
While he remained uselessly at sea the squadron of Barras slipped into the
bay. On the 14th the British fleet returned to New York to refit, and
Cornwallis was left without succour. Lafayette with a large army of French
and Americans was already blocking the neck of the peninsula. Clinton
attempted a perfectly useless diversion in Connecticut under Arnold.
Washington's army joined Lafayette on the 18th, and Cornwallis was soon
besieged by a force of over 16,000 men. On October 19 he was forced to
capitulate. Of the garrison which surrendered at Yorktown and Gloucester,
6,950 men, only 4,017 remained fit for duty. On the day of the surrender,
naval reinforcements having arrived at New York and the fleet at last being
refitted, Clinton sailed with 7,000 troops to the relief of Cornwallis. They
found that they were too late and returned to New York.
With this disaster the war in America virtually ended. Cornwallis in his
attempt to recover the southern provinces showed a vigour and capacity
which might, perhaps, have brought matters to a different issue if he had
held the chief command. But his means were inadequate to meet the
wastage caused by battle and sickness; he found the loyalists a broken reed,
and his troops not well suited to the kind of warfare in which they were
engaged. "Had Lord Cornwallis staid in Carolina, as I had ordered him,"
wrote Clinton, "and I had even assembled my forces at New York, and
remained there with my arms across without affront, negative victory would
have insured American Dependence."[159] "Arms across" seems indeed to
attack on Cornwallis. On the 5th it reached the head of Chesapeake bay.
By that time the inferiority of the British fleet rendered
Cornwallis's situation extremely perilous. When Hood CAPITULATION
OF CORNWALLIS.
with the fourteen ships of the line left by Rodney (p.
218) arrived off Cape Henry on August 25, Graves was not there to meet
him; he sailed to Sandy Hook and joined him. The fleet, nineteen ships of
the line, sailed under Graves to Chesapeake bay, and found that during
Hood's absence Grasse had entered the bay with twenty-eight ships of the
line. Grasse at once stood out to sea, for he was anxious to secure a junction
with the squadron from Newport, under Count de Barras, which Rodney
had failed to attack in the previous September. Graves, who should have
caught these ships instead of aiming at the main fleet, engaged him on
September 5, handled his fleet badly, and got his ships knocked about.
While he remained uselessly at sea the squadron of Barras slipped into the
bay. On the 14th the British fleet returned to New York to refit, and
Cornwallis was left without succour. Lafayette with a large army of French
and Americans was already blocking the neck of the peninsula. Clinton
attempted a perfectly useless diversion in Connecticut under Arnold.
Washington's army joined Lafayette on the 18th, and Cornwallis was soon
besieged by a force of over 16,000 men. On October 19 he was forced to
capitulate. Of the garrison which surrendered at Yorktown and Gloucester,
6,950 men, only 4,017 remained fit for duty. On the day of the surrender,
naval reinforcements having arrived at New York and the fleet at last being
refitted, Clinton sailed with 7,000 troops to the relief of Cornwallis. They
found that they were too late and returned to New York.
With this disaster the war in America virtually ended. Cornwallis in his
attempt to recover the southern provinces showed a vigour and capacity
which might, perhaps, have brought matters to a different issue if he had
held the chief command. But his means were inadequate to meet the
wastage caused by battle and sickness; he found the loyalists a broken reed,
and his troops not well suited to the kind of warfare in which they were
engaged. "Had Lord Cornwallis staid in Carolina, as I had ordered him,"
wrote Clinton, "and I had even assembled my forces at New York, and
remained there with my arms across without affront, negative victory would
have insured American Dependence."[159] "Arms across" seems indeed to
Page 250
have been Clinton's favourite attitude.[160] Cornwallis's advance into
Virginia was certainly a risky movement, but it was a choice of evils and
did not in itself entail disaster. Clinton reckoned, not without reason, that
the Americans were too exhausted to prolong the struggle; he was in favour
of desultory operations on the Chesapeake, against Baltimore and
Philadelphia, with the view of gaining loyalist support, and of waiting until
he had received reinforcements large enough to enable him to undertake a
"solid" campaign in Virginia, without leaving New York insufficiently
defended. Cornwallis believed that the best chance of success lay in
securing a firm hold on Virginia. Germain, who still persisted in directing
operations in America from London, considered Cornwallis's plan more
promising than that of Clinton. He treated Cornwallis as though he had an
entirely independent command, with the result that serious
misunderstandings arose between Cornwallis and Clinton, the commander-
in-chief, which hindered their co-operation; and while he approved of the
plan adopted by Cornwallis he did not discountenance Clinton's proposals,
with the result that neither course of action was vigorously pursued. It was
by Clinton's order that Cornwallis retired to the York peninsula, where his
safety depended on the continued command of the sea; the choice of
Yorktown as his post was his own. It was not a good choice; but he had
little reason to expect that he would have to hold it against an
overwhelming force of French and Americans, with a French fleet in
command of the sea. Clinton should not have been misled by Washington's
simple trick into allowing the combined force to advance beyond his reach
on its way to crush Cornwallis's army.
The true cause of the catastrophe, however, lay in naval mismanagement.
The mistaken policy of employing the British fleet in various and distant
enterprises instead of off the ports of the enemy enabled Grasse to sail from
Brest unopposed. Rodney let slip a grand opportunity of baulking his plans
off Fort Royal, and sent, perhaps was forced to send, Hood after him to
America with an insufficient fleet. Partly through accident and partly
through an error of judgment, Graves missed his junction with Hood.
Grasse was consequently allowed quietly to enter Chesapeake bay, and
Graves afterwards failed to use his ships to the best advantage. The loss of
the command at sea was fatal to Cornwallis.
Virginia was certainly a risky movement, but it was a choice of evils and
did not in itself entail disaster. Clinton reckoned, not without reason, that
the Americans were too exhausted to prolong the struggle; he was in favour
of desultory operations on the Chesapeake, against Baltimore and
Philadelphia, with the view of gaining loyalist support, and of waiting until
he had received reinforcements large enough to enable him to undertake a
"solid" campaign in Virginia, without leaving New York insufficiently
defended. Cornwallis believed that the best chance of success lay in
securing a firm hold on Virginia. Germain, who still persisted in directing
operations in America from London, considered Cornwallis's plan more
promising than that of Clinton. He treated Cornwallis as though he had an
entirely independent command, with the result that serious
misunderstandings arose between Cornwallis and Clinton, the commander-
in-chief, which hindered their co-operation; and while he approved of the
plan adopted by Cornwallis he did not discountenance Clinton's proposals,
with the result that neither course of action was vigorously pursued. It was
by Clinton's order that Cornwallis retired to the York peninsula, where his
safety depended on the continued command of the sea; the choice of
Yorktown as his post was his own. It was not a good choice; but he had
little reason to expect that he would have to hold it against an
overwhelming force of French and Americans, with a French fleet in
command of the sea. Clinton should not have been misled by Washington's
simple trick into allowing the combined force to advance beyond his reach
on its way to crush Cornwallis's army.
The true cause of the catastrophe, however, lay in naval mismanagement.
The mistaken policy of employing the British fleet in various and distant
enterprises instead of off the ports of the enemy enabled Grasse to sail from
Brest unopposed. Rodney let slip a grand opportunity of baulking his plans
off Fort Royal, and sent, perhaps was forced to send, Hood after him to
America with an insufficient fleet. Partly through accident and partly
through an error of judgment, Graves missed his junction with Hood.
Grasse was consequently allowed quietly to enter Chesapeake bay, and
Graves afterwards failed to use his ships to the best advantage. The loss of
the command at sea was fatal to Cornwallis.
Page 251
Tidings of the disaster reached London on November 25,
two days before the meeting of parliament. On receiving THE MINISTRY
them North's habitual calmness broke down; he threw up LOSES GROUND.
his arms as though he were shot, and repeatedly exclaimed, "O God! it is all
over!" The king's fortitude was unshaken, and he showed no sign of
agitation, save that, in acknowledging Germain's letter informing him of the
surrender, he omitted to note the exact moment of his writing, as his custom
was. The speech from the throne at the opening of parliament, while
acknowledging disaster, contained no hint of giving way. Parliament for a
while upheld the ministers, and the address was carried in the lords by 75 to
31, and in the commons by 218 to 129. Fox and Burke threatened the
ministers with impeachment and the scaffold; and Pitt condemned their
policy in speeches not less effective for being more moderate in tone. North
announced that the war would no longer be carried on with a design of
conquest, but only for the possession of posts on the coast which would be
useful in the war with France and Spain. Crowded meetings in London and
Westminster condemned the government. It was evident that there was
dissension in the cabinet; North was anxious for an acknowledgment of
American independence, Germain declared that he would never agree to it.
By Christmas the government lost many supporters in parliament.
Its position was further weakened by continued ill-success in war. The
Marquis de Bouillé retook St. Eustatius on October 25. Grasse returned to
Martinique, and in January, 1782, the two commanders landed a force on
St. Kitts and besieged the garrison. Hood followed Grasse with twenty-two
ships, out-manœuvred him brilliantly, beat him off on the 26th, and held his
station against a fleet of thirty-three ships of the line until February 14,
when, as he was unable to prevent the fall of the island, he sailed away. The
capture of St. Kitts and Nevis reduced the British possessions in the West
Indies to Jamaica, Antigua, and Barbadoes. A joint attack on Jamaica was
planned by France and Spain. Rodney, however, again arrived at the
Antilles with twelve ships, was joined by Hood, and, as we shall see in the
next chapter, restored the British flag to its proper place at sea. Nearer
home, Kempenfeldt, the admiral whose tragic end is famous in Cowper's
verse, dealt the enemy a severe blow. He was sent, in December, 1781, with
only twelve ships to intercept a French fleet consisting, as the admiralty
knew, or ought to have known, of seventeen ships with a convoy bound for
two days before the meeting of parliament. On receiving THE MINISTRY
them North's habitual calmness broke down; he threw up LOSES GROUND.
his arms as though he were shot, and repeatedly exclaimed, "O God! it is all
over!" The king's fortitude was unshaken, and he showed no sign of
agitation, save that, in acknowledging Germain's letter informing him of the
surrender, he omitted to note the exact moment of his writing, as his custom
was. The speech from the throne at the opening of parliament, while
acknowledging disaster, contained no hint of giving way. Parliament for a
while upheld the ministers, and the address was carried in the lords by 75 to
31, and in the commons by 218 to 129. Fox and Burke threatened the
ministers with impeachment and the scaffold; and Pitt condemned their
policy in speeches not less effective for being more moderate in tone. North
announced that the war would no longer be carried on with a design of
conquest, but only for the possession of posts on the coast which would be
useful in the war with France and Spain. Crowded meetings in London and
Westminster condemned the government. It was evident that there was
dissension in the cabinet; North was anxious for an acknowledgment of
American independence, Germain declared that he would never agree to it.
By Christmas the government lost many supporters in parliament.
Its position was further weakened by continued ill-success in war. The
Marquis de Bouillé retook St. Eustatius on October 25. Grasse returned to
Martinique, and in January, 1782, the two commanders landed a force on
St. Kitts and besieged the garrison. Hood followed Grasse with twenty-two
ships, out-manœuvred him brilliantly, beat him off on the 26th, and held his
station against a fleet of thirty-three ships of the line until February 14,
when, as he was unable to prevent the fall of the island, he sailed away. The
capture of St. Kitts and Nevis reduced the British possessions in the West
Indies to Jamaica, Antigua, and Barbadoes. A joint attack on Jamaica was
planned by France and Spain. Rodney, however, again arrived at the
Antilles with twelve ships, was joined by Hood, and, as we shall see in the
next chapter, restored the British flag to its proper place at sea. Nearer
home, Kempenfeldt, the admiral whose tragic end is famous in Cowper's
verse, dealt the enemy a severe blow. He was sent, in December, 1781, with
only twelve ships to intercept a French fleet consisting, as the admiralty
knew, or ought to have known, of seventeen ships with a convoy bound for
Page 252
the West Indies. Kempenfeldt took at least twenty of the convoy with troops
and stores, but, overmatched as he was, he was forced to let the fleet sail on.
It was dispersed by a storm shortly afterwards, and many of the ships
returned home. The loss of this convoy seriously crippled the French in the
West Indies.[161] In the Mediterranean, the garrison of St. Philips, in
Minorca, which had been besieged since August by a French and Spanish
army, was forced to surrender on February 5, after being reduced by
sickness and war from 2,692 to 600 men fit for duty, and eighty years after
its conquest the island was lost to England.
During the recess the ministers, convinced of the folly of prolonging the
war, arranged to go on without Germain. Carleton succeeded Clinton at
New York, and Germain was succeeded as third secretary of state by the
insignificant Welbore Ellis, and was created Viscount Sackville, much to
the wrath of the whig peers, who tried in vain to obtain a vote that the
presence of a cashiered officer was derogatory to the dignity of their house.
The opposition gathered strength. A powerful attack by Fox on the
administration of the navy failed by twenty-two votes, a motion by Conway
for putting an end to the American war only by one, and a like motion was
carried a few days later by a majority of nineteen. The government then
introduced a bill to enable the king to make peace, and North sent envoys to
Paris to sound Franklin as to terms. It was evident that the end was near,
and the new government was eagerly discussed. Pitt, though acting with the
opposition, took a somewhat independent line, and announced in the house
that he would not accept a subordinate office. This from a young member
not then twenty-three excited some amazement, but his assumption soon
proved to be well founded. On March 11 George sent the chancellor,
Thurlow, to negotiate with Rockingham, but would not accept his terms.
Three days later the government escaped a vote of want of confidence only
by nine votes, and on the 20th North announced the resignation of the
ministry. George was in great distress, and talked of retiring to Hanover, for
life would be unendurable to him if he fell into the hands of the
Rockingham party.
The two parties in the opposition, though acting together
against the government, held widely different views. The THE SECOND
ROCKINGHAM
Rockinghams aimed at a homogeneous ministry; they MINISTRY.
represented the aristocratic whig faction, were the
and stores, but, overmatched as he was, he was forced to let the fleet sail on.
It was dispersed by a storm shortly afterwards, and many of the ships
returned home. The loss of this convoy seriously crippled the French in the
West Indies.[161] In the Mediterranean, the garrison of St. Philips, in
Minorca, which had been besieged since August by a French and Spanish
army, was forced to surrender on February 5, after being reduced by
sickness and war from 2,692 to 600 men fit for duty, and eighty years after
its conquest the island was lost to England.
During the recess the ministers, convinced of the folly of prolonging the
war, arranged to go on without Germain. Carleton succeeded Clinton at
New York, and Germain was succeeded as third secretary of state by the
insignificant Welbore Ellis, and was created Viscount Sackville, much to
the wrath of the whig peers, who tried in vain to obtain a vote that the
presence of a cashiered officer was derogatory to the dignity of their house.
The opposition gathered strength. A powerful attack by Fox on the
administration of the navy failed by twenty-two votes, a motion by Conway
for putting an end to the American war only by one, and a like motion was
carried a few days later by a majority of nineteen. The government then
introduced a bill to enable the king to make peace, and North sent envoys to
Paris to sound Franklin as to terms. It was evident that the end was near,
and the new government was eagerly discussed. Pitt, though acting with the
opposition, took a somewhat independent line, and announced in the house
that he would not accept a subordinate office. This from a young member
not then twenty-three excited some amazement, but his assumption soon
proved to be well founded. On March 11 George sent the chancellor,
Thurlow, to negotiate with Rockingham, but would not accept his terms.
Three days later the government escaped a vote of want of confidence only
by nine votes, and on the 20th North announced the resignation of the
ministry. George was in great distress, and talked of retiring to Hanover, for
life would be unendurable to him if he fell into the hands of the
Rockingham party.
The two parties in the opposition, though acting together
against the government, held widely different views. The THE SECOND
ROCKINGHAM
Rockinghams aimed at a homogeneous ministry; they MINISTRY.
represented the aristocratic whig faction, were the
Page 253
enemies of prerogative, and were strong advocates of American
independence. Shelburne, like his old chief, Chatham, was opposed to
government by party, held that the king should have an interest in the
government, and so far "be his own minister," and like Chatham had been
hostile to American independence.[162] For political reasons, then, George
was drawn to Shelburne, while personally he despised Rockingham and
hated Fox. He invited Shelburne first, and then Gower, to form a ministry.
Both declined. Shelburne could not afford to split with the Rockinghams; he
knew that they could not stand without him, and he advised the king to send
for Rockingham. George would not see Rockingham himself, and
negotiated with him through Shelburne on the basis of freedom as regards
men and measures, and as to the acknowledgment of American
independence.[163] Rockingham formed his cabinet on the 24th. He took the
treasury. Shelburne was secretary for home, Irish, and colonial affairs; Fox
for foreign affairs, the third secretaryship being abolished; Keppel, who was
created a viscount, first lord of the admiralty; Richmond, master-general of
the ordnance; Lord John Cavendish, chancellor of the exchequer; Camden,
president of the council; Grafton, privy seal; Conway, commander-in-chief;
Dunning, who was created Baron Ashburton, chancellor of the duchy of
Lancaster. To please the king Thurlow was retained as chancellor. Pitt was
offered, and declined, a subordinate office. Burke was treated by his
aristocratic friends as unworthy of cabinet office, and was made paymaster
of the forces.
The king was defeated. His system of personal government through
ministers supported by his influence in parliament received its death-blow
from the ill-success of the American war. Before long he adopted a better
system; he found a prime minister who could command the confidence of
the nation, and he yielded himself, not always willingly, to his guidance.
Meanwhile the whigs were victorious. How long they were to remain
victors is yet to be seen. George was resolute, skilful in intrigue, and by that
time well versed in politics. He was aided by the jealousies and mistakes of
his opponents. Even in their hour of triumph they found that he gained an
advantage over them. The cabinet was divided; its new members belonged
half to the Rockingham and half to the Shelburne party, while Thurlow was
the king's trusted friend. Rockingham acted unwisely in accepting office
offered to him in a way which showed that he was not to have the king's
independence. Shelburne, like his old chief, Chatham, was opposed to
government by party, held that the king should have an interest in the
government, and so far "be his own minister," and like Chatham had been
hostile to American independence.[162] For political reasons, then, George
was drawn to Shelburne, while personally he despised Rockingham and
hated Fox. He invited Shelburne first, and then Gower, to form a ministry.
Both declined. Shelburne could not afford to split with the Rockinghams; he
knew that they could not stand without him, and he advised the king to send
for Rockingham. George would not see Rockingham himself, and
negotiated with him through Shelburne on the basis of freedom as regards
men and measures, and as to the acknowledgment of American
independence.[163] Rockingham formed his cabinet on the 24th. He took the
treasury. Shelburne was secretary for home, Irish, and colonial affairs; Fox
for foreign affairs, the third secretaryship being abolished; Keppel, who was
created a viscount, first lord of the admiralty; Richmond, master-general of
the ordnance; Lord John Cavendish, chancellor of the exchequer; Camden,
president of the council; Grafton, privy seal; Conway, commander-in-chief;
Dunning, who was created Baron Ashburton, chancellor of the duchy of
Lancaster. To please the king Thurlow was retained as chancellor. Pitt was
offered, and declined, a subordinate office. Burke was treated by his
aristocratic friends as unworthy of cabinet office, and was made paymaster
of the forces.
The king was defeated. His system of personal government through
ministers supported by his influence in parliament received its death-blow
from the ill-success of the American war. Before long he adopted a better
system; he found a prime minister who could command the confidence of
the nation, and he yielded himself, not always willingly, to his guidance.
Meanwhile the whigs were victorious. How long they were to remain
victors is yet to be seen. George was resolute, skilful in intrigue, and by that
time well versed in politics. He was aided by the jealousies and mistakes of
his opponents. Even in their hour of triumph they found that he gained an
advantage over them. The cabinet was divided; its new members belonged
half to the Rockingham and half to the Shelburne party, while Thurlow was
the king's trusted friend. Rockingham acted unwisely in accepting office
offered to him in a way which showed that he was not to have the king's
Page 254
confidence. Though he was prime minister, George gave his apparent
confidence to another member of the cabinet. Shelburne was not
unreasonably believed to be ready to make himself useful to the king with
an eye to his own advancement. The seeds of discord and distrust were at
once sown among the new ministers. Even while the ministry was in
process of formation Fox sharply remarked to Shelburne that he perceived
that it "was to consist of two parts—one belonging to the king, the other to
the public".[164]
FOOTNOTES:
[145] Coxe, Bourbon Kings of Spain, iii., 424-37.
[146] George III. to North, April 18, 1782, Corresp., ii., 423.
[147] Rockingham Memoirs, ii., 425.
[148] Parl. Hist., xxii., 488.
[149] George to North, Sept. 26, 1780, Corresp., ii., 336.
[150] For the contrary view see Engl. Hist. Rev., v. (1890), 31 sq.
[151] Letters of Sir S. Hood, Introd., xxxi.-xxxii., pp. 15-16, ed. Hannay.
[152] Washington to Jefferson, June 8, 1780, Works, viii., 71; Clinton to
Germain, Oct. 29, 1780, Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 283.
[153] Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 238, 246, 261, 267.
[154] Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 104 n. 3a.
[155] Rawdon to Leslie, Oct. 24, 1780, ibid., p. 274; see also pp. 272, 278.
[156] Cornwallis to Clinton, Dec. 3, 1780, op. cit., pp. 304-7; Tarleton,
Campaigns of 1780, 1781, pp. 179-80; Stedman, ii., 229-31.
[157] Cornwallis to Germain, April 18, 1781, Clinton-Cornwallis Controv., i.,
417-18.
[158] Germain to Cornwallis, March 7, 1781, ibid., p. 338; see also ii., 10.
[159] Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 43, n. 1b.
[160] Rodney to Germain, Dec. 22, 1780, Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep., ix., App., pp.
108-9.
[161] Chevalier, Histoire de la Marine Française (l'Indép. Amer.), pp. 278, 280.
[162] Parl. Hist., xxii., 987, 1003.
confidence to another member of the cabinet. Shelburne was not
unreasonably believed to be ready to make himself useful to the king with
an eye to his own advancement. The seeds of discord and distrust were at
once sown among the new ministers. Even while the ministry was in
process of formation Fox sharply remarked to Shelburne that he perceived
that it "was to consist of two parts—one belonging to the king, the other to
the public".[164]
FOOTNOTES:
[145] Coxe, Bourbon Kings of Spain, iii., 424-37.
[146] George III. to North, April 18, 1782, Corresp., ii., 423.
[147] Rockingham Memoirs, ii., 425.
[148] Parl. Hist., xxii., 488.
[149] George to North, Sept. 26, 1780, Corresp., ii., 336.
[150] For the contrary view see Engl. Hist. Rev., v. (1890), 31 sq.
[151] Letters of Sir S. Hood, Introd., xxxi.-xxxii., pp. 15-16, ed. Hannay.
[152] Washington to Jefferson, June 8, 1780, Works, viii., 71; Clinton to
Germain, Oct. 29, 1780, Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 283.
[153] Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 238, 246, 261, 267.
[154] Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 104 n. 3a.
[155] Rawdon to Leslie, Oct. 24, 1780, ibid., p. 274; see also pp. 272, 278.
[156] Cornwallis to Clinton, Dec. 3, 1780, op. cit., pp. 304-7; Tarleton,
Campaigns of 1780, 1781, pp. 179-80; Stedman, ii., 229-31.
[157] Cornwallis to Germain, April 18, 1781, Clinton-Cornwallis Controv., i.,
417-18.
[158] Germain to Cornwallis, March 7, 1781, ibid., p. 338; see also ii., 10.
[159] Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, i., 43, n. 1b.
[160] Rodney to Germain, Dec. 22, 1780, Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep., ix., App., pp.
108-9.
[161] Chevalier, Histoire de la Marine Française (l'Indép. Amer.), pp. 278, 280.
[162] Parl. Hist., xxii., 987, 1003.
Page 255
[163] Life of Shelburne, iii., 125-32.
[164] Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 292; see also p. 316.
[164] Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 292; see also p. 316.
Page 256
CHAPTER XII.
THE ROUT OF THE WHIGS.
The new ministers at once attacked the sources from which the crown
derived its corrupt influence over parliament. They carried bills preventing
contractors from sitting in parliament and depriving revenue officers of the
franchise. As these officers, who were dependent on the ministers of the
crown, numbered according to one computation nearly 40,000, and to
another 60,000, out of an electorate of about 300,000, their
disfranchisement was an important step towards freedom of election. A
message to parliament recommending economy was extorted from the king
as an introduction to a plan of economical reform which was brought
forward by Burke. It was not so drastic as his earlier plan, for the king
acting in the cabinet through Shelburne and Thurlow objected to many of
the proposed retrenchments. Nevertheless, in spite of mutilations, the bill,
which became law, effected a saving of £72,000 a year, chiefly by
abolishing useless offices. The act also again provided for the payment of
arrears of the civil list, amounting this time to £296,000. Burke nobly
continued his work by a bill for the reform of his own office, preventing the
paymaster from gaining the enormous profits appropriated by nearly all his
predecessors. Another declaration in favour of freedom of election was
made by the commons, for they at last accepted Wilkes's annual motion for
expunging from their journals the resolution of February, 1769, declaring
him incapable of re-election. The corrupt influence of the crown would, Pitt
declared, be checked most effectually by a reform of parliament. Acting on
his own account, he proposed an inquiry into the state of the representation,
without bringing forward any scheme of reform. He pointed out that some
boroughs were in the hands of the treasury, that others had no actual
existence, and that many were merely the property of purchasers, the nawáb
of Arcot, for example, returning seven or eight members. His motion,
though supported by Fox, was rejected by 161 to 141.
Most memorable of the changes effected during the
Rockingham administration is the establishment of the IRISH
THE ROUT OF THE WHIGS.
The new ministers at once attacked the sources from which the crown
derived its corrupt influence over parliament. They carried bills preventing
contractors from sitting in parliament and depriving revenue officers of the
franchise. As these officers, who were dependent on the ministers of the
crown, numbered according to one computation nearly 40,000, and to
another 60,000, out of an electorate of about 300,000, their
disfranchisement was an important step towards freedom of election. A
message to parliament recommending economy was extorted from the king
as an introduction to a plan of economical reform which was brought
forward by Burke. It was not so drastic as his earlier plan, for the king
acting in the cabinet through Shelburne and Thurlow objected to many of
the proposed retrenchments. Nevertheless, in spite of mutilations, the bill,
which became law, effected a saving of £72,000 a year, chiefly by
abolishing useless offices. The act also again provided for the payment of
arrears of the civil list, amounting this time to £296,000. Burke nobly
continued his work by a bill for the reform of his own office, preventing the
paymaster from gaining the enormous profits appropriated by nearly all his
predecessors. Another declaration in favour of freedom of election was
made by the commons, for they at last accepted Wilkes's annual motion for
expunging from their journals the resolution of February, 1769, declaring
him incapable of re-election. The corrupt influence of the crown would, Pitt
declared, be checked most effectually by a reform of parliament. Acting on
his own account, he proposed an inquiry into the state of the representation,
without bringing forward any scheme of reform. He pointed out that some
boroughs were in the hands of the treasury, that others had no actual
existence, and that many were merely the property of purchasers, the nawáb
of Arcot, for example, returning seven or eight members. His motion,
though supported by Fox, was rejected by 161 to 141.
Most memorable of the changes effected during the
Rockingham administration is the establishment of the IRISH
Page 257
legislative independence of Ireland. When Carlisle went INDEPENDENCE.
over as viceroy in December, 1780, he was instructed
that the government would not oppose the demand for a habeas corpus act,
but that he was to prevent parliament from declaring for legislative
independence, or for a limitation of the perpetual mutiny act which kept the
army beyond its control. The Irish parliament for a while steadily supported
the government. The small party in opposition included Flood, who, after
holding a lucrative office for six years, found himself unable to influence
the government, adopted a hostile line, and was dismissed, and, above all,
Grattan who had become leader of the party after Flood took office. But the
force which was to enlist parliament on the national side was outside its
walls. The volunteers grew in strength, and reviews of large bodies of them
were held during the summer of 1781. They remained loyal, and when in
September the fleets of France and Spain threatened the coast of Munster,
they eagerly prepared to meet the enemy. At the same time the impending
success of the American revolution encouraged them to demand
independence for their own country, and as they were nearly 100,000 armed
and disciplined men, while less than 5,000 regular troops were left in
Ireland, their voice could not be disregarded. It soon made itself heard. On
the invitation of Charlemont's regiment a meeting of delegates from the
Ulster volunteers assembled in the church of Dungannon on February 15,
1782. They passed resolutions condemning the claim of the British
parliament to legislate for Ireland, and the control which, in accordance
with Poyning's act, the privy councils of England and Ireland exercised over
Irish legislation, and they demanded the limitation of the mutiny act, and
the independence of the judges.
Before the Irish parliament met after the Easter recess the Rockingham
ministry came into office; Carlisle was abruptly removed, and the Duke of
Portland was appointed to succeed him. Rockingham, Fox, and Burke were
anxious to satisfy Ireland, but the ministry seems not to have determined its
exact line of policy. An attempt was made to embarrass the ministers by
Eden, Carlisle's chief secretary, apparently in revenge for their discourteous
treatment of Carlisle. Without consultation with them, he proposed the
repeal of the act of 9 George I. which asserted the right of the king and
parliament of Great Britain to legislate for Ireland. Fox opposed the motion
and it was withdrawn. The next day, April 9, the ministers brought a royal
over as viceroy in December, 1780, he was instructed
that the government would not oppose the demand for a habeas corpus act,
but that he was to prevent parliament from declaring for legislative
independence, or for a limitation of the perpetual mutiny act which kept the
army beyond its control. The Irish parliament for a while steadily supported
the government. The small party in opposition included Flood, who, after
holding a lucrative office for six years, found himself unable to influence
the government, adopted a hostile line, and was dismissed, and, above all,
Grattan who had become leader of the party after Flood took office. But the
force which was to enlist parliament on the national side was outside its
walls. The volunteers grew in strength, and reviews of large bodies of them
were held during the summer of 1781. They remained loyal, and when in
September the fleets of France and Spain threatened the coast of Munster,
they eagerly prepared to meet the enemy. At the same time the impending
success of the American revolution encouraged them to demand
independence for their own country, and as they were nearly 100,000 armed
and disciplined men, while less than 5,000 regular troops were left in
Ireland, their voice could not be disregarded. It soon made itself heard. On
the invitation of Charlemont's regiment a meeting of delegates from the
Ulster volunteers assembled in the church of Dungannon on February 15,
1782. They passed resolutions condemning the claim of the British
parliament to legislate for Ireland, and the control which, in accordance
with Poyning's act, the privy councils of England and Ireland exercised over
Irish legislation, and they demanded the limitation of the mutiny act, and
the independence of the judges.
Before the Irish parliament met after the Easter recess the Rockingham
ministry came into office; Carlisle was abruptly removed, and the Duke of
Portland was appointed to succeed him. Rockingham, Fox, and Burke were
anxious to satisfy Ireland, but the ministry seems not to have determined its
exact line of policy. An attempt was made to embarrass the ministers by
Eden, Carlisle's chief secretary, apparently in revenge for their discourteous
treatment of Carlisle. Without consultation with them, he proposed the
repeal of the act of 9 George I. which asserted the right of the king and
parliament of Great Britain to legislate for Ireland. Fox opposed the motion
and it was withdrawn. The next day, April 9, the ministers brought a royal
Page 258
message to parliament recommending to its consideration means of
satisfying Irish discontent. The spirit manifested in the Dungannon meeting
overcame the resistance of the Irish parliament, and the nation was united in
its demands. Rockingham and Fox tried in vain to persuade Grattan to give
them time for consideration.[165] On the 16th he moved an address to the
king in the Irish parliament asserting independence, and it was carried
unanimously. The ministers, misled by Portland, believed that the Irish
demands might be modified, and proposed negotiation. Grattan refused, and
they yielded everything. On May 17 resolutions, afterwards followed by
statutes, were carried without division in both houses, conceding legislative
independence to Ireland, restoring the appellate jurisdiction of the Irish
house of lords, and limiting the mutiny act. Ireland thus became almost an
independent state. It remained connected with Great Britain by the tie of the
crown, it had no executive dependent on its parliament, and its legislation
was subject to a ministerial veto. The revolution of 1782, pressed on by
Grattan, set up relations between the two kingdoms which were anomalous
and fraught with danger.
Negotiations for peace were in progress, but the war still
went on, and its last great events were glorious. The THE "BATTLE OF
THE SAINTS".
navy was far stronger than in 1778; the dockyards were
busy during the war, and the number of ships was much larger.
Improvements of various kinds were adopted; ships were coppered, the
rapidity and accuracy of their fire was increased by new inventions, and
carronades—light guns with a large bore mounted on the upper deck, for
use at close quarters—not yet adopted by the French, were added to their
armament. The discipline and ardour of the personnel of the navy reached a
high pitch. The British sailor was keen to fight the Frenchman, and 93,168
seamen and marines are entered as borne during the present year. We left
the French and Spanish fleets in the West Indies preparing to conquer
Jamaica (p. 227). Grasse was at Fort Royal, and was to join the Spaniards
on the coast of San Domingo, and Rodney, whose fleet was raised by his
junction with Hood and the arrival of reinforcements to thirty-seven ships
of the line, lay on the watch at St. Lucia. On April 8 the French stood out to
sea, and the next day Rodney found them off Dominica. An indecisive
action took place in which, owing to baffling calms, only the British van
was engaged. Grasse then beat to windward between Dominica and the Iles
satisfying Irish discontent. The spirit manifested in the Dungannon meeting
overcame the resistance of the Irish parliament, and the nation was united in
its demands. Rockingham and Fox tried in vain to persuade Grattan to give
them time for consideration.[165] On the 16th he moved an address to the
king in the Irish parliament asserting independence, and it was carried
unanimously. The ministers, misled by Portland, believed that the Irish
demands might be modified, and proposed negotiation. Grattan refused, and
they yielded everything. On May 17 resolutions, afterwards followed by
statutes, were carried without division in both houses, conceding legislative
independence to Ireland, restoring the appellate jurisdiction of the Irish
house of lords, and limiting the mutiny act. Ireland thus became almost an
independent state. It remained connected with Great Britain by the tie of the
crown, it had no executive dependent on its parliament, and its legislation
was subject to a ministerial veto. The revolution of 1782, pressed on by
Grattan, set up relations between the two kingdoms which were anomalous
and fraught with danger.
Negotiations for peace were in progress, but the war still
went on, and its last great events were glorious. The THE "BATTLE OF
THE SAINTS".
navy was far stronger than in 1778; the dockyards were
busy during the war, and the number of ships was much larger.
Improvements of various kinds were adopted; ships were coppered, the
rapidity and accuracy of their fire was increased by new inventions, and
carronades—light guns with a large bore mounted on the upper deck, for
use at close quarters—not yet adopted by the French, were added to their
armament. The discipline and ardour of the personnel of the navy reached a
high pitch. The British sailor was keen to fight the Frenchman, and 93,168
seamen and marines are entered as borne during the present year. We left
the French and Spanish fleets in the West Indies preparing to conquer
Jamaica (p. 227). Grasse was at Fort Royal, and was to join the Spaniards
on the coast of San Domingo, and Rodney, whose fleet was raised by his
junction with Hood and the arrival of reinforcements to thirty-seven ships
of the line, lay on the watch at St. Lucia. On April 8 the French stood out to
sea, and the next day Rodney found them off Dominica. An indecisive
action took place in which, owing to baffling calms, only the British van
was engaged. Grasse then beat to windward between Dominica and the Iles
Page 259
des Saintes, but in consequence of various accidents made little way. The
British followed him, and early on the 12th Sir Charles Douglas, the captain
of the fleet, awakened Rodney with the stirring tidings that "God had given
him the enemy on the lee-bow".
The English fleet was numerically the stronger, but the French had finer
ships and heavier batteries. The action began about 7.30 A.M. At first it
seemed likely to be as indecisive as usual, the two fleets passing each other
on opposite tacks and cannonading, the French being to windward. As they
sailed slowly with a light breeze, and at a short distance from each other,
the British guns and especially the carronades were highly effective, for the
enemy's ships were crowded with soldiers for the attack on Jamaica. Before
long the battle took a form which rendered it memorable in the annals of
naval warfare, for Rodney, without previous design, practised the
manœuvre known as breaking the enemy's line, and by that means was
enabled to bring the engagement to a decisive issue, such as he hoped for in
the battle of April 17, 1780. This manœuvre, afterwards deliberately
adopted with triumphant success by Howe, Nelson, and other great
captains, though often practised in the naval battles between the English
and the Dutch in the seventeenth century,[166] had fallen into complete
oblivion, so firmly did admirals believe in the necessity of keeping their
line of battle. By cutting through the enemy's line an admiral could
concentrate his attack on any portion of it which could least easily receive
help from the rest, and could throw the line into confusion; the ships to the
rear of the point of penetration would be stopped, massed up, and might be
caught together, while those ahead pursued their course. This mode of
attack was worked out by a landsman, Clerk of Eldin, and though his Essay
was not fully printed until 1782, parts of it were privately circulated in
1780.
As Rodney's flagship, the Formidable (98), which was half way down the
British line, was coming up with the Glorieux (74), the fourth from Grasse's
flagship, the Ville de Paris (104), a slight change in the wind opened a gap
between the Glorieux and the ship next astern of her. Douglas urged
Rodney to steer through the gap. He refused, then yielded; and as the
Formidable, firing right and left from every gun at the ships on either side
of her, passed round the stern of the Glorieux, and within pistol-shot of her,
the French canonniers could be seen throwing down their sponges and
British followed him, and early on the 12th Sir Charles Douglas, the captain
of the fleet, awakened Rodney with the stirring tidings that "God had given
him the enemy on the lee-bow".
The English fleet was numerically the stronger, but the French had finer
ships and heavier batteries. The action began about 7.30 A.M. At first it
seemed likely to be as indecisive as usual, the two fleets passing each other
on opposite tacks and cannonading, the French being to windward. As they
sailed slowly with a light breeze, and at a short distance from each other,
the British guns and especially the carronades were highly effective, for the
enemy's ships were crowded with soldiers for the attack on Jamaica. Before
long the battle took a form which rendered it memorable in the annals of
naval warfare, for Rodney, without previous design, practised the
manœuvre known as breaking the enemy's line, and by that means was
enabled to bring the engagement to a decisive issue, such as he hoped for in
the battle of April 17, 1780. This manœuvre, afterwards deliberately
adopted with triumphant success by Howe, Nelson, and other great
captains, though often practised in the naval battles between the English
and the Dutch in the seventeenth century,[166] had fallen into complete
oblivion, so firmly did admirals believe in the necessity of keeping their
line of battle. By cutting through the enemy's line an admiral could
concentrate his attack on any portion of it which could least easily receive
help from the rest, and could throw the line into confusion; the ships to the
rear of the point of penetration would be stopped, massed up, and might be
caught together, while those ahead pursued their course. This mode of
attack was worked out by a landsman, Clerk of Eldin, and though his Essay
was not fully printed until 1782, parts of it were privately circulated in
1780.
As Rodney's flagship, the Formidable (98), which was half way down the
British line, was coming up with the Glorieux (74), the fourth from Grasse's
flagship, the Ville de Paris (104), a slight change in the wind opened a gap
between the Glorieux and the ship next astern of her. Douglas urged
Rodney to steer through the gap. He refused, then yielded; and as the
Formidable, firing right and left from every gun at the ships on either side
of her, passed round the stern of the Glorieux, and within pistol-shot of her,
the French canonniers could be seen throwing down their sponges and
Page 260
handspikes and running below to escape the storm of shot which she poured
upon them. This time Rodney's captains were quick to understand what he
was at. The next five ships followed the Formidable, and like her engaged
on the windward side of the enemy. Almost at the same time the ship sixth
astern of her also cut the enemy's line, passing through a gap abreast of her.
The French line was thus cut into three divisions, and its central portion,
consisting of five ships, was thrown together and exposed to a deadly
attack. By noon the enemy was scattered in various groups, the English,
who had gained the wind, attacking at will and without any order. Grasse
fought his ship, the splendid offering of the city of Paris to its king, with
conspicuous gallantry, and the slaughter on board her was awful. At last,
about 6 P.M., he hauled down the flag of France with his own hands, and
surrendered himself to Hood on the Barfleur (90). Rodney then stopped the
fight. Four other prizes were taken. Twenty more, Hood declared, might
have been taken if Rodney had followed up his victory. He certainly lost a
fine opportunity, probably because disease and suffering had robbed him of
some of his former vigour. As it was, the "Battle of the Saints" saved
Jamaica from invasion, seriously damaged the French fleet, and shed glory
on the navy of Britain.[167]
The concluding scenes of the siege of Gibraltar were not less glorious. Vast
preparations were made to take the fortress, which in September was
besieged on the land side by nearly 40,000 men, under the Duke de Crillon.
The combined fleets, forty-nine ships of the line, lay at Algeciras, and ten
floating batteries were constructed which, it was believed, could neither be
sunk nor burned. The garrison consisted of 7,000 men fit for duty. Lord
Howe, who on the change of ministry was appointed to command the
channel fleet, sailed to its relief on the 11th with thirty-four ships of the line
and many store-ships and transports. On the 8th, when the enemy's works
were not completed, Eliott opened fire upon them and did them much
damage by using red-hot balls. During the next four days the enemy replied
by a terrific bombardment from their heavy ordnance and gunboats. Early
on the 13th a general attack was made by land-batteries and sea-batteries,
and a perpetual fire was poured upon the fortress from over 300 pieces of
the heaviest artillery. Eliott directed his red-hot shot chiefly against the
battering ships, and at last during the night two of them caught fire. In the
confusion which ensued Captain Curtis, commanding a small naval brigade,
upon them. This time Rodney's captains were quick to understand what he
was at. The next five ships followed the Formidable, and like her engaged
on the windward side of the enemy. Almost at the same time the ship sixth
astern of her also cut the enemy's line, passing through a gap abreast of her.
The French line was thus cut into three divisions, and its central portion,
consisting of five ships, was thrown together and exposed to a deadly
attack. By noon the enemy was scattered in various groups, the English,
who had gained the wind, attacking at will and without any order. Grasse
fought his ship, the splendid offering of the city of Paris to its king, with
conspicuous gallantry, and the slaughter on board her was awful. At last,
about 6 P.M., he hauled down the flag of France with his own hands, and
surrendered himself to Hood on the Barfleur (90). Rodney then stopped the
fight. Four other prizes were taken. Twenty more, Hood declared, might
have been taken if Rodney had followed up his victory. He certainly lost a
fine opportunity, probably because disease and suffering had robbed him of
some of his former vigour. As it was, the "Battle of the Saints" saved
Jamaica from invasion, seriously damaged the French fleet, and shed glory
on the navy of Britain.[167]
The concluding scenes of the siege of Gibraltar were not less glorious. Vast
preparations were made to take the fortress, which in September was
besieged on the land side by nearly 40,000 men, under the Duke de Crillon.
The combined fleets, forty-nine ships of the line, lay at Algeciras, and ten
floating batteries were constructed which, it was believed, could neither be
sunk nor burned. The garrison consisted of 7,000 men fit for duty. Lord
Howe, who on the change of ministry was appointed to command the
channel fleet, sailed to its relief on the 11th with thirty-four ships of the line
and many store-ships and transports. On the 8th, when the enemy's works
were not completed, Eliott opened fire upon them and did them much
damage by using red-hot balls. During the next four days the enemy replied
by a terrific bombardment from their heavy ordnance and gunboats. Early
on the 13th a general attack was made by land-batteries and sea-batteries,
and a perpetual fire was poured upon the fortress from over 300 pieces of
the heaviest artillery. Eliott directed his red-hot shot chiefly against the
battering ships, and at last during the night two of them caught fire. In the
confusion which ensued Captain Curtis, commanding a small naval brigade,
Page 261
brought out his gunboats and completed the enemy's discomfiture. Nine of
the battering-ships blew up, and the tenth was burnt by Curtis's boats. Some
1,500 of the enemy perished, and 400 were saved from death by the British
seamen. After the failure of their great attempt, the enemy could only hope
to reduce the place by blockade. Howe's fleet had a troublesome voyage,
and did not come in sight until October 11. He effected the relief of the
garrison with admirable skill. As he repassed the straits the combined fleet
followed him, and on the 20th engaged him at a distance, but he brought his
fleet off with little damage. The siege was raised on February 6, 1783, when
the war had ceased. Eliott, to whom the successful issue of the defence, one
of the finest feats of the British arms, was principally due, was created
Baron Heathfield.
In India the outbreak of war with France encouraged the
Maráthás, who dominated the country from Mysore to WAR IN INDIA
the Ganges, in the hope of expelling the British, by AND INDIAN
WATERS.
acting in conjunction with Haidar Alí. Hastings found
that a French agent was intriguing with them, and took prompt measures
against them. An expedition from Bombay failed miserably, but Colonel
Goddard, who was sent by Hastings from Bengal, captured Ahmadábád,
and drove Sindhia over the Narbadá. His fortress, Gwalior, was stormed by
Major Popham in August, 1780. Nevertheless, the war strained Hastings's
resources. His difficulties were terribly increased by the invasion of the
Karnatic. Haidar and his son, Tipú, practically took the English by surprise,
overran the country with an army of some 75,000 cavalry and 15,000
infantry, instructed by 400 Frenchmen; defeated the Madras troops,
captured Arcot, and threatened Madras. Sir Eyre Coote, who had come out
to conduct the Maráthá war, was despatched to Madras, and in 1781
negotiations were opened with Sindhia, and his former possessions were
restored to him. Peace was made with the Maráthá confederacy in May,
1782, by the treaty of Salbái, which was ratified seven months later. While
Coote was forcing Haidar to raise the siege of various British fortresses in
January, 1781, a French fleet appeared at Pondicherry. Haidar called upon it
to help him, for his own fleet had been destroyed by Admiral Hughes; but
Coote prevented the French from obtaining supplies, and they sailed away
without effecting anything. He gained a splendid victory over Haidar at
Porto Novo on July 1, met him with doubtful success at Pollilúr, completely
the battering-ships blew up, and the tenth was burnt by Curtis's boats. Some
1,500 of the enemy perished, and 400 were saved from death by the British
seamen. After the failure of their great attempt, the enemy could only hope
to reduce the place by blockade. Howe's fleet had a troublesome voyage,
and did not come in sight until October 11. He effected the relief of the
garrison with admirable skill. As he repassed the straits the combined fleet
followed him, and on the 20th engaged him at a distance, but he brought his
fleet off with little damage. The siege was raised on February 6, 1783, when
the war had ceased. Eliott, to whom the successful issue of the defence, one
of the finest feats of the British arms, was principally due, was created
Baron Heathfield.
In India the outbreak of war with France encouraged the
Maráthás, who dominated the country from Mysore to WAR IN INDIA
the Ganges, in the hope of expelling the British, by AND INDIAN
WATERS.
acting in conjunction with Haidar Alí. Hastings found
that a French agent was intriguing with them, and took prompt measures
against them. An expedition from Bombay failed miserably, but Colonel
Goddard, who was sent by Hastings from Bengal, captured Ahmadábád,
and drove Sindhia over the Narbadá. His fortress, Gwalior, was stormed by
Major Popham in August, 1780. Nevertheless, the war strained Hastings's
resources. His difficulties were terribly increased by the invasion of the
Karnatic. Haidar and his son, Tipú, practically took the English by surprise,
overran the country with an army of some 75,000 cavalry and 15,000
infantry, instructed by 400 Frenchmen; defeated the Madras troops,
captured Arcot, and threatened Madras. Sir Eyre Coote, who had come out
to conduct the Maráthá war, was despatched to Madras, and in 1781
negotiations were opened with Sindhia, and his former possessions were
restored to him. Peace was made with the Maráthá confederacy in May,
1782, by the treaty of Salbái, which was ratified seven months later. While
Coote was forcing Haidar to raise the siege of various British fortresses in
January, 1781, a French fleet appeared at Pondicherry. Haidar called upon it
to help him, for his own fleet had been destroyed by Admiral Hughes; but
Coote prevented the French from obtaining supplies, and they sailed away
without effecting anything. He gained a splendid victory over Haidar at
Porto Novo on July 1, met him with doubtful success at Pollilúr, completely
Page 262
routed him at Sholinghar, and, in January, 1782, though suffering from
serious illness, skilfully relieved Vellore.
Hughes had already taken the Dutch settlements, Negapatam and
Trincomali, when in February a French fleet appeared off Madras to protect
them. It was commanded by M. de Suffren, an admiral of remarkable
ability. Suffren sailed from France in March, 1781. He fell on an English
squadron, on its way to seize the Dutch colony at the Cape, in the neutral
water of Porto Praya harbour in the Cape de Verde islands. The fight was
indecisive, but he arrived first at the Cape and prevented the projected
attack. His fleet was superior to that of Hughes, whose principal object was
to prevent him from gaining a port as a place of supply and for landing
troops. Hughes fought four indecisive battles with him, and was unable
either to prevent the French from acting with Haidar, or from taking
Cuddalore, which gave them a good naval and military station, or from
reducing Trincomali. In this long and famous naval duel Hughes, though a
capable and gallant captain, showed himself far inferior to Suffren in
strategical and tactical skill. The French admiral, however, was constantly
thwarted by the misconduct of his subordinates, while the English captains
gave Hughes loyal support.[168] Coote carried on the war with vigour, but
his victory over Haidar and his French allies at Arni was rendered fruitless
by his lack of cavalry and supplies. Haidar died in December, leaving a
message bidding his son make peace with the English, which Tipú did not
obey. Coote died in April, 1783. The peace with the Maráthás enabled the
English to invade Tipú's country on the Malabar side, where they met with
some success and one signal disaster. Meanwhile Coote's successor, Stuart,
was attacking the French in Cuddalore. A fifth indecisive battle with Suffren
on June 20 compelled Hughes to withdraw his fleet to Madras to refit.
Stuart's army, weakened by disease and in sore need of supplies, was saved
from probable disaster by the news of the treaty of Versailles. Deprived of
his French allies, Tipú was at last, March 11, 1784, persuaded by Lord
Macartney, the governor of Madras, to make peace. By this treaty, which
Macartney made against the commands of Hastings, both parties
surrendered their conquests. A renewal of war was certain, for Tipú's
arrogance was unabated.
Although the government carried some highly beneficial measures it was
not free from the usual whig failings. Led astray by party spirit, the
serious illness, skilfully relieved Vellore.
Hughes had already taken the Dutch settlements, Negapatam and
Trincomali, when in February a French fleet appeared off Madras to protect
them. It was commanded by M. de Suffren, an admiral of remarkable
ability. Suffren sailed from France in March, 1781. He fell on an English
squadron, on its way to seize the Dutch colony at the Cape, in the neutral
water of Porto Praya harbour in the Cape de Verde islands. The fight was
indecisive, but he arrived first at the Cape and prevented the projected
attack. His fleet was superior to that of Hughes, whose principal object was
to prevent him from gaining a port as a place of supply and for landing
troops. Hughes fought four indecisive battles with him, and was unable
either to prevent the French from acting with Haidar, or from taking
Cuddalore, which gave them a good naval and military station, or from
reducing Trincomali. In this long and famous naval duel Hughes, though a
capable and gallant captain, showed himself far inferior to Suffren in
strategical and tactical skill. The French admiral, however, was constantly
thwarted by the misconduct of his subordinates, while the English captains
gave Hughes loyal support.[168] Coote carried on the war with vigour, but
his victory over Haidar and his French allies at Arni was rendered fruitless
by his lack of cavalry and supplies. Haidar died in December, leaving a
message bidding his son make peace with the English, which Tipú did not
obey. Coote died in April, 1783. The peace with the Maráthás enabled the
English to invade Tipú's country on the Malabar side, where they met with
some success and one signal disaster. Meanwhile Coote's successor, Stuart,
was attacking the French in Cuddalore. A fifth indecisive battle with Suffren
on June 20 compelled Hughes to withdraw his fleet to Madras to refit.
Stuart's army, weakened by disease and in sore need of supplies, was saved
from probable disaster by the news of the treaty of Versailles. Deprived of
his French allies, Tipú was at last, March 11, 1784, persuaded by Lord
Macartney, the governor of Madras, to make peace. By this treaty, which
Macartney made against the commands of Hastings, both parties
surrendered their conquests. A renewal of war was certain, for Tipú's
arrogance was unabated.
Although the government carried some highly beneficial measures it was
not free from the usual whig failings. Led astray by party spirit, the
Page 263
ministers sent Admiral Pigot, a mere nonentity, to
supersede Rodney. Scarcely had they done so when the FOX AND
news of Rodney's victory reached them. A messenger SHELBURNE QUARREL.
was at once despatched to stop Pigot, but it was too late.
Rodney was created a baron, a rank which some thought unequal to his
deserts. While the ministers virtuously curtailed the expenditure of the civil
list, they burdened the country with pensions of £4,000 a year to Dunning
and £3,200 to Barré, both members of Shelburne's party. And they
quarrelled amongst themselves. That was the inevitable result of the
existence of two parties in the cabinet. Between Shelburne and Fox there
was much ill-feeling, which came to a head over the negotiations for peace.
Until the independence of the American colonies was acknowledged,
negotiations with them belonged to Shelburne's department. The
arrangement of a peace with foreign enemies was Fox's business, and he
would also be responsible for negotiations with the Americans as soon as
the colonies were recognised as forming an independent state. In addition to
the difficulties naturally arising from this division of responsibility, the two
secretaries differed on policy. Fox desired an immediate recognition of
American independence, in the hope of detaching the Americans from the
French alliance, and so putting England in a better position for dealing with
her other enemies; Shelburne agreed with the king that the acknowledgment
should be a condition of a joint treaty with France and America, for
England would then have a claim to receive some return for it.
Shelburne with, it is said,[169] the consent of the cabinet, sent one Oswald to
Paris to open informal negotiations with Franklin. Oswald, who was wholly
unfit for diplomatic work, favourably received Franklin's monstrous
proposition that England should cede Canada to the Americans, though they
had been driven out of the country, and the Canadians themselves desired to
remain attached to England. He gave Shelburne a paper containing this
proposition. Shelburne, who would certainly not have assented to it, treated
the paper as confidential and did not show it to his colleagues. The cabinet
agreed that Oswald should return to treat with Franklin, and that Thomas
Grenville, the second son of George Grenville, who was nominated by Fox,
should negotiate with Vergennes. Rodney's victory gave the ministers
ground for believing that, if they could separate America from France, they
would be in a good position to resist French demands; and they therefore
supersede Rodney. Scarcely had they done so when the FOX AND
news of Rodney's victory reached them. A messenger SHELBURNE QUARREL.
was at once despatched to stop Pigot, but it was too late.
Rodney was created a baron, a rank which some thought unequal to his
deserts. While the ministers virtuously curtailed the expenditure of the civil
list, they burdened the country with pensions of £4,000 a year to Dunning
and £3,200 to Barré, both members of Shelburne's party. And they
quarrelled amongst themselves. That was the inevitable result of the
existence of two parties in the cabinet. Between Shelburne and Fox there
was much ill-feeling, which came to a head over the negotiations for peace.
Until the independence of the American colonies was acknowledged,
negotiations with them belonged to Shelburne's department. The
arrangement of a peace with foreign enemies was Fox's business, and he
would also be responsible for negotiations with the Americans as soon as
the colonies were recognised as forming an independent state. In addition to
the difficulties naturally arising from this division of responsibility, the two
secretaries differed on policy. Fox desired an immediate recognition of
American independence, in the hope of detaching the Americans from the
French alliance, and so putting England in a better position for dealing with
her other enemies; Shelburne agreed with the king that the acknowledgment
should be a condition of a joint treaty with France and America, for
England would then have a claim to receive some return for it.
Shelburne with, it is said,[169] the consent of the cabinet, sent one Oswald to
Paris to open informal negotiations with Franklin. Oswald, who was wholly
unfit for diplomatic work, favourably received Franklin's monstrous
proposition that England should cede Canada to the Americans, though they
had been driven out of the country, and the Canadians themselves desired to
remain attached to England. He gave Shelburne a paper containing this
proposition. Shelburne, who would certainly not have assented to it, treated
the paper as confidential and did not show it to his colleagues. The cabinet
agreed that Oswald should return to treat with Franklin, and that Thomas
Grenville, the second son of George Grenville, who was nominated by Fox,
should negotiate with Vergennes. Rodney's victory gave the ministers
ground for believing that, if they could separate America from France, they
would be in a good position to resist French demands; and they therefore
Page 264
instructed Grenville to propose to Vergennes that England should
acknowledge American independence directly, and not through France. This
Fox held gave him the whole conduct of the negotiations. As, however,
Franklin was anxious not to lose so pliant a negotiator as Oswald, the
cabinet agreed that Oswald should continue to confer with him. On June 4,
Grenville complained to Fox that the separate negotiation between Oswald
and Franklin rendered it impossible for him to make any progress, and
further told him that he had learned from Oswald that Shelburne had seen
the paper containing Franklin's proposition with respect to Canada. Fox was
indignant, for he considered that Shelburne was carrying on a clandestine
negotiation, and that the concealment of the Canada paper was a proof of
his duplicity. On the 30th he proposed in the cabinet that the independence
of America should be acknowledged without a treaty, which would have
given him the entire charge of the negotiations. He was outvoted and
declared that he would resign office. In this matter Shelburne does not
appear to have been guilty of intrigue. The two secretaries mistrusted and
were jealous of one another, and Fox was too ready to believe that
Shelburne was secretly working in league with the king to counteract his
negotiations, which was not the case. In concealing the Canada paper from
his colleagues, Shelburne behaved with characteristic lack of openness, but
as Franklin's proposition was informal and required no answer, the matter
was trivial, and did not warrant the indignation which was expressed by Fox
and his friends.[170]
On July 1, the day after Fox declared his intention to
resign, Rockingham died. His death delivered George THE SHELBURNE
MINISTRY.
from the domination of the whigs. He at once bade
Shelburne propose a plan for a ministry. The Rockingham party in the
cabinet objected, declaring that they had a right to advise the king as to his
choice, and pressed him to send for Portland, whose position as a whig
magnate constituted his chief claim to office. George refused to yield to
their dictation. Fox would not serve with Shelburne and resigned the seals.
He was followed by only one member of the cabinet, Lord John Cavendish,
by Portland, Burke, Sheridan, and a few more. Richmond, Keppel, and the
rest of the party remained in office. Shelburne took the treasury, Pitt became
chancellor of the exchequer, and Thomas Townshend succeeded Shelburne,
and Lord Grantham Fox, as secretaries of state. Barré was made paymaster
acknowledge American independence directly, and not through France. This
Fox held gave him the whole conduct of the negotiations. As, however,
Franklin was anxious not to lose so pliant a negotiator as Oswald, the
cabinet agreed that Oswald should continue to confer with him. On June 4,
Grenville complained to Fox that the separate negotiation between Oswald
and Franklin rendered it impossible for him to make any progress, and
further told him that he had learned from Oswald that Shelburne had seen
the paper containing Franklin's proposition with respect to Canada. Fox was
indignant, for he considered that Shelburne was carrying on a clandestine
negotiation, and that the concealment of the Canada paper was a proof of
his duplicity. On the 30th he proposed in the cabinet that the independence
of America should be acknowledged without a treaty, which would have
given him the entire charge of the negotiations. He was outvoted and
declared that he would resign office. In this matter Shelburne does not
appear to have been guilty of intrigue. The two secretaries mistrusted and
were jealous of one another, and Fox was too ready to believe that
Shelburne was secretly working in league with the king to counteract his
negotiations, which was not the case. In concealing the Canada paper from
his colleagues, Shelburne behaved with characteristic lack of openness, but
as Franklin's proposition was informal and required no answer, the matter
was trivial, and did not warrant the indignation which was expressed by Fox
and his friends.[170]
On July 1, the day after Fox declared his intention to
resign, Rockingham died. His death delivered George THE SHELBURNE
MINISTRY.
from the domination of the whigs. He at once bade
Shelburne propose a plan for a ministry. The Rockingham party in the
cabinet objected, declaring that they had a right to advise the king as to his
choice, and pressed him to send for Portland, whose position as a whig
magnate constituted his chief claim to office. George refused to yield to
their dictation. Fox would not serve with Shelburne and resigned the seals.
He was followed by only one member of the cabinet, Lord John Cavendish,
by Portland, Burke, Sheridan, and a few more. Richmond, Keppel, and the
rest of the party remained in office. Shelburne took the treasury, Pitt became
chancellor of the exchequer, and Thomas Townshend succeeded Shelburne,
and Lord Grantham Fox, as secretaries of state. Barré was made paymaster
Page 265
of the forces, and Lord Temple, afterwards Marquis of Buckingham, the
eldest son of George Grenville, lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Fox was
disappointed to find that so few followed him. Distrusting Shelburne as he
did, he could not do otherwise than resign rather than serve with him. As,
however, the new ministry was a whig ministry, as Shelburne professed
many of the Rockingham principles, and as Pitt, who virtually had the
leadership of the lower house, was at that time a whig, he should have taken
up a neutral position, supporting the government when he approved of its
measures and opposing it when he disapproved of them. He took another
course; at once went into opposition, declared the new ministers could not
be bound either by promises or honour, and prophesied—after events make
his words worth remembering—that they would soon "be joined by those
men whom the house had precipitated from their seats".[171] Parliament was
prorogued on July 11.
The chief business before the new ministry was to arrange terms of peace.
England wished to free the Americans from French influence and to
establish good relations with them by a separate negotiation. Vergennes
hoped to delay the acknowledgment of independence until a general peace,
intending that France should compensate Spain for her disappointment with
respect to Gibraltar by securing for her the sole navigation of the
Mississippi and that the United States should be enclosed by the
Alleghanies. The American commissioners found that France regarded the
success of the revolution, the result of her own work, with jealousy, and
wished to shut them out from the Newfoundland fishery and from extension
on the west and north. On the other hand, England acknowledged American
independence on September 27, and showed herself inclined to meet their
demands in a friendly spirit. Accordingly, without consulting the French
ministers, they signed preliminaries of peace on November 30, the treaty to
be concluded when terms were arranged between England and France.
England acknowledged the sovereignty of the United States; the Mississippi
was recognised as their boundary on the west, and on the north a line
passing through the great lakes; and they secured a right to fish on the
banks of Newfoundland and in the gulf of St. Lawrence. The American
revolution was accomplished. Englishmen of all parties believed that the
day of England's greatness was over. Yet the separation, bitter and
humiliating as it was, taught her a lesson in colonial government which has
eldest son of George Grenville, lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Fox was
disappointed to find that so few followed him. Distrusting Shelburne as he
did, he could not do otherwise than resign rather than serve with him. As,
however, the new ministry was a whig ministry, as Shelburne professed
many of the Rockingham principles, and as Pitt, who virtually had the
leadership of the lower house, was at that time a whig, he should have taken
up a neutral position, supporting the government when he approved of its
measures and opposing it when he disapproved of them. He took another
course; at once went into opposition, declared the new ministers could not
be bound either by promises or honour, and prophesied—after events make
his words worth remembering—that they would soon "be joined by those
men whom the house had precipitated from their seats".[171] Parliament was
prorogued on July 11.
The chief business before the new ministry was to arrange terms of peace.
England wished to free the Americans from French influence and to
establish good relations with them by a separate negotiation. Vergennes
hoped to delay the acknowledgment of independence until a general peace,
intending that France should compensate Spain for her disappointment with
respect to Gibraltar by securing for her the sole navigation of the
Mississippi and that the United States should be enclosed by the
Alleghanies. The American commissioners found that France regarded the
success of the revolution, the result of her own work, with jealousy, and
wished to shut them out from the Newfoundland fishery and from extension
on the west and north. On the other hand, England acknowledged American
independence on September 27, and showed herself inclined to meet their
demands in a friendly spirit. Accordingly, without consulting the French
ministers, they signed preliminaries of peace on November 30, the treaty to
be concluded when terms were arranged between England and France.
England acknowledged the sovereignty of the United States; the Mississippi
was recognised as their boundary on the west, and on the north a line
passing through the great lakes; and they secured a right to fish on the
banks of Newfoundland and in the gulf of St. Lawrence. The American
revolution was accomplished. Englishmen of all parties believed that the
day of England's greatness was over. Yet the separation, bitter and
humiliating as it was, taught her a lesson in colonial government which has
Page 266
rendered her empire strong as well as vast, while in place of discontented
colonies with cramped energies, it laid the foundation of a mighty power
bound to her by bonds which will grow in strength so long as the affairs of
both Great Britain and the United States are wisely directed. It was a happy
beginning of the relations between the two powers that it was through
England, and not through their foreign allies, that the Americans obtained
the gratification of their legitimate ambitions, and that from the peace with
the United States England gained some advantage in treating with her
continental foes.
The treaty did not protect the loyalists. Shelburne did his best for them, but
Franklin was bitter against them, and his feelings were those of the
victorious party generally. The American commissioners would only agree
that there should be no further confiscations and prosecutions, and that
congress should recommend the several states to revise their laws
concerning them. These articles were nugatory. Nothing short of a renewal
of the war could have induced the Americans to forego their revenge, and if
the war had gone on longer, the loyalists' fate would have been no better.
Everywhere, with the exception of South Carolina, they were treated with
barbarity. Some 60,000 persons left the country before Carleton evacuated
New York, taking refuge either in Great Britain or her colonies. At least
25,000 of both sexes settled in the British maritime provinces of North
America, and helped to establish the province of New Brunswick which
received representative institutions in 1784; 10,000 others, United Empire
Loyalists as they were afterwards called, in the valley of the St. Lawrence.
England did what she could for her unfortunate friends; liberal grants of
land were made to them, some had half-pay as military officers, and
between 1783 and 1790 £3,112,455 was distributed among them, besides
£25,785 granted in pensions.[172] Relief, however, was slow in coming, and
many, reduced from wealth to penury, died in the utmost distress.
Preliminaries of peace with France and Spain were
signed on January 20, 1783, and were followed by the THE TREATY OF
VERSAILLES.
definitive treaty of Versailles concluded on September 3.
The war brought France into financial difficulties, and for that reason
England, though forced to cede some of her conquests in the last war,
obtained as good terms as she had a right to expect. In the West Indies she
restored St. Lucia to France, ceded Tobago, and received back Dominica,
colonies with cramped energies, it laid the foundation of a mighty power
bound to her by bonds which will grow in strength so long as the affairs of
both Great Britain and the United States are wisely directed. It was a happy
beginning of the relations between the two powers that it was through
England, and not through their foreign allies, that the Americans obtained
the gratification of their legitimate ambitions, and that from the peace with
the United States England gained some advantage in treating with her
continental foes.
The treaty did not protect the loyalists. Shelburne did his best for them, but
Franklin was bitter against them, and his feelings were those of the
victorious party generally. The American commissioners would only agree
that there should be no further confiscations and prosecutions, and that
congress should recommend the several states to revise their laws
concerning them. These articles were nugatory. Nothing short of a renewal
of the war could have induced the Americans to forego their revenge, and if
the war had gone on longer, the loyalists' fate would have been no better.
Everywhere, with the exception of South Carolina, they were treated with
barbarity. Some 60,000 persons left the country before Carleton evacuated
New York, taking refuge either in Great Britain or her colonies. At least
25,000 of both sexes settled in the British maritime provinces of North
America, and helped to establish the province of New Brunswick which
received representative institutions in 1784; 10,000 others, United Empire
Loyalists as they were afterwards called, in the valley of the St. Lawrence.
England did what she could for her unfortunate friends; liberal grants of
land were made to them, some had half-pay as military officers, and
between 1783 and 1790 £3,112,455 was distributed among them, besides
£25,785 granted in pensions.[172] Relief, however, was slow in coming, and
many, reduced from wealth to penury, died in the utmost distress.
Preliminaries of peace with France and Spain were
signed on January 20, 1783, and were followed by the THE TREATY OF
VERSAILLES.
definitive treaty of Versailles concluded on September 3.
The war brought France into financial difficulties, and for that reason
England, though forced to cede some of her conquests in the last war,
obtained as good terms as she had a right to expect. In the West Indies she
restored St. Lucia to France, ceded Tobago, and received back Dominica,
Page 267
Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Kitts, Nevis, and Montserrat. In Africa Senegal
and Goree went to France, and Gambia and Fort St. James were guaranteed
to England. France received back her commercial establishments in India;
her right to participate in the Newfoundland fishery was clearly defined;
England ceded to her the islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre in sovereignty,
and the old stipulation for the demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk
was given up. France and Spain pressed the government to agree to some
exchange for Gibraltar. The king, Shelburne, and the majority of the cabinet
would have let it go if a sufficient compensation had been offered;
Richmond and Keppel objected to its cession on any terms. The signature of
the American preliminaries strengthened the position of Great Britain and
the question was dropped.[173] Spain retained Minorca and West Florida,
and England ceded East Florida to her. On the other hand, Spain restored by
treaty Providence and the Bahama isles, which were surrendered without
bloodshed in 1782, and had already been recovered not less easily by
England; and she guaranteed the right of the English to cut logwood in the
bay of Honduras. A truce with Holland led to a treaty providing for a mutual
restoration of conquests, with the exception of Negapatam which was
retained by England.
When parliament met on December 5, it was evident that the terms of peace
would be sharply criticised by both the parties in opposition, the followers
of North and of Fox. Shelburne was disliked and distrusted by his
colleagues, who considered him secretive and inclined to act alone, and the
government soon showed signs of dissolution. Richmond retired from the
cabinet in January, 1783, though he kept his office; the next day Keppel
resigned the admiralty because he was dissatisfied with the preliminaries,
and Carlisle, the lord steward, also resigned for the same reason. Shelburne
was prevented by his colleagues from making overtures to North, and Pitt,
who stood by him, tried to persuade Fox to re-enter the ministry. Fox asked
if Shelburne would remain, and Pitt having answered that he would, at once
declined. On this Pitt closed the interview with, it is said, the words: "I did
not come here to betray Lord Shelburne". From that time Pitt and Fox were
political enemies. The Duke of Rutland having succeeded Carlisle as lord
steward with a seat in the cabinet, Grafton declared that Shelburne had no
right to make an addition to the cabinet without consulting its members, and
that he was making himself a "prime minister," and he too resigned the
and Goree went to France, and Gambia and Fort St. James were guaranteed
to England. France received back her commercial establishments in India;
her right to participate in the Newfoundland fishery was clearly defined;
England ceded to her the islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre in sovereignty,
and the old stipulation for the demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk
was given up. France and Spain pressed the government to agree to some
exchange for Gibraltar. The king, Shelburne, and the majority of the cabinet
would have let it go if a sufficient compensation had been offered;
Richmond and Keppel objected to its cession on any terms. The signature of
the American preliminaries strengthened the position of Great Britain and
the question was dropped.[173] Spain retained Minorca and West Florida,
and England ceded East Florida to her. On the other hand, Spain restored by
treaty Providence and the Bahama isles, which were surrendered without
bloodshed in 1782, and had already been recovered not less easily by
England; and she guaranteed the right of the English to cut logwood in the
bay of Honduras. A truce with Holland led to a treaty providing for a mutual
restoration of conquests, with the exception of Negapatam which was
retained by England.
When parliament met on December 5, it was evident that the terms of peace
would be sharply criticised by both the parties in opposition, the followers
of North and of Fox. Shelburne was disliked and distrusted by his
colleagues, who considered him secretive and inclined to act alone, and the
government soon showed signs of dissolution. Richmond retired from the
cabinet in January, 1783, though he kept his office; the next day Keppel
resigned the admiralty because he was dissatisfied with the preliminaries,
and Carlisle, the lord steward, also resigned for the same reason. Shelburne
was prevented by his colleagues from making overtures to North, and Pitt,
who stood by him, tried to persuade Fox to re-enter the ministry. Fox asked
if Shelburne would remain, and Pitt having answered that he would, at once
declined. On this Pitt closed the interview with, it is said, the words: "I did
not come here to betray Lord Shelburne". From that time Pitt and Fox were
political enemies. The Duke of Rutland having succeeded Carlisle as lord
steward with a seat in the cabinet, Grafton declared that Shelburne had no
right to make an addition to the cabinet without consulting its members, and
that he was making himself a "prime minister," and he too resigned the
Page 268
privy seal. According to the whigs the cabinet was to dictate to the king
whom he should direct to form a cabinet, and was then to control its own
composition. Their constitutional ideas were warped by their desire to
perpetuate their own power.
The government was not in a case to speak with its enemies in the gate. In
the commons 140 members were known to be supporters of Shelburne, 120
were followers of North, and 90 of Fox; the intentions of the rest were
unknown or uncertain. With this division of parties and with the
government in a state of dissolution, Fox, if he had exercised a little
patience, might soon have formed a strong and united whig party. He chose
another course, and, on February 14, formed an alliance with North on the
basis of "mutual good-will and confidence"; they agreed that enough had
been done to reduce the influence of the crown, that though the king should
be treated with respect, he should have only "the appearance of power," and
that on the question of parliamentary reform each should act as he chose.
This coalition decided the fate of the government. The preliminaries of
peace were discussed in parliament on the 17th, and almost every article
was adversely criticised. In the lords the government address was carried by
13; in the commons it was rejected by 224 to 208. Fox was reproached for
his "unnatural junction" with North, and his answer showed that he was
prepared to act with him further than in that night's debate. On the 21st a
vote of censure on the terms of the peace was carried by 207 to 190. The
coalition was avowed. Fox defended it with ability on the ground that the
country needed a broad and stable administration, and declared himself a
candidate for office in the future ministry. Pitt, in a speech of great dignity,
taunted "the self-made minister," contended that the objections to the peace
were simply an attack on Shelburne, and in a fine peroration spoke of
himself as caring more for his own honour than for the emoluments of
office. Shelburne resigned on the 24th.
The coalition was triumphant. It was condemned by the
public, and the verdict has been endorsed by posterity. THE COALITION
Though it is true that North carried on the war with MINISTRY.
America only to please the king, that was not then known, and his conduct
in that, and almost every important matter, was utterly opposed to the
principles which Fox professed. What ground was there for mutual
confidence? For eight years Fox had reviled North with extraordinary
whom he should direct to form a cabinet, and was then to control its own
composition. Their constitutional ideas were warped by their desire to
perpetuate their own power.
The government was not in a case to speak with its enemies in the gate. In
the commons 140 members were known to be supporters of Shelburne, 120
were followers of North, and 90 of Fox; the intentions of the rest were
unknown or uncertain. With this division of parties and with the
government in a state of dissolution, Fox, if he had exercised a little
patience, might soon have formed a strong and united whig party. He chose
another course, and, on February 14, formed an alliance with North on the
basis of "mutual good-will and confidence"; they agreed that enough had
been done to reduce the influence of the crown, that though the king should
be treated with respect, he should have only "the appearance of power," and
that on the question of parliamentary reform each should act as he chose.
This coalition decided the fate of the government. The preliminaries of
peace were discussed in parliament on the 17th, and almost every article
was adversely criticised. In the lords the government address was carried by
13; in the commons it was rejected by 224 to 208. Fox was reproached for
his "unnatural junction" with North, and his answer showed that he was
prepared to act with him further than in that night's debate. On the 21st a
vote of censure on the terms of the peace was carried by 207 to 190. The
coalition was avowed. Fox defended it with ability on the ground that the
country needed a broad and stable administration, and declared himself a
candidate for office in the future ministry. Pitt, in a speech of great dignity,
taunted "the self-made minister," contended that the objections to the peace
were simply an attack on Shelburne, and in a fine peroration spoke of
himself as caring more for his own honour than for the emoluments of
office. Shelburne resigned on the 24th.
The coalition was triumphant. It was condemned by the
public, and the verdict has been endorsed by posterity. THE COALITION
Though it is true that North carried on the war with MINISTRY.
America only to please the king, that was not then known, and his conduct
in that, and almost every important matter, was utterly opposed to the
principles which Fox professed. What ground was there for mutual
confidence? For eight years Fox had reviled North with extraordinary
Page 269
bitterness. If his words were just he had no business to ally himself with
him. "My friendships," he said, with a Latin quotation, "are perpetual, my
enmities are not so," a good reason for reconciliation with a private enemy;
but political quarrels should be founded on differences of principle. Fox's
words illustrate his adherence to the whig notion that the politics of the
nation might be treated by the members of a few great families as their
personal concerns. Of the two, North was at first more blamed than Fox, for
it seemed pusillanimous in him to forgive Fox's treatment, but neither
escaped censure. The king was furious. He had no love for Shelburne, but
he hated Fox, and determined if possible to avoid falling into the hands of
the coalition. He offered the treasury to Pitt, who with admirable
discernment saw that his time was not yet come, and refused it. He tried
Gower; he tried to detach North from the coalition; he even offered terms to
the coalition; then again he pressed Pitt to take the treasury, and failing in
all these attempts, sought help from Chatham's nephew, Thomas Pitt, and
failed to obtain it. From February 24 to April 2 the country was without an
organised government. George was almost in despair, talked of retiring to
Hanover, and spoke bitterly of the ingratitude of North, whose past
subservience to him had been largely rewarded. At last he was forced to
accept the coalition ministry, to give Portland the treasury, and to submit to
the exclusion of Thurlow, who had been chancellor since 1778 in the
ministries of North, Rockingham, and Shelburne.
The new cabinet consisted of Portland, who was little more than a figure-
head; North and Fox, secretaries of state; Stormont, president of the
council; Carlisle, privy seal; Lord John Cavendish, chancellor of the
exchequer; and Keppel, first lord of the admiralty. All except Stormont
belonged to the party of Fox, the dominant partner in the coalition. The
great seal was placed in commission. Burke again became paymaster, and
Sheridan was secretary to the treasury. George was determined not to give
his confidence to the ministers who had thus thrust themselves upon him,
and to get rid of them as soon as possible. Fox applied himself assiduously
to the duties of office, as indeed he did during the Rockingham
administration, and strove in vain to overcome the king's dislike by
deferential behaviour. George's hostility was strengthened by the friendship
between Fox and the Prince of Wales. The prince's habits were dissolute and
extravagant; he was an undutiful son, and the king a somewhat unforgiving
him. "My friendships," he said, with a Latin quotation, "are perpetual, my
enmities are not so," a good reason for reconciliation with a private enemy;
but political quarrels should be founded on differences of principle. Fox's
words illustrate his adherence to the whig notion that the politics of the
nation might be treated by the members of a few great families as their
personal concerns. Of the two, North was at first more blamed than Fox, for
it seemed pusillanimous in him to forgive Fox's treatment, but neither
escaped censure. The king was furious. He had no love for Shelburne, but
he hated Fox, and determined if possible to avoid falling into the hands of
the coalition. He offered the treasury to Pitt, who with admirable
discernment saw that his time was not yet come, and refused it. He tried
Gower; he tried to detach North from the coalition; he even offered terms to
the coalition; then again he pressed Pitt to take the treasury, and failing in
all these attempts, sought help from Chatham's nephew, Thomas Pitt, and
failed to obtain it. From February 24 to April 2 the country was without an
organised government. George was almost in despair, talked of retiring to
Hanover, and spoke bitterly of the ingratitude of North, whose past
subservience to him had been largely rewarded. At last he was forced to
accept the coalition ministry, to give Portland the treasury, and to submit to
the exclusion of Thurlow, who had been chancellor since 1778 in the
ministries of North, Rockingham, and Shelburne.
The new cabinet consisted of Portland, who was little more than a figure-
head; North and Fox, secretaries of state; Stormont, president of the
council; Carlisle, privy seal; Lord John Cavendish, chancellor of the
exchequer; and Keppel, first lord of the admiralty. All except Stormont
belonged to the party of Fox, the dominant partner in the coalition. The
great seal was placed in commission. Burke again became paymaster, and
Sheridan was secretary to the treasury. George was determined not to give
his confidence to the ministers who had thus thrust themselves upon him,
and to get rid of them as soon as possible. Fox applied himself assiduously
to the duties of office, as indeed he did during the Rockingham
administration, and strove in vain to overcome the king's dislike by
deferential behaviour. George's hostility was strengthened by the friendship
between Fox and the Prince of Wales. The prince's habits were dissolute and
extravagant; he was an undutiful son, and the king a somewhat unforgiving
Page 270
father. He violently espoused the cause of the coalition, and George is said
to have called the government "my son's ministry". It was time to provide
him with a separate establishment, and Fox promised him that he would ask
parliament for £100,000 a year. The majority of the cabinet thought the sum
too large. The king was of the same opinion, and did not wish his son to be
independent of all parental control. He therefore offered him an allowance
of £50,000 from the civil list. Fox was unwilling to disappoint the prince,
and the dismissal of the ministers seemed certain. They were saved by the
prince's acceptance of the king's offer, in addition to the revenues of the
duchy of Cornwall which amounted to £12,000 a year; and parliament had
only to vote him £60,000 for his debts and present expenses. The question
of parliamentary reform was again brought forward by Pitt. As before, he
urged that reform would prevent the crown from again exercising corrupt
influence in parliament. He proposed as resolutions that the number of
county and metropolitan members should be increased, suggesting an
increase of at least a hundred, and that for the future any borough which
was found by a committee of the house to be grossly corrupt should be
disfranchised. This, he believed, would gradually reduce the number of
members to what it then was, and would purify elections. North opposed
the motion, Fox spoke in favour of it, though he wished that it had gone
further. It was lost by 293 to 149. The public was no longer so eager for
reform as in 1780.[174] Sawbridge's annual motion for shortening the
duration of parliament was lost by 121 to 56.
Indian affairs demanded immediate legislation. The
company's charter was renewed in 1781; a new WARREN
HASTINGS IN
arrangement was made as to its dividends and its INDIA.
payments to the state, and its political transactions were
placed more completely under ministerial control. Two committees were
also appointed by the house of commons to inquire into its administration.
Of one of these Burke was the most active member, and Dundas, then
holding office under North, was chairman of the other. In 1782 Dundas
moved resolutions condemning the company's administration; the
Rockingham ministry took the matter up, and the house voted that Warren
Hastings, the governor-general, should be recalled. The directors agreed,
but on Rockingham's death the proprietors refused their assent. North's
regulating act of 1773 worked badly. From 1774 to 1780 Hastings was
to have called the government "my son's ministry". It was time to provide
him with a separate establishment, and Fox promised him that he would ask
parliament for £100,000 a year. The majority of the cabinet thought the sum
too large. The king was of the same opinion, and did not wish his son to be
independent of all parental control. He therefore offered him an allowance
of £50,000 from the civil list. Fox was unwilling to disappoint the prince,
and the dismissal of the ministers seemed certain. They were saved by the
prince's acceptance of the king's offer, in addition to the revenues of the
duchy of Cornwall which amounted to £12,000 a year; and parliament had
only to vote him £60,000 for his debts and present expenses. The question
of parliamentary reform was again brought forward by Pitt. As before, he
urged that reform would prevent the crown from again exercising corrupt
influence in parliament. He proposed as resolutions that the number of
county and metropolitan members should be increased, suggesting an
increase of at least a hundred, and that for the future any borough which
was found by a committee of the house to be grossly corrupt should be
disfranchised. This, he believed, would gradually reduce the number of
members to what it then was, and would purify elections. North opposed
the motion, Fox spoke in favour of it, though he wished that it had gone
further. It was lost by 293 to 149. The public was no longer so eager for
reform as in 1780.[174] Sawbridge's annual motion for shortening the
duration of parliament was lost by 121 to 56.
Indian affairs demanded immediate legislation. The
company's charter was renewed in 1781; a new WARREN
HASTINGS IN
arrangement was made as to its dividends and its INDIA.
payments to the state, and its political transactions were
placed more completely under ministerial control. Two committees were
also appointed by the house of commons to inquire into its administration.
Of one of these Burke was the most active member, and Dundas, then
holding office under North, was chairman of the other. In 1782 Dundas
moved resolutions condemning the company's administration; the
Rockingham ministry took the matter up, and the house voted that Warren
Hastings, the governor-general, should be recalled. The directors agreed,
but on Rockingham's death the proprietors refused their assent. North's
regulating act of 1773 worked badly. From 1774 to 1780 Hastings was
Page 271
thwarted in council by three of the four councillors sent out by the
ministers, and specially by Francis, the reputed author of the Junius letters,
who opposed him with extreme rancour. Hastings fought a duel with him in
1779 and wounded him; he returned to England, and Hastings gained a
majority in the council. The Madras council also quarrelled with their
governor, Lord Pigot; he was arrested by their order and died in
confinement. Other difficulties arose from the independent action of the
minor governments of Bombay and Madras, and from the indefinite
character of the powers of the supreme court of judicature. Administrative
abuses existed, and the extreme financial difficulties caused by the wars
with the Maráthás, Haidar Alí, and the French, drove Hastings to adopt
some high-handed measures. The Rockingham whigs were adverse to him,
and Burke, whose generous emotions were roused by any tale of
oppression, applied himself to collecting evidence against him, which his
fervid imagination magnified and distorted.
Hastings guided the affairs of India through a period of extreme danger;
preserved the empire, brought order out of anarchy in every branch of the
administration, and won the esteem and confidence of the subject people,
the army, and the civil service. His task was not merely to govern well, but
to provide dividends out of revenue, and his work was criticised by the
company with reference to its pecuniary results as well as its political
wisdom. In Bengal he abolished Clive's mischievous dual system, and
administered the province through English officials; he reformed the
collection of the revenue, and he effected large economies by reducing the
enormous pension of the nawáb, who under his new system was spared the
expenses of government, and by withholding the tribute to the emperor,
who was a mere puppet in the hands of the Maráthás. While governor of
Bengal he allied himself with the Muhammadan states on the frontier, and
specially with Oudh, which he wished to make a barrier against Maráthá
invasion. He took Allahábád and Kora from the emperor, or rather from the
Maráthás, and made them over to Shujá-ud-Daulá, the wazír of Oudh, and
partly to raise money for the company, and partly as a matter of policy he
accepted the wazír's offer of forty lakhs of rupees for the loan of British
troops to help him conquer the Rohillás, an Afghan tribe which had lately
settled in those districts and was intriguing with the Maráthás. The conquest
was carried out in Eastern fashion in 1774, and the wazír's cruelties, which
ministers, and specially by Francis, the reputed author of the Junius letters,
who opposed him with extreme rancour. Hastings fought a duel with him in
1779 and wounded him; he returned to England, and Hastings gained a
majority in the council. The Madras council also quarrelled with their
governor, Lord Pigot; he was arrested by their order and died in
confinement. Other difficulties arose from the independent action of the
minor governments of Bombay and Madras, and from the indefinite
character of the powers of the supreme court of judicature. Administrative
abuses existed, and the extreme financial difficulties caused by the wars
with the Maráthás, Haidar Alí, and the French, drove Hastings to adopt
some high-handed measures. The Rockingham whigs were adverse to him,
and Burke, whose generous emotions were roused by any tale of
oppression, applied himself to collecting evidence against him, which his
fervid imagination magnified and distorted.
Hastings guided the affairs of India through a period of extreme danger;
preserved the empire, brought order out of anarchy in every branch of the
administration, and won the esteem and confidence of the subject people,
the army, and the civil service. His task was not merely to govern well, but
to provide dividends out of revenue, and his work was criticised by the
company with reference to its pecuniary results as well as its political
wisdom. In Bengal he abolished Clive's mischievous dual system, and
administered the province through English officials; he reformed the
collection of the revenue, and he effected large economies by reducing the
enormous pension of the nawáb, who under his new system was spared the
expenses of government, and by withholding the tribute to the emperor,
who was a mere puppet in the hands of the Maráthás. While governor of
Bengal he allied himself with the Muhammadan states on the frontier, and
specially with Oudh, which he wished to make a barrier against Maráthá
invasion. He took Allahábád and Kora from the emperor, or rather from the
Maráthás, and made them over to Shujá-ud-Daulá, the wazír of Oudh, and
partly to raise money for the company, and partly as a matter of policy he
accepted the wazír's offer of forty lakhs of rupees for the loan of British
troops to help him conquer the Rohillás, an Afghan tribe which had lately
settled in those districts and was intriguing with the Maráthás. The conquest
was carried out in Eastern fashion in 1774, and the wazír's cruelties, which
Page 272
were grossly exaggerated, were laid to Hastings's charge. The overthrow of
the Rohillás was advantageous to the British rule; but though the council at
Calcutta thought the bargain highly profitable to the company, the hiring out
of British troops to serve as subsidiaries to an Asiatic potentate was a
deplorable mistake. Another charge brought against Hastings concerned the
execution of Nanda-Kumár (Nuncomar), a rascally Bráhman, who, after
Hastings was appointed governor-general, helped his opponents in the
council by bringing charges against him. Nanda-Kumár was hanged for a
private forgery, after a patient trial in the supreme court. His death was
highly convenient to Hastings, but there is no evidence that he had anything
to do with the prosecution or sentence.[175]
During the Maráthá war, a tributary chief, Chait Singh,
rájá of Benares, neglected to perform the demands made FOX'S INDIA
BILLS.
upon him, and showed a dangerously independent spirit.
In 1781 Hastings imposed an enormous fine upon him; he revolted and was
defeated, and his estates were confiscated and given to a kinsman. Though
the rájá's conduct was contumacious, Hastings seems to have acted with
undue severity. He was pressed for money, and left the rájá no choice
between paying a very large sum and losing his estates. Difficulties
increased, and he called on Asaf-ud-Daulá, then nawáb wazír of Oudh, to
pay his heavy arrears of debt to the company. The begams, the mother and
widow of the late nawáb, had a vast treasure which should have belonged to
the state. Hastings was informed that these powerful ladies were helping
Chait Singh; it was necessary to get money from the wazír, and he bade him
force the ladies to give up their treasure. The resident at Lucknow brought
up some troops; the begams' palace at Faizábád was blockaded, and their
eunuch-ministers imprisoned and maltreated until the resident obtained
enough to liquidate the wazír's debt. The wazír threw the odium of this
transaction on the English. Hastings defended his conduct as just and
politic. He was not directly responsible for the severe measures adopted by
the wazír, but it was certainly not a matter in which the British governor-
general and his officers should have taken any part. His conduct in this
matter as well as towards the Benares rájá was misrepresented and used
against him in England.
The refusal of the proprietors to recall Hastings was highly displeasing to
the commons, and a petition from the company for relief from some
the Rohillás was advantageous to the British rule; but though the council at
Calcutta thought the bargain highly profitable to the company, the hiring out
of British troops to serve as subsidiaries to an Asiatic potentate was a
deplorable mistake. Another charge brought against Hastings concerned the
execution of Nanda-Kumár (Nuncomar), a rascally Bráhman, who, after
Hastings was appointed governor-general, helped his opponents in the
council by bringing charges against him. Nanda-Kumár was hanged for a
private forgery, after a patient trial in the supreme court. His death was
highly convenient to Hastings, but there is no evidence that he had anything
to do with the prosecution or sentence.[175]
During the Maráthá war, a tributary chief, Chait Singh,
rájá of Benares, neglected to perform the demands made FOX'S INDIA
BILLS.
upon him, and showed a dangerously independent spirit.
In 1781 Hastings imposed an enormous fine upon him; he revolted and was
defeated, and his estates were confiscated and given to a kinsman. Though
the rájá's conduct was contumacious, Hastings seems to have acted with
undue severity. He was pressed for money, and left the rájá no choice
between paying a very large sum and losing his estates. Difficulties
increased, and he called on Asaf-ud-Daulá, then nawáb wazír of Oudh, to
pay his heavy arrears of debt to the company. The begams, the mother and
widow of the late nawáb, had a vast treasure which should have belonged to
the state. Hastings was informed that these powerful ladies were helping
Chait Singh; it was necessary to get money from the wazír, and he bade him
force the ladies to give up their treasure. The resident at Lucknow brought
up some troops; the begams' palace at Faizábád was blockaded, and their
eunuch-ministers imprisoned and maltreated until the resident obtained
enough to liquidate the wazír's debt. The wazír threw the odium of this
transaction on the English. Hastings defended his conduct as just and
politic. He was not directly responsible for the severe measures adopted by
the wazír, but it was certainly not a matter in which the British governor-
general and his officers should have taken any part. His conduct in this
matter as well as towards the Benares rájá was misrepresented and used
against him in England.
The refusal of the proprietors to recall Hastings was highly displeasing to
the commons, and a petition from the company for relief from some
Page 273
obligations imposed in 1781 gave occasion to parliament again to interfere
in its affairs. In April, 1783, Dundas, who was then in opposition to the
coalition ministry, proposed a bill for the government of India. His plan was
to render the governor-general more independent of his council, to
subordinate more completely the inferior governments to the government of
Bengal, to change the uncertain tenure of the zamíndárs into hereditary
possession, to recall Hastings, and to appoint some noble, like Cornwallis,
as his successor. As the government promised to bring in an India bill the
next session, he allowed his bill to drop. When parliament reassembled in
November, Fox brought in two bills, which were largely prepared by Burke,
one affecting the constitution of the company, the other its administration in
India. The first vested the management of the territories, revenue, and
commerce of the company in seven commissioners, named in the bill, for
four years, with power to appoint and remove all officers of the company.
After that term Fox suggested that the crown should nominate the
commissioners, and meanwhile was to appoint to vacancies. Commercial
transactions were to be managed by a subordinate board chosen by
parliament from among the larger proprietors. The second bill abolished all
monopolies in India, prohibited the acceptance of presents, and gave native
landlords an hereditary estate. The objections urged against the first bill by
the opposition, and chiefly by Pitt, Grenville, and Dundas, were grounded
on its violation of the company's charter, and its tendency to vest the
patronage of India in the existing ministry. Fox ably defended the bill, and
Burke, in an eloquent speech, depicted, with much exaggeration, the
injustice which, he maintained, the millions of India had suffered during
Hastings's administration, and argued that the delinquencies of the company
justified the violation of its charter.
It was, however, the political side of the bill which chiefly roused
opposition. All seven commissioners belonged to Fox's party. For four years
it vested in his nominees "all the patronage of the East". Pitt declared that it
created "a new and enormous influence"; Grenville that "the treasures of
India like a flood would sweep away our liberties". Fox was accused of
making himself "King of Bengal," and a caricature represents him as Carlo
Khan entering Leadenhall street on an elephant which has the face of North
and is led by Burke. All this was party exaggeration; the bill was a genuine
attempt to benefit the natives of India, and would not probably have had
in its affairs. In April, 1783, Dundas, who was then in opposition to the
coalition ministry, proposed a bill for the government of India. His plan was
to render the governor-general more independent of his council, to
subordinate more completely the inferior governments to the government of
Bengal, to change the uncertain tenure of the zamíndárs into hereditary
possession, to recall Hastings, and to appoint some noble, like Cornwallis,
as his successor. As the government promised to bring in an India bill the
next session, he allowed his bill to drop. When parliament reassembled in
November, Fox brought in two bills, which were largely prepared by Burke,
one affecting the constitution of the company, the other its administration in
India. The first vested the management of the territories, revenue, and
commerce of the company in seven commissioners, named in the bill, for
four years, with power to appoint and remove all officers of the company.
After that term Fox suggested that the crown should nominate the
commissioners, and meanwhile was to appoint to vacancies. Commercial
transactions were to be managed by a subordinate board chosen by
parliament from among the larger proprietors. The second bill abolished all
monopolies in India, prohibited the acceptance of presents, and gave native
landlords an hereditary estate. The objections urged against the first bill by
the opposition, and chiefly by Pitt, Grenville, and Dundas, were grounded
on its violation of the company's charter, and its tendency to vest the
patronage of India in the existing ministry. Fox ably defended the bill, and
Burke, in an eloquent speech, depicted, with much exaggeration, the
injustice which, he maintained, the millions of India had suffered during
Hastings's administration, and argued that the delinquencies of the company
justified the violation of its charter.
It was, however, the political side of the bill which chiefly roused
opposition. All seven commissioners belonged to Fox's party. For four years
it vested in his nominees "all the patronage of the East". Pitt declared that it
created "a new and enormous influence"; Grenville that "the treasures of
India like a flood would sweep away our liberties". Fox was accused of
making himself "King of Bengal," and a caricature represents him as Carlo
Khan entering Leadenhall street on an elephant which has the face of North
and is led by Burke. All this was party exaggeration; the bill was a genuine
attempt to benefit the natives of India, and would not probably have had
Page 274
any really serious consequences in England, though the control of the
Indian patronage for four years would have strengthened Fox's party, and, if
it had afterwards been vested in the crown, would have given some
opportunity for the exercise of corrupt influence by ministers. The king was
waiting for an opportunity to get rid of the coalition ministry, and Thurlow
and Temple easily excited his jealousy for the prerogative by telling him
that the bill would deprive him of half his power and disable him for the
rest of his life. His influence in the commons was diminished by recent
legislation, and there the bill was carried by two to one. Before the second
reading in the lords he gave Temple a card authorising him to say that,
whoever voted for the bill "would be considered by him as an enemy". This
soon became known, and, on December 17, the commons voted by 153 to
80 that it was now necessary to declare that to report the king's opinion on
any question pending in parliament with a view to influence votes is a high
crime and misdemeanour. Nevertheless the king's unconstitutional move
was successful; the lords rejected the bill. The next night George ordered
the secretaries of state to send back their seals, for he would not receive
them personally, and the coalition ministry was dismissed. Pitt at once
accepted the offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the
exchequer.
He was then in his twenty-fifth year. Extraordinary
difficulties faced him: the opposition of a large majority PITT FORMS A
MINISTRY.
of the commons, led by Fox, a master of debate, and
strong in men of ability and experience, and the discredit attaching to the
king's unconstitutional action to which he owed his position. He found it
difficult to form a ministry, for few were willing to join him in a struggle in
which victory seemed hopeless. Shelburne, his former leader, he would not
invite, for he could not endure his habitually enigmatic conduct. Temple, an
instigator and the agent of the king's action, became secretary of state, but
immediately resigned owing apparently to a personal offence. The new
cabinet consisted only of Lords Sydney (Thomas Townshend) and
Carmarthen, secretaries for the home and foreign departments; Gower,
president of the council; Rutland, privy seal; Thurlow, chancellor; and
Howe, first lord of the admiralty; besides Pitt who alone among them sat in
the commons. Richmond again became master of the ordnance and a little
later re-entered the cabinet. Dundas was treasurer of the navy. Pitt's
Indian patronage for four years would have strengthened Fox's party, and, if
it had afterwards been vested in the crown, would have given some
opportunity for the exercise of corrupt influence by ministers. The king was
waiting for an opportunity to get rid of the coalition ministry, and Thurlow
and Temple easily excited his jealousy for the prerogative by telling him
that the bill would deprive him of half his power and disable him for the
rest of his life. His influence in the commons was diminished by recent
legislation, and there the bill was carried by two to one. Before the second
reading in the lords he gave Temple a card authorising him to say that,
whoever voted for the bill "would be considered by him as an enemy". This
soon became known, and, on December 17, the commons voted by 153 to
80 that it was now necessary to declare that to report the king's opinion on
any question pending in parliament with a view to influence votes is a high
crime and misdemeanour. Nevertheless the king's unconstitutional move
was successful; the lords rejected the bill. The next night George ordered
the secretaries of state to send back their seals, for he would not receive
them personally, and the coalition ministry was dismissed. Pitt at once
accepted the offices of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the
exchequer.
He was then in his twenty-fifth year. Extraordinary
difficulties faced him: the opposition of a large majority PITT FORMS A
MINISTRY.
of the commons, led by Fox, a master of debate, and
strong in men of ability and experience, and the discredit attaching to the
king's unconstitutional action to which he owed his position. He found it
difficult to form a ministry, for few were willing to join him in a struggle in
which victory seemed hopeless. Shelburne, his former leader, he would not
invite, for he could not endure his habitually enigmatic conduct. Temple, an
instigator and the agent of the king's action, became secretary of state, but
immediately resigned owing apparently to a personal offence. The new
cabinet consisted only of Lords Sydney (Thomas Townshend) and
Carmarthen, secretaries for the home and foreign departments; Gower,
president of the council; Rutland, privy seal; Thurlow, chancellor; and
Howe, first lord of the admiralty; besides Pitt who alone among them sat in
the commons. Richmond again became master of the ordnance and a little
later re-entered the cabinet. Dundas was treasurer of the navy. Pitt's
Page 275
acceptance of office was regarded by the opposition as a "boyish freak"; his
ministry was "a mince-pie administration which would end with the
Christmas holidays".[176]
Pitt had a majority of the commons against him; but in those days the
cabinet was not so wholly dependent on the commons as it became after
1832.[177] Supported by the king and the lords, Pitt determined to do battle
with the majority in the hope that he would overcome their opposition,
discredit his enemies, and win the confidence of the country before he
appealed to it. Fox should have urged an immediate dissolution. If Pitt had
tried to avoid it, he would have incurred the odium of hesitating to accept
the will of the nation. Fox, however, used every effort to prevent a
dissolution. The will of the commons had been thwarted by the king's
unconstitutional interference, and he was determined to vindicate the
authority of the house. Besides, he had a substantial majority, and though it
might have been maintained by a general election, he knew that his
coalition with North was unpopular, and that his India bill had aroused the
hostility of some powerful corporations which felt that their privileges were
endangered by his attack upon the company's charter. The affairs of India
were at once made a pretext for an address to the crown deprecating a
dissolution; the house was engaged upon them, and a dissolution would
frustrate its endeavours. The king replied that he would not interfere with its
work either by dissolution or prorogation.
The house reassembled after the Christmas recess on
January 12. Fox relying on the authority of Lord PITT'S
VICTORIOUS
Somers, one of the leading statesmen of the revolution, CONTEST.
questioned the right of the crown to dissolve parliament
during the business of a session; James II., he said, had done so and put an
end to his reign. His contention was unsound; the will of a house of
commons is not conclusive: the crown has a right to dissolve in order to
ascertain the will of the nation. Pitt replied that he "would not compromise
the royal prerogative or bargain it away in the house of commons". He was
in a minority of 193 to 232. On the 14th, he brought in his India bill, which
proposed to place the political concerns of the company under a board of
control in England to be appointed by the crown, and to leave to the
company its commerce and patronage. Fox attacked it as incomplete, and it
was negatived though only by eight votes. A fierce struggle followed, a
ministry was "a mince-pie administration which would end with the
Christmas holidays".[176]
Pitt had a majority of the commons against him; but in those days the
cabinet was not so wholly dependent on the commons as it became after
1832.[177] Supported by the king and the lords, Pitt determined to do battle
with the majority in the hope that he would overcome their opposition,
discredit his enemies, and win the confidence of the country before he
appealed to it. Fox should have urged an immediate dissolution. If Pitt had
tried to avoid it, he would have incurred the odium of hesitating to accept
the will of the nation. Fox, however, used every effort to prevent a
dissolution. The will of the commons had been thwarted by the king's
unconstitutional interference, and he was determined to vindicate the
authority of the house. Besides, he had a substantial majority, and though it
might have been maintained by a general election, he knew that his
coalition with North was unpopular, and that his India bill had aroused the
hostility of some powerful corporations which felt that their privileges were
endangered by his attack upon the company's charter. The affairs of India
were at once made a pretext for an address to the crown deprecating a
dissolution; the house was engaged upon them, and a dissolution would
frustrate its endeavours. The king replied that he would not interfere with its
work either by dissolution or prorogation.
The house reassembled after the Christmas recess on
January 12. Fox relying on the authority of Lord PITT'S
VICTORIOUS
Somers, one of the leading statesmen of the revolution, CONTEST.
questioned the right of the crown to dissolve parliament
during the business of a session; James II., he said, had done so and put an
end to his reign. His contention was unsound; the will of a house of
commons is not conclusive: the crown has a right to dissolve in order to
ascertain the will of the nation. Pitt replied that he "would not compromise
the royal prerogative or bargain it away in the house of commons". He was
in a minority of 193 to 232. On the 14th, he brought in his India bill, which
proposed to place the political concerns of the company under a board of
control in England to be appointed by the crown, and to leave to the
company its commerce and patronage. Fox attacked it as incomplete, and it
was negatived though only by eight votes. A fierce struggle followed, a
Page 276
struggle, Dr. Johnson called it, "between George the Third's sceptre and Mr.
Fox's tongue". Fox tried every means to force the ministers to resign; he put
forth all his wonderful powers of debate and attacked Pitt with great
bitterness; addresses to the crown and resolutions hostile to the ministers
were adopted, and the supplies and the mutiny act were postponed. Through
it all Pitt exhibited wonderful courage, sagacity, and self-control. A body of
independent members proposed a compromise, and the king reluctantly
assented. Fox declared himself willing to work with Pitt, but, determined to
assert the authority of the house, insisted that the ministers should resign
before arrangements were discussed. To this Pitt haughtily refused to assent.
George upheld him: during the late administration he would not create any
peers; on Pitt's recommendation he created four, and almost daily sent his
young minister encouraging little notes. The lords too were on his side; they
condemned as unconstitutional a resolution of the commons suspending
certain statutory powers of the treasury, which was adopted in order to
embarrass the ministry, and sent an address to the king assuring him of their
support in the just exercise of the prerogative.
Pitt won general admiration by granting the valuable sinecure office of
clerk of the pells to Barré in exchange for the pension secured to him by the
whigs. His private means were only £300 a year, and, as such matters were
then regarded, he might have taken the office himself without scandal; but
uncertain as his position seemed to be, he preferred saving the country
£3,200 a year to putting it into his own pocket. Feeling outside the house
ran strongly in his favour; addresses were sent up thanking the king for
dismissing the late ministry, and Pitt was presented with the freedom of the
city of London. As on his return from the city on February 27 his carriage
was being drawn by workmen in triumph up St. James's street, it was
attacked opposite Brooks's, the meeting-place of Fox's party; he was
assaulted and escaped with difficulty into White's club. Members of
Brooks's were believed to be concerned in the outrage, which increased
Pitt's growing popularity. The opposition began to waver. On March 1 a
fresh address to the king for the removal of the ministers was carried by
only twelve votes. George again refused his assent. Fox shrank from
attempting the extreme measure of refusing supplies; it would, indeed, have
been useless, for his suggestion that the house should pass a mutiny bill for
a brief period met with no encouragement. He made one more effort; on the
Fox's tongue". Fox tried every means to force the ministers to resign; he put
forth all his wonderful powers of debate and attacked Pitt with great
bitterness; addresses to the crown and resolutions hostile to the ministers
were adopted, and the supplies and the mutiny act were postponed. Through
it all Pitt exhibited wonderful courage, sagacity, and self-control. A body of
independent members proposed a compromise, and the king reluctantly
assented. Fox declared himself willing to work with Pitt, but, determined to
assert the authority of the house, insisted that the ministers should resign
before arrangements were discussed. To this Pitt haughtily refused to assent.
George upheld him: during the late administration he would not create any
peers; on Pitt's recommendation he created four, and almost daily sent his
young minister encouraging little notes. The lords too were on his side; they
condemned as unconstitutional a resolution of the commons suspending
certain statutory powers of the treasury, which was adopted in order to
embarrass the ministry, and sent an address to the king assuring him of their
support in the just exercise of the prerogative.
Pitt won general admiration by granting the valuable sinecure office of
clerk of the pells to Barré in exchange for the pension secured to him by the
whigs. His private means were only £300 a year, and, as such matters were
then regarded, he might have taken the office himself without scandal; but
uncertain as his position seemed to be, he preferred saving the country
£3,200 a year to putting it into his own pocket. Feeling outside the house
ran strongly in his favour; addresses were sent up thanking the king for
dismissing the late ministry, and Pitt was presented with the freedom of the
city of London. As on his return from the city on February 27 his carriage
was being drawn by workmen in triumph up St. James's street, it was
attacked opposite Brooks's, the meeting-place of Fox's party; he was
assaulted and escaped with difficulty into White's club. Members of
Brooks's were believed to be concerned in the outrage, which increased
Pitt's growing popularity. The opposition began to waver. On March 1 a
fresh address to the king for the removal of the ministers was carried by
only twelve votes. George again refused his assent. Fox shrank from
attempting the extreme measure of refusing supplies; it would, indeed, have
been useless, for his suggestion that the house should pass a mutiny bill for
a brief period met with no encouragement. He made one more effort; on the
Page 277
8th he moved a representation to the king, drawn up by Burke, which was
carried only by one vote. The struggle was over; the next day the usual
mutiny bill passed without a division; the supplies were voted, and on the
23rd Pitt saw that the time had come for a dissolution. A difficulty suddenly
arose, for the great seal was stolen from Thurlow's house. A new one was
promptly made, and on the 25th parliament was dissolved.
Of his coalition with North, Fox said that it could be justified only by
success. For a second time he put his political fate to the touch. He
attempted to give absolute authority to one branch of the legislature, to
enable an existing house of commons to restrain the constitutional exercise
of the prerogative, to prolong its own existence, and to hinder an appeal to
the will of the nation. Both moves were disastrous to him. The coalition was
condemned as unprincipled; whigs were offended at his alliance with North,
whom they held responsible for the American war, tories by the alliance of
North with the opponent of prerogative. His attempt to hinder the
expression of the national will by a general election perplexed the whigs,
his attack on the prerogative disgusted the tories. His India bill alarmed
chartered bodies, and was held, unjustly it is true, but with some show of
reason, to be inspired by the wish to perpetuate the power of the whig
oligarchy through corrupt influence. Feelings of personal loyalty and of
admiration for the youthful minister who dared to fight, and was able to
win, the king's battle against such tremendous odds, combined to destroy
the effect of George's unconstitutional proceeding and to rouse enthusiasm
for Pitt. The opposition candidates were defeated in almost all the larger
constituencies; 160 of them—"Fox's martyrs" they were called—lost their
seats. The rout was complete; even Yorkshire, so long faithful to the great
houses, returned Pitt's friend, Wilberforce, the son of a banker. One
consolation they had. After an exciting struggle Fox was re-elected for
Westminster, though only as second member, and, as we shall see, even this
triumph was disputed. Fox's conduct caused the overthrow of the whig
party, and gave the government into the hands of a minister whose high
principles, not less than his supreme ability, commanded and preserved the
confidence of the nation.
FOOTNOTES:
carried only by one vote. The struggle was over; the next day the usual
mutiny bill passed without a division; the supplies were voted, and on the
23rd Pitt saw that the time had come for a dissolution. A difficulty suddenly
arose, for the great seal was stolen from Thurlow's house. A new one was
promptly made, and on the 25th parliament was dissolved.
Of his coalition with North, Fox said that it could be justified only by
success. For a second time he put his political fate to the touch. He
attempted to give absolute authority to one branch of the legislature, to
enable an existing house of commons to restrain the constitutional exercise
of the prerogative, to prolong its own existence, and to hinder an appeal to
the will of the nation. Both moves were disastrous to him. The coalition was
condemned as unprincipled; whigs were offended at his alliance with North,
whom they held responsible for the American war, tories by the alliance of
North with the opponent of prerogative. His attempt to hinder the
expression of the national will by a general election perplexed the whigs,
his attack on the prerogative disgusted the tories. His India bill alarmed
chartered bodies, and was held, unjustly it is true, but with some show of
reason, to be inspired by the wish to perpetuate the power of the whig
oligarchy through corrupt influence. Feelings of personal loyalty and of
admiration for the youthful minister who dared to fight, and was able to
win, the king's battle against such tremendous odds, combined to destroy
the effect of George's unconstitutional proceeding and to rouse enthusiasm
for Pitt. The opposition candidates were defeated in almost all the larger
constituencies; 160 of them—"Fox's martyrs" they were called—lost their
seats. The rout was complete; even Yorkshire, so long faithful to the great
houses, returned Pitt's friend, Wilberforce, the son of a banker. One
consolation they had. After an exciting struggle Fox was re-elected for
Westminster, though only as second member, and, as we shall see, even this
triumph was disputed. Fox's conduct caused the overthrow of the whig
party, and gave the government into the hands of a minister whose high
principles, not less than his supreme ability, commanded and preserved the
confidence of the nation.
FOOTNOTES:
Page 278
[165] H. Grattan, Life of Grattan, ii., 216-20.
[166] Hoste, Naval Tactics, i., 153-55, ed. Boswall.
[167] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 480-500; Hannay, Rodney, pp. 179-
213, and Hood's Letters, pp. 101-21, 123-30; Mundy, Life of Rodney, ii., 222-50;
Ann. Reg., xxv. (1782), 252-57.
[168] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 420-56.
[169] Life of Shelburne, iii., 175.
[170] Life of Shelburne, iii., 174-221; Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 330-87, 468-
80; Lewis, Administrations of Great Britain, pp. 31-49; Lecky, History, iv., 226-
35.
[171] Parl. Hist., xxiii., 163, 177.
[172] Jones, Hist. of New York, ii., 241-55, 497-509, 645-63; Sabine, American
Loyalists, pp. 70, 86, 107-12.
[173] Life of Shelburne, iii., 305, 312-14; Anson, Grafton, pp. 346-50.
[174] Ann. Reg., xxvi. (1783), 176.
[175] Forrest, State Papers, India, i., Introd., xxxiii-xlviii; ii., 298-414; Sir A.
Lyell, Warren Hastings, pp. 60-74; Sir J. F. Stephen, Story of Nuncomar.
[176] Lady Minto, Life of Lord Minto, i., 90; Wilberforce, Life of Wilberforce, i.,
48.
[177] Anson, Law of the Constitution, ii., 129.
[166] Hoste, Naval Tactics, i., 153-55, ed. Boswall.
[167] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 480-500; Hannay, Rodney, pp. 179-
213, and Hood's Letters, pp. 101-21, 123-30; Mundy, Life of Rodney, ii., 222-50;
Ann. Reg., xxv. (1782), 252-57.
[168] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, pp. 420-56.
[169] Life of Shelburne, iii., 175.
[170] Life of Shelburne, iii., 174-221; Memorials of C. J. Fox, i., 330-87, 468-
80; Lewis, Administrations of Great Britain, pp. 31-49; Lecky, History, iv., 226-
35.
[171] Parl. Hist., xxiii., 163, 177.
[172] Jones, Hist. of New York, ii., 241-55, 497-509, 645-63; Sabine, American
Loyalists, pp. 70, 86, 107-12.
[173] Life of Shelburne, iii., 305, 312-14; Anson, Grafton, pp. 346-50.
[174] Ann. Reg., xxvi. (1783), 176.
[175] Forrest, State Papers, India, i., Introd., xxxiii-xlviii; ii., 298-414; Sir A.
Lyell, Warren Hastings, pp. 60-74; Sir J. F. Stephen, Story of Nuncomar.
[176] Lady Minto, Life of Lord Minto, i., 90; Wilberforce, Life of Wilberforce, i.,
48.
[177] Anson, Law of the Constitution, ii., 129.
Page 279
CHAPTER XIII.
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS.
(1760-1801.)
The first forty-one years of the reign are marked by important social and
economic changes, some of which began earlier, and some were not fully
carried out till later. Though the cursory review of them attempted in this
chapter will extend beyond the date which we have already reached, it
seems time to say something of such matters, and a look ahead will make
the later narrative more complete and intelligible. With the painful
exception of a deterioration in the condition of the poor, these changes were
for the better. Manners became more decent, pity was more easily evoked
by human suffering, and culture more widely diffused. Moral improvement
may be traced to a revival of practical religion and to a general reaction
from the artificial cast of thought of earlier days, while as forces on the
same side may be reckoned the influence of the king and, in a greater
degree, that exercised by a number of distinguished men such as Johnson
and Burke. Ideas elaborated and propounded by French philosophers shook
the smug satisfaction of the world in what was hard, shallow, and insincere,
and combined with the stress of a great war to complete the slow progress
of a change in English taste. After long hesitation literature and art finally
turned from unreality and convention, and drew inspiration direct from
nature. As regards material progress, manufactures and commerce were
enormously increased by the use of mechanical inventions, and the
productive power of the soil by improvements in agriculture. The
conditions of industry changed and, as must ever be the case, industrial
revolution brought suffering on the poor.
The highest class still formed a small and close society; there was no doubt
as to who belonged to it and no chance for an outsider to push his way into
it. The members of it were so thoroughly acquainted with one another's
doings that invitations to dinner were often given only two days
beforehand, and with even shorter notice. They had enormous authority,
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS.
(1760-1801.)
The first forty-one years of the reign are marked by important social and
economic changes, some of which began earlier, and some were not fully
carried out till later. Though the cursory review of them attempted in this
chapter will extend beyond the date which we have already reached, it
seems time to say something of such matters, and a look ahead will make
the later narrative more complete and intelligible. With the painful
exception of a deterioration in the condition of the poor, these changes were
for the better. Manners became more decent, pity was more easily evoked
by human suffering, and culture more widely diffused. Moral improvement
may be traced to a revival of practical religion and to a general reaction
from the artificial cast of thought of earlier days, while as forces on the
same side may be reckoned the influence of the king and, in a greater
degree, that exercised by a number of distinguished men such as Johnson
and Burke. Ideas elaborated and propounded by French philosophers shook
the smug satisfaction of the world in what was hard, shallow, and insincere,
and combined with the stress of a great war to complete the slow progress
of a change in English taste. After long hesitation literature and art finally
turned from unreality and convention, and drew inspiration direct from
nature. As regards material progress, manufactures and commerce were
enormously increased by the use of mechanical inventions, and the
productive power of the soil by improvements in agriculture. The
conditions of industry changed and, as must ever be the case, industrial
revolution brought suffering on the poor.
The highest class still formed a small and close society; there was no doubt
as to who belonged to it and no chance for an outsider to push his way into
it. The members of it were so thoroughly acquainted with one another's
doings that invitations to dinner were often given only two days
beforehand, and with even shorter notice. They had enormous authority,
Page 280
both political and social. Entirely independent of public opinion, those of
them who loved vice or frivolity indulged their tastes without shame or
measure. Gambling, the fashionable folly, was carried to an extraordinary
height, especially between 1772 and 1776. At Brooks's the stakes at quinze
were not less than £50, and there was often £10,000 on the table. Gamesters
exchanged their rich clothes for frieze coats, covered their lace ruffles with
leather cuffs, and shielded their eyes by high-crowned hats with broad
brims. Fox squandered £140,000, chiefly at play, by the time he was
twenty-five, and his brother Stephen lost £20,000 at a sitting. Among the
older gamesters were Lord Masham, too poor for such folly, the wicked
Lowther, witty George Selwyn, and his associate, Lord March, afterwards
Duke of Queensberry, Fox's instructor in vice, the "old Q." who in the next
century as he sat in his favourite place above the porch of his house in
Piccadilly presented to the passers-by the embodiment of the iniquities of
an older generation. Ladies were not less given to play than men. Duchesses
at Bath, the "paradise of doctors and gamesters," set an example which the
vice-regal court at Dublin professed to imitate by spending whole nights at
unlimited half-guinea loo.
There was no redeeming side to this gambling; it was a sordid struggle for
money. At Brooks's in 1781 Fox, in partnership with some allies, kept the
bank at faro as a regular business, one partner relieving another, and play
going on continuously night and day. As the dealer and the partners could
be seen at work through the open windows of the club, one can scarcely
wonder that Fox's faro-bank was a sore point with the opposition. He won
largely, then lost, and finally was £30,000 "worse than nothing". Idlers in
St. James's street were amused by watching the Jews as they packed his
clothes and books and carted them off from his lodgings. The next year the
king was forced to make him a secretary of state. Though gambling
continued common, it became less extravagant and was more widely
condemned. In 1796, when the war with France was sobering people, some
ladies of rank created a scandal by keeping a faro-bank at their houses.
Chief-justice Kenyon threatened the pillory, and Gillray expressed and
stimulated public opinion by a caricature representing two of "Faro's
daughters" in that position. One of them, Lady Buckinghamshire, and two
of her associates, were fined the next year for unlawful gaming. Fox and
other gamesters of the wild time supplemented the faro-bank by betting at
them who loved vice or frivolity indulged their tastes without shame or
measure. Gambling, the fashionable folly, was carried to an extraordinary
height, especially between 1772 and 1776. At Brooks's the stakes at quinze
were not less than £50, and there was often £10,000 on the table. Gamesters
exchanged their rich clothes for frieze coats, covered their lace ruffles with
leather cuffs, and shielded their eyes by high-crowned hats with broad
brims. Fox squandered £140,000, chiefly at play, by the time he was
twenty-five, and his brother Stephen lost £20,000 at a sitting. Among the
older gamesters were Lord Masham, too poor for such folly, the wicked
Lowther, witty George Selwyn, and his associate, Lord March, afterwards
Duke of Queensberry, Fox's instructor in vice, the "old Q." who in the next
century as he sat in his favourite place above the porch of his house in
Piccadilly presented to the passers-by the embodiment of the iniquities of
an older generation. Ladies were not less given to play than men. Duchesses
at Bath, the "paradise of doctors and gamesters," set an example which the
vice-regal court at Dublin professed to imitate by spending whole nights at
unlimited half-guinea loo.
There was no redeeming side to this gambling; it was a sordid struggle for
money. At Brooks's in 1781 Fox, in partnership with some allies, kept the
bank at faro as a regular business, one partner relieving another, and play
going on continuously night and day. As the dealer and the partners could
be seen at work through the open windows of the club, one can scarcely
wonder that Fox's faro-bank was a sore point with the opposition. He won
largely, then lost, and finally was £30,000 "worse than nothing". Idlers in
St. James's street were amused by watching the Jews as they packed his
clothes and books and carted them off from his lodgings. The next year the
king was forced to make him a secretary of state. Though gambling
continued common, it became less extravagant and was more widely
condemned. In 1796, when the war with France was sobering people, some
ladies of rank created a scandal by keeping a faro-bank at their houses.
Chief-justice Kenyon threatened the pillory, and Gillray expressed and
stimulated public opinion by a caricature representing two of "Faro's
daughters" in that position. One of them, Lady Buckinghamshire, and two
of her associates, were fined the next year for unlawful gaming. Fox and
other gamesters of the wild time supplemented the faro-bank by betting at
Page 281
Newmarket. It was a notable period in the history of the turf, for many great
men, specially of the whig party, were eager and judicious breeders. Such
were the king's uncle, Cumberland, the breeder of Eclipse, Grafton,
Rockingham, Egremont, Richmond, and Sir Charles Bunbury, whose horse
Diomed won the first Derby race in 1780. The professional bookmaker was
not yet, and racing, though used for betting purposes, was free from some
evils which grew up later. The sport was popular, and in 1784 as many as
500 plates were raced for annually.
Excessive drinking was common in society. Since the
Methuen treaty of 1703 port was the wine most drunk. A EXCESSIVE
DRINKING.
genuine port cost about two shillings a bottle, but the
wine was largely adulterated on importation, and one stingy lord is said to
have recommended his guests to drink his port instead of a more expensive
wine by assuring them that he knew that it was good as he made it himself.
[178]
Men would constantly drink two bottles of port apiece at a sitting, and
sometimes three and even more, and would appear in parliament, in the
theatre, or in a drawing-room in a state of drunkenness. A treaty with France
in 1786 largely increased the consumption of French wines, but this change,
which favoured sobriety, was ended by the war. Nevertheless, drunkenness
was less general than earlier in the century, and, except in the Prince of
Wales's set, seems to have decreased during the war with France. Duels
were frequent, and, though towards the end of our period they were
increasingly condemned by religious people, they were approved of by
society at large. For some time men of fashion dressed in velvets and silks
of various hues, but during the American war Fox, once the most
extravagant of "macaronis," and his friends showed their political
sympathies by carelessness in dress, and their example was largely
followed. Men's dress, however, did not decline until about 1793 when the
whigs imitated the severity affected by the French republicans. Wigs were
discarded early in the reign, except by professional men, and hair-powder
began to fall out of fashion by the end of the century. Then, too, ladies'
dress became more simple, chiefly because improvements in the textile
manufactures provided them with materials at once simple and pleasing.
Besides the ordinary amusements of society, fashionable people frequented
public assemblies, of which those at Ranelagh were longest in vogue. The
company at Vauxhall was more mixed. People of the shop-keeping and
men, specially of the whig party, were eager and judicious breeders. Such
were the king's uncle, Cumberland, the breeder of Eclipse, Grafton,
Rockingham, Egremont, Richmond, and Sir Charles Bunbury, whose horse
Diomed won the first Derby race in 1780. The professional bookmaker was
not yet, and racing, though used for betting purposes, was free from some
evils which grew up later. The sport was popular, and in 1784 as many as
500 plates were raced for annually.
Excessive drinking was common in society. Since the
Methuen treaty of 1703 port was the wine most drunk. A EXCESSIVE
DRINKING.
genuine port cost about two shillings a bottle, but the
wine was largely adulterated on importation, and one stingy lord is said to
have recommended his guests to drink his port instead of a more expensive
wine by assuring them that he knew that it was good as he made it himself.
[178]
Men would constantly drink two bottles of port apiece at a sitting, and
sometimes three and even more, and would appear in parliament, in the
theatre, or in a drawing-room in a state of drunkenness. A treaty with France
in 1786 largely increased the consumption of French wines, but this change,
which favoured sobriety, was ended by the war. Nevertheless, drunkenness
was less general than earlier in the century, and, except in the Prince of
Wales's set, seems to have decreased during the war with France. Duels
were frequent, and, though towards the end of our period they were
increasingly condemned by religious people, they were approved of by
society at large. For some time men of fashion dressed in velvets and silks
of various hues, but during the American war Fox, once the most
extravagant of "macaronis," and his friends showed their political
sympathies by carelessness in dress, and their example was largely
followed. Men's dress, however, did not decline until about 1793 when the
whigs imitated the severity affected by the French republicans. Wigs were
discarded early in the reign, except by professional men, and hair-powder
began to fall out of fashion by the end of the century. Then, too, ladies'
dress became more simple, chiefly because improvements in the textile
manufactures provided them with materials at once simple and pleasing.
Besides the ordinary amusements of society, fashionable people frequented
public assemblies, of which those at Ranelagh were longest in vogue. The
company at Vauxhall was more mixed. People of the shop-keeping and
Page 282
lower classes enjoyed themselves in the numerous pleasure resorts about
London, such as Mary-le-bone gardens, Islington, and Sadler's Wells.
Theatres were well attended and the increase of public decency is illustrated
by the disappearance from the stage of the coarseness of earlier times. It
was the golden age of the drama; for it saw the acting of Macklin and
Garrick, of Mrs. Siddons, "the tragic muse," and her brother John Kemble,
of Mrs. Abington, Miss Farren, "the comic muse," afterwards Countess of
Derby, and Mrs. Jordan. As dramatists Home, Foote, Colman, and
Cumberland deserve to be mentioned; and Goldsmith and Sheridan wrote
comedies which, while belonging to acting drama, adorn English literature.
Among less respectable amusements bull-baiting was confined to the lowest
class. An attempt to render it illegal was defeated in parliament in 1800,
chiefly through the opposition of Windham. Cock-fighting, though widely
condemned, was practised even by gentlemen, chiefly as a means of
betting. Exhibitions of combats with swords became extinct, and made way
for the scarcely less dangerous prize-fights of bruisers which from about
1788 became extremely popular.
Foreign travel, which earlier was almost confined to the "grand tour" made
by rich young men as part of their education, increased greatly before the
revolutionary war, and travelling in England became more general as the
means of communication were improved. In 1760 English roads were little
better than they were a century before, mere trackways, which in parts were
sloughs in winter and scored with deep ruts in summer. Travelling over
them was slow and often dangerous. The "flying-machine," or coach,
between London and Sheffield was fully three days on its journey. During
the first fourteen years of the reign 452 acts were passed for repairing roads,
but for some time little progress was made. Many and bitter are the
complaints made by Arthur Young, the eminent agriculturist, of the roads on
which he travelled in 1769-70. One turnpike road was a bog with a few
flints scattered on top, another full of holes and deep ruts, while "of all the
cursed roads which ever disgraced this kingdom" that between Tilbury and
Billericay was, he says, the worst, and so narrow that when he met a
waggon, the waggoner had to crawl between the wheels to come to help
him lift his chaise over a hedge. During the last quarter of the century a vast
change was effected; good roads became general, and coaches with springs
and otherwise well appointed ran between London and most considerable
London, such as Mary-le-bone gardens, Islington, and Sadler's Wells.
Theatres were well attended and the increase of public decency is illustrated
by the disappearance from the stage of the coarseness of earlier times. It
was the golden age of the drama; for it saw the acting of Macklin and
Garrick, of Mrs. Siddons, "the tragic muse," and her brother John Kemble,
of Mrs. Abington, Miss Farren, "the comic muse," afterwards Countess of
Derby, and Mrs. Jordan. As dramatists Home, Foote, Colman, and
Cumberland deserve to be mentioned; and Goldsmith and Sheridan wrote
comedies which, while belonging to acting drama, adorn English literature.
Among less respectable amusements bull-baiting was confined to the lowest
class. An attempt to render it illegal was defeated in parliament in 1800,
chiefly through the opposition of Windham. Cock-fighting, though widely
condemned, was practised even by gentlemen, chiefly as a means of
betting. Exhibitions of combats with swords became extinct, and made way
for the scarcely less dangerous prize-fights of bruisers which from about
1788 became extremely popular.
Foreign travel, which earlier was almost confined to the "grand tour" made
by rich young men as part of their education, increased greatly before the
revolutionary war, and travelling in England became more general as the
means of communication were improved. In 1760 English roads were little
better than they were a century before, mere trackways, which in parts were
sloughs in winter and scored with deep ruts in summer. Travelling over
them was slow and often dangerous. The "flying-machine," or coach,
between London and Sheffield was fully three days on its journey. During
the first fourteen years of the reign 452 acts were passed for repairing roads,
but for some time little progress was made. Many and bitter are the
complaints made by Arthur Young, the eminent agriculturist, of the roads on
which he travelled in 1769-70. One turnpike road was a bog with a few
flints scattered on top, another full of holes and deep ruts, while "of all the
cursed roads which ever disgraced this kingdom" that between Tilbury and
Billericay was, he says, the worst, and so narrow that when he met a
waggon, the waggoner had to crawl between the wheels to come to help
him lift his chaise over a hedge. During the last quarter of the century a vast
change was effected; good roads became general, and coaches with springs
and otherwise well appointed ran between London and most considerable
Page 283
towns, and between one large town and another. From 1784 many of these
coaches carried the mails, and letters posted in Bath were delivered in
London seventeen hours later.
The wider outlook acquired by travel contributed to an
increase of intellectual activity, and improved means of POETRY.
internal communication assisted the dissemination of
books. People read more; many instructive books met with a large sale, and
circulating libraries were established in the larger towns. In literature the
period is marked by an advance in the transition from artificiality of
thought, and still more of expression, to what was natural and spontaneous.
Antiquity began to attract, and romanticism gradually gained ground.
Thomson, who led the flight of poetry from the gilded house of bondage,
wrote at an earlier time than ours. For us the new feeling is illustrated by
the popularity of Ossian, Bishop Percy's Reliques, Gray's romantic lyrics,
and the pseudo-antique poems of Chatterton, a Bristol lad who killed
himself in 1770. Goldsmith's poetry belongs to the old school, for he was a
follower of Johnson, a strenuous opponent of the new romanticism. The
poetry of Cowper, an ardent lover of nature, whose first volume appeared in
1781, though usually conventional in expression, is always sincere and
sometimes exquisite. Crabbe, a story-teller and preacher, wrote some true
poetry, along with much that is prosaic: rarely moved by an inspiration
drawn from nature to desert the conventional couplet, he nevertheless had
something of the spirit of the new movement. In 1783 the artist-poet Blake
began to write verse which is absolutely untrammelled by convention,
mystical, strange, and unequal. Three years later a volume by Robert Burns,
the national poet of Scotland, contained the outpouring of a passionate soul
in musical verse, and in 1798, two years after his death, the victory of the
romantic school was secured by the publication of the Lyrical Ballads of
Wordsworth and Coleridge, though its triumph was not confirmed until a
few years later.
By 1760 Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett had established the English
novel, though Smollett's master-piece, Humphrey Clinker, did not appear
until 1771, the year of his death. Fiction developed in various directions. In
The Vicar of Wakefield Goldsmith, in spite of his literary conservatism,
portrayed manners and character with a perfectly natural grace, and with a
delightful delicacy of touch. Laurence Sterne, the humorous and indecent
coaches carried the mails, and letters posted in Bath were delivered in
London seventeen hours later.
The wider outlook acquired by travel contributed to an
increase of intellectual activity, and improved means of POETRY.
internal communication assisted the dissemination of
books. People read more; many instructive books met with a large sale, and
circulating libraries were established in the larger towns. In literature the
period is marked by an advance in the transition from artificiality of
thought, and still more of expression, to what was natural and spontaneous.
Antiquity began to attract, and romanticism gradually gained ground.
Thomson, who led the flight of poetry from the gilded house of bondage,
wrote at an earlier time than ours. For us the new feeling is illustrated by
the popularity of Ossian, Bishop Percy's Reliques, Gray's romantic lyrics,
and the pseudo-antique poems of Chatterton, a Bristol lad who killed
himself in 1770. Goldsmith's poetry belongs to the old school, for he was a
follower of Johnson, a strenuous opponent of the new romanticism. The
poetry of Cowper, an ardent lover of nature, whose first volume appeared in
1781, though usually conventional in expression, is always sincere and
sometimes exquisite. Crabbe, a story-teller and preacher, wrote some true
poetry, along with much that is prosaic: rarely moved by an inspiration
drawn from nature to desert the conventional couplet, he nevertheless had
something of the spirit of the new movement. In 1783 the artist-poet Blake
began to write verse which is absolutely untrammelled by convention,
mystical, strange, and unequal. Three years later a volume by Robert Burns,
the national poet of Scotland, contained the outpouring of a passionate soul
in musical verse, and in 1798, two years after his death, the victory of the
romantic school was secured by the publication of the Lyrical Ballads of
Wordsworth and Coleridge, though its triumph was not confirmed until a
few years later.
By 1760 Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett had established the English
novel, though Smollett's master-piece, Humphrey Clinker, did not appear
until 1771, the year of his death. Fiction developed in various directions. In
The Vicar of Wakefield Goldsmith, in spite of his literary conservatism,
portrayed manners and character with a perfectly natural grace, and with a
delightful delicacy of touch. Laurence Sterne, the humorous and indecent
Page 284
prebendary of York, illustrates the prevalence of sensibility in contemporary
society in his Tristram Shandy and the Sentimental Journey. It is a curious
characteristic of the time that displays of emotion by men and women alike
were reckoned as proofs of genuine fineness of feeling. Sterne's sentiment
and discursiveness found several feeble imitators. The taste for antiquity
was strong in Horace Walpole, and his admiration for "the gothick,"
expressed in the pointed windows and sham battlements of his house at
Strawberry hill, inspired his romance, The Castle of Otranto (1764), which
began the romantic movement in fiction. To this movement, destined to be
adorned by the genius of Scott, belong Beckford's Vathek, Clara Reeve's
Old English Baron, and the once widely popular tales of mystery of Mrs.
Radcliffe and "Monk" Lewis, as he was called after his best-known
romance (1795). The novel of manners was developed by Fanny Burney's
(Madame d'Arblay) Evelina (1778), founded on acute observation, dealing
almost wholly with every-day life, replete with satire, and written with
extraordinary freshness and vivacity. Castle Rackrent, the first of Maria
Edgeworth's Irish tales, appeared in the last year of the century. Before its
close, too, Jane Austen was writing novels which as yet could find no
publisher, though in their faultless execution, their delicate humour, and
their life-like representation of the society with which their author was
familiar they remain unrivalled.
Of the writers of serious prose works, Johnson, as critic,
moralist and author, enjoyed until his death in 1784 a SERIOUS PROSE
WORKS.
kind of literary dictatorship. His greatest achievement,
The Lives of the English Poets, belongs to his later days. This delightful
work pronounces with unfaltering dogmatism judgments founded on canons
of criticism which were accepted in the then expiring age of Augustan
literature. His Life by his satellite Boswell holds the first place among
biographies as a triumph of portraiture. The new interest in antiquity was
fostered by the rise of English historical writing. In the earliest years of the
reign Hume completed his History of England, which, though no longer
regarded as of scientific importance, is a fine example of literary treatment
as applied to history. A little later came Robertson's works, more scholarly
in their design, and written in a philosophic spirit and in highly polished
language. The work of one historian of the time is great alike as a
monument of learning and of literary faculty. The first instalment of
society in his Tristram Shandy and the Sentimental Journey. It is a curious
characteristic of the time that displays of emotion by men and women alike
were reckoned as proofs of genuine fineness of feeling. Sterne's sentiment
and discursiveness found several feeble imitators. The taste for antiquity
was strong in Horace Walpole, and his admiration for "the gothick,"
expressed in the pointed windows and sham battlements of his house at
Strawberry hill, inspired his romance, The Castle of Otranto (1764), which
began the romantic movement in fiction. To this movement, destined to be
adorned by the genius of Scott, belong Beckford's Vathek, Clara Reeve's
Old English Baron, and the once widely popular tales of mystery of Mrs.
Radcliffe and "Monk" Lewis, as he was called after his best-known
romance (1795). The novel of manners was developed by Fanny Burney's
(Madame d'Arblay) Evelina (1778), founded on acute observation, dealing
almost wholly with every-day life, replete with satire, and written with
extraordinary freshness and vivacity. Castle Rackrent, the first of Maria
Edgeworth's Irish tales, appeared in the last year of the century. Before its
close, too, Jane Austen was writing novels which as yet could find no
publisher, though in their faultless execution, their delicate humour, and
their life-like representation of the society with which their author was
familiar they remain unrivalled.
Of the writers of serious prose works, Johnson, as critic,
moralist and author, enjoyed until his death in 1784 a SERIOUS PROSE
WORKS.
kind of literary dictatorship. His greatest achievement,
The Lives of the English Poets, belongs to his later days. This delightful
work pronounces with unfaltering dogmatism judgments founded on canons
of criticism which were accepted in the then expiring age of Augustan
literature. His Life by his satellite Boswell holds the first place among
biographies as a triumph of portraiture. The new interest in antiquity was
fostered by the rise of English historical writing. In the earliest years of the
reign Hume completed his History of England, which, though no longer
regarded as of scientific importance, is a fine example of literary treatment
as applied to history. A little later came Robertson's works, more scholarly
in their design, and written in a philosophic spirit and in highly polished
language. The work of one historian of the time is great alike as a
monument of learning and of literary faculty. The first instalment of
Page 285
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire appeared in 1766, the last
in 1788. The grandeur of its conception, the orderly method of its
construction, the learning it displays, and the unflagging pomp with which
the historian presents his narrative, invest this book with a pre-eminence in
English historical literature which remains beyond dispute. Other famous
books of the time are Paley's theological works, Sir William Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England, and Adam Smith's Nature and
Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith, while laying the foundations
of political economy as a distinct science, treated theories in relation to
actual facts; his book was at once accepted as a guide by statesmen, and
largely inspired Pitt's economic policy. As a political writer Burke carried
rhetoric to the sublimest heights in his Reflections on the French Revolution
and some later works. Lord Chesterfield's Letters, many of them belonging
to the early years of the reign, are admirable for their wit and elegance, but
lack the special quality of the inimitable Letters of Horace Walpole, written
on a countless number of topics, and treating them in a manner which,
though somewhat affected, is easy and singularly appropriate to the writer's
cast of mind. Of the Junius Letters enough has been said; they are political
articles, not parts of a correspondence. Lastly, it would be unbecoming to
omit here a notice, however cursory, of Walpole's valuable though not
always trustworthy historical Memoirs.
The ecclesiastical architecture of the time was deplorable. Towards the end
of the century it was affected by the revolt from classicism in literature; and
a desire was manifested to desert the corrupt following of classical models
for Gothic art, but it was unaccompanied by taste or knowledge, and the
elder Wyatt's sins of destruction at Salisbury and elsewhere have made his
name a by-word. In secular architecture things were better; Chambers, the
architect of Somerset House, Robert Adam and his brothers, architects of
the Adelphi buildings, and the younger Wood at Bath have left us works of
considerable merit. In art, however, our period is chiefly memorable as that
of the development of the English school of painting. Sir Joshua Reynolds,
one of the great portrait painters of the world, was in high repute in 1760,
was the first president of the Royal Academy, founded in 1768, and
independently of his work did much to raise the appreciation of art, for he
was universally respected. He started the famous literary club of which his
friends, Johnson, Burke, Goldsmith, and other distinguished men, were
in 1788. The grandeur of its conception, the orderly method of its
construction, the learning it displays, and the unflagging pomp with which
the historian presents his narrative, invest this book with a pre-eminence in
English historical literature which remains beyond dispute. Other famous
books of the time are Paley's theological works, Sir William Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England, and Adam Smith's Nature and
Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith, while laying the foundations
of political economy as a distinct science, treated theories in relation to
actual facts; his book was at once accepted as a guide by statesmen, and
largely inspired Pitt's economic policy. As a political writer Burke carried
rhetoric to the sublimest heights in his Reflections on the French Revolution
and some later works. Lord Chesterfield's Letters, many of them belonging
to the early years of the reign, are admirable for their wit and elegance, but
lack the special quality of the inimitable Letters of Horace Walpole, written
on a countless number of topics, and treating them in a manner which,
though somewhat affected, is easy and singularly appropriate to the writer's
cast of mind. Of the Junius Letters enough has been said; they are political
articles, not parts of a correspondence. Lastly, it would be unbecoming to
omit here a notice, however cursory, of Walpole's valuable though not
always trustworthy historical Memoirs.
The ecclesiastical architecture of the time was deplorable. Towards the end
of the century it was affected by the revolt from classicism in literature; and
a desire was manifested to desert the corrupt following of classical models
for Gothic art, but it was unaccompanied by taste or knowledge, and the
elder Wyatt's sins of destruction at Salisbury and elsewhere have made his
name a by-word. In secular architecture things were better; Chambers, the
architect of Somerset House, Robert Adam and his brothers, architects of
the Adelphi buildings, and the younger Wood at Bath have left us works of
considerable merit. In art, however, our period is chiefly memorable as that
of the development of the English school of painting. Sir Joshua Reynolds,
one of the great portrait painters of the world, was in high repute in 1760,
was the first president of the Royal Academy, founded in 1768, and
independently of his work did much to raise the appreciation of art, for he
was universally respected. He started the famous literary club of which his
friends, Johnson, Burke, Goldsmith, and other distinguished men, were
Page 286
members. Scarcely inferior to Reynolds as a portrait-painter, Gainsborough
invested his subjects with wonderful grace, and Romney, though not
attaining to the height of these two, may be reckoned with them as a master
of his art. Before the end of our period Hoppner and Lawrence were
working in London and Raeburn in Edinburgh. The heavy debt which
English landscape painting owes to Wilson, who lived neglected, has been
acknowledged since his death. In that line Gainsborough was unsurpassed;
he was wholly free from classical tradition and, as in his portrait work,
interpreted nature as it presented itself to his own artistic sense. By 1800
Girtin had laid the foundation of genuine painting in water-colours, and
Turner was entering on his earlier style, working under the influence of old
masters. Humble life and animals were depicted by Morland, who was true
to nature and a fine colourist. In the treatment of historical subjects classical
tradition long held an undisputed sway; and the chief claim of West, once a
fashionable artist, on our remembrance is that he broke away from it in his
best picture, "The Death of Wolfe," painted in 1771, which represents his
figures in the uniforms they wore instead of dressed as Romans, a revolt
which caused no small stir.
Engraving on copper flourished, aided by the enterprise of Boydell, and
wood-engraving was brought to perfection by the brothers Bewick. In
sculpture, Flaxman, Nollekens, and Bacon did first-rate work. Music alone
of the arts really interested the king. The public taste was stimulated by the
establishment of Handel commemoration concerts; the opera was well
attended, and church music was enriched by some distinguished composers.
People of the upper and middle classes cared far more for art of all kinds
than in the earlier half of the century: the rich bought the works of old
Italian and French masters; exhibitions of art were thronged, and articles of
virtu found a ready sale.
During the earlier years of the reign much interest in
natural science was aroused, probably through French VOYAGES OF
DISCOVERY.
influence. England soon came to the front in scientific
investigation. Among the principal contributors to this movement were
Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen, and Black, of latent heat; Cavendish,
the investigator of air and water; Sir William Herschel, the astronomer, who
spent most of his life in England; Hutton, the father of British geological
science; Sir Joseph Banks, the naturalist; Hunter, the "founder of scientific
invested his subjects with wonderful grace, and Romney, though not
attaining to the height of these two, may be reckoned with them as a master
of his art. Before the end of our period Hoppner and Lawrence were
working in London and Raeburn in Edinburgh. The heavy debt which
English landscape painting owes to Wilson, who lived neglected, has been
acknowledged since his death. In that line Gainsborough was unsurpassed;
he was wholly free from classical tradition and, as in his portrait work,
interpreted nature as it presented itself to his own artistic sense. By 1800
Girtin had laid the foundation of genuine painting in water-colours, and
Turner was entering on his earlier style, working under the influence of old
masters. Humble life and animals were depicted by Morland, who was true
to nature and a fine colourist. In the treatment of historical subjects classical
tradition long held an undisputed sway; and the chief claim of West, once a
fashionable artist, on our remembrance is that he broke away from it in his
best picture, "The Death of Wolfe," painted in 1771, which represents his
figures in the uniforms they wore instead of dressed as Romans, a revolt
which caused no small stir.
Engraving on copper flourished, aided by the enterprise of Boydell, and
wood-engraving was brought to perfection by the brothers Bewick. In
sculpture, Flaxman, Nollekens, and Bacon did first-rate work. Music alone
of the arts really interested the king. The public taste was stimulated by the
establishment of Handel commemoration concerts; the opera was well
attended, and church music was enriched by some distinguished composers.
People of the upper and middle classes cared far more for art of all kinds
than in the earlier half of the century: the rich bought the works of old
Italian and French masters; exhibitions of art were thronged, and articles of
virtu found a ready sale.
During the earlier years of the reign much interest in
natural science was aroused, probably through French VOYAGES OF
DISCOVERY.
influence. England soon came to the front in scientific
investigation. Among the principal contributors to this movement were
Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen, and Black, of latent heat; Cavendish,
the investigator of air and water; Sir William Herschel, the astronomer, who
spent most of his life in England; Hutton, the father of British geological
science; Sir Joseph Banks, the naturalist; Hunter, the "founder of scientific
Page 287
surgery"; and Jenner, who in 1798 announced the protective power of
vaccination against small-pox. Science was aided by voyages of discovery,
some of them of the highest future importance in the history of the world,
and in the extension of the British empire. Between 1764 and 1768 come
Commodore Byron's fruitless voyage round the world, and the discovery of
a large number of islands in the South Pacific by Captains Wallis and
Carteret. Cook's three great voyages were made between 1768 and 1779. In
the course of them he sailed round New Zealand, explored the east coast of
Australia and the new Hebrides, discovered New Caledonia and the
Sandwich islands, and attempted to find a passage from the North Pacific
round the north of the American continent. In 1780 an expedition under
Captain Bligh, sent to transport bread-fruit trees from Otaheite to the West
Indies for acclimatisation, ended in the famous mutiny on board his ship,
the Bounty. To the last years of the century belong the voyages of Bass and
Flinders in Australian waters. Meanwhile Mackenzie descended the river
which bears his name to the Arctic ocean, and in 1770 Bruce, the
Abyssinian traveller, reached the sources of the Blue Nile.
Between 1760 and 1801 the national Church, the proper instrument of
national reformation, was passing through a period of transition. Its vitality
was somewhat injured by its controversy with the deists, and still more by
the action of the state. It was a powerful political engine and as such it was
used by statesmen. Convocations remained silenced, and Church
preferments were made to serve political ends and were regarded both by
clergy and laity as little more than desirable offices. Clergymen begged
bishoprics and deaneries of Newcastle with unblushing importunity,
sometimes even before the men they aspired to succeed had breathed their
last. Neither they, nor the ministers who treated Church patronage as a
means of strengthening their party, were necessarily careless about religion.
Newcastle and Hardwicke, for example, were religious men, and the
personal piety of some preferment-seeking bishops is unquestioned. It was a
matter in which the Church was neither better nor worse than the age. The
ecclesiastical system was disorganised by plurality and non-residence; the
dignified clergy as a whole were worldly minded, and the greater number of
the rest were wretchedly poor. The Church was roused to a sense of its duty
to society by methodism and evangelicalism, two movements for a time
closely connected, though after 1784 methodism became a force outside the
vaccination against small-pox. Science was aided by voyages of discovery,
some of them of the highest future importance in the history of the world,
and in the extension of the British empire. Between 1764 and 1768 come
Commodore Byron's fruitless voyage round the world, and the discovery of
a large number of islands in the South Pacific by Captains Wallis and
Carteret. Cook's three great voyages were made between 1768 and 1779. In
the course of them he sailed round New Zealand, explored the east coast of
Australia and the new Hebrides, discovered New Caledonia and the
Sandwich islands, and attempted to find a passage from the North Pacific
round the north of the American continent. In 1780 an expedition under
Captain Bligh, sent to transport bread-fruit trees from Otaheite to the West
Indies for acclimatisation, ended in the famous mutiny on board his ship,
the Bounty. To the last years of the century belong the voyages of Bass and
Flinders in Australian waters. Meanwhile Mackenzie descended the river
which bears his name to the Arctic ocean, and in 1770 Bruce, the
Abyssinian traveller, reached the sources of the Blue Nile.
Between 1760 and 1801 the national Church, the proper instrument of
national reformation, was passing through a period of transition. Its vitality
was somewhat injured by its controversy with the deists, and still more by
the action of the state. It was a powerful political engine and as such it was
used by statesmen. Convocations remained silenced, and Church
preferments were made to serve political ends and were regarded both by
clergy and laity as little more than desirable offices. Clergymen begged
bishoprics and deaneries of Newcastle with unblushing importunity,
sometimes even before the men they aspired to succeed had breathed their
last. Neither they, nor the ministers who treated Church patronage as a
means of strengthening their party, were necessarily careless about religion.
Newcastle and Hardwicke, for example, were religious men, and the
personal piety of some preferment-seeking bishops is unquestioned. It was a
matter in which the Church was neither better nor worse than the age. The
ecclesiastical system was disorganised by plurality and non-residence; the
dignified clergy as a whole were worldly minded, and the greater number of
the rest were wretchedly poor. The Church was roused to a sense of its duty
to society by methodism and evangelicalism, two movements for a time
closely connected, though after 1784 methodism became a force outside the
Page 288
church. By 1760 the persecution to which John Wesley and his fellow-
workers had sometimes been exposed was over, and methodism was
gaining ground. It very slightly touched aristocratic society, chiefly through
the efforts of the Countess of Huntingdon, who, in spite of her quarrel with
Wesley's party, must be regarded as one of the leaders of the movement; its
influence on the labouring class, specially in large towns and in the mining
districts, was strong, and it gained a considerable hold on people of the
middle class.
Within the Church rapid progress was made by the
evangelical movement. Many of the earlier evangelical THE
EVANGELICALS.
clergy were methodists, some workers with Wesley,
others preachers of Lady Huntingdon's "connexion" before her secession in
1781. During the last two decades of the century the evangelicals became
distinct from the methodists and formed an increasing body inside the
Church. Among its clerical chiefs were Romaine, Venn, Cecil, and Newton
of Olney, the spiritual guide of many of its leading adherents; it owed much
to Lord Dartmouth's patronage, Cowper's poetry presented its doctrine in a
pleasing form, Hannah More furthered its cause by her writings, and
Wilberforce brought it into connexion with political life. Only one of the
avowed evangelical clergy, Isaac Milner, Dean of Carlisle, received
dignified preferment before 1800, for the king was averse from
"enthusiasm," and though Pitt's Church appointments were eminently
respectable, he does not seem to have been guided in making them by any
exalted consideration. Whatever the failings of the evangelical party may
have been, it certainly exercised a strong and wholesome influence on the
national life, which was aided by the effects of the war with France. Not
only did the discipline of war sober the nation, but it also extended the
revolt against unreality which took place in the domains of literature and
art, to that of religion, and brought people to accept a teaching which
appealed more strongly to the heart than that of the older school of clergy.
While most of the work of the evangelicals lies outside our subject, the
character of its influence on society may be gathered from their efforts for
the suppression of the slave trade; from the stricter observance of Sunday
which became general towards the end of our period; from their plans for
bettering the condition, and their care for the education of the poor. The
institution of Sunday schools was largely due to Robert Raikes, of
workers had sometimes been exposed was over, and methodism was
gaining ground. It very slightly touched aristocratic society, chiefly through
the efforts of the Countess of Huntingdon, who, in spite of her quarrel with
Wesley's party, must be regarded as one of the leaders of the movement; its
influence on the labouring class, specially in large towns and in the mining
districts, was strong, and it gained a considerable hold on people of the
middle class.
Within the Church rapid progress was made by the
evangelical movement. Many of the earlier evangelical THE
EVANGELICALS.
clergy were methodists, some workers with Wesley,
others preachers of Lady Huntingdon's "connexion" before her secession in
1781. During the last two decades of the century the evangelicals became
distinct from the methodists and formed an increasing body inside the
Church. Among its clerical chiefs were Romaine, Venn, Cecil, and Newton
of Olney, the spiritual guide of many of its leading adherents; it owed much
to Lord Dartmouth's patronage, Cowper's poetry presented its doctrine in a
pleasing form, Hannah More furthered its cause by her writings, and
Wilberforce brought it into connexion with political life. Only one of the
avowed evangelical clergy, Isaac Milner, Dean of Carlisle, received
dignified preferment before 1800, for the king was averse from
"enthusiasm," and though Pitt's Church appointments were eminently
respectable, he does not seem to have been guided in making them by any
exalted consideration. Whatever the failings of the evangelical party may
have been, it certainly exercised a strong and wholesome influence on the
national life, which was aided by the effects of the war with France. Not
only did the discipline of war sober the nation, but it also extended the
revolt against unreality which took place in the domains of literature and
art, to that of religion, and brought people to accept a teaching which
appealed more strongly to the heart than that of the older school of clergy.
While most of the work of the evangelicals lies outside our subject, the
character of its influence on society may be gathered from their efforts for
the suppression of the slave trade; from the stricter observance of Sunday
which became general towards the end of our period; from their plans for
bettering the condition, and their care for the education of the poor. The
institution of Sunday schools was largely due to Robert Raikes, of
Page 289
Gloucester, who began his work in 1780. Six years later some 200,000
children attended these schools, and in many cases gained in them their
only education. The work was encouraged by the king and queen, and along
with other efforts for the education of the poor was helped forward by
Hannah More, Wilberforce, and other evangelicals.
Apart from any religious movement, many laymen, among whom Burke
holds a high place, strove to soften the hardness and cruelty of the age.
There was need of their efforts. The criminal law was fearfully severe.
Early in the reign as many as 160 crimes were capital felonies, and the
number was constantly augmented. A theft of more than the value of twelve
pence by picking a pocket was punishable by death. This severity led to an
increase of crime. The injured would not prosecute, juries would not
convict on clear evidence, judges recommended to mercy, and criminals
were emboldened by the chances of escape. The heavy punishments
attached to light offences tended to multiply serious crimes; for a thief who
knew that he might be hanged was tempted to commit murder rather than be
caught. Though only about a fifth of the capital sentences were carried out,
executions were terribly numerous, especially between 1781 and 1787. In
1783, at two consecutive executions, twenty persons were hanged together.
Ninety-six were hanged at the Old Bailey in ten months in 1785, and at the
Lent assizes of that year there were twenty-one capital sentences at
Kingston, twelve at Lincoln and sixteen at Gloucester, and in each town
nine persons were hanged. Executions were popular spectacles; 80,000
persons are said to have been present at one at Moorfields in 1767, and over
20,000 assembled at Tyburn in 1773 to see a woman burnt—she was
previously strangled at the stake—for the murder of her husband. The
ghastly procession to Tyburn was stopped in 1783, and executions were
ordered to be carried out in front of the prison; and in 1790 the burning of
women was abolished. Otherwise, in spite of Burke's efforts, the criminal
law was not materially ameliorated till the next century. The punishment of
the pillory was one of its worst abuses. When inflicted for some popular act,
such as libelling a minister, the offender was treated as a hero, but if a man's
crime outraged the moral sense of the mob, he was exposed to horrible
barbarity. Two men were pelted to death, in 1763 and 1780, on the pillory in
London. After the second of these murders Burke brought the matter before
parliament; he was supported by Sir Charles Bunbury, who quoted a similar
children attended these schools, and in many cases gained in them their
only education. The work was encouraged by the king and queen, and along
with other efforts for the education of the poor was helped forward by
Hannah More, Wilberforce, and other evangelicals.
Apart from any religious movement, many laymen, among whom Burke
holds a high place, strove to soften the hardness and cruelty of the age.
There was need of their efforts. The criminal law was fearfully severe.
Early in the reign as many as 160 crimes were capital felonies, and the
number was constantly augmented. A theft of more than the value of twelve
pence by picking a pocket was punishable by death. This severity led to an
increase of crime. The injured would not prosecute, juries would not
convict on clear evidence, judges recommended to mercy, and criminals
were emboldened by the chances of escape. The heavy punishments
attached to light offences tended to multiply serious crimes; for a thief who
knew that he might be hanged was tempted to commit murder rather than be
caught. Though only about a fifth of the capital sentences were carried out,
executions were terribly numerous, especially between 1781 and 1787. In
1783, at two consecutive executions, twenty persons were hanged together.
Ninety-six were hanged at the Old Bailey in ten months in 1785, and at the
Lent assizes of that year there were twenty-one capital sentences at
Kingston, twelve at Lincoln and sixteen at Gloucester, and in each town
nine persons were hanged. Executions were popular spectacles; 80,000
persons are said to have been present at one at Moorfields in 1767, and over
20,000 assembled at Tyburn in 1773 to see a woman burnt—she was
previously strangled at the stake—for the murder of her husband. The
ghastly procession to Tyburn was stopped in 1783, and executions were
ordered to be carried out in front of the prison; and in 1790 the burning of
women was abolished. Otherwise, in spite of Burke's efforts, the criminal
law was not materially ameliorated till the next century. The punishment of
the pillory was one of its worst abuses. When inflicted for some popular act,
such as libelling a minister, the offender was treated as a hero, but if a man's
crime outraged the moral sense of the mob, he was exposed to horrible
barbarity. Two men were pelted to death, in 1763 and 1780, on the pillory in
London. After the second of these murders Burke brought the matter before
parliament; he was supported by Sir Charles Bunbury, who quoted a similar
Page 290
case at Bury, but the punishment was not abolished. Whipping was
constantly inflicted, not merely on men but on women, and in public as well
as privately. The poor were brutalised by cruel and indecent punishments,
and were far too much under the power of magistrates, some of them
vicious and ignorant men, who had summary jurisdiction in a large number
of criminal cases.
The prisons were horrible dens in which felons and
debtors, men and women, old and young, were crowded PRISONS AND
POLICE.
together. Many of them had no water-supply and very
little air; some had no sewers, and where sewers existed they were generally
choked up. Great numbers died of gaol-fever and small-pox. In about half
the county gaols debtors had no allowance of bread. Everywhere prisoners
were exposed to extortion, and were sometimes detained in gaol after
acquittal for non-payment of the gaolers' fees. Such was the state of things
in 1773 when John Howard began to inquire into the condition of the
prisons. He roused the attention of parliament and of the public to these
abuses, and by 1779 some of the more flagrant of them were removed. He
spent the remainder of his life in efforts to reform the prisons, and
accomplished much, though much still remained to be done. After 1776
convicts could no more be transported to America, and male convicts were
kept in hulks on the Thames and elsewhere. These hulks soon became
overcrowded, and in 1784 the old system of assigning convicts to
employers in different parts of the British dominions oversea was again
adopted. The evils of this system were recognised, and it was decided to
send criminals sentenced to transportation to New South Wales. A
government was established; Captain Phillip, of the navy, was appointed
governor, and in 1787 took out the "first fleet" with convicts. He established
a settlement at Port Jackson, and founded a city which he called Sydney,
after the then secretary for home affairs. Such was the unworthy beginning
of the present magnificent colony of New South Wales.
The population outgrew the police system. Riots were frequent in times of
scarcity or popular excitement, and often could only be quelled by soldiers.
Throughout the whole of our period highwaymen infested the roads; in
1774 Horace Walpole at Twickenham declared that it was scarcely safe to
venture out by day; Lady Hertford had been attacked on Hounslow Heath at
three in the afternoon. Some daring robberies, two of them of mails, were
constantly inflicted, not merely on men but on women, and in public as well
as privately. The poor were brutalised by cruel and indecent punishments,
and were far too much under the power of magistrates, some of them
vicious and ignorant men, who had summary jurisdiction in a large number
of criminal cases.
The prisons were horrible dens in which felons and
debtors, men and women, old and young, were crowded PRISONS AND
POLICE.
together. Many of them had no water-supply and very
little air; some had no sewers, and where sewers existed they were generally
choked up. Great numbers died of gaol-fever and small-pox. In about half
the county gaols debtors had no allowance of bread. Everywhere prisoners
were exposed to extortion, and were sometimes detained in gaol after
acquittal for non-payment of the gaolers' fees. Such was the state of things
in 1773 when John Howard began to inquire into the condition of the
prisons. He roused the attention of parliament and of the public to these
abuses, and by 1779 some of the more flagrant of them were removed. He
spent the remainder of his life in efforts to reform the prisons, and
accomplished much, though much still remained to be done. After 1776
convicts could no more be transported to America, and male convicts were
kept in hulks on the Thames and elsewhere. These hulks soon became
overcrowded, and in 1784 the old system of assigning convicts to
employers in different parts of the British dominions oversea was again
adopted. The evils of this system were recognised, and it was decided to
send criminals sentenced to transportation to New South Wales. A
government was established; Captain Phillip, of the navy, was appointed
governor, and in 1787 took out the "first fleet" with convicts. He established
a settlement at Port Jackson, and founded a city which he called Sydney,
after the then secretary for home affairs. Such was the unworthy beginning
of the present magnificent colony of New South Wales.
The population outgrew the police system. Riots were frequent in times of
scarcity or popular excitement, and often could only be quelled by soldiers.
Throughout the whole of our period highwaymen infested the roads; in
1774 Horace Walpole at Twickenham declared that it was scarcely safe to
venture out by day; Lady Hertford had been attacked on Hounslow Heath at
three in the afternoon. Some daring robberies, two of them of mails, were
Page 291
effected in 1791. In the earlier years of the reign smuggling was carried on
with amazing audacity, specially on the south and east coasts. It was
calculated that 40,000 persons were engaged in it by sea and land, and that
two-thirds of the tea and half the brandy consumed in England paid no duty.
Bands of armed smugglers rode up to London with their goods, and
attempts to interfere with their trade were fiercely and often successfully
resisted. Smuggling, however, was checked, as we shall see, by the wise
policy of Pitt. The weakness of the police caused an alarming increase of
crimes against property; footpads stopped carriages even in Grosvenor
Square and Piccadilly, and in 1792 the streets are said on good authority to
have been unsafe by night. With the exception of a few Bow street officers
and some mounted patrols, the only police in London were parish
constables and the watchmen, many of them old and decrepit. The
magistracy of Middlesex had largely fallen into the hands of men described
by Burke as "the scum of the earth," who used their office as a means of
getting gain, and frightful abuses were common.[179] In 1792 parliament
established stipendiary magistrates appointed by the crown for the London
police courts, and a few police officers were attached to each court. This
important reform would have been more effective if a larger number of
police had been placed under the orders of the new magistrates, for after
that date the police of London and its immediate neighbourhood consisted
of not more than 2,044 watchmen and patrols and 1,000 constables and
other officers, of whom only 147 received pay and gave their whole time to
police work.[180]
The general belief that the trade of Great Britain would be ruined by the
loss of the American colonies was not justified. Between 1783 and 1800 her
foreign trade and manufactures were developed at an extraordinary rate.
The official value of English exports in 1760 was £14,694,970, and of
imports £9,832,802; in 1783, of exports £13,896,415, and of imports
£11,651,281; in 1800 the exports of Great Britain were officially valued at
£34,381,617, and the imports at £28,257,781.[181] Her foreign trade, which
provided her with an extended market, was maintained through her naval
supremacy. Before 1780 the war with the colonies had little effect on her
trade; the declaration of the armed neutrality decreased its profits by
increasing risks and raising the rate of insurance, but does not appear to
have inflicted special injury on any particular branch of it. The American
with amazing audacity, specially on the south and east coasts. It was
calculated that 40,000 persons were engaged in it by sea and land, and that
two-thirds of the tea and half the brandy consumed in England paid no duty.
Bands of armed smugglers rode up to London with their goods, and
attempts to interfere with their trade were fiercely and often successfully
resisted. Smuggling, however, was checked, as we shall see, by the wise
policy of Pitt. The weakness of the police caused an alarming increase of
crimes against property; footpads stopped carriages even in Grosvenor
Square and Piccadilly, and in 1792 the streets are said on good authority to
have been unsafe by night. With the exception of a few Bow street officers
and some mounted patrols, the only police in London were parish
constables and the watchmen, many of them old and decrepit. The
magistracy of Middlesex had largely fallen into the hands of men described
by Burke as "the scum of the earth," who used their office as a means of
getting gain, and frightful abuses were common.[179] In 1792 parliament
established stipendiary magistrates appointed by the crown for the London
police courts, and a few police officers were attached to each court. This
important reform would have been more effective if a larger number of
police had been placed under the orders of the new magistrates, for after
that date the police of London and its immediate neighbourhood consisted
of not more than 2,044 watchmen and patrols and 1,000 constables and
other officers, of whom only 147 received pay and gave their whole time to
police work.[180]
The general belief that the trade of Great Britain would be ruined by the
loss of the American colonies was not justified. Between 1783 and 1800 her
foreign trade and manufactures were developed at an extraordinary rate.
The official value of English exports in 1760 was £14,694,970, and of
imports £9,832,802; in 1783, of exports £13,896,415, and of imports
£11,651,281; in 1800 the exports of Great Britain were officially valued at
£34,381,617, and the imports at £28,257,781.[181] Her foreign trade, which
provided her with an extended market, was maintained through her naval
supremacy. Before 1780 the war with the colonies had little effect on her
trade; the declaration of the armed neutrality decreased its profits by
increasing risks and raising the rate of insurance, but does not appear to
have inflicted special injury on any particular branch of it. The American
Page 292
shipping was destroyed and Dutch commerce suffered severely. At the end
of the war England was far stronger by sea than she was before it began; her
manufactures, specially of iron and cotton, began to develop rapidly, and
she kept the American trade. During the revolutionary war the French
believed that they could reduce England to impotence by ruining her
commerce. They failed to understand the consequences of her power at sea
and the firmness of the foundation on which her wealth rested. The ports of
France and her allies were blockaded; England may be said to have carried
the greatest part of the trade of Europe, her manufactures flourished
exceedingly, and foreign nations could not afford to abstain from
purchasing them.
Before entering on the expansion of manufactures and
the industrial revolution which accompanied it, a word LAISSEZ-FAIRE.
may be said as to the attitude of the state towards these
changes. For some two centuries it had been held that it was the duty of the
state to order trade with the object of increasing the wealth and power of the
nation, and a policy was followed of interference with trade and its
conditions by regulations, bounties, and restrictions, which is called the
mercantile system. To this policy belong the navigation acts and the
regulation of colonial trade and manufactures for the benefit of the mother-
country. The American revolution dealt it a mortal blow. About the same
time Adam Smith's work led to the idea that national wealth would increase
if men were left to seek their own wealth without interference. While trade
outgrew the old regulations which ordered its conditions, the system of state
interference became discredited, a new economic policy of non-
interference, called laissez-faire, took its place, and questions of trade,
manufacture, wages, and other conditions of labour were increasingly left to
settle themselves. This reversed the policy long and successfully pursued by
the whigs, who fostered trade as the basis of national prosperity. The tories
on the other hand held that national prosperity was based on land, and
desired to lighten its burdens by taxing personal property, and we shall find
Pitt distributing his taxation widely and so as to fall mainly on the moneyed
class.[182] Laissez-faire reached its full development in the establishment of
free trade; it has already been modified in many respects, and may hereafter
be subjected to further modification to suit altered circumstances.
of the war England was far stronger by sea than she was before it began; her
manufactures, specially of iron and cotton, began to develop rapidly, and
she kept the American trade. During the revolutionary war the French
believed that they could reduce England to impotence by ruining her
commerce. They failed to understand the consequences of her power at sea
and the firmness of the foundation on which her wealth rested. The ports of
France and her allies were blockaded; England may be said to have carried
the greatest part of the trade of Europe, her manufactures flourished
exceedingly, and foreign nations could not afford to abstain from
purchasing them.
Before entering on the expansion of manufactures and
the industrial revolution which accompanied it, a word LAISSEZ-FAIRE.
may be said as to the attitude of the state towards these
changes. For some two centuries it had been held that it was the duty of the
state to order trade with the object of increasing the wealth and power of the
nation, and a policy was followed of interference with trade and its
conditions by regulations, bounties, and restrictions, which is called the
mercantile system. To this policy belong the navigation acts and the
regulation of colonial trade and manufactures for the benefit of the mother-
country. The American revolution dealt it a mortal blow. About the same
time Adam Smith's work led to the idea that national wealth would increase
if men were left to seek their own wealth without interference. While trade
outgrew the old regulations which ordered its conditions, the system of state
interference became discredited, a new economic policy of non-
interference, called laissez-faire, took its place, and questions of trade,
manufacture, wages, and other conditions of labour were increasingly left to
settle themselves. This reversed the policy long and successfully pursued by
the whigs, who fostered trade as the basis of national prosperity. The tories
on the other hand held that national prosperity was based on land, and
desired to lighten its burdens by taxing personal property, and we shall find
Pitt distributing his taxation widely and so as to fall mainly on the moneyed
class.[182] Laissez-faire reached its full development in the establishment of
free trade; it has already been modified in many respects, and may hereafter
be subjected to further modification to suit altered circumstances.
Page 293
The expansion of trade during our period was due to improved processes of
manufacture and increased facilities of transport, and in a far higher degree
to the substitution of machinery moved by the power of water or steam for
manual labour. The north, hitherto the most backward part of England,
became the chief seat of industrial life and commercial enterprise. Wealth
was increased, industry became more dependent on capital, and changes
were effected in its conditions which for a time pressed heavily on the poor.
In 1760 there was no Black Country. Charcoal was employed in the
manufacture of hardware, and the Sussex iron works produced a small
quantity of pig-iron at a great cost. Fuel was giving out, and England, rich
in iron, imported over 49,000 tons of iron a year from Russia and Sweden.
The discovery that coal and coke could be used for smelting was made
about 1750, and in 1760 a new era in the manufacture was ushered in by the
foundation of the Carron ironworks, which had blast furnaces for coal. The
improvements in Newcomen's steam engine, effected by Watt between 1765
and 1782, facilitated smelting by coal by providing the furnaces with a
stronger blast. In 1783-4 Cort of Gosport invented processes for converting
pig-iron into malleable by the use of coal, and for converting malleable iron
into bars by rollers, instead of sledge-hammers. Iron became cheap and was
used for purposes never dreamt of a few years before; the first iron bridge
crossed the Severn at Coalbrookdale in 1779. By 1796 the use of charcoal
had almost ceased, and the produce of blast furnaces had risen from 68,300
tons in 1788 to over 125,000 tons. Vast iron works were established in the
coal districts, which soon ceased to be agricultural. Among the many other
manufactures expanded by new processes was that of pottery. In 1760
Staffordshire stoneware was rough and badly glazed, and much ware was
imported from France. A few years later Wedgwood succeeded in producing
a ware at his works at Etruria which was superior to any brought from
abroad; it was largely used in England, and five-sixths of the produce of his
works was exported.
The increasing call for coal both for manufacture and for
fuel and the needs consequent on the growth of trade and THE INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION.
the expansion of agriculture were met by greater
facilities of transport. Roads, though they were gradually improved, could
not have answered the demands for the conveyance of the ever-increasing
bulk of heavy goods. A better method was found in the introduction of
manufacture and increased facilities of transport, and in a far higher degree
to the substitution of machinery moved by the power of water or steam for
manual labour. The north, hitherto the most backward part of England,
became the chief seat of industrial life and commercial enterprise. Wealth
was increased, industry became more dependent on capital, and changes
were effected in its conditions which for a time pressed heavily on the poor.
In 1760 there was no Black Country. Charcoal was employed in the
manufacture of hardware, and the Sussex iron works produced a small
quantity of pig-iron at a great cost. Fuel was giving out, and England, rich
in iron, imported over 49,000 tons of iron a year from Russia and Sweden.
The discovery that coal and coke could be used for smelting was made
about 1750, and in 1760 a new era in the manufacture was ushered in by the
foundation of the Carron ironworks, which had blast furnaces for coal. The
improvements in Newcomen's steam engine, effected by Watt between 1765
and 1782, facilitated smelting by coal by providing the furnaces with a
stronger blast. In 1783-4 Cort of Gosport invented processes for converting
pig-iron into malleable by the use of coal, and for converting malleable iron
into bars by rollers, instead of sledge-hammers. Iron became cheap and was
used for purposes never dreamt of a few years before; the first iron bridge
crossed the Severn at Coalbrookdale in 1779. By 1796 the use of charcoal
had almost ceased, and the produce of blast furnaces had risen from 68,300
tons in 1788 to over 125,000 tons. Vast iron works were established in the
coal districts, which soon ceased to be agricultural. Among the many other
manufactures expanded by new processes was that of pottery. In 1760
Staffordshire stoneware was rough and badly glazed, and much ware was
imported from France. A few years later Wedgwood succeeded in producing
a ware at his works at Etruria which was superior to any brought from
abroad; it was largely used in England, and five-sixths of the produce of his
works was exported.
The increasing call for coal both for manufacture and for
fuel and the needs consequent on the growth of trade and THE INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION.
the expansion of agriculture were met by greater
facilities of transport. Roads, though they were gradually improved, could
not have answered the demands for the conveyance of the ever-increasing
bulk of heavy goods. A better method was found in the introduction of
Page 294
canals by the third Duke of Bridgewater. The canal between Worsley and
Manchester, made by him and his engineer, Brindley, and opened in 1761,
enabled the Manchester people to buy the duke's coal at 3½d. instead of 7d.
a cwt.; its extension to Runcorn reduced the cost of carriage by water
between Liverpool and Manchester from 12s. to 6s. a ton, while by road it
was 40s.; and the Grand Trunk canal from Runcorn to the Trent brought the
pottery of Etruria to Liverpool and carried other goods at a quarter of the
old cost of transport. The success of these undertakings was so great that
people went wild about canal-making, and between 1790 and 1794 eighty-
one canal acts were obtained, many of them, of course, for superfluous
projects.
The principal factor in the industrial revolution which began during the
period under review was the substitution of machinery for hand labour in
textile manufactures. In 1760 spinning and weaving were domestic
industries, carried on, that is, in the homes of the workers. The women and
children in farm-houses and cottages spent their spare time in spinning. The
implements used in the cotton manufacture remained nearly as simple as
those of the Homeric age, save that weaving had been facilitated by the use
of the fly-shuttle. Since that invention the weaver found it difficult to obtain
enough yarn for his loom, until, about 1767, a weaver named Hargreaves
invented the spinning-jenny by which a child could work many spindles at
once. Two years later Arkwright, who introduced many inventions into the
textile manufacture, brought out a spinning machine worked by water-
power. His water-frame spun automatically and produced a yarn strong
enough for warp, so that for the first time pure cotton goods were
manufactured in England, for until then the cotton weft was woven on a
warp of linen. This machine was improved on by Crompton's mule, a cross
between the jenny and the water-frame, which spun a finer yarn, and so
started the manufacture of muslin in England; it was invented in 1775 and
came into general use about ten years later. The supply of cotton from India,
the Bahamas, and later from the southern states of America, was large, and
the effect of the new machinery on the manufacture can be gauged by the
increase in the import of cotton-wool from an average of 4,764,589 lbs.
between 1771 and 1775 to 56,010,732 lbs. in 1800. The new labour-saving
inventions were at first regarded with jealousy by the workmen. Hargreaves
had his house gutted and his loom destroyed, and in 1799 a violent riot
Manchester, made by him and his engineer, Brindley, and opened in 1761,
enabled the Manchester people to buy the duke's coal at 3½d. instead of 7d.
a cwt.; its extension to Runcorn reduced the cost of carriage by water
between Liverpool and Manchester from 12s. to 6s. a ton, while by road it
was 40s.; and the Grand Trunk canal from Runcorn to the Trent brought the
pottery of Etruria to Liverpool and carried other goods at a quarter of the
old cost of transport. The success of these undertakings was so great that
people went wild about canal-making, and between 1790 and 1794 eighty-
one canal acts were obtained, many of them, of course, for superfluous
projects.
The principal factor in the industrial revolution which began during the
period under review was the substitution of machinery for hand labour in
textile manufactures. In 1760 spinning and weaving were domestic
industries, carried on, that is, in the homes of the workers. The women and
children in farm-houses and cottages spent their spare time in spinning. The
implements used in the cotton manufacture remained nearly as simple as
those of the Homeric age, save that weaving had been facilitated by the use
of the fly-shuttle. Since that invention the weaver found it difficult to obtain
enough yarn for his loom, until, about 1767, a weaver named Hargreaves
invented the spinning-jenny by which a child could work many spindles at
once. Two years later Arkwright, who introduced many inventions into the
textile manufacture, brought out a spinning machine worked by water-
power. His water-frame spun automatically and produced a yarn strong
enough for warp, so that for the first time pure cotton goods were
manufactured in England, for until then the cotton weft was woven on a
warp of linen. This machine was improved on by Crompton's mule, a cross
between the jenny and the water-frame, which spun a finer yarn, and so
started the manufacture of muslin in England; it was invented in 1775 and
came into general use about ten years later. The supply of cotton from India,
the Bahamas, and later from the southern states of America, was large, and
the effect of the new machinery on the manufacture can be gauged by the
increase in the import of cotton-wool from an average of 4,764,589 lbs.
between 1771 and 1775 to 56,010,732 lbs. in 1800. The new labour-saving
inventions were at first regarded with jealousy by the workmen. Hargreaves
had his house gutted and his loom destroyed, and in 1799 a violent riot
Page 295
broke out about Blackburn; Arkwright's works were burnt, and many
machines in the neighbourhood were broken to pieces. In and around
Lancashire, where the manufacture was chiefly carried on, the carding and
spinning of wool ceased to be domestic industries. Capitalists set up
factories where water-power was available, in which children were largely
employed, and factory villages grew up round them. From about 1790
steam-power began gradually to take the place of water-power; the change
was slow, and as it went on the manufacture became increasingly centred in
populous towns.
Cotton weaving remained a domestic industry, for Cartwright's power-loom
did not come into general use until after 1800. The output of yarn was
enormous, and for a time the weavers' earnings were very large, but the
money which could be earned at the loom and the failure of domestic
spinning caused so many to take to weaving that by 1800 wages had begun
to decline, and gradually a period of distress set in. A machine for calico-
printing further increased the profits of the capitalist and had a bad effect on
labour, for it threw the calico-printer out of employment. Wool spinning
was far more generally carried on in rural districts than cotton spinning, and
more widely spread misery was caused by changes in the manufacture. It
came under the dominion of machinery somewhat later. Machines for
carding and combing took the place of manual labour after 1790, and
enabled one man and a few children to do the work of many men. Spinning
with the wheel lasted longer than in the cotton manufacture. From 1785
jennies were used, and wool spinning was gradually transferred to factories
and became a separate business, instead of a by-employment which helped
the small farmer to pay his rent and eked out the scanty wages of the
labourer. The change was accelerated by the scarcity of wool during the
revolutionary war, for by that time the trade had become largely dependent
on importation from Spain, and it was not until about 1800 that sheep began
to be bred for their wool in Australia. As in the cotton trade, the wages of
weavers were high during the war, but the scarcity of material prevented all
but the best workmen from finding employment and there was much
distress among the rest. The failure of domestic spinning deeply affected all
the rural districts of England.
It was specially disastrous because it was accompanied by times of
scarceness and by changes connected with a revolution in agriculture which
machines in the neighbourhood were broken to pieces. In and around
Lancashire, where the manufacture was chiefly carried on, the carding and
spinning of wool ceased to be domestic industries. Capitalists set up
factories where water-power was available, in which children were largely
employed, and factory villages grew up round them. From about 1790
steam-power began gradually to take the place of water-power; the change
was slow, and as it went on the manufacture became increasingly centred in
populous towns.
Cotton weaving remained a domestic industry, for Cartwright's power-loom
did not come into general use until after 1800. The output of yarn was
enormous, and for a time the weavers' earnings were very large, but the
money which could be earned at the loom and the failure of domestic
spinning caused so many to take to weaving that by 1800 wages had begun
to decline, and gradually a period of distress set in. A machine for calico-
printing further increased the profits of the capitalist and had a bad effect on
labour, for it threw the calico-printer out of employment. Wool spinning
was far more generally carried on in rural districts than cotton spinning, and
more widely spread misery was caused by changes in the manufacture. It
came under the dominion of machinery somewhat later. Machines for
carding and combing took the place of manual labour after 1790, and
enabled one man and a few children to do the work of many men. Spinning
with the wheel lasted longer than in the cotton manufacture. From 1785
jennies were used, and wool spinning was gradually transferred to factories
and became a separate business, instead of a by-employment which helped
the small farmer to pay his rent and eked out the scanty wages of the
labourer. The change was accelerated by the scarcity of wool during the
revolutionary war, for by that time the trade had become largely dependent
on importation from Spain, and it was not until about 1800 that sheep began
to be bred for their wool in Australia. As in the cotton trade, the wages of
weavers were high during the war, but the scarcity of material prevented all
but the best workmen from finding employment and there was much
distress among the rest. The failure of domestic spinning deeply affected all
the rural districts of England.
It was specially disastrous because it was accompanied by times of
scarceness and by changes connected with a revolution in agriculture which
Page 296
pressed heavily on many of the poorer classes. A rapid
increase in population during the latter part of the AGRICULTURAL
WAGES.
century was consequent on the stimulus given to
manufacture; in 1760 the population of England and Wales is estimated at
6,479,700, and of Scotland in 1755 at about 1,265,300; in 1800 the estimate
for England and Wales is 9,187,176, and for Scotland about 1,599,000. This
increase implies a demand for a larger supply of food. Early in the reign
wages were low except near great towns, and the law of settlement
prevented the labourer from moving freely from one parish to another in
order to better himself. While in 1769-70 labourers in Surrey earned on an
average from 8s. to 10s. a week, in Wiltshire they received only 6s. 2d. to
5s. 3d., and in one district in Lancashire as little as 4s. 11d.[183] Wages,
however, were then eked out by home industries and commonable rights.
Yet the margin between income and expenditure was so small that a rise in
the price of bread soon caused distress, and was often followed by riots.
Bread made from rye or barley was still eaten in poor districts, but wheaten
bread was more generally used than earlier in the century, which proves that
the condition of the poor was bettered. In 1769 it cost 2d. a pound near
London, and at a distance of 150 miles 1½d. Meat was about 3d. to 4d. a
pound, rent and clothing were cheap, firing and candles very dear.
In 1760 England was still a corn-exporting country; importation was
restrained, exportation encouraged by a bounty, and in times of scarcity the
trade was regulated by temporary enactments. After some bad harvests an
act was made in 1773 with the object of keeping the price steady at about
48s. the quarter; virtually free importation was allowed when it reached that
limit, and exportation was forbidden when it reached 44s. Landowners and
farmers were dissatisfied, and a general fear lest the country should become
dependent on foreign corn led parliament in 1791 to adopt a policy of
encouraging home production; it was enacted that for the future a bounty
should be paid on exportation when the price was at 44s., that prohibitive
duties should be placed on importation when it was below 50s., and
virtually free importation only allowed above 54s. Nevertheless from about
that date England definitely ceased to be able to feed her own people,
except in good seasons. Her naval superiority during the revolutionary war
prevented a stoppage in the supply of wheat from abroad; but it became
uncertain, prices fluctuated violently with good or bad harvests; war acted
increase in population during the latter part of the AGRICULTURAL
WAGES.
century was consequent on the stimulus given to
manufacture; in 1760 the population of England and Wales is estimated at
6,479,700, and of Scotland in 1755 at about 1,265,300; in 1800 the estimate
for England and Wales is 9,187,176, and for Scotland about 1,599,000. This
increase implies a demand for a larger supply of food. Early in the reign
wages were low except near great towns, and the law of settlement
prevented the labourer from moving freely from one parish to another in
order to better himself. While in 1769-70 labourers in Surrey earned on an
average from 8s. to 10s. a week, in Wiltshire they received only 6s. 2d. to
5s. 3d., and in one district in Lancashire as little as 4s. 11d.[183] Wages,
however, were then eked out by home industries and commonable rights.
Yet the margin between income and expenditure was so small that a rise in
the price of bread soon caused distress, and was often followed by riots.
Bread made from rye or barley was still eaten in poor districts, but wheaten
bread was more generally used than earlier in the century, which proves that
the condition of the poor was bettered. In 1769 it cost 2d. a pound near
London, and at a distance of 150 miles 1½d. Meat was about 3d. to 4d. a
pound, rent and clothing were cheap, firing and candles very dear.
In 1760 England was still a corn-exporting country; importation was
restrained, exportation encouraged by a bounty, and in times of scarcity the
trade was regulated by temporary enactments. After some bad harvests an
act was made in 1773 with the object of keeping the price steady at about
48s. the quarter; virtually free importation was allowed when it reached that
limit, and exportation was forbidden when it reached 44s. Landowners and
farmers were dissatisfied, and a general fear lest the country should become
dependent on foreign corn led parliament in 1791 to adopt a policy of
encouraging home production; it was enacted that for the future a bounty
should be paid on exportation when the price was at 44s., that prohibitive
duties should be placed on importation when it was below 50s., and
virtually free importation only allowed above 54s. Nevertheless from about
that date England definitely ceased to be able to feed her own people,
except in good seasons. Her naval superiority during the revolutionary war
prevented a stoppage in the supply of wheat from abroad; but it became
uncertain, prices fluctuated violently with good or bad harvests; war acted
Page 297
as a protection to the corn-grower and bad harvests were followed by
famine prices; in 1795 wheat averaged 81s. 6d. in Windsor market, and in
1800 reached 127s. Wages rose with the expansion of manufactures, but not
in anything like proportion to the rise in prices.
Meanwhile efforts were made to meet the increased
demand for food by improved agriculture. In 1760 about THE
AGRICULTURAL
half the parishes in England were still in open fields; and REVOLUTION.
the primitive two-field and three-field systems by which
land was refreshed by lying fallow were, with some modifications, still in
vogue. A new husbandry, however, had begun, and soon made rapid
progress; it was promoted by many large landowners, such as Lord
Townshend, the Dukes of Bedford and Grafton, and Lord Rockingham, and
the king took a lively and practical interest in the movement. Its advantages
were urged by Arthur Young, who did most valuable work as its apostle. Its
leading feature was the introduction of a scientific rotation of crops founded
on the use of clover and rye-grass and the more careful cultivation of
turnips, which kept the land at once employed and in good heart, and
afforded a supply of excellent fodder. Farmers, too, began to learn the profit
to be derived from marling, manuring, and subsoil drainage, and to use
better implements which did their work more thoroughly and with less
labour of man and beast. The increased demand for meat caused sheep no
longer to be valued chiefly for their wool, or oxen as beasts of draught.
Improvements in the breeding and rearing of sheep and cattle were
introduced by Bakewell, a Lincolnshire grazier, and carried on by others.
The scraggy animals of earlier days disappeared; the average weight of
beeves sold at Smithfield in 1710 was 370 lbs., in 1795 it was 800 lbs., and
that of sheep had risen from 28 lbs. to 80 lbs. Capital was freely invested in
land; open fields were increasingly enclosed, and commons and wastes
along with them, and land until then beyond the margin of cultivation was
taken in and ploughed. From 1760 to 1797 as many as 1,539 private
enclosure acts were passed, and a general act was passed in 1801.
The new agriculture vastly increased the produce of the land. During the
first half of our period rents were low, and the farmers who carried out the
new system as a rule made enormous profits. Arthur Young tells us of one
Norfolk farmer who, on a farm of 1,500 acres, made enough in thirty years
to buy an estate of £1,700 a year. The improved agriculture, however, could
famine prices; in 1795 wheat averaged 81s. 6d. in Windsor market, and in
1800 reached 127s. Wages rose with the expansion of manufactures, but not
in anything like proportion to the rise in prices.
Meanwhile efforts were made to meet the increased
demand for food by improved agriculture. In 1760 about THE
AGRICULTURAL
half the parishes in England were still in open fields; and REVOLUTION.
the primitive two-field and three-field systems by which
land was refreshed by lying fallow were, with some modifications, still in
vogue. A new husbandry, however, had begun, and soon made rapid
progress; it was promoted by many large landowners, such as Lord
Townshend, the Dukes of Bedford and Grafton, and Lord Rockingham, and
the king took a lively and practical interest in the movement. Its advantages
were urged by Arthur Young, who did most valuable work as its apostle. Its
leading feature was the introduction of a scientific rotation of crops founded
on the use of clover and rye-grass and the more careful cultivation of
turnips, which kept the land at once employed and in good heart, and
afforded a supply of excellent fodder. Farmers, too, began to learn the profit
to be derived from marling, manuring, and subsoil drainage, and to use
better implements which did their work more thoroughly and with less
labour of man and beast. The increased demand for meat caused sheep no
longer to be valued chiefly for their wool, or oxen as beasts of draught.
Improvements in the breeding and rearing of sheep and cattle were
introduced by Bakewell, a Lincolnshire grazier, and carried on by others.
The scraggy animals of earlier days disappeared; the average weight of
beeves sold at Smithfield in 1710 was 370 lbs., in 1795 it was 800 lbs., and
that of sheep had risen from 28 lbs. to 80 lbs. Capital was freely invested in
land; open fields were increasingly enclosed, and commons and wastes
along with them, and land until then beyond the margin of cultivation was
taken in and ploughed. From 1760 to 1797 as many as 1,539 private
enclosure acts were passed, and a general act was passed in 1801.
The new agriculture vastly increased the produce of the land. During the
first half of our period rents were low, and the farmers who carried out the
new system as a rule made enormous profits. Arthur Young tells us of one
Norfolk farmer who, on a farm of 1,500 acres, made enough in thirty years
to buy an estate of £1,700 a year. The improved agriculture, however, could
Page 298
not be carried out without enclosure and, unless an award was made by
agreement, that meant a large initial expense, which was followed by the
expense of actually enclosing the land. These expenses were often borne by
the landlords. The small squires and yeomen who farmed their own land
had neither the intelligence of the large farmers nor the money to spend on
improvements, and both classes virtually disappeared. Nor could the small
farmer either keep his place or take advantage of the new system. If his
holding was unaffected by enclosure, the loss of domestic industries
rendered him less able to pay his rent: if it was to be enclosed, he found
himself with a diminished income at the very time when he most needed
money; and if he managed to keep his land for a while, he was ruined by
some violent fluctuation in the price of corn. Sooner or later he sank into
the labouring class. The enormous profits of the large farmers did not
continue, for about 1780 rents began to rise. Still the cultivation of good
arable land remained highly profitable, if the farmer had capital enough to
meet fluctuations of price. But war prices and parliamentary encouragement
led farmers to cultivate inferior land; their profits diminished in proportion
to the cost of cultivation, and though the supply of food was increased, its
price was kept up. A sudden fall in prices would send the land back to its
original wild state and was likely enough to ruin the farmer.
Although enclosure was encouraged by parliament with the view of
benefiting the mass of the people by making bread cheaper, it was far more
often than not injurious to the labourer. In many cases commons were
enclosed without adequate compensation to the poorer commoners, who
were deprived of the means of keeping a cow or geese or of the right of
cutting turf for fuel. Some received no allotment because they failed to
prove their claims, and others sold their allotments to wealthy farmers,
either because they were too small to keep a cow or because they could not
enclose them. Young, who strongly advocated enclosure, says that out of
thirty-seven parishes he found only twelve in which the position of the poor
had not been injured by the enclosure of commons, and laments the
disastrous effect of the change on the general condition of the labouring
class. The change was coincident with the decay not only of domestic
spinning, but also of other industries practised in villages, for the large new-
fashioned farmers had their implements, harness, and household utensils
made and mended in towns rather than by rural workmen. Deprived of the
agreement, that meant a large initial expense, which was followed by the
expense of actually enclosing the land. These expenses were often borne by
the landlords. The small squires and yeomen who farmed their own land
had neither the intelligence of the large farmers nor the money to spend on
improvements, and both classes virtually disappeared. Nor could the small
farmer either keep his place or take advantage of the new system. If his
holding was unaffected by enclosure, the loss of domestic industries
rendered him less able to pay his rent: if it was to be enclosed, he found
himself with a diminished income at the very time when he most needed
money; and if he managed to keep his land for a while, he was ruined by
some violent fluctuation in the price of corn. Sooner or later he sank into
the labouring class. The enormous profits of the large farmers did not
continue, for about 1780 rents began to rise. Still the cultivation of good
arable land remained highly profitable, if the farmer had capital enough to
meet fluctuations of price. But war prices and parliamentary encouragement
led farmers to cultivate inferior land; their profits diminished in proportion
to the cost of cultivation, and though the supply of food was increased, its
price was kept up. A sudden fall in prices would send the land back to its
original wild state and was likely enough to ruin the farmer.
Although enclosure was encouraged by parliament with the view of
benefiting the mass of the people by making bread cheaper, it was far more
often than not injurious to the labourer. In many cases commons were
enclosed without adequate compensation to the poorer commoners, who
were deprived of the means of keeping a cow or geese or of the right of
cutting turf for fuel. Some received no allotment because they failed to
prove their claims, and others sold their allotments to wealthy farmers,
either because they were too small to keep a cow or because they could not
enclose them. Young, who strongly advocated enclosure, says that out of
thirty-seven parishes he found only twelve in which the position of the poor
had not been injured by the enclosure of commons, and laments the
disastrous effect of the change on the general condition of the labouring
class. The change was coincident with the decay not only of domestic
spinning, but also of other industries practised in villages, for the large new-
fashioned farmers had their implements, harness, and household utensils
made and mended in towns rather than by rural workmen. Deprived of the
Page 299
profits of by-employments, and in many cases of their accustomed rights of
common, labourers became solely dependent on farm wages at a time when
prices were enormously high and a living-wage was not to be gained by
agricultural work. They either migrated to seek work in a factory or came
on the rates. In many districts villages presented a picture of desolation.
Wiston and Foston in Leicestershire each before enclosure contained some
thirty-five houses; in Wiston every house disappeared except that of the
squire, and Foston was reduced to the parsonage and two herdsmen's
cottages.[184]
common, labourers became solely dependent on farm wages at a time when
prices were enormously high and a living-wage was not to be gained by
agricultural work. They either migrated to seek work in a factory or came
on the rates. In many districts villages presented a picture of desolation.
Wiston and Foston in Leicestershire each before enclosure contained some
thirty-five houses; in Wiston every house disappeared except that of the
squire, and Foston was reduced to the parsonage and two herdsmen's
cottages.[184]
Page 300
The old system of regulating wages by statute was not
wholly extinct in 1760. A few years later a statute made COMBINATIONS
in the masters' interests fixed the maximum for the OF WORKMEN.
wages of the London journeymen tailors at 2s. 7½d. a day, except at a time
of general mourning. On the other hand parliament, in 1773, under the
pressure of a riot, passed an act empowering justices to fix the wages of the
Spitalfields silk weavers and to enforce their ordinance. By 1776, however,
Adam Smith declared that the custom of fixing wages "had gone entirely
into disuse". England was adopting laissez-faire. The change of policy is
illustrated by the case of the framework knitters of Nottinghamshire. The
employment of children and apprentices enabled the masters to oppress
them; they were unable to earn more than 8s. to 9s. a week and their wages
were diminished by shameful exactions. They formed a combination,
petitioned the house of commons to regulate their wages in 1778, and were
heard before a committee. A bill was brought in the next year to regulate the
trade and prevent abuses, but was thrown out on the third reading. Wages
were to be settled between the master and the men. Some rioting followed
on the rejection of the bill, and the masters promised redress, but soon
broke their word. Combinations of workmen to set aside statutory
arrangements of wages were of course illegal, but when formed to secure
their fulfilment do not seem to have been so regarded.[185] In 1799,
however, when parliament was anxious to prevent seditious assemblies, a
statute, amended in 1800, rendered it unlawful for workmen to combine for
the purpose of obtaining higher wages. This grossly unjust law made the
workmen powerless to protect themselves against the oppression of the
capitalist employer. Parliament was more than once pressed to meet the
high price of bread and the distress of the agricultural poor by fixing a
minimum for wages. Pitt, a disciple of Adam Smith, would not consent to
such a measure, and his opposition was fatal to it. He was deeply sensible
of the distress of the poor, and, in 1795, brought in a bill for the amendment
of the poor law. It contained some startling provisions of a socialistic
character, was adversely criticised by Bentham and others, and was quietly
dropped.
In 1760 the law of 1723, empowering overseers of the poor to refuse relief
to those who would not enter the workhouse, was still in force. It seems to
have been administered strictly, and it kept down the rates. As society
wholly extinct in 1760. A few years later a statute made COMBINATIONS
in the masters' interests fixed the maximum for the OF WORKMEN.
wages of the London journeymen tailors at 2s. 7½d. a day, except at a time
of general mourning. On the other hand parliament, in 1773, under the
pressure of a riot, passed an act empowering justices to fix the wages of the
Spitalfields silk weavers and to enforce their ordinance. By 1776, however,
Adam Smith declared that the custom of fixing wages "had gone entirely
into disuse". England was adopting laissez-faire. The change of policy is
illustrated by the case of the framework knitters of Nottinghamshire. The
employment of children and apprentices enabled the masters to oppress
them; they were unable to earn more than 8s. to 9s. a week and their wages
were diminished by shameful exactions. They formed a combination,
petitioned the house of commons to regulate their wages in 1778, and were
heard before a committee. A bill was brought in the next year to regulate the
trade and prevent abuses, but was thrown out on the third reading. Wages
were to be settled between the master and the men. Some rioting followed
on the rejection of the bill, and the masters promised redress, but soon
broke their word. Combinations of workmen to set aside statutory
arrangements of wages were of course illegal, but when formed to secure
their fulfilment do not seem to have been so regarded.[185] In 1799,
however, when parliament was anxious to prevent seditious assemblies, a
statute, amended in 1800, rendered it unlawful for workmen to combine for
the purpose of obtaining higher wages. This grossly unjust law made the
workmen powerless to protect themselves against the oppression of the
capitalist employer. Parliament was more than once pressed to meet the
high price of bread and the distress of the agricultural poor by fixing a
minimum for wages. Pitt, a disciple of Adam Smith, would not consent to
such a measure, and his opposition was fatal to it. He was deeply sensible
of the distress of the poor, and, in 1795, brought in a bill for the amendment
of the poor law. It contained some startling provisions of a socialistic
character, was adversely criticised by Bentham and others, and was quietly
dropped.
In 1760 the law of 1723, empowering overseers of the poor to refuse relief
to those who would not enter the workhouse, was still in force. It seems to
have been administered strictly, and it kept down the rates. As society
Page 301
became more humane, it revolted against so harsh a method of dealing with
distress. A permissive act of 1783, called after its promoter, Gilbert's act,
contained along with some wholesome provisions others that were foolish
and harmful; it enabled parishes to form unions and adopt a system under
which able-bodied men were not allowed to enter the workhouse; they were
to work in the district and have their wages supplemented from the rates.
The administration of the act was committed to the magistrates and
guardians in place of the overseers. A considerable relaxation of the law of
settlement in 1795 was just and beneficial. In the same year the pernicious
principle of supplementing wages from the rates was carried to its full
extent. By that time the decay of domestic spinning and the rise in the price
of food were causing much distress in Berkshire. At a meeting of justices at
Speenhamland in that county it was resolved to grant allowances to all poor
men and their families—so much a head according to the price of the gallon
loaf. This system was generally adopted, and was strengthened by an act of
1795 abolishing the workhouse test. As a means of tiding over a merely
temporary crisis, as indeed it was intended by its authors to be, it would
have done no harm. Unfortunately, it lasted for many years and had
disastrous consequences; it rapidly raised the rates, and helped to crush the
small farmers who, though they employed no labour, were forced to pay
towards the maintenance of the labourers employed by their richer
neighbours; it kept wages from rising, encouraged thriftless marriages and
dissolute living, discouraged industry and efficient work, destroyed self-
respect, and pauperised the poor.
While then the last sixteen years of the century, of which
the political history still lies before us, were, except at FACTORY
CHILDREN.
certain crises to be noted hereafter, marked by a rapid
expansion of commerce and trade, and an increase in the wealth of the
richer landowners, manufacturers, and merchants, they were, as we have
seen, a period of change in the conditions of labour and, as such, brought
much distress on the working class, which was aggravated by the high
prices consequent on bad seasons and the risks of war. Of all the sufferings
of the poor during this period none are so painful to remember as those of
the children employed in factories, the helpless victims of laissez-faire for
whose relief the state did nothing until a later date. The greater number of
them were pauper apprentices bound by parochial authorities to mill-
distress. A permissive act of 1783, called after its promoter, Gilbert's act,
contained along with some wholesome provisions others that were foolish
and harmful; it enabled parishes to form unions and adopt a system under
which able-bodied men were not allowed to enter the workhouse; they were
to work in the district and have their wages supplemented from the rates.
The administration of the act was committed to the magistrates and
guardians in place of the overseers. A considerable relaxation of the law of
settlement in 1795 was just and beneficial. In the same year the pernicious
principle of supplementing wages from the rates was carried to its full
extent. By that time the decay of domestic spinning and the rise in the price
of food were causing much distress in Berkshire. At a meeting of justices at
Speenhamland in that county it was resolved to grant allowances to all poor
men and their families—so much a head according to the price of the gallon
loaf. This system was generally adopted, and was strengthened by an act of
1795 abolishing the workhouse test. As a means of tiding over a merely
temporary crisis, as indeed it was intended by its authors to be, it would
have done no harm. Unfortunately, it lasted for many years and had
disastrous consequences; it rapidly raised the rates, and helped to crush the
small farmers who, though they employed no labour, were forced to pay
towards the maintenance of the labourers employed by their richer
neighbours; it kept wages from rising, encouraged thriftless marriages and
dissolute living, discouraged industry and efficient work, destroyed self-
respect, and pauperised the poor.
While then the last sixteen years of the century, of which
the political history still lies before us, were, except at FACTORY
CHILDREN.
certain crises to be noted hereafter, marked by a rapid
expansion of commerce and trade, and an increase in the wealth of the
richer landowners, manufacturers, and merchants, they were, as we have
seen, a period of change in the conditions of labour and, as such, brought
much distress on the working class, which was aggravated by the high
prices consequent on bad seasons and the risks of war. Of all the sufferings
of the poor during this period none are so painful to remember as those of
the children employed in factories, the helpless victims of laissez-faire for
whose relief the state did nothing until a later date. The greater number of
them were pauper apprentices bound by parochial authorities to mill-
Page 302
owners, others the children of very poor or callous parents. From little more
than infancy, sometimes under seven years old, children were condemned to
labour for long hours, thirteen or more in a day, at tasks which required
unremitting attention, and in rooms badly ventilated and otherwise injurious
to health; they were half-starved and cruelly punished when their wearied
little arms failed to keep up with the demands of the machinery. The smaller
mills were the worst in this respect, and as the supply of water-power was
not constant, the children in mills worked by water were often forced to
labour far beyond their strength to make up for lost time. Such of them as
survived the prolonged misery and torture of their early years often grew up
more or less stunted and deformed men and women, physically unfit for
parentage, morally debased, ignorant, and brutalised by ill-treatment.
FOOTNOTES:
[178] Walpole to Mann, April 29, 1784, Letters, viii., 473; Parl. Hist., xxv.,
1434.
[179] Parl. Hist., xxi., 592; xxix., 1034.
[180] Colquhoun, Treatise on the Police, pp. 108, 110, 228, 364, 2nd edit., 1796.
[181] Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times,
pt. ii., 931.
[182] Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times,
pt. i., 583-608.
[183] Young, Southern Counties, p. 325; Northern Counties, iv., 453.
[184] Howlett, Enquiry into the Influence which Enclosure has had on
Population, p. 10.
[185] Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 55.
than infancy, sometimes under seven years old, children were condemned to
labour for long hours, thirteen or more in a day, at tasks which required
unremitting attention, and in rooms badly ventilated and otherwise injurious
to health; they were half-starved and cruelly punished when their wearied
little arms failed to keep up with the demands of the machinery. The smaller
mills were the worst in this respect, and as the supply of water-power was
not constant, the children in mills worked by water were often forced to
labour far beyond their strength to make up for lost time. Such of them as
survived the prolonged misery and torture of their early years often grew up
more or less stunted and deformed men and women, physically unfit for
parentage, morally debased, ignorant, and brutalised by ill-treatment.
FOOTNOTES:
[178] Walpole to Mann, April 29, 1784, Letters, viii., 473; Parl. Hist., xxv.,
1434.
[179] Parl. Hist., xxi., 592; xxix., 1034.
[180] Colquhoun, Treatise on the Police, pp. 108, 110, 228, 364, 2nd edit., 1796.
[181] Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times,
pt. ii., 931.
[182] Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times,
pt. i., 583-608.
[183] Young, Southern Counties, p. 325; Northern Counties, iv., 453.
[184] Howlett, Enquiry into the Influence which Enclosure has had on
Population, p. 10.
[185] Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 55.
Page 303
CHAPTER XIV.
EARLY YEARS OF PITT'S ADMINISTRATION.
The general election of 1784 which established Pitt in office was the
expression of a strong national feeling. Humiliated by the loss of its
colonies, irritated by the mismanagement of its affairs, and burdened with
the expense of an unsuccessful war, which added £114,500,000 to the
public debt, the nation listened with approval to Fox's denunciations and got
rid of North. It was with unbounded disgust that it saw Fox enter into an
alliance with the statesman whom he had denounced as the prime cause of
its misfortunes. During the late conflict in parliament public feeling grew
strong against him. The king's dismissal of a ministry which commanded a
large majority in the house of commons, and his refusal to dismiss its
successor at the request of the house needed no pardon; they were endorsed
by the declaration of the national will, and he gained a hold on the affection
of his people such as he had never had before. His success must not make
us forget the courage and the political insight which he displayed during
this critical period. All that made the crown worth wearing was at stake, for
if Fox's party had obtained a majority at the general election, George for the
rest of his life would have become a mere puppet in their hands. He won the
game, but he did not win all that he hoped for. Pitt, whom he chose as his
champion, was not a minister after his own heart, content to carry out a
royal policy. George freed himself from the danger of whig domination, but
he did so at the cost of resigning his hopes of establishing a system of
personal government, and accepted an independent prime minister. He
never liked Pitt, but he knew that Pitt stood between him and Fox, and so
for seventeen years was content that he should retain office. Pitt's power
was established by, and rested on, the will of the nation. In 1784 England
looked forward with hope to the rule of a young minister, a son of the great
Chatham, of stainless private character and unimpeachable integrity, who
was free from all responsibility for its misfortunes, and was the victorious
opponent of Fox, whom it regarded with aversion. Nor did its hope fail of
fulfilment.
EARLY YEARS OF PITT'S ADMINISTRATION.
The general election of 1784 which established Pitt in office was the
expression of a strong national feeling. Humiliated by the loss of its
colonies, irritated by the mismanagement of its affairs, and burdened with
the expense of an unsuccessful war, which added £114,500,000 to the
public debt, the nation listened with approval to Fox's denunciations and got
rid of North. It was with unbounded disgust that it saw Fox enter into an
alliance with the statesman whom he had denounced as the prime cause of
its misfortunes. During the late conflict in parliament public feeling grew
strong against him. The king's dismissal of a ministry which commanded a
large majority in the house of commons, and his refusal to dismiss its
successor at the request of the house needed no pardon; they were endorsed
by the declaration of the national will, and he gained a hold on the affection
of his people such as he had never had before. His success must not make
us forget the courage and the political insight which he displayed during
this critical period. All that made the crown worth wearing was at stake, for
if Fox's party had obtained a majority at the general election, George for the
rest of his life would have become a mere puppet in their hands. He won the
game, but he did not win all that he hoped for. Pitt, whom he chose as his
champion, was not a minister after his own heart, content to carry out a
royal policy. George freed himself from the danger of whig domination, but
he did so at the cost of resigning his hopes of establishing a system of
personal government, and accepted an independent prime minister. He
never liked Pitt, but he knew that Pitt stood between him and Fox, and so
for seventeen years was content that he should retain office. Pitt's power
was established by, and rested on, the will of the nation. In 1784 England
looked forward with hope to the rule of a young minister, a son of the great
Chatham, of stainless private character and unimpeachable integrity, who
was free from all responsibility for its misfortunes, and was the victorious
opponent of Fox, whom it regarded with aversion. Nor did its hope fail of
fulfilment.
Page 304
What the government did for England during the nine
years of peace which succeeded the election of 1784 LASTING
may be said to have been done by Pitt. His colleagues CHANGES EFFECTED BY
were not men of great capacity, and he received PITT.
obedience rather than counsel from them. So it was that
the position of prime minister, a title which North refused to accept, became
finally established. This unavowed change in the constitution settled the
sphere of political action open to the crown. Government by the crown
through departmental ministers acting independently of each other was no
longer possible. The principle of the homogeneous character of the cabinet
and of the prime minister's position in it were, as we shall see, decisively
settled in 1791 by the dismissal of the chancellor, who, relying on the king's
favour, wore out Pitt's patience by rebellion against his authority. Pitt's
strength of character and the king's dependence on him caused the gradual
extinction of the "king's friends" as a party distinct from the supporters of
the government. The leader of the party Jenkinson, the secretary at war in
North's ministry, had great commercial knowledge; Pitt made him president
of the new board of trade which was constituted in 1785, and as Lord
Hawkesbury and as Earl of Liverpool he gave the prime minister his
support. Pitt did not attempt to reduce the crown to a cypher, and George
exercised a strong and legitimate influence in politics, as adviser of the
cabinet, though Pitt occasionally acted against his wishes.
Another change of lasting importance effected by Pitt was in the character
of the house of lords. In 1760 the whole number of peers, including minors
and Roman catholics, who were incapable of sitting in the house, was only
174; the house was then the stronghold of the whig oligarchy. During
North's administration about thirty peers were created or promoted. Under
Pitt the invasion advanced far more rapidly. Economical reform deprived
the minister of the power of rewarding his supporters with places and
pensions, and Pitt used peerages and minor honours in their stead. George,
who did not approve of a large increase in the peerage,[186] was forced to
yield to his minister's exigencies. In five years Pitt was responsible for
forty-eight creations and promotions, and by 1801 the number reached 140.
[187]
The house of lords ceased to be a small assembly of territorial
magnates, mostly of the whig party; it became less aristocratic, for peerages
were bestowed on men simply because they were supporters of the
years of peace which succeeded the election of 1784 LASTING
may be said to have been done by Pitt. His colleagues CHANGES EFFECTED BY
were not men of great capacity, and he received PITT.
obedience rather than counsel from them. So it was that
the position of prime minister, a title which North refused to accept, became
finally established. This unavowed change in the constitution settled the
sphere of political action open to the crown. Government by the crown
through departmental ministers acting independently of each other was no
longer possible. The principle of the homogeneous character of the cabinet
and of the prime minister's position in it were, as we shall see, decisively
settled in 1791 by the dismissal of the chancellor, who, relying on the king's
favour, wore out Pitt's patience by rebellion against his authority. Pitt's
strength of character and the king's dependence on him caused the gradual
extinction of the "king's friends" as a party distinct from the supporters of
the government. The leader of the party Jenkinson, the secretary at war in
North's ministry, had great commercial knowledge; Pitt made him president
of the new board of trade which was constituted in 1785, and as Lord
Hawkesbury and as Earl of Liverpool he gave the prime minister his
support. Pitt did not attempt to reduce the crown to a cypher, and George
exercised a strong and legitimate influence in politics, as adviser of the
cabinet, though Pitt occasionally acted against his wishes.
Another change of lasting importance effected by Pitt was in the character
of the house of lords. In 1760 the whole number of peers, including minors
and Roman catholics, who were incapable of sitting in the house, was only
174; the house was then the stronghold of the whig oligarchy. During
North's administration about thirty peers were created or promoted. Under
Pitt the invasion advanced far more rapidly. Economical reform deprived
the minister of the power of rewarding his supporters with places and
pensions, and Pitt used peerages and minor honours in their stead. George,
who did not approve of a large increase in the peerage,[186] was forced to
yield to his minister's exigencies. In five years Pitt was responsible for
forty-eight creations and promotions, and by 1801 the number reached 140.
[187]
The house of lords ceased to be a small assembly of territorial
magnates, mostly of the whig party; it became less aristocratic, for peerages
were bestowed on men simply because they were supporters of the
Page 305
government and were wealthy; it became mainly tory in politics, and its size
made it less open to corrupt influence. As a body, however, it was inferior in
ability and in devotion to its legislative duties to the small assembly of
earlier days.
Under Pitt's leadership, England during the years of peace which succeeded
the American war regained her place in the politics of Europe. His attention,
however, was chiefly devoted to domestic affairs. He was eminently skilful
in finance; he restored the public credit and freed trade from artificial
impediments. The corruption of parliament, of which both whigs and tories
had been guilty, was brought to an end; many abuses and sinecures were
abolished and public life became purer. Though at first Pitt sustained some
defeats in parliament, due both to mistakes of his own and to the absence of
party consolidation among his usual supporters, his power rapidly increased
until it became absolute in both houses. He showed supreme ability in the
management of parliament. With much of his father's haughtiness of
manner he combined a tactfulness and self-control which his father never
exhibited. He had nothing of Fox's winning power, yet he became
extremely popular in the house of commons, for he showed himself worthy
to lead men and able to lead them successfully. His temper was sweet, his
courage, patience, and hopefulness unfailing, and his industry unwearied.
That he loved power is surely no reproach to a statesman who used it as he
did with single-hearted devotion to his country. For wealth and honours he
cared nothing. He was always poor, and soon became deeply in debt,
chiefly because he was too much occupied with public affairs to control his
household expenditure. While he disdainfully distributed titles and ribbons
among a clamouring crowd, he refused all such things for himself. Some
measures of reform which he advocated in early days he dropped when he
found that the country did not care for them, and in later days altogether
abandoned a liberal policy, for he was called on to give England that which
is infinitely more important than liberal measures, the preservation of its
constitutional and social life from the danger of revolution.
When parliament met on May 19, 1784, the ministry
carried the address in the commons by 282 to 114. Pitt, THE
however, soon found that he could not reckon on this WESTMINSTER
SCRUTINY.
majority on every question. In the Westminster election
Fox had been opposed by Admiral Lord Hood, created an Irish baron after
made it less open to corrupt influence. As a body, however, it was inferior in
ability and in devotion to its legislative duties to the small assembly of
earlier days.
Under Pitt's leadership, England during the years of peace which succeeded
the American war regained her place in the politics of Europe. His attention,
however, was chiefly devoted to domestic affairs. He was eminently skilful
in finance; he restored the public credit and freed trade from artificial
impediments. The corruption of parliament, of which both whigs and tories
had been guilty, was brought to an end; many abuses and sinecures were
abolished and public life became purer. Though at first Pitt sustained some
defeats in parliament, due both to mistakes of his own and to the absence of
party consolidation among his usual supporters, his power rapidly increased
until it became absolute in both houses. He showed supreme ability in the
management of parliament. With much of his father's haughtiness of
manner he combined a tactfulness and self-control which his father never
exhibited. He had nothing of Fox's winning power, yet he became
extremely popular in the house of commons, for he showed himself worthy
to lead men and able to lead them successfully. His temper was sweet, his
courage, patience, and hopefulness unfailing, and his industry unwearied.
That he loved power is surely no reproach to a statesman who used it as he
did with single-hearted devotion to his country. For wealth and honours he
cared nothing. He was always poor, and soon became deeply in debt,
chiefly because he was too much occupied with public affairs to control his
household expenditure. While he disdainfully distributed titles and ribbons
among a clamouring crowd, he refused all such things for himself. Some
measures of reform which he advocated in early days he dropped when he
found that the country did not care for them, and in later days altogether
abandoned a liberal policy, for he was called on to give England that which
is infinitely more important than liberal measures, the preservation of its
constitutional and social life from the danger of revolution.
When parliament met on May 19, 1784, the ministry
carried the address in the commons by 282 to 114. Pitt, THE
however, soon found that he could not reckon on this WESTMINSTER
SCRUTINY.
majority on every question. In the Westminster election
Fox had been opposed by Admiral Lord Hood, created an Irish baron after
Page 306
the battle of the Saints, and Sir Cecil Wray. The poll was kept open for forty
days and there was much rioting and irregularity of every kind, for which
both sides appear to have been responsible. Fox's friends, and above all the
beautiful Duchess of Devonshire and other whig ladies, canvassed eagerly
for him, and the duchess is said to have bought a butcher's vote with a kiss.
George watched the contest with anxiety, for Fox's attack on the
constitutional rights of the crown had deepened his animosity towards him.
So strong were his feelings that, on hearing that Fox was gaining votes, he
wrote to Pitt that "the advance could only be by bad votes, yet similar
means must be adopted against him rather than let him get returned". He
had heard with delight that 300 Quackers (sic) would vote for Hood and
Wray.[188] At the close of the poll Hood stood first and Fox second. Great
was the triumph of the Foxites, and the Prince of Wales, Fox's pupil in
debauchery, was pleased to exhibit his opposition to his father by taking a
prominent part in it; he wore Fox's colours, was present at banquets in his
honour, where he gave the toast of "True Blue and Mrs. Crewe," one of
Fox's lady canvassers, and got disgustingly drunk. Nevertheless the victory
was disputed, for the high-bailiff granted a scrutiny, and instead of returning
Hood and Fox as elected, merely reported the number of the votes. In this
he was clearly wrong, for he made no proper return to the writ. If a scrutiny
was to be held, it should have been completed before the day fixed for the
return. It was his duty to make a return on that day; a decision as to the
lawfulness of the election pertained to the house of commons. His action
deprived Westminster of representation, and would have shut Fox out of the
house had he not already been returned for Kirkwall.
Fox petitioned the house to order the high-bailiff to make a proper return.
Pitt opposed the petition, and the house ordered that the scrutiny should
proceed, though in two divisions on the question his majority fell to 97 and
78. Eight months later, in February, 1785, the scrutiny was still proceeding
and was likely to last two years longer. Against the king's judgment,[189] Pitt
persisted in maintaining it; his majority sank to 39, then to 9, and on March
4 he was in a minority of 38. The high-bailiff was ordered to make an
immediate return, and Hood and Fox were returned as elected. In this
matter Pitt did not display his usual tactfulness. Excusably enough in so
young a man, he allowed himself to be swayed by personal feeling, and his
feeling was ungenerous. With the exception of a small knot of friends like
days and there was much rioting and irregularity of every kind, for which
both sides appear to have been responsible. Fox's friends, and above all the
beautiful Duchess of Devonshire and other whig ladies, canvassed eagerly
for him, and the duchess is said to have bought a butcher's vote with a kiss.
George watched the contest with anxiety, for Fox's attack on the
constitutional rights of the crown had deepened his animosity towards him.
So strong were his feelings that, on hearing that Fox was gaining votes, he
wrote to Pitt that "the advance could only be by bad votes, yet similar
means must be adopted against him rather than let him get returned". He
had heard with delight that 300 Quackers (sic) would vote for Hood and
Wray.[188] At the close of the poll Hood stood first and Fox second. Great
was the triumph of the Foxites, and the Prince of Wales, Fox's pupil in
debauchery, was pleased to exhibit his opposition to his father by taking a
prominent part in it; he wore Fox's colours, was present at banquets in his
honour, where he gave the toast of "True Blue and Mrs. Crewe," one of
Fox's lady canvassers, and got disgustingly drunk. Nevertheless the victory
was disputed, for the high-bailiff granted a scrutiny, and instead of returning
Hood and Fox as elected, merely reported the number of the votes. In this
he was clearly wrong, for he made no proper return to the writ. If a scrutiny
was to be held, it should have been completed before the day fixed for the
return. It was his duty to make a return on that day; a decision as to the
lawfulness of the election pertained to the house of commons. His action
deprived Westminster of representation, and would have shut Fox out of the
house had he not already been returned for Kirkwall.
Fox petitioned the house to order the high-bailiff to make a proper return.
Pitt opposed the petition, and the house ordered that the scrutiny should
proceed, though in two divisions on the question his majority fell to 97 and
78. Eight months later, in February, 1785, the scrutiny was still proceeding
and was likely to last two years longer. Against the king's judgment,[189] Pitt
persisted in maintaining it; his majority sank to 39, then to 9, and on March
4 he was in a minority of 38. The high-bailiff was ordered to make an
immediate return, and Hood and Fox were returned as elected. In this
matter Pitt did not display his usual tactfulness. Excusably enough in so
young a man, he allowed himself to be swayed by personal feeling, and his
feeling was ungenerous. With the exception of a small knot of friends like
Page 307
Dundas, he kept himself aloof from his supporters and was ignorant of the
annoyance with which they regarded this attempt to deal harshly with a
defeated foe.[190] A bill passed that session ordered that polls were not to
last more than fifteen days, and that any scrutiny should be closed six days
before the return to the writ was due. Fox sued the high-bailiff for
neglecting to return him and obtained £2,000 damages.
In spite of this mistake Pitt's position was strengthened
by his success in dealing with finance. National credit PITT'S FINANCE.
was low; the public debt of Great Britain had grown
from £126,043,057 in 1775 to £240,925,908,[191] and the 3 per cent. consols
were at about 57. Heavy expenses entailed by the late war were still to be
met, the civil list was in arrear, and the revenue was grievously diminished
by smuggling. In order to make smuggling less profitable, Pitt largely
reduced the duties on tea and foreign spirits, and made up the loss on the tea
duties by a "commutation tax," an increased duty on houses according to
the number of their windows. He also made smuggling more difficult by a
"hovering act," which subjected to seizure vessels hovering off the coast
with any considerable quantity of tea or spirits. A deficit of £6,000,000 he
supplied by a loan, and in raising this loan he abandoned the old evil
practice of allotment among selected subscribers and opened it to public
competition. A second point on which he made a new departure was his
declaration that all sound finance should be directed towards extinguishing
debt and that consequently "a fund at a high rate of interest was better for
the country than those at low rates". The unfunded debts were large, those
ascertained amounted to £14,000,000, and as outstanding government bills
were at a discount of 15 to 20 per cent., these debts depressed the funds. Pitt
at once funded nearly half as an instalment. Lastly the required charges
exceeded revenue by over £900,000, an enormous sum for that time, and he
proposed to make up the deficiency by taxation.
The number of the new taxes is a third point specially to be noted in his
budget. One proposed tax, on coals, he withdrew in deference to general
opinion, and substituted others in its place. The rest met with little
opposition. As they finally stood they were laid on candles, bricks and tiles,
hats, pleasure horses and horses entered for races, British linens and
cottons, ribbons and gauzes, ale-licences, shooting licences, paper, hackney
coaches, gold and silver plate, exported lead, postage, and imported raw and
annoyance with which they regarded this attempt to deal harshly with a
defeated foe.[190] A bill passed that session ordered that polls were not to
last more than fifteen days, and that any scrutiny should be closed six days
before the return to the writ was due. Fox sued the high-bailiff for
neglecting to return him and obtained £2,000 damages.
In spite of this mistake Pitt's position was strengthened
by his success in dealing with finance. National credit PITT'S FINANCE.
was low; the public debt of Great Britain had grown
from £126,043,057 in 1775 to £240,925,908,[191] and the 3 per cent. consols
were at about 57. Heavy expenses entailed by the late war were still to be
met, the civil list was in arrear, and the revenue was grievously diminished
by smuggling. In order to make smuggling less profitable, Pitt largely
reduced the duties on tea and foreign spirits, and made up the loss on the tea
duties by a "commutation tax," an increased duty on houses according to
the number of their windows. He also made smuggling more difficult by a
"hovering act," which subjected to seizure vessels hovering off the coast
with any considerable quantity of tea or spirits. A deficit of £6,000,000 he
supplied by a loan, and in raising this loan he abandoned the old evil
practice of allotment among selected subscribers and opened it to public
competition. A second point on which he made a new departure was his
declaration that all sound finance should be directed towards extinguishing
debt and that consequently "a fund at a high rate of interest was better for
the country than those at low rates". The unfunded debts were large, those
ascertained amounted to £14,000,000, and as outstanding government bills
were at a discount of 15 to 20 per cent., these debts depressed the funds. Pitt
at once funded nearly half as an instalment. Lastly the required charges
exceeded revenue by over £900,000, an enormous sum for that time, and he
proposed to make up the deficiency by taxation.
The number of the new taxes is a third point specially to be noted in his
budget. One proposed tax, on coals, he withdrew in deference to general
opinion, and substituted others in its place. The rest met with little
opposition. As they finally stood they were laid on candles, bricks and tiles,
hats, pleasure horses and horses entered for races, British linens and
cottons, ribbons and gauzes, ale-licences, shooting licences, paper, hackney
coaches, gold and silver plate, exported lead, postage, and imported raw and
Page 308
thrown silk. His speech on the budget, during which he moved 133
resolutions, at once placed his talents as a finance minister beyond dispute;
it was admirably lucid and was conciliatory in tone. He also carried some
regulations checking the abuse of the privilege of franking letters. In those
days a letter which bore on the outside the signature of a member of
parliament was carried post-free, and franks were given away with the
utmost profusion. It was calculated that the new regulations, without
abolishing the privilege, would increase the revenue by £20,000. The next
year, 1785, Pitt completed the funding of unfunded debt, choosing
according to his principle the 5 per cents. which, though entailing an
immediate loss, afforded an easy means of paying off debt. He was able to
declare that the revenues were in a flourishing state, and to speak of the
institution of a fund for the repayment of the national debt as in the near
future. He was, however, still obliged to raise £400,000 by new taxes.
Among these were an increased tax on male servants, graduated according
to the number kept, and two which excited much hostile criticism, the one a
tax on female servants, also graduated, two shillings and sixpence on one,
five shillings a head on two, and ten shillings a head on three or more, and
the other a tax on shops. Both these taxes were unpopular; the shop tax was
repealed in 1789 and the tax on female servants in 1792.
In 1784 the East India company was applying to parliament for help, and as
its affairs were under investigation it was unable to declare a dividend. Pitt
carried bills authorising a dividend of 8 per cent., and granting the company
relief from obligations to the exchequer which the late war made specially
onerous. He then brought in his new bill for the government of India. This
measure, which was not materially different from his bill of six months
before, entirely subordinated the political power exercised by the directors
to a board of control consisting of unpaid commissioners, a secretary of
state, the chancellor of the exchequer, and other privy councillors,
appointed by the crown. The patronage of India was to be retained by the
directors, but the governor-general and the presidents and members of
councils were to be appointed and to be removable by the crown. In all
matters of peace and war the governor-general and his council were to be
supreme over the minor presidencies. Regulations were made to prevent
extortion by the officers of the company, and a special court was instituted
for the trial of those charged with delinquencies. The bill was violently
resolutions, at once placed his talents as a finance minister beyond dispute;
it was admirably lucid and was conciliatory in tone. He also carried some
regulations checking the abuse of the privilege of franking letters. In those
days a letter which bore on the outside the signature of a member of
parliament was carried post-free, and franks were given away with the
utmost profusion. It was calculated that the new regulations, without
abolishing the privilege, would increase the revenue by £20,000. The next
year, 1785, Pitt completed the funding of unfunded debt, choosing
according to his principle the 5 per cents. which, though entailing an
immediate loss, afforded an easy means of paying off debt. He was able to
declare that the revenues were in a flourishing state, and to speak of the
institution of a fund for the repayment of the national debt as in the near
future. He was, however, still obliged to raise £400,000 by new taxes.
Among these were an increased tax on male servants, graduated according
to the number kept, and two which excited much hostile criticism, the one a
tax on female servants, also graduated, two shillings and sixpence on one,
five shillings a head on two, and ten shillings a head on three or more, and
the other a tax on shops. Both these taxes were unpopular; the shop tax was
repealed in 1789 and the tax on female servants in 1792.
In 1784 the East India company was applying to parliament for help, and as
its affairs were under investigation it was unable to declare a dividend. Pitt
carried bills authorising a dividend of 8 per cent., and granting the company
relief from obligations to the exchequer which the late war made specially
onerous. He then brought in his new bill for the government of India. This
measure, which was not materially different from his bill of six months
before, entirely subordinated the political power exercised by the directors
to a board of control consisting of unpaid commissioners, a secretary of
state, the chancellor of the exchequer, and other privy councillors,
appointed by the crown. The patronage of India was to be retained by the
directors, but the governor-general and the presidents and members of
councils were to be appointed and to be removable by the crown. In all
matters of peace and war the governor-general and his council were to be
supreme over the minor presidencies. Regulations were made to prevent
extortion by the officers of the company, and a special court was instituted
for the trial of those charged with delinquencies. The bill was violently
Page 309
opposed by Fox, Burke, Sheridan, and Hastings's enemy, Francis, chiefly on
the grounds that government and patronage ought not to be divided, that the
nominal sovereignty of the directors and the extensive power of the board
of control would lead to confusion, and that the governor-general ought not
to have absolute authority in matters at a distance. After several divisions,
Pitt carried the second reading in the commons by a majority of 211; he
accepted some amendments in committee, and the bill finally passed both
houses without a division. Thus was established that system of double
government which lasted until 1858.
The session closed with a motion by Dundas for the restoration of the
Scottish estates forfeited for the rebellion of 1745. The bill was
unanimously approved by the commons. Thurlow, who for some reason,
possibly merely from jealousy of Pitt, adopted a generally malcontent
attitude, spoke against it in the lords, but it passed there also without a
division. Before the end of the year Pitt's success was declared by the
accession to his ministry of old Lord Camden as president of the council in
the place of Lord Gower, who took the office of privy seal, vacated by the
appointment of the Duke of Rutland as viceroy of Ireland in the previous
February. Shelburne, who was deeply offended by his continued exclusion
from office, was created Marquis of Lansdowne with the promise that, if the
king made any dukes outside his own family, he should be one of the
number. He was not appeased by this promotion, and remained hostile to
Pitt, who would have been weakened by his alliance and lost nothing by his
hostility. Temple, who also aspired to a dukedom, was created Marquis of
Buckingham, and was encouraged to hope that his ambition might in the
future be fully satisfied. The session closed on August 20. Parliament did
not meet again until January 25, 1785, and from that time the custom of
beginning the regular session before Christmas has been discontinued.
As Pitt had already twice brought forward motions for
parliamentary reform, in 1782 and 1783, the friends of PITT'S
the cause looked to him to promote it as head of the PARLIAMENTARY
REFORM BILL.
ministry. The question was not at that time exciting
much public interest. The king was personally opposed to reform, and it
was not until March, 1785, that Pitt obtained his assent to the introduction
of a bill. He promised the king that if it was rejected he would not resign,
unless "those supposed to be connected with government" voted against it.
the grounds that government and patronage ought not to be divided, that the
nominal sovereignty of the directors and the extensive power of the board
of control would lead to confusion, and that the governor-general ought not
to have absolute authority in matters at a distance. After several divisions,
Pitt carried the second reading in the commons by a majority of 211; he
accepted some amendments in committee, and the bill finally passed both
houses without a division. Thus was established that system of double
government which lasted until 1858.
The session closed with a motion by Dundas for the restoration of the
Scottish estates forfeited for the rebellion of 1745. The bill was
unanimously approved by the commons. Thurlow, who for some reason,
possibly merely from jealousy of Pitt, adopted a generally malcontent
attitude, spoke against it in the lords, but it passed there also without a
division. Before the end of the year Pitt's success was declared by the
accession to his ministry of old Lord Camden as president of the council in
the place of Lord Gower, who took the office of privy seal, vacated by the
appointment of the Duke of Rutland as viceroy of Ireland in the previous
February. Shelburne, who was deeply offended by his continued exclusion
from office, was created Marquis of Lansdowne with the promise that, if the
king made any dukes outside his own family, he should be one of the
number. He was not appeased by this promotion, and remained hostile to
Pitt, who would have been weakened by his alliance and lost nothing by his
hostility. Temple, who also aspired to a dukedom, was created Marquis of
Buckingham, and was encouraged to hope that his ambition might in the
future be fully satisfied. The session closed on August 20. Parliament did
not meet again until January 25, 1785, and from that time the custom of
beginning the regular session before Christmas has been discontinued.
As Pitt had already twice brought forward motions for
parliamentary reform, in 1782 and 1783, the friends of PITT'S
the cause looked to him to promote it as head of the PARLIAMENTARY
REFORM BILL.
ministry. The question was not at that time exciting
much public interest. The king was personally opposed to reform, and it
was not until March, 1785, that Pitt obtained his assent to the introduction
of a bill. He promised the king that if it was rejected he would not resign,
unless "those supposed to be connected with government" voted against it.
Page 310
George took the hint, and while he expressed dislike of the bill to Pitt,
assured him that he would not use any influence against it. Pitt did his best
to insure the success of his bill, and even persuaded his friend Wilberforce
to return from abroad to support it. He brought forward his motion on April
18. After defending himself from the charge of innovation by pointing out
that in past ages changes had frequently been made in the representation, he
laid down that the representation of boroughs should depend not on locality
but on the number of voters. He proposed to disfranchise thirty-six decayed
boroughs, and to add their seventy-two members to the representation of
counties and of London and Westminster. The boroughs were to be
disfranchised at their own request, which was to be obtained by the
purchase of their franchise from a fund provided by the state. In the future
any other borough which was, or became, so decayed as to fall below a
standard fixed by parliament, was to be allowed to surrender its franchise
for an adequate payment, and its right would be transferred to populous
towns. He further proposed to extend the franchise to copyholders, and in
towns to householders.
According to his plan £1,000,000 sterling was to be set aside for
compensation; 100 members would eventually be chosen by free and open
constituencies instead of by individuals or close corporations, and some
99,000 persons would receive the franchise. North spoke ably against the
motion, dwelling on the coldness with which the country regarded the
question; only eight petitions for reform were presented, and none came
from Birmingham or Manchester. Fox opposed it on the ground that the
franchise was a trust, not a property, and that to offer to buy it was contrary
to the spirit of the constitution; and Burke objected to the alteration which it
would make in the representation of interests by increasing the influence of
the country gentlemen. Pitt allowed that the scheme of purchase was a
"tender part"; it was, he said, "a necessary evil if any reform was to take
place". Leave to bring in the bill was refused by 248 to 174. Pitt had not yet
secured an organised majority. Connexion and influence had not wholly
given way to a system of parties founded on general agreement on political
questions. There is no reason to suppose that the king broke his promise to
Pitt, but his dislike of reform must have been well known, and probably had
much weight. Pitt made no more attempts at parliamentary reform, and for
assured him that he would not use any influence against it. Pitt did his best
to insure the success of his bill, and even persuaded his friend Wilberforce
to return from abroad to support it. He brought forward his motion on April
18. After defending himself from the charge of innovation by pointing out
that in past ages changes had frequently been made in the representation, he
laid down that the representation of boroughs should depend not on locality
but on the number of voters. He proposed to disfranchise thirty-six decayed
boroughs, and to add their seventy-two members to the representation of
counties and of London and Westminster. The boroughs were to be
disfranchised at their own request, which was to be obtained by the
purchase of their franchise from a fund provided by the state. In the future
any other borough which was, or became, so decayed as to fall below a
standard fixed by parliament, was to be allowed to surrender its franchise
for an adequate payment, and its right would be transferred to populous
towns. He further proposed to extend the franchise to copyholders, and in
towns to householders.
According to his plan £1,000,000 sterling was to be set aside for
compensation; 100 members would eventually be chosen by free and open
constituencies instead of by individuals or close corporations, and some
99,000 persons would receive the franchise. North spoke ably against the
motion, dwelling on the coldness with which the country regarded the
question; only eight petitions for reform were presented, and none came
from Birmingham or Manchester. Fox opposed it on the ground that the
franchise was a trust, not a property, and that to offer to buy it was contrary
to the spirit of the constitution; and Burke objected to the alteration which it
would make in the representation of interests by increasing the influence of
the country gentlemen. Pitt allowed that the scheme of purchase was a
"tender part"; it was, he said, "a necessary evil if any reform was to take
place". Leave to bring in the bill was refused by 248 to 174. Pitt had not yet
secured an organised majority. Connexion and influence had not wholly
given way to a system of parties founded on general agreement on political
questions. There is no reason to suppose that the king broke his promise to
Pitt, but his dislike of reform must have been well known, and probably had
much weight. Pitt made no more attempts at parliamentary reform, and for
Page 311
the next seven years the question was of little importance in English
politics.
The chief conflict of the session was fought over Pitt's
scheme for establishing free-trade with Ireland. An REFORM
agitation for parliamentary reform in Ireland brought DEMANDED
IRELAND.
IN
into prominence a spirit of discontent. The Irish
parliament did not represent even the protestant population; the house of
lords was composed of a large number of bishops, generally subservient to
the crown, and of lay lords, many of them lately ennobled for political
service; the house of commons of 300 members, scarcely a third of them
elected by the people. Flood urged reform on a strictly protestant basis, and
the cause of reform was supported by a convention of volunteers assembled
at Dublin under Lord Charlemont. The Bishop of Derry, Lord Bristol, a vain
and half-crazy prelate, advocated the admission of catholics to the
franchise, and tried to excite the volunteers, who were then no longer
exclusively protestant, and were recruited from the rabble, to extort reform
from parliament by force. He attended parliament with an escort of
volunteers and in regal state, and appeared in a purple coat and volunteer
cap fiercely cocked. His seditious behaviour, the claim made for the
catholics, and the violence of the democratic party caused a division among
the volunteers and among the advocates of reform generally. Charlemont
and Flood himself checked the violent party in the convention, which was
dissolved peacefully. Flood's motions for reform were rejected, and the
volunteer movement lost political importance. Pitt regarded parliamentary
reform in Ireland as certain if it were adopted in England, and was prepared
to welcome it, but was at that time determined to maintain the exclusion of
the catholics from the franchise. The Irish administration was opposed to a
change of system, and the Duke of Rutland, the viceroy, a young man of
great ability, held that the state of the country would render it dangerous.
The defeat of Flood's last attempt at reform, in 1785, left the Irish
parliament as before without "the smallest resemblance to representation".
[192]
In face of the threatened interference in politics of an armed force, of
discontent and disloyalty, and foreseeing difficulties in the future between
the independent Irish parliament and the imperial government, Rutland
prophesied in 1784 that "without an union Ireland would not be connected
politics.
The chief conflict of the session was fought over Pitt's
scheme for establishing free-trade with Ireland. An REFORM
agitation for parliamentary reform in Ireland brought DEMANDED
IRELAND.
IN
into prominence a spirit of discontent. The Irish
parliament did not represent even the protestant population; the house of
lords was composed of a large number of bishops, generally subservient to
the crown, and of lay lords, many of them lately ennobled for political
service; the house of commons of 300 members, scarcely a third of them
elected by the people. Flood urged reform on a strictly protestant basis, and
the cause of reform was supported by a convention of volunteers assembled
at Dublin under Lord Charlemont. The Bishop of Derry, Lord Bristol, a vain
and half-crazy prelate, advocated the admission of catholics to the
franchise, and tried to excite the volunteers, who were then no longer
exclusively protestant, and were recruited from the rabble, to extort reform
from parliament by force. He attended parliament with an escort of
volunteers and in regal state, and appeared in a purple coat and volunteer
cap fiercely cocked. His seditious behaviour, the claim made for the
catholics, and the violence of the democratic party caused a division among
the volunteers and among the advocates of reform generally. Charlemont
and Flood himself checked the violent party in the convention, which was
dissolved peacefully. Flood's motions for reform were rejected, and the
volunteer movement lost political importance. Pitt regarded parliamentary
reform in Ireland as certain if it were adopted in England, and was prepared
to welcome it, but was at that time determined to maintain the exclusion of
the catholics from the franchise. The Irish administration was opposed to a
change of system, and the Duke of Rutland, the viceroy, a young man of
great ability, held that the state of the country would render it dangerous.
The defeat of Flood's last attempt at reform, in 1785, left the Irish
parliament as before without "the smallest resemblance to representation".
[192]
In face of the threatened interference in politics of an armed force, of
discontent and disloyalty, and foreseeing difficulties in the future between
the independent Irish parliament and the imperial government, Rutland
prophesied in 1784 that "without an union Ireland would not be connected
Page 312
with Great Britain in twenty years longer".[193] Pitt hoped to pacify
discontent by benefiting Irish trade, and to unite the two countries by a
community of interest. His plan, to which he attached more importance than
to Irish reform, though commercial in character, was based on a lofty
political conception; it was designed to promote "the prosperity of the
empire at large".[194] North's concessions to Ireland in 1779 and the
subsequent establishment of Irish legislative independence left both
countries at liberty to regulate each its own trade. Ireland admitted English
goods free or at low duties; and England shut out most Irish manufactures,
though admitting linen, the manufacture of which was encouraged by a
bounty, and, for her own convenience, woollen yarn free of duty. Ireland,
too, though enabled to trade directly with the English colonies, could
neither send their products to England nor buy them from England. Pitt
designed to establish perpetual free trade between England and Ireland, and
as Ireland would be the gainer by the change, he proposed that in return she
should contribute a fixed sum to the naval defence of the empire. Rutland,
who saw that sending money to England would be violently opposed,
suggested that the contribution should be spent on a portion of the navy to
be kept on the Irish coasts. In words which it is well to remember, Pitt
pointed out that "there can be but one navy for the empire at large, and it
must be administered by the executive in this country".[195] The resolutions
he sent over to be presented to the Irish parliament provided that the
contribution should come from the surplus which the grant of free trade
would create in the hereditary revenue of the crown, for, as that revenue
was chiefly made up of customs and excise, the payment would be in exact
proportion to the benefits conferred by the change.
As, however, Ireland had a heavy debt, which was
largely due to the extravagance of government, Grattan PITT'S
RESOLUTIONS ON
insisted that the contribution should depend on the IRISH
yearly equalisation of the revenue with the expenses. COMMERCE.
The Irish government yielded to his demand, and with
that change the resolutions were carried. Pitt brought them before the
English house of commons on February 22 in a speech of remarkable
power. Fox, who had long been hoping "to make his harvest from Ireland,"
[196]
opposed them as injurious to British manufacture. The manufacturers
at once took the alarm; a petition with 80,000 signatures was sent up from
discontent by benefiting Irish trade, and to unite the two countries by a
community of interest. His plan, to which he attached more importance than
to Irish reform, though commercial in character, was based on a lofty
political conception; it was designed to promote "the prosperity of the
empire at large".[194] North's concessions to Ireland in 1779 and the
subsequent establishment of Irish legislative independence left both
countries at liberty to regulate each its own trade. Ireland admitted English
goods free or at low duties; and England shut out most Irish manufactures,
though admitting linen, the manufacture of which was encouraged by a
bounty, and, for her own convenience, woollen yarn free of duty. Ireland,
too, though enabled to trade directly with the English colonies, could
neither send their products to England nor buy them from England. Pitt
designed to establish perpetual free trade between England and Ireland, and
as Ireland would be the gainer by the change, he proposed that in return she
should contribute a fixed sum to the naval defence of the empire. Rutland,
who saw that sending money to England would be violently opposed,
suggested that the contribution should be spent on a portion of the navy to
be kept on the Irish coasts. In words which it is well to remember, Pitt
pointed out that "there can be but one navy for the empire at large, and it
must be administered by the executive in this country".[195] The resolutions
he sent over to be presented to the Irish parliament provided that the
contribution should come from the surplus which the grant of free trade
would create in the hereditary revenue of the crown, for, as that revenue
was chiefly made up of customs and excise, the payment would be in exact
proportion to the benefits conferred by the change.
As, however, Ireland had a heavy debt, which was
largely due to the extravagance of government, Grattan PITT'S
RESOLUTIONS ON
insisted that the contribution should depend on the IRISH
yearly equalisation of the revenue with the expenses. COMMERCE.
The Irish government yielded to his demand, and with
that change the resolutions were carried. Pitt brought them before the
English house of commons on February 22 in a speech of remarkable
power. Fox, who had long been hoping "to make his harvest from Ireland,"
[196]
opposed them as injurious to British manufacture. The manufacturers
at once took the alarm; a petition with 80,000 signatures was sent up from
Page 313
Lancashire against the resolutions, and a "chamber of manufacturers," with
Wedgwood as president, vigorously protested against them. English
manufactures, it was asserted, would be undersold and ruined by goods
produced by cheap labour in Ireland. After evidence had been heard on the
matter for twelve weeks, Pitt saw that he must modify his scheme. On May
12 he brought forward a new set of resolutions less generous to Ireland, and
providing that in commercial legislation the Irish parliament should
perpetually be bound by the parliament of Great Britain. Fox, North, and
Sheridan vehemently opposed them, and Fox denounced the whole plan as
an attempt to lure Ireland to surrender her liberty. "I will not," said he,
"barter English commerce for Irish slavery; that is not the price I would pay,
nor is this the thing I would purchase." Nevertheless after long and warm
debates, Pitt triumphantly carried his resolutions. The speeches of Fox and
Sheridan found a loud echo in the Irish parliament; Grattan, in an
impassioned speech, condemned the new resolutions, and they passed the
commons only by 127 to 108. So strong an expression of adverse feeling
forced Pitt to abandon his scheme. Thus was his wise and hopeful attempt
to encourage Irish trade and strengthen the bond between the two countries
wrecked by the factiousness of the opposition, the selfishness of the
manufacturers in England, and the susceptibility of the Irish liberal party.
Fox's opposition to free trade with Ireland brought him a temporary return
of popularity in the manufacturing districts.
Pitt's command of the house of commons was still uncertain. In February,
1786, he was defeated on a bill for fortifying the dockyards at Plymouth
and Portsmouth. His defeat was largely due to the unpopularity of the Duke
of Richmond, the author of the plan, who had not gained in general esteem
by deserting his former party, and to the old prejudice against increasing the
military power of the crown. Yet it illustrates Pitt's position at the time. It
was a "loose parliament"; the majority voted every man as he had a mind;
Pitt had yet to bind his party together, and his cold and repellent manners
still hindered him from making friends.[197] His power was strengthened in
this session by the general approval elicited by his bill for the reduction of
the national debt by means of a sinking fund. In forming his plan he
received much help from Price, a nonconformist minister, distinguished as a
writer on financial questions. When introducing his bill he was able to show
that the public revenue would exceed the expenditure by about £900,000,
Wedgwood as president, vigorously protested against them. English
manufactures, it was asserted, would be undersold and ruined by goods
produced by cheap labour in Ireland. After evidence had been heard on the
matter for twelve weeks, Pitt saw that he must modify his scheme. On May
12 he brought forward a new set of resolutions less generous to Ireland, and
providing that in commercial legislation the Irish parliament should
perpetually be bound by the parliament of Great Britain. Fox, North, and
Sheridan vehemently opposed them, and Fox denounced the whole plan as
an attempt to lure Ireland to surrender her liberty. "I will not," said he,
"barter English commerce for Irish slavery; that is not the price I would pay,
nor is this the thing I would purchase." Nevertheless after long and warm
debates, Pitt triumphantly carried his resolutions. The speeches of Fox and
Sheridan found a loud echo in the Irish parliament; Grattan, in an
impassioned speech, condemned the new resolutions, and they passed the
commons only by 127 to 108. So strong an expression of adverse feeling
forced Pitt to abandon his scheme. Thus was his wise and hopeful attempt
to encourage Irish trade and strengthen the bond between the two countries
wrecked by the factiousness of the opposition, the selfishness of the
manufacturers in England, and the susceptibility of the Irish liberal party.
Fox's opposition to free trade with Ireland brought him a temporary return
of popularity in the manufacturing districts.
Pitt's command of the house of commons was still uncertain. In February,
1786, he was defeated on a bill for fortifying the dockyards at Plymouth
and Portsmouth. His defeat was largely due to the unpopularity of the Duke
of Richmond, the author of the plan, who had not gained in general esteem
by deserting his former party, and to the old prejudice against increasing the
military power of the crown. Yet it illustrates Pitt's position at the time. It
was a "loose parliament"; the majority voted every man as he had a mind;
Pitt had yet to bind his party together, and his cold and repellent manners
still hindered him from making friends.[197] His power was strengthened in
this session by the general approval elicited by his bill for the reduction of
the national debt by means of a sinking fund. In forming his plan he
received much help from Price, a nonconformist minister, distinguished as a
writer on financial questions. When introducing his bill he was able to show
that the public revenue would exceed the expenditure by about £900,000,
Page 314
which he proposed to raise to £1,000,000 by some new taxes not of a
burdensome nature, ample resources existing to meet a temporary excess in
naval and military expenditure caused by the late war. That the revenue
would continue to improve seemed assured by the increase in the customs
due to Pitt's measures against smuggling. Government might reckon on at
least £1,000,000 surplus, and that sum he proposed to make the foundation
of his new sinking fund. Unlike the sinking fund established by Sir Robert
Walpole in 1716, which had from time to time been diverted to other
purposes, his fund was to be kept inviolate in war as well as in peace, and
applied solely to the discharge of debt. To secure this, he proposed that in
every quarter of each succeeding year £250,000 should be paid to six
commissioners of high position, and should be used by them in the purchase
of stock. The interest of such stock, together with the savings effected by
the expiration of annuities, was to be invested periodically in the same way.
The fund thus created would then accumulate at compound interest and
become a sinking fund for the extinction of the national debt.
The bill passed both houses without a division. The highest expectations
were founded upon it, for people generally, in common with Pitt himself
and Price, regarded the new fund as an infallible means of discharging the
national debt solely by the uninterrupted operation of compound interest.
That the application of surplus revenue to the payment of debt is sound
finance, and that to treat surpluses designed for that purpose as a separate
fund is a convenient arrangement need no demonstration. There is not,
however, anything magical or automatic in the operation of compound
interest, nor can the separation of a sinking fund from general revenue have
any real efficacy. Reduction of national debt, whatever arrangements may
be made for it, can only be effected by taxation. During the years of peace,
when the revenue was in excess of expenditure, Pitt's sinking fund acted as
a convenient mode of reducing the debt. In 1792 a second fund of 1 per
cent. on all loans was established, and by 1793 the commissioners had
reduced the debt by about £10,000,000. Then came the war with France; the
revenue fell short of the expenditure, and Pitt met the deficiency by large
loans raised at great expense. Yet in order to preserve the benefit which, it
was believed, was derived from the uninterrupted operation of compound
interest, the payments to the sinking fund were regularly continued, so that
the state was actually borrowing money at a high rate of interest in order to
burdensome nature, ample resources existing to meet a temporary excess in
naval and military expenditure caused by the late war. That the revenue
would continue to improve seemed assured by the increase in the customs
due to Pitt's measures against smuggling. Government might reckon on at
least £1,000,000 surplus, and that sum he proposed to make the foundation
of his new sinking fund. Unlike the sinking fund established by Sir Robert
Walpole in 1716, which had from time to time been diverted to other
purposes, his fund was to be kept inviolate in war as well as in peace, and
applied solely to the discharge of debt. To secure this, he proposed that in
every quarter of each succeeding year £250,000 should be paid to six
commissioners of high position, and should be used by them in the purchase
of stock. The interest of such stock, together with the savings effected by
the expiration of annuities, was to be invested periodically in the same way.
The fund thus created would then accumulate at compound interest and
become a sinking fund for the extinction of the national debt.
The bill passed both houses without a division. The highest expectations
were founded upon it, for people generally, in common with Pitt himself
and Price, regarded the new fund as an infallible means of discharging the
national debt solely by the uninterrupted operation of compound interest.
That the application of surplus revenue to the payment of debt is sound
finance, and that to treat surpluses designed for that purpose as a separate
fund is a convenient arrangement need no demonstration. There is not,
however, anything magical or automatic in the operation of compound
interest, nor can the separation of a sinking fund from general revenue have
any real efficacy. Reduction of national debt, whatever arrangements may
be made for it, can only be effected by taxation. During the years of peace,
when the revenue was in excess of expenditure, Pitt's sinking fund acted as
a convenient mode of reducing the debt. In 1792 a second fund of 1 per
cent. on all loans was established, and by 1793 the commissioners had
reduced the debt by about £10,000,000. Then came the war with France; the
revenue fell short of the expenditure, and Pitt met the deficiency by large
loans raised at great expense. Yet in order to preserve the benefit which, it
was believed, was derived from the uninterrupted operation of compound
interest, the payments to the sinking fund were regularly continued, so that
the state was actually borrowing money at a high rate of interest in order to
Page 315
reduce a debt at a low rate of interest. No member of the opposition saw the
fallacy involved in Pitt's scheme. He is said, probably with truth, to have
himself discovered it later, but he maintained the fund, which was useful as
a means of keeping the duty of reduction of debt before the nation and of
helping it to face with hopefulness the rapid accumulation of debt during
the war with France.
In 1787 Pitt laid before parliament a treaty of navigation
and commerce with France. The treaty of Versailles in COMMERCIAL
1783 provided that commissioners should be appointed TREATY FRANCE.
WITH
to make commercial arrangements between the two
countries. The French cabinet invited Shelburne to proceed in the matter,
and he was about to do so when he was driven from office. Fox was
opposed to a treaty. Pitt appointed a commissioner in April, 1784, but
nothing further was done. It was a critical matter, for a commercial treaty
with France was certain to give some offence at home, and Pitt may for that
reason alone have been willing to delay action until his position was more
secure. In 1785 the French council of state, irritated by the large influx of
British manufactures which were smuggled into France, issued arrêts
restraining trade with Great Britain. Pitt was too wise to retaliate. His
opportunity had come, and he entrusted the negotiations to Eden, who
deserted the opposition and accepted a seat on the new board of trade. Eden
had a thorough knowledge of commercial affairs, and carried out his
mission as envoy to the French court with great success.[198] The treaty,
signed on September 26, 1786, reduced the duties on many of the principal
articles of commerce of both countries, and put others not specified on the
most-favoured-nation footing. A large and easily accessible market was
opened to British commerce, and, as the exports of France were for the
most part not produced in England and the French were in want of British
products, both countries would, Pitt argued, be gainers by an increase in the
freedom of their trade one with the other, and political ill-feeling would be
diminished by more intimate and mutually profitable relations. The
navigation clauses showed as liberal a spirit as the commercial; an enemy's
goods carried in the ships of either country were to be held free by the
other, except contraband of war, which was limited to warlike implements
and was not to include naval stores.
fallacy involved in Pitt's scheme. He is said, probably with truth, to have
himself discovered it later, but he maintained the fund, which was useful as
a means of keeping the duty of reduction of debt before the nation and of
helping it to face with hopefulness the rapid accumulation of debt during
the war with France.
In 1787 Pitt laid before parliament a treaty of navigation
and commerce with France. The treaty of Versailles in COMMERCIAL
1783 provided that commissioners should be appointed TREATY FRANCE.
WITH
to make commercial arrangements between the two
countries. The French cabinet invited Shelburne to proceed in the matter,
and he was about to do so when he was driven from office. Fox was
opposed to a treaty. Pitt appointed a commissioner in April, 1784, but
nothing further was done. It was a critical matter, for a commercial treaty
with France was certain to give some offence at home, and Pitt may for that
reason alone have been willing to delay action until his position was more
secure. In 1785 the French council of state, irritated by the large influx of
British manufactures which were smuggled into France, issued arrêts
restraining trade with Great Britain. Pitt was too wise to retaliate. His
opportunity had come, and he entrusted the negotiations to Eden, who
deserted the opposition and accepted a seat on the new board of trade. Eden
had a thorough knowledge of commercial affairs, and carried out his
mission as envoy to the French court with great success.[198] The treaty,
signed on September 26, 1786, reduced the duties on many of the principal
articles of commerce of both countries, and put others not specified on the
most-favoured-nation footing. A large and easily accessible market was
opened to British commerce, and, as the exports of France were for the
most part not produced in England and the French were in want of British
products, both countries would, Pitt argued, be gainers by an increase in the
freedom of their trade one with the other, and political ill-feeling would be
diminished by more intimate and mutually profitable relations. The
navigation clauses showed as liberal a spirit as the commercial; an enemy's
goods carried in the ships of either country were to be held free by the
other, except contraband of war, which was limited to warlike implements
and was not to include naval stores.
Page 316
The treaty favoured the interests of the consumer, and was contrary to the
economic principles of the whigs, who maintained that commerce should be
regulated so as to promote home industry. Fox strongly objected to it in
parliament, mainly on the ground that France was "the natural foe of Great
Britain," and that any close connexion with her was dangerous. Sheridan
and Charles Grey, afterwards the second Earl Grey, in his maiden speech
joined him in condemning the treaty, but it was approved of by large
majorities. Though it caused some temporary displeasure among the
manufacturers, it was followed by a large increase of trade with France.
Among Pitt's achievements as minister in time of peace none deserves to be
ranked higher than this treaty, whether regarded in its details, or as a
monument of his enlightened commercial policy, or as illustrating his
statesmanlike view of the relations which it was desirable to establish
between the two countries. His credit was further strengthened in the same
session by his bill for the consolidation of the customs and excise. The
customs duties, fixed from time to time, some on one system and some on
another, were so complex that no one could be sure what he might be
required to pay, and merchants often depended on the custom-house officers
to tell them the amount due on goods. The excise, though in a less confused
state, was also in urgent need of regulation. Pitt abolished the whole mass
of existing duties with their percentages and drawbacks, and put a single
duty on each article as nearly as possible of the same amount as before.
These duties and all other taxes he brought into a consolidated fund on
which all public debts were secured. Simple as this change appears, it
involved about 3,000 resolutions. While it only slightly increased the
revenue, it was a great benefit to merchants, it simplified the work in public
offices, prevented officials from abusing their power, and enabled Pitt to get
rid of a large number of custom-house sinecures, and so at once to effect an
economy and dry up a source of corruption. The bill received a warm
welcome from Burke, and was passed without a division.
Pitt's position in the commons was not yet one of
command. In 1788 his party, those who recognised him BILL FOR RELIEF
OF DISSENTERS.
as their leader, was said to number only 52, while Fox's
party, the regular opposition, was estimated at 138; the "crown party" which
might be reckoned on to uphold the government for the time being "under
any minister not peculiarly unpopular," consisted of 185, and the rest were
economic principles of the whigs, who maintained that commerce should be
regulated so as to promote home industry. Fox strongly objected to it in
parliament, mainly on the ground that France was "the natural foe of Great
Britain," and that any close connexion with her was dangerous. Sheridan
and Charles Grey, afterwards the second Earl Grey, in his maiden speech
joined him in condemning the treaty, but it was approved of by large
majorities. Though it caused some temporary displeasure among the
manufacturers, it was followed by a large increase of trade with France.
Among Pitt's achievements as minister in time of peace none deserves to be
ranked higher than this treaty, whether regarded in its details, or as a
monument of his enlightened commercial policy, or as illustrating his
statesmanlike view of the relations which it was desirable to establish
between the two countries. His credit was further strengthened in the same
session by his bill for the consolidation of the customs and excise. The
customs duties, fixed from time to time, some on one system and some on
another, were so complex that no one could be sure what he might be
required to pay, and merchants often depended on the custom-house officers
to tell them the amount due on goods. The excise, though in a less confused
state, was also in urgent need of regulation. Pitt abolished the whole mass
of existing duties with their percentages and drawbacks, and put a single
duty on each article as nearly as possible of the same amount as before.
These duties and all other taxes he brought into a consolidated fund on
which all public debts were secured. Simple as this change appears, it
involved about 3,000 resolutions. While it only slightly increased the
revenue, it was a great benefit to merchants, it simplified the work in public
offices, prevented officials from abusing their power, and enabled Pitt to get
rid of a large number of custom-house sinecures, and so at once to effect an
economy and dry up a source of corruption. The bill received a warm
welcome from Burke, and was passed without a division.
Pitt's position in the commons was not yet one of
command. In 1788 his party, those who recognised him BILL FOR RELIEF
OF DISSENTERS.
as their leader, was said to number only 52, while Fox's
party, the regular opposition, was estimated at 138; the "crown party" which
might be reckoned on to uphold the government for the time being "under
any minister not peculiarly unpopular," consisted of 185, and the rest were
Page 317
"independent" members, whose votes were uncertain. Pitt then had to walk
warily. His practical temperament was in his favour. That the country
should be well governed, and that it should be governed by himself, which
was the same thing to him, as it is probably to all great ministers, was the
object of his life. Compared with that, special questions were of small
importance. There was nothing doctrinaire in his turn of mind; the abstract
righteousness of a cause did not appeal to him, and could not divert him
from the pursuit of his main object. In 1787 a bill for the relief of dissenters
by the repeal of the test and corporation acts of the reign of Charles II. was
brought in by Beaufoy, a supporter of the government. In reality the
dissenters suffered very little from these acts, for they were relieved by
annual acts of indemnity. Yet their grievance was not wholly sentimental,
and, even had it been so, it would still have been a grievance. The
opposition was divided; North opposed the bill, Fox warmly advocated it.
Pitt consulted the bishops. All save two were against it. He valued the
support of the Church, and declared himself against the bill, which was
rejected by a majority of 78. In 1789 the majority against it sank to 22. Yet
Pitt was thoroughly high-principled. As we shall see later in the case of
Hastings, he would not be false to his convictions, and if he judged that a
cause was worth maintaining, even at the cost of weakening his own
position, he did not shrink from his duty. This is proved by his conduct with
reference to the slave trade.
The cruelties attendant on the trade were forcibly represented by a society
for procuring its abolition, founded in 1787, mainly by quakers, of which
Granville Sharp and Clarkson were prominent members. Wilberforce's
sympathy was already aroused by reports of the sufferings of the negroes in
the slave-ships. Pitt advised him to undertake the question in parliament,
and as a preliminary agreed to the appointment of a committee to inquire
into the methods of the trade. The merchants of London, Lancashire, and
Bristol were indignant at the threatened interference, and efforts were made
to conceal the truth. Nevertheless the abominable cruelties to which the
slaves were subjected during the middle passage were clearly proved.
Chained to their places, fettered and fastened together, they were packed so
closely on the lower decks and in stifling holds that they could scarcely
turn, they were kept short of food and water, and were exercised to keep
them alive by being forced under pain of the lash to jump in their fetters.
warily. His practical temperament was in his favour. That the country
should be well governed, and that it should be governed by himself, which
was the same thing to him, as it is probably to all great ministers, was the
object of his life. Compared with that, special questions were of small
importance. There was nothing doctrinaire in his turn of mind; the abstract
righteousness of a cause did not appeal to him, and could not divert him
from the pursuit of his main object. In 1787 a bill for the relief of dissenters
by the repeal of the test and corporation acts of the reign of Charles II. was
brought in by Beaufoy, a supporter of the government. In reality the
dissenters suffered very little from these acts, for they were relieved by
annual acts of indemnity. Yet their grievance was not wholly sentimental,
and, even had it been so, it would still have been a grievance. The
opposition was divided; North opposed the bill, Fox warmly advocated it.
Pitt consulted the bishops. All save two were against it. He valued the
support of the Church, and declared himself against the bill, which was
rejected by a majority of 78. In 1789 the majority against it sank to 22. Yet
Pitt was thoroughly high-principled. As we shall see later in the case of
Hastings, he would not be false to his convictions, and if he judged that a
cause was worth maintaining, even at the cost of weakening his own
position, he did not shrink from his duty. This is proved by his conduct with
reference to the slave trade.
The cruelties attendant on the trade were forcibly represented by a society
for procuring its abolition, founded in 1787, mainly by quakers, of which
Granville Sharp and Clarkson were prominent members. Wilberforce's
sympathy was already aroused by reports of the sufferings of the negroes in
the slave-ships. Pitt advised him to undertake the question in parliament,
and as a preliminary agreed to the appointment of a committee to inquire
into the methods of the trade. The merchants of London, Lancashire, and
Bristol were indignant at the threatened interference, and efforts were made
to conceal the truth. Nevertheless the abominable cruelties to which the
slaves were subjected during the middle passage were clearly proved.
Chained to their places, fettered and fastened together, they were packed so
closely on the lower decks and in stifling holds that they could scarcely
turn, they were kept short of food and water, and were exercised to keep
them alive by being forced under pain of the lash to jump in their fetters.
Page 318
While Wilberforce was ill in 1788, Pitt gave notice of a motion on the trade,
and supported a bill moved by Sir William Dolben which mitigated the
sufferings of the negroes during the passage. In 1789 Wilberforce in a long
and eloquent speech moved resolutions for the abolition of the trade, and
Pitt, Fox, who was always quick to feel for human suffering, and Burke
joined in supporting him. Pitt's conduct on this question displeased many of
his followers. The interests concerned in the trade were powerful, and for a
time the question was virtually shelved.
The peace of Versailles left England isolated. The new
government was to show that she was able and ready to AUSTRIA AND
THE UNITED
reassert her right to exercise an influence in Europe. The PROVINCES.
political situation presented three alliances, of France
and Austria, Austria and Russia, France and Spain, and opposed to them
two isolated powers, England and Prussia. None of these alliances directly
threatened England, yet there were elements of danger in the two first. After
the death of Maria Theresa, in 1780, her son Joseph II. changed the general
direction of Austria's policy. He was restless and full of great schemes
which he looked to Russia rather than France to support. The growth of
Russian power under Catherine had changed the political state of Europe.
The treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji, in 1774, at the close of a successful war
against the Turks, saw Russia strongly established on the Black Sea; the
partition of Poland augmented her preponderance in the north: and in 1780
England found that her maritime interests were threatened by a power
seated both on the Baltic and close to the Mediterranean. Catherine
welcomed the overtures of Joseph, for she contemplated further conquests
from the Turks, and the good-will of Austria was important to her. Of these
two allied powers Austria was the more dangerous to England and Prussia.
Russia had already gained much, Austria was hoping for gain; Catherine
was looking mainly to extension in eastern, Joseph's ambitions tended to
disturb the balance of power in western and central Europe. France was
impoverished; she desired peace and was anxious to restrain the emperor's
ambition, and Spain could do nothing without her. A quadruple alliance,
then, between the two imperial courts and France and Spain was
impossible. The late war had raised the Bourbon influence in Europe.
England was unable to detach Austria from France, and to form an alliance,
as Carmarthen wished, with the two imperial courts; and she was, as we
and supported a bill moved by Sir William Dolben which mitigated the
sufferings of the negroes during the passage. In 1789 Wilberforce in a long
and eloquent speech moved resolutions for the abolition of the trade, and
Pitt, Fox, who was always quick to feel for human suffering, and Burke
joined in supporting him. Pitt's conduct on this question displeased many of
his followers. The interests concerned in the trade were powerful, and for a
time the question was virtually shelved.
The peace of Versailles left England isolated. The new
government was to show that she was able and ready to AUSTRIA AND
THE UNITED
reassert her right to exercise an influence in Europe. The PROVINCES.
political situation presented three alliances, of France
and Austria, Austria and Russia, France and Spain, and opposed to them
two isolated powers, England and Prussia. None of these alliances directly
threatened England, yet there were elements of danger in the two first. After
the death of Maria Theresa, in 1780, her son Joseph II. changed the general
direction of Austria's policy. He was restless and full of great schemes
which he looked to Russia rather than France to support. The growth of
Russian power under Catherine had changed the political state of Europe.
The treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji, in 1774, at the close of a successful war
against the Turks, saw Russia strongly established on the Black Sea; the
partition of Poland augmented her preponderance in the north: and in 1780
England found that her maritime interests were threatened by a power
seated both on the Baltic and close to the Mediterranean. Catherine
welcomed the overtures of Joseph, for she contemplated further conquests
from the Turks, and the good-will of Austria was important to her. Of these
two allied powers Austria was the more dangerous to England and Prussia.
Russia had already gained much, Austria was hoping for gain; Catherine
was looking mainly to extension in eastern, Joseph's ambitions tended to
disturb the balance of power in western and central Europe. France was
impoverished; she desired peace and was anxious to restrain the emperor's
ambition, and Spain could do nothing without her. A quadruple alliance,
then, between the two imperial courts and France and Spain was
impossible. The late war had raised the Bourbon influence in Europe.
England was unable to detach Austria from France, and to form an alliance,
as Carmarthen wished, with the two imperial courts; and she was, as we
Page 319
shall see, led by a conflict in Holland to enter into an agreement with
Prussia which had important results.
Her foreign policy between 1784 and 1788 was chiefly concerned with the
affairs of the United Provinces. Anxious to remove the restrictions imposed
by treaties on the Austrian Netherlands, Joseph set aside the Barrier treaty
of 1715, designed to check French aggression; and the Dutch withdrew
their garrisons from the border fortresses. He pressed other claims upon
them, relying on their weakness, for they paid dearly for provoking a war
with England; and he demanded that the Scheldt, which was closed by the
treaty of 1648, should be open to navigation. His claim concerned England,
for though Austria could never become a great naval power even if Antwerp
had access to the sea, the ports of the Netherlands and, indeed, of the United
Provinces might fall under the control of some strong maritime state, such
as France or Russia. Joseph's demand was backed by a recommendation
from the Russian empress. He sent ships to sail up and down the river, and
they were forcibly stopped by the Dutch. War seemed imminent. France,
however, was then gaining great influence in Holland, and though she
compelled the Dutch to assent to some of the emperor's demands, she
upheld their refusal with regard to the Scheldt, and negotiated a treaty
concluded at Fontainebleau in November, 1785, between the emperor and
the republic, by which Joseph renounced his demand for the opening of the
river.
He was already occupied in renewing a scheme, which
had been defeated in 1778, for exchanging his FRENCH
INFLUENCE IN
Netherland provinces for Bavaria. This project was HOLLAND.
highly prejudicial to Prussian interests in Germany; and
Frederick of Prussia baulked it by forming a Fürstenbund, or alliance of
princes, to maintain the integrity of the Germanic constitution. In February,
1785, he invited King George as Elector of Hanover to join in this projected
alliance. George willingly assented, for the alliance was beneficial to
Hanover; and in a letter to his Hanoverian minister he expressed the hope
that his assent would lead to an understanding between England and
Prussia. This was merely an expression of his private feelings; the
Fürstenbund was not a matter of English politics and did not, in fact, bring
about an Anglo-Prussian alliance.[199] Such an alliance was highly desirable
for England as a means of defeating the intrigues of France in the United
Prussia which had important results.
Her foreign policy between 1784 and 1788 was chiefly concerned with the
affairs of the United Provinces. Anxious to remove the restrictions imposed
by treaties on the Austrian Netherlands, Joseph set aside the Barrier treaty
of 1715, designed to check French aggression; and the Dutch withdrew
their garrisons from the border fortresses. He pressed other claims upon
them, relying on their weakness, for they paid dearly for provoking a war
with England; and he demanded that the Scheldt, which was closed by the
treaty of 1648, should be open to navigation. His claim concerned England,
for though Austria could never become a great naval power even if Antwerp
had access to the sea, the ports of the Netherlands and, indeed, of the United
Provinces might fall under the control of some strong maritime state, such
as France or Russia. Joseph's demand was backed by a recommendation
from the Russian empress. He sent ships to sail up and down the river, and
they were forcibly stopped by the Dutch. War seemed imminent. France,
however, was then gaining great influence in Holland, and though she
compelled the Dutch to assent to some of the emperor's demands, she
upheld their refusal with regard to the Scheldt, and negotiated a treaty
concluded at Fontainebleau in November, 1785, between the emperor and
the republic, by which Joseph renounced his demand for the opening of the
river.
He was already occupied in renewing a scheme, which
had been defeated in 1778, for exchanging his FRENCH
INFLUENCE IN
Netherland provinces for Bavaria. This project was HOLLAND.
highly prejudicial to Prussian interests in Germany; and
Frederick of Prussia baulked it by forming a Fürstenbund, or alliance of
princes, to maintain the integrity of the Germanic constitution. In February,
1785, he invited King George as Elector of Hanover to join in this projected
alliance. George willingly assented, for the alliance was beneficial to
Hanover; and in a letter to his Hanoverian minister he expressed the hope
that his assent would lead to an understanding between England and
Prussia. This was merely an expression of his private feelings; the
Fürstenbund was not a matter of English politics and did not, in fact, bring
about an Anglo-Prussian alliance.[199] Such an alliance was highly desirable
for England as a means of defeating the intrigues of France in the United
Page 320
Provinces. The more republican or "patriot" party in Holland, which had led
the states to break their ancient friendly relations with England, was
completely under French influence, and, relying on the support of France,
designed to compel the stadholder, William V. of Orange, a feeble and
irresolute prince, to resign his office. Their victory would have made the
republic virtually a French province, and would have brought France a great
accession of naval power. Sir James Harris, the British ambassador at the
Hague, laboured to counteract their designs by encouraging the party in the
republic opposed to the policy of Holland. The stadholder's wife, a princess
of high spirit, was a niece of Frederick the Great, and Harris was anxious
for an alliance between England and Prussia as a means of overthrowing the
French party. Ewart, the ambassador at Berlin, shared his views, but the
ambassadors were held back by Carmarthen. The cabinet, Harris declared,
was wholly occupied by domestic matters.[200]
In May, 1785, it was evident that Austria was in accord with France, and the
cabinet inquired what Frederick's intentions were, hoping that his desire that
England would join in preventing the Bavarian exchange would induce him
to oppose the ambitious designs of France, and to form a union of defence.
[201]
Frederick spoke freely to Ewart with reference to the Bavarian
exchange, but would promise nothing as regards Holland.[202] The cabinet
then made proposals to Catherine on the basis of her detaching Austria from
France, and the formation of a triple alliance between England and the two
imperial courts for the maintenance of peace.[203] Catherine replied that she
would only agree on condition that England would not assent to the
Fürstenbund, which was a menace to her Austrian ally. Her demand was
peremptory and threatening. George stood firm. The Fürstenbund, he wrote
to Pitt, concerned his "electoral capacity," it was a matter of Hanoverian,
not of English, politics; he had already ratified it, and would not retreat.[204]
A communication from the Prussian ambassador led the cabinet in
September to send Lord Cornwallis to Frederick to ascertain his intentions.
Frederick declared that the agreement between himself and England to
check France would mean a general war in which England would have to
meet the fleets of France, Spain, Holland, and perhaps Russia; and he would
have on his hands the armies of France, Austria, and Russia; and that
"though such a contest had been maintained, it was not a game to play
often".[205] He was old and ill, and would not interfere. The action of France
the states to break their ancient friendly relations with England, was
completely under French influence, and, relying on the support of France,
designed to compel the stadholder, William V. of Orange, a feeble and
irresolute prince, to resign his office. Their victory would have made the
republic virtually a French province, and would have brought France a great
accession of naval power. Sir James Harris, the British ambassador at the
Hague, laboured to counteract their designs by encouraging the party in the
republic opposed to the policy of Holland. The stadholder's wife, a princess
of high spirit, was a niece of Frederick the Great, and Harris was anxious
for an alliance between England and Prussia as a means of overthrowing the
French party. Ewart, the ambassador at Berlin, shared his views, but the
ambassadors were held back by Carmarthen. The cabinet, Harris declared,
was wholly occupied by domestic matters.[200]
In May, 1785, it was evident that Austria was in accord with France, and the
cabinet inquired what Frederick's intentions were, hoping that his desire that
England would join in preventing the Bavarian exchange would induce him
to oppose the ambitious designs of France, and to form a union of defence.
[201]
Frederick spoke freely to Ewart with reference to the Bavarian
exchange, but would promise nothing as regards Holland.[202] The cabinet
then made proposals to Catherine on the basis of her detaching Austria from
France, and the formation of a triple alliance between England and the two
imperial courts for the maintenance of peace.[203] Catherine replied that she
would only agree on condition that England would not assent to the
Fürstenbund, which was a menace to her Austrian ally. Her demand was
peremptory and threatening. George stood firm. The Fürstenbund, he wrote
to Pitt, concerned his "electoral capacity," it was a matter of Hanoverian,
not of English, politics; he had already ratified it, and would not retreat.[204]
A communication from the Prussian ambassador led the cabinet in
September to send Lord Cornwallis to Frederick to ascertain his intentions.
Frederick declared that the agreement between himself and England to
check France would mean a general war in which England would have to
meet the fleets of France, Spain, Holland, and perhaps Russia; and he would
have on his hands the armies of France, Austria, and Russia; and that
"though such a contest had been maintained, it was not a game to play
often".[205] He was old and ill, and would not interfere. The action of France
Page 321
in negotiating the treaty of Fontainebleau strengthened the French party in
Holland; the stadholder was forced to quit the Hague, but was supported by
some of the other provinces. Frederick the Great died on August 17, 1786.
The fortunes of the Orange party were at low ebb. France supplied the
patriots with money; free corps were acting on their side; the stadholder
was suspended from his office, and French agents advocated its abolition. It
seemed as though Holland would become mistress of the Dutch republic
and France the ruler of Holland.
The new Prussian king, Frederick William II., the
brother of the Princess of Orange, deserted the purely THE TRIPLE
German policy of Frederick for a more extended ALLIANCE.
European policy. He did not, however, at once interfere in the affairs of
Holland, for there was a strong French party at his court. Harris needed
money to support the stadholder's cause, and Carmarthen proposed a
subvention of £1,200 a year. George was anxious not to be drawn into
another war, and said that as his family was growing expensive the money
could not be spared from the civil list.[206] In May, 1787, the cabinet
decided to put £20,000 at Harris's disposal. Matters came to a crisis in June.
As the princess was on her way to the Hague she was arrested and turned
back by a free corps. Frederick William demanded that satisfaction should
be made for this insult, and as the states of Holland, relying on French
support, refused his demand, he entered into a secret convention with
England to restore the stadholder, the two powers agreeing, Prussia to send
an army into Holland and England to prepare forty ships of the line to
support it. A Prussian army under the Duke of Brunswick crossed the
frontier and met with little resistance. Amsterdam surrendered on October
10, and the stadholder was restored. Meanwhile Montmorin, the French
foreign minister, declared that his court would support the Dutch. Pitt, who
was then personally directing foreign affairs, decided, with the full approval
of the king, that if the French court would not agree to the restoration war
was inevitable.[207] A treaty was made with the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel
for the hire of troops, and the naval and military forces were augmented. On
the 27th France definitely renounced her design of intervention, and on
Pitt's demand the French navy was reduced to a peace-footing. The designs
of France, which were fraught with danger to English interests, were
defeated, and the party in Holland favourable to alliance with England was
Holland; the stadholder was forced to quit the Hague, but was supported by
some of the other provinces. Frederick the Great died on August 17, 1786.
The fortunes of the Orange party were at low ebb. France supplied the
patriots with money; free corps were acting on their side; the stadholder
was suspended from his office, and French agents advocated its abolition. It
seemed as though Holland would become mistress of the Dutch republic
and France the ruler of Holland.
The new Prussian king, Frederick William II., the
brother of the Princess of Orange, deserted the purely THE TRIPLE
German policy of Frederick for a more extended ALLIANCE.
European policy. He did not, however, at once interfere in the affairs of
Holland, for there was a strong French party at his court. Harris needed
money to support the stadholder's cause, and Carmarthen proposed a
subvention of £1,200 a year. George was anxious not to be drawn into
another war, and said that as his family was growing expensive the money
could not be spared from the civil list.[206] In May, 1787, the cabinet
decided to put £20,000 at Harris's disposal. Matters came to a crisis in June.
As the princess was on her way to the Hague she was arrested and turned
back by a free corps. Frederick William demanded that satisfaction should
be made for this insult, and as the states of Holland, relying on French
support, refused his demand, he entered into a secret convention with
England to restore the stadholder, the two powers agreeing, Prussia to send
an army into Holland and England to prepare forty ships of the line to
support it. A Prussian army under the Duke of Brunswick crossed the
frontier and met with little resistance. Amsterdam surrendered on October
10, and the stadholder was restored. Meanwhile Montmorin, the French
foreign minister, declared that his court would support the Dutch. Pitt, who
was then personally directing foreign affairs, decided, with the full approval
of the king, that if the French court would not agree to the restoration war
was inevitable.[207] A treaty was made with the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel
for the hire of troops, and the naval and military forces were augmented. On
the 27th France definitely renounced her design of intervention, and on
Pitt's demand the French navy was reduced to a peace-footing. The designs
of France, which were fraught with danger to English interests, were
defeated, and the party in Holland favourable to alliance with England was
Page 322
secured in power. Though the Fürstenbund, a purely German system
directed against Austrian ambition, failed to bring about an Anglo-Prussian
alliance, the change in Prussian policy and, as an immediate cause, the
insult to the Prussian king's sister, brought England and Prussia into active
co-operation against the attempt of France to become mistress of the United
Provinces, and in 1788 led to the formation of a triple alliance for mutual
defence and the maintenance of peace between England, Prussia, and the
republic which changed the political situation. England was no longer
isolated; she was restored to her position of influence in the affairs of
Europe. Harris was created Baron Malmesbury as a reward for his services
at the Hague.
FOOTNOTES:
[186] George III. to Pitt, March 30, 1790, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[187] May, Constitutional History, i., 277-80, 321.
[188] George III. to Pitt, April 13 and May 1, 1784, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[189] George III. to Pitt, March 4, 1785, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted in
Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i., App. xv.
[190] Pulteney to Rutland, Feb. 10, 1785, Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland Papers,
iii., 177-78; Earl of Rosebery, Pitt, pp. 64-66.
[191] Parl. Paper, Accounts, xxxiii. (July, 1858).
[192] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, Correspondence of Pitt and Rutland, p. 17;
see also pp. 76-79.
[193] Ibid., p. 19.
[194] Parl. Hist., xxv., 586.
[195] Pitt to Rutland, Jan. 6, 1785, Corr., p. 73.
[196] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, Corr., p. 22.
[197] Pitt to Rutland, May 21, 1785, Corr., p. 105; Stanhope, Life of Pitt, i., 275,
288-89.
[198] Count de Butenval in his Précis du Traité de Commerce, 1786, endeavours
to prove that in the initiation of negotiations Pitt was acting in obedience to the
will of Vergennes.
[199] F. Salomon, "England und der deutsche Fürstenbund," Historische
Vierteljahrsschrift, 1903, ii., 221-42.
directed against Austrian ambition, failed to bring about an Anglo-Prussian
alliance, the change in Prussian policy and, as an immediate cause, the
insult to the Prussian king's sister, brought England and Prussia into active
co-operation against the attempt of France to become mistress of the United
Provinces, and in 1788 led to the formation of a triple alliance for mutual
defence and the maintenance of peace between England, Prussia, and the
republic which changed the political situation. England was no longer
isolated; she was restored to her position of influence in the affairs of
Europe. Harris was created Baron Malmesbury as a reward for his services
at the Hague.
FOOTNOTES:
[186] George III. to Pitt, March 30, 1790, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[187] May, Constitutional History, i., 277-80, 321.
[188] George III. to Pitt, April 13 and May 1, 1784, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[189] George III. to Pitt, March 4, 1785, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted in
Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i., App. xv.
[190] Pulteney to Rutland, Feb. 10, 1785, Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland Papers,
iii., 177-78; Earl of Rosebery, Pitt, pp. 64-66.
[191] Parl. Paper, Accounts, xxxiii. (July, 1858).
[192] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, Correspondence of Pitt and Rutland, p. 17;
see also pp. 76-79.
[193] Ibid., p. 19.
[194] Parl. Hist., xxv., 586.
[195] Pitt to Rutland, Jan. 6, 1785, Corr., p. 73.
[196] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, Corr., p. 22.
[197] Pitt to Rutland, May 21, 1785, Corr., p. 105; Stanhope, Life of Pitt, i., 275,
288-89.
[198] Count de Butenval in his Précis du Traité de Commerce, 1786, endeavours
to prove that in the initiation of negotiations Pitt was acting in obedience to the
will of Vergennes.
[199] F. Salomon, "England und der deutsche Fürstenbund," Historische
Vierteljahrsschrift, 1903, ii., 221-42.
Page 323
[200] Malmesbury, Corr., ii., 102-6, 112-15, 116-18.
[201] Carmarthen to Ewart, May 14, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.; Political Memoirs
of the Duke of Leeds, pp. 111-13; Salomon, u.s., pp. 231-33.
[202] Ewart to Carmarthen, May 26, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.
[203] Carmarthen to Fitzherbert, June 23, MS. Russia, Supplementary, R.O.
[204] George III. to Pitt, August 7 and 10, 1785, with Woronzow's (Vorontsov)
statement, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, partially copied in Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i.,
App. xviii.
[205] Cornwallis, Corr., i., 199-211.
[206] George III. to Pitt, Sept. 22, 1786, and Jan. 8, 1787, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[207] Pitt to Eden, Sept. 14, 1787, Auckland Corr., i., 194-96; George III. to Pitt,
Sept. 16, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[201] Carmarthen to Ewart, May 14, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.; Political Memoirs
of the Duke of Leeds, pp. 111-13; Salomon, u.s., pp. 231-33.
[202] Ewart to Carmarthen, May 26, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.
[203] Carmarthen to Fitzherbert, June 23, MS. Russia, Supplementary, R.O.
[204] George III. to Pitt, August 7 and 10, 1785, with Woronzow's (Vorontsov)
statement, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, partially copied in Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i.,
App. xviii.
[205] Cornwallis, Corr., i., 199-211.
[206] George III. to Pitt, Sept. 22, 1786, and Jan. 8, 1787, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
[207] Pitt to Eden, Sept. 14, 1787, Auckland Corr., i., 194-96; George III. to Pitt,
Sept. 16, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.
Page 324
CHAPTER XV.
THE REGENCY QUESTION.
The affairs of India, which played so large a part in raising Pitt to power,
brought him a question fraught with embarrassment. Annoyed by reproofs
sent out by the directors, and harassed by opposition in his council, by the
independent attitude of the Madras government, and by difficulties arising
from the conduct of officials both at Benares and Lucknow, Hastings in
1783 declared his intention of resigning office. His hope that the cabinet
would request him to remain with extended powers was crushed by the
speech with which Pitt introduced his India bill, and he left India in
February, 1785, esteemed and honoured by the natives of all classes in the
Bengal government. His wife came to England a year earlier, and though
her conduct before her marriage with Hastings would have debarred other
ladies from appearing at so strictly moral a court, she was received at St.
James's, and the queen accepted presents from her. On the return of
Hastings the directors thanked him for his eminent services, the king was
gracious to him, the chancellor, Thurlow, who was in the royal confidence,
was loud in his praise, and society generally smiled upon him. Pitt was
cold; there was much in his conduct which needed defence. Preparations for
an attack upon him were steadily pursued. Burke found a useful ally in
Francis, who gratified his spite by giving him information to be used
against his former antagonist. Fox and the opposition as a party adopted
Burke's case. It was believed that Pitt would stand by Hastings in order to
please the king. If he did so, they could represent him as shielding a
criminal; if he joined in bringing him to trial, he would incur the risk of
offending the king and alienating many of the supporters of the government.
During 1785 Burke went on accumulating facts which
were distorted by his fervent imagination. The delay of CHARGES
AGAINST
the attack encouraged the friends of Hastings, and on the HASTINGS.
first day of the session of 1786 his parliamentary agent,
Major Scott, an ill-advised person, challenged Burke to fulfil a pledge made
the year before that he would bring charges against him. In February Burke
THE REGENCY QUESTION.
The affairs of India, which played so large a part in raising Pitt to power,
brought him a question fraught with embarrassment. Annoyed by reproofs
sent out by the directors, and harassed by opposition in his council, by the
independent attitude of the Madras government, and by difficulties arising
from the conduct of officials both at Benares and Lucknow, Hastings in
1783 declared his intention of resigning office. His hope that the cabinet
would request him to remain with extended powers was crushed by the
speech with which Pitt introduced his India bill, and he left India in
February, 1785, esteemed and honoured by the natives of all classes in the
Bengal government. His wife came to England a year earlier, and though
her conduct before her marriage with Hastings would have debarred other
ladies from appearing at so strictly moral a court, she was received at St.
James's, and the queen accepted presents from her. On the return of
Hastings the directors thanked him for his eminent services, the king was
gracious to him, the chancellor, Thurlow, who was in the royal confidence,
was loud in his praise, and society generally smiled upon him. Pitt was
cold; there was much in his conduct which needed defence. Preparations for
an attack upon him were steadily pursued. Burke found a useful ally in
Francis, who gratified his spite by giving him information to be used
against his former antagonist. Fox and the opposition as a party adopted
Burke's case. It was believed that Pitt would stand by Hastings in order to
please the king. If he did so, they could represent him as shielding a
criminal; if he joined in bringing him to trial, he would incur the risk of
offending the king and alienating many of the supporters of the government.
During 1785 Burke went on accumulating facts which
were distorted by his fervent imagination. The delay of CHARGES
AGAINST
the attack encouraged the friends of Hastings, and on the HASTINGS.
first day of the session of 1786 his parliamentary agent,
Major Scott, an ill-advised person, challenged Burke to fulfil a pledge made
the year before that he would bring charges against him. In February Burke
Page 325
announced that he would propose to impeach Hastings before the lords, and
in April exhibited charges against him. Pitt insisted that a copy of them
should be delivered to Hastings, and that he should be heard in his defence
before the house voted upon them. Fox and Burke, who on every check to
their proceedings accused the government of a design to screen Hastings,
declared with much heat that Pitt's proposal was intended to quash the
accusation. The house, however, determined to hear Hastings, and he read
his defence, which occupied two days and wearied his audience with a
number of unfamiliar details. On June 1 Burke moved the first charge,
which related to the Rohillá war, and was ably supported by Fox. Pitt took
no part in discussing the main subject of the debate. Dundas, the most
prominent member of the India board, though condemning Hastings's
conduct, refused to consider the war as affording ground for a criminal
charge; and said that, as an act of parliament had subsequently reappointed
Hastings as governor-general, the house had condoned his previous
conduct; and he spoke of Hastings as "the saviour of India". The house
rejected the charge by 119 to 67.
The second charge, with reference to the treatment of the rájá of Benares,
was moved by Fox with all his wonted ability. A treasury note invited the
supporters of the government to vote against the motion. To the
astonishment of all, and to the consternation of his supporters, Pitt
announced that he agreed to the charge; he sharply criticised the
misrepresentation of Hastings's opponents, and conclusively maintained
that the rájá was bound to furnish the troops and money demanded of him,
but he considered the fine imposed on him "exorbitant, unjust, and
tyrannical". Many of the government party voted against him, but about
fifty followed his lead and the charge was accepted by 119 to 79. The next
day Hastings attended the court on the presentation of a magnificent
diamond sent by the nizám to the king, whose acceptance of the present
gave rise to much ill-natured comment. Various motives have been
suggested for Pitt's decision. None appear adequate save the most obvious
and honourable one, that he acted in accordance with his conscience.
Though his decision took the house by surprise, he clearly defined his
attitude four months before: "he was neither a determined friend or foe to
Mr. Hastings, and was resolved to support the principles of justice and
equity".[208] He did not read the papers relating to Benares until the eve of
in April exhibited charges against him. Pitt insisted that a copy of them
should be delivered to Hastings, and that he should be heard in his defence
before the house voted upon them. Fox and Burke, who on every check to
their proceedings accused the government of a design to screen Hastings,
declared with much heat that Pitt's proposal was intended to quash the
accusation. The house, however, determined to hear Hastings, and he read
his defence, which occupied two days and wearied his audience with a
number of unfamiliar details. On June 1 Burke moved the first charge,
which related to the Rohillá war, and was ably supported by Fox. Pitt took
no part in discussing the main subject of the debate. Dundas, the most
prominent member of the India board, though condemning Hastings's
conduct, refused to consider the war as affording ground for a criminal
charge; and said that, as an act of parliament had subsequently reappointed
Hastings as governor-general, the house had condoned his previous
conduct; and he spoke of Hastings as "the saviour of India". The house
rejected the charge by 119 to 67.
The second charge, with reference to the treatment of the rájá of Benares,
was moved by Fox with all his wonted ability. A treasury note invited the
supporters of the government to vote against the motion. To the
astonishment of all, and to the consternation of his supporters, Pitt
announced that he agreed to the charge; he sharply criticised the
misrepresentation of Hastings's opponents, and conclusively maintained
that the rájá was bound to furnish the troops and money demanded of him,
but he considered the fine imposed on him "exorbitant, unjust, and
tyrannical". Many of the government party voted against him, but about
fifty followed his lead and the charge was accepted by 119 to 79. The next
day Hastings attended the court on the presentation of a magnificent
diamond sent by the nizám to the king, whose acceptance of the present
gave rise to much ill-natured comment. Various motives have been
suggested for Pitt's decision. None appear adequate save the most obvious
and honourable one, that he acted in accordance with his conscience.
Though his decision took the house by surprise, he clearly defined his
attitude four months before: "he was neither a determined friend or foe to
Mr. Hastings, and was resolved to support the principles of justice and
equity".[208] He did not read the papers relating to Benares until the eve of
Page 326
the debate, and then, Dundas says, after reading them along with Hastings's
defence, Pitt and he agreed that they could not resist the charge. The king in
a friendly note gave Pitt credit for acting conscientiously, adding that for his
part he did not think it possible in India "to carry on publick business with
the same moderation that is suitable to an European civilized nation".[209]
George was an eminently sensible man. There was no split between him
and his minister.
In February, 1787, Sheridan brought forward the third charge, relating to the
treatment of the begams of Oudh in a speech held by all who heard it to be a
marvellous display of oratory. He described Hastings as "by turns a
Dionysius and a Scapin," a tyrant and a trickster, with a mind in which "all
was shuffling, ambiguous, dark, insidious, and little".[210] Indeed
throughout the proceedings against Hastings his accusers constantly
disregarded moderation and even decency of language. The third charge and
other articles having been accepted by the commons, Burke, on May 11,
impeached Hastings of high crimes and misdemeanours. An attempt was
also made to bring an impeachment against Sir Elijah Impey, lately chief-
justice of Bengal, on the ground of the execution of Nanda-Kumár and on
other charges, but the commons, having heard his defence, refused to agree
to the articles. The trial of Warren Hastings before the lords was opened in
Westminster hall on February 13, 1788, with circumstances of dignity and
splendour worthy of so great an occasion. Burke's speech on the case for the
prosecution lasted for four days; it remains a magnificent specimen of
rhetoric, though its vehement denunciations founded on occurrences in
which the accused was not directly concerned, and its attempts to create
prejudice were not likely to affect the opinions of men conscious of their
responsibility as judges. The court sat during that session of parliament for
thirty-five, and in 1789 for seventeen days. It became evident that the trial
would last a long time and public interest in it soon flagged.
Cornwallis was chosen by Pitt in 1786 as governor-
general of India under the new act, and assumed the CORNWALLIS
GOVERNOR-
government in 1788. Unfettered by his council, he was GENERAL.
in a far better position than Hastings, and, in spite of
many difficulties arising from abuses of long standing, he effected
numerous reforms both in the civil and military services of the company
during the first three years of his administration. Meanwhile Tipú,
defence, Pitt and he agreed that they could not resist the charge. The king in
a friendly note gave Pitt credit for acting conscientiously, adding that for his
part he did not think it possible in India "to carry on publick business with
the same moderation that is suitable to an European civilized nation".[209]
George was an eminently sensible man. There was no split between him
and his minister.
In February, 1787, Sheridan brought forward the third charge, relating to the
treatment of the begams of Oudh in a speech held by all who heard it to be a
marvellous display of oratory. He described Hastings as "by turns a
Dionysius and a Scapin," a tyrant and a trickster, with a mind in which "all
was shuffling, ambiguous, dark, insidious, and little".[210] Indeed
throughout the proceedings against Hastings his accusers constantly
disregarded moderation and even decency of language. The third charge and
other articles having been accepted by the commons, Burke, on May 11,
impeached Hastings of high crimes and misdemeanours. An attempt was
also made to bring an impeachment against Sir Elijah Impey, lately chief-
justice of Bengal, on the ground of the execution of Nanda-Kumár and on
other charges, but the commons, having heard his defence, refused to agree
to the articles. The trial of Warren Hastings before the lords was opened in
Westminster hall on February 13, 1788, with circumstances of dignity and
splendour worthy of so great an occasion. Burke's speech on the case for the
prosecution lasted for four days; it remains a magnificent specimen of
rhetoric, though its vehement denunciations founded on occurrences in
which the accused was not directly concerned, and its attempts to create
prejudice were not likely to affect the opinions of men conscious of their
responsibility as judges. The court sat during that session of parliament for
thirty-five, and in 1789 for seventeen days. It became evident that the trial
would last a long time and public interest in it soon flagged.
Cornwallis was chosen by Pitt in 1786 as governor-
general of India under the new act, and assumed the CORNWALLIS
GOVERNOR-
government in 1788. Unfettered by his council, he was GENERAL.
in a far better position than Hastings, and, in spite of
many difficulties arising from abuses of long standing, he effected
numerous reforms both in the civil and military services of the company
during the first three years of his administration. Meanwhile Tipú,
Page 327
encouraged by his success in the late war and by the negligence of the
Madras government, was preparing for another attempt to drive the English
out of the Karnatic. He attacked their ally, the rájá of Travancore, in 1789.
Cornwallis secured the alliance of the nizám and the Maráthás in 1790, and
General Medows, the new governor of Madras, successfully invaded
Mysore. As, however, no further progress was made, Cornwallis assumed
the command; he carried Bangalore by storm in March, 1791, and having
obtained the active co-operation of the nizám and the Maráthás, laid siege
to Seringapatam in 1792, and compelled Tipú to submit to a peace by which
he surrendered half his dominions, engaged to pay a sum equal to
£3,600,000, and gave two of his sons as hostages. The surrendered territory
was divided between the peishwá and the nizám. Tipú's power was
effectually broken, and the way was prepared for his final overthrow seven
years later. Cornwallis was created a marquis as a reward for his splendid
services, and resigned his office in 1793.
Though the government escaped the dangers in which the impeachment of
Hastings threatened to involve it, a new question relating to India brought it
into some peril. When, in October, 1787, war seemed likely to arise out of
the intervention of England in the affairs of the Dutch republic, the India
board sent four regiments to India, a measure of precaution which met with
the full approval of the directors. The storm-clouds dispersed, and then the
directors objected to pay the expense. Pitt held that the company was bound
by the act of 1784 to pay for the transport and maintenance of any troops
which the board judged to be necessary for the defence of the British
possessions in India, and brought in a declaratory bill to that effect in
February, 1788. The opposition was supported by the influence of the
company, and made a vigorous resistance. Fox, whose downfall as minister
had followed his attack on the company, appeared as a champion of its
claims. The directors were heard by their counsel, one of whom, Erskine,
afterwards lord chancellor, a strong whig, made a violent attack on Pitt. On
the other side, Scott, also (as Lord Eldon) a future chancellor, contended as
a member of the house that the bill was a true exposition of the act. The
debate on the committal lasted till 7 A.M. Pitt had drunk heavily with
Dundas the night before, and was too unwell towards the end of the debate
to reply to his opponents. His majority of 57 was considered unsatisfactory,
and so many of the regular supporters of government were adverse or
Madras government, was preparing for another attempt to drive the English
out of the Karnatic. He attacked their ally, the rájá of Travancore, in 1789.
Cornwallis secured the alliance of the nizám and the Maráthás in 1790, and
General Medows, the new governor of Madras, successfully invaded
Mysore. As, however, no further progress was made, Cornwallis assumed
the command; he carried Bangalore by storm in March, 1791, and having
obtained the active co-operation of the nizám and the Maráthás, laid siege
to Seringapatam in 1792, and compelled Tipú to submit to a peace by which
he surrendered half his dominions, engaged to pay a sum equal to
£3,600,000, and gave two of his sons as hostages. The surrendered territory
was divided between the peishwá and the nizám. Tipú's power was
effectually broken, and the way was prepared for his final overthrow seven
years later. Cornwallis was created a marquis as a reward for his splendid
services, and resigned his office in 1793.
Though the government escaped the dangers in which the impeachment of
Hastings threatened to involve it, a new question relating to India brought it
into some peril. When, in October, 1787, war seemed likely to arise out of
the intervention of England in the affairs of the Dutch republic, the India
board sent four regiments to India, a measure of precaution which met with
the full approval of the directors. The storm-clouds dispersed, and then the
directors objected to pay the expense. Pitt held that the company was bound
by the act of 1784 to pay for the transport and maintenance of any troops
which the board judged to be necessary for the defence of the British
possessions in India, and brought in a declaratory bill to that effect in
February, 1788. The opposition was supported by the influence of the
company, and made a vigorous resistance. Fox, whose downfall as minister
had followed his attack on the company, appeared as a champion of its
claims. The directors were heard by their counsel, one of whom, Erskine,
afterwards lord chancellor, a strong whig, made a violent attack on Pitt. On
the other side, Scott, also (as Lord Eldon) a future chancellor, contended as
a member of the house that the bill was a true exposition of the act. The
debate on the committal lasted till 7 A.M. Pitt had drunk heavily with
Dundas the night before, and was too unwell towards the end of the debate
to reply to his opponents. His majority of 57 was considered unsatisfactory,
and so many of the regular supporters of government were adverse or
Page 328
lukewarm that an ultimate defeat was thought probable. With great tact he
two days later adopted some amendments which met the chief arguments of
the opposition without injuring the principle of the bill.[211] The danger was
over, and the bill finally passed both houses. A severer conflict and a more
signal triumph were at hand.
The retirement of the aged chief-justice, Lord Mansfield, in the June of that
year, was followed by some legal appointments, which included those of
Pitt's personal friend, Pepper Arden, as master of the rolls, and Scott as
solicitor-general. Thurlow, who was annoyed by Pitt's assent to the
impeachment of Hastings, strongly objected to Arden's appointment. The
king tried to make peace between him and Pitt. Thurlow was forced to
yield, and remained sulky and hostile. About the same time Howe, the first
lord of the admiralty, who was constantly attacked with reference to matters
which arose out of the reduction of the navy consequent on the peace,
resigned office, because he considered that Pitt did not afford him adequate
support. He was created an English earl on his retirement. In his place Pitt
put his own elder brother Chatham, a favourite with the king, but, as it
proved, an indolent and inefficient minister, and also appointed Hood to a
seat on the new admiralty board.
For the most part things were going well with the king.
He rejoiced in the successes of his ministers, and his AFFAIRS OF THE
PRINCE OF
victory over the coalition brought him popularity such as WALES.
he had not enjoyed since his accession. His popularity
was heightened by an attempt to stab him made by an insane woman named
Margaret Nicholson on August 2, 1786. The poor woman was sent to
Bedlam. George, who behaved with the utmost calmness, escaped unhurt,
and the manifestations of loyalty evoked by the incident deeply gratified
him. He was, however, much troubled by the ill conduct of the Prince of
Wales. The prince drank, gambled, betted, and was addicted to debauchery;
he showed no sense of honour in his dealings either with men or women,
was thoroughly mean and selfish, and consorted with low companions. He
was outrageously extravagant, and, in addition to the large sums lavished on
his ordinary expenses, incurred enormous liabilities in altering and
decorating his residence, Carlton house. The arrangement of his affairs in
1783 was not on a scale sufficient to meet his expenditure. By August,
1784, he was so deeply in debt that he informed his father that he intended
two days later adopted some amendments which met the chief arguments of
the opposition without injuring the principle of the bill.[211] The danger was
over, and the bill finally passed both houses. A severer conflict and a more
signal triumph were at hand.
The retirement of the aged chief-justice, Lord Mansfield, in the June of that
year, was followed by some legal appointments, which included those of
Pitt's personal friend, Pepper Arden, as master of the rolls, and Scott as
solicitor-general. Thurlow, who was annoyed by Pitt's assent to the
impeachment of Hastings, strongly objected to Arden's appointment. The
king tried to make peace between him and Pitt. Thurlow was forced to
yield, and remained sulky and hostile. About the same time Howe, the first
lord of the admiralty, who was constantly attacked with reference to matters
which arose out of the reduction of the navy consequent on the peace,
resigned office, because he considered that Pitt did not afford him adequate
support. He was created an English earl on his retirement. In his place Pitt
put his own elder brother Chatham, a favourite with the king, but, as it
proved, an indolent and inefficient minister, and also appointed Hood to a
seat on the new admiralty board.
For the most part things were going well with the king.
He rejoiced in the successes of his ministers, and his AFFAIRS OF THE
PRINCE OF
victory over the coalition brought him popularity such as WALES.
he had not enjoyed since his accession. His popularity
was heightened by an attempt to stab him made by an insane woman named
Margaret Nicholson on August 2, 1786. The poor woman was sent to
Bedlam. George, who behaved with the utmost calmness, escaped unhurt,
and the manifestations of loyalty evoked by the incident deeply gratified
him. He was, however, much troubled by the ill conduct of the Prince of
Wales. The prince drank, gambled, betted, and was addicted to debauchery;
he showed no sense of honour in his dealings either with men or women,
was thoroughly mean and selfish, and consorted with low companions. He
was outrageously extravagant, and, in addition to the large sums lavished on
his ordinary expenses, incurred enormous liabilities in altering and
decorating his residence, Carlton house. The arrangement of his affairs in
1783 was not on a scale sufficient to meet his expenditure. By August,
1784, he was so deeply in debt that he informed his father that he intended
Page 329
to leave England and live abroad. George insisted that he should give up
this scheme, which would have implied a public breach, and said that if he
expected help he should send him a full statement of his debts and some
assurance that he would keep within his income in the future. The prince
was unwilling to send details of his debts, and when Sir James Harris tried
to persuade him to please his father by ceasing to identify himself with the
opposition and by marrying, declared that he could not give up "Charles"
[Fox] and his other friends, and that he would never marry. When at last he
sent his father the required statement, it showed liabilities amounting to
£269,000, of which £79,700 was for completing the work at Carlton house.
George was very angry, and the prince finding that his father would not help
him stopped the work, dismissed his court officers, and sold his stud. There
was an open quarrel between the father and son. "The king hates me," the
prince said, and he did not consider how grievously he had provoked his
father.[212]
His friends wished to obtain the payment of his debts from parliament, but
were embarrassed by the report that he was secretly married to Mrs.
Fitzherbert, a beautiful and virtuous lady, six years older than himself, who
at twenty-seven was left a widow for the second time. After repeated
solicitations, unmanly exhibitions of despair, and a pretended attempt at
suicide, he had persuaded her to accept his offer of marriage, and they were
married privately before witnesses by a clergyman of the established
Church on December 21, 1785. This was a most serious matter, for Mrs.
Fitzherbert was a Roman catholic, and the act of settlement provided that
marriage with a papist constituted an incapacity to inherit the crown, while
on the other hand the royal marriage act of 1772 rendered the prince's
marriage invalid. In April, 1787, his friends in the house of commons took
steps towards seeking the payment of his debts from the house. Pitt refused
to move in the matter without the king's commands, and, notice of a motion
for an address to the crown on the subject having been given, declared that
he would meet it with "an absolute negative". In the course of debate, Rolle,
a member for Devonshire, alluded to the reported marriage as a matter of
danger to the Church and state. Fox explicitly denied the truth of the report,
and on being pressed declared that he spoke from "direct authority". There
is no doubt that he did so, and that the prince lied. Mrs. Fitzherbert was
cruelly wounded, and in order to satisfy her the prince asked Grey to say
this scheme, which would have implied a public breach, and said that if he
expected help he should send him a full statement of his debts and some
assurance that he would keep within his income in the future. The prince
was unwilling to send details of his debts, and when Sir James Harris tried
to persuade him to please his father by ceasing to identify himself with the
opposition and by marrying, declared that he could not give up "Charles"
[Fox] and his other friends, and that he would never marry. When at last he
sent his father the required statement, it showed liabilities amounting to
£269,000, of which £79,700 was for completing the work at Carlton house.
George was very angry, and the prince finding that his father would not help
him stopped the work, dismissed his court officers, and sold his stud. There
was an open quarrel between the father and son. "The king hates me," the
prince said, and he did not consider how grievously he had provoked his
father.[212]
His friends wished to obtain the payment of his debts from parliament, but
were embarrassed by the report that he was secretly married to Mrs.
Fitzherbert, a beautiful and virtuous lady, six years older than himself, who
at twenty-seven was left a widow for the second time. After repeated
solicitations, unmanly exhibitions of despair, and a pretended attempt at
suicide, he had persuaded her to accept his offer of marriage, and they were
married privately before witnesses by a clergyman of the established
Church on December 21, 1785. This was a most serious matter, for Mrs.
Fitzherbert was a Roman catholic, and the act of settlement provided that
marriage with a papist constituted an incapacity to inherit the crown, while
on the other hand the royal marriage act of 1772 rendered the prince's
marriage invalid. In April, 1787, his friends in the house of commons took
steps towards seeking the payment of his debts from the house. Pitt refused
to move in the matter without the king's commands, and, notice of a motion
for an address to the crown on the subject having been given, declared that
he would meet it with "an absolute negative". In the course of debate, Rolle,
a member for Devonshire, alluded to the reported marriage as a matter of
danger to the Church and state. Fox explicitly denied the truth of the report,
and on being pressed declared that he spoke from "direct authority". There
is no doubt that he did so, and that the prince lied. Mrs. Fitzherbert was
cruelly wounded, and in order to satisfy her the prince asked Grey to say
Page 330
something in the house which would convey the impression that Fox had
gone too far. Grey peremptorily refused to throw a doubt on Fox's veracity,
and the prince had to employ a meaner instrument: "Sheridan must say
something". Accordingly, Sheridan in a speech in the house, while not
insinuating that Fox had spoken without the prince's authority, "uttered
some unintelligible sentimental trash about female delicacy".[213] Fox was
indignant at the way in which the prince had treated him, and is said to have
refused to speak to him for more than a year; but he evidently did not
consider the prince's conduct such as ought to prevent him from again
acting with him, and in about a year they appear to have been as friendly as
before.
The denial of the prince's marriage was generally accepted. Pitt saw that
there was a strong feeling that he ought to be relieved from his difficulties,
and determined to anticipate a motion to that effect. He and Dundas
arranged terms between the father and son. George agreed that the prince
should receive an addition to his income of £10,000 a year from the civil
list, and that a royal message should be sent to the commons requesting the
payment of his debts; and he demanded that the prince should promise not
to get into debt again. The promise was given, and a reference to it was
inserted in the king's message. The commons, without a division, voted
£161,000 for the payment of the debts and £20,000 for the completion of
Carlton house. The father and son were reconciled, and appeared together in
public. In spite of his protestations the prince did not amend his conduct.
Early in 1788 he still took an active part with the opposition, and set up a
gambling club, where he lost heavily. His example was followed by his
younger brother Frederick, Duke of York. The duke, then a lieutenant-
general, after receiving a military education in Germany, returned home in
1787, and lived a very fast life with so little regard to decency that "his
company was thought mauvais ton".[214]
On November 5, 1788, the king, who for some time had
been in bad health, became decidedly insane. At first it THE KING'S
INSANITY.
was believed that his life was in immediate danger, and
that, even if he was spared, he would not recover his reason. The Prince of
Wales stayed at Windsor, and assumed charge of the king's person, and it
was universally recognised that he must be regent. Whether the king died or
remained insane, Pitt's dismissal seemed certain, for not only was the prince
gone too far. Grey peremptorily refused to throw a doubt on Fox's veracity,
and the prince had to employ a meaner instrument: "Sheridan must say
something". Accordingly, Sheridan in a speech in the house, while not
insinuating that Fox had spoken without the prince's authority, "uttered
some unintelligible sentimental trash about female delicacy".[213] Fox was
indignant at the way in which the prince had treated him, and is said to have
refused to speak to him for more than a year; but he evidently did not
consider the prince's conduct such as ought to prevent him from again
acting with him, and in about a year they appear to have been as friendly as
before.
The denial of the prince's marriage was generally accepted. Pitt saw that
there was a strong feeling that he ought to be relieved from his difficulties,
and determined to anticipate a motion to that effect. He and Dundas
arranged terms between the father and son. George agreed that the prince
should receive an addition to his income of £10,000 a year from the civil
list, and that a royal message should be sent to the commons requesting the
payment of his debts; and he demanded that the prince should promise not
to get into debt again. The promise was given, and a reference to it was
inserted in the king's message. The commons, without a division, voted
£161,000 for the payment of the debts and £20,000 for the completion of
Carlton house. The father and son were reconciled, and appeared together in
public. In spite of his protestations the prince did not amend his conduct.
Early in 1788 he still took an active part with the opposition, and set up a
gambling club, where he lost heavily. His example was followed by his
younger brother Frederick, Duke of York. The duke, then a lieutenant-
general, after receiving a military education in Germany, returned home in
1787, and lived a very fast life with so little regard to decency that "his
company was thought mauvais ton".[214]
On November 5, 1788, the king, who for some time had
been in bad health, became decidedly insane. At first it THE KING'S
INSANITY.
was believed that his life was in immediate danger, and
that, even if he was spared, he would not recover his reason. The Prince of
Wales stayed at Windsor, and assumed charge of the king's person, and it
was universally recognised that he must be regent. Whether the king died or
remained insane, Pitt's dismissal seemed certain, for not only was the prince
Page 331
closely allied with the opposition, but he was deeply offended at the line
Pitt had taken with reference to his debts. The hopes of the opposition ran
high. Fox, who was travelling in Italy with his mistress, Mrs. Armistead,
was sent for in hot haste. In his absence Sheridan, whose convivial habits
made him acceptable to the prince, busied himself with the affairs of the
party. If they came into power Loughborough had an undoubted claim to
the chancellorship. Thurlow, however, was ready to betray his colleagues if
he were assured that he should retain his office. The prince and Sheridan
arranged that he should have his price, and he secretly joined them. From
the first Pitt decided on his course; the prince must be appointed regent by
act of parliament, with such limitations as would secure the king, should he
recover, from being hampered in the exercise of his rights.[215] For himself,
embarrassed as his private affairs were, he looked forward calmly to the
loss of office, and determined to practise as a barrister. According to the last
prorogation, parliament was to meet on the 20th. The king's insanity
rendered a further prorogation impossible; parliament met, and Pitt
procured an adjournment until December 4, to see how it would go with the
king.
Meanwhile Fox returned home and unwillingly agreed to the arrangement
with Thurlow. The chancellor's colleagues were convinced that he betrayed
their counsels, and one day when the cabinet met at Windsor, the fact that
he had first had a private interview with the prince was disclosed through
the loss of his hat; "I suppose," he growled, "I left it in the other place," the
prince's apartment.[216] Pitt wisely took no notice of his treachery. On the
3rd the king's physicians were examined by the privy council; they stated
that he was mentally incapable, that they believed that his illness was
curable, and that they could not say how long it might continue. The
opposition was anxious to make the worst of matters, for if the illness was
likely to be a long one, it would be difficult to refuse the regent full powers.
Accordingly, on the 4th, Fox urged that the physicians should be examined
by a committee of the house. Pitt assented readily, for a new physician had
been called in who took a favourable view of the case. This was Willis, a
clergyman, who had become a doctor, and was a specialist in insanity; he
took chief charge of the king, who was removed to Kew, pursued a new line
of treatment, prohibited irritating restraints, and controlled him by
establishing influence over him. He told the committee that he had found
Pitt had taken with reference to his debts. The hopes of the opposition ran
high. Fox, who was travelling in Italy with his mistress, Mrs. Armistead,
was sent for in hot haste. In his absence Sheridan, whose convivial habits
made him acceptable to the prince, busied himself with the affairs of the
party. If they came into power Loughborough had an undoubted claim to
the chancellorship. Thurlow, however, was ready to betray his colleagues if
he were assured that he should retain his office. The prince and Sheridan
arranged that he should have his price, and he secretly joined them. From
the first Pitt decided on his course; the prince must be appointed regent by
act of parliament, with such limitations as would secure the king, should he
recover, from being hampered in the exercise of his rights.[215] For himself,
embarrassed as his private affairs were, he looked forward calmly to the
loss of office, and determined to practise as a barrister. According to the last
prorogation, parliament was to meet on the 20th. The king's insanity
rendered a further prorogation impossible; parliament met, and Pitt
procured an adjournment until December 4, to see how it would go with the
king.
Meanwhile Fox returned home and unwillingly agreed to the arrangement
with Thurlow. The chancellor's colleagues were convinced that he betrayed
their counsels, and one day when the cabinet met at Windsor, the fact that
he had first had a private interview with the prince was disclosed through
the loss of his hat; "I suppose," he growled, "I left it in the other place," the
prince's apartment.[216] Pitt wisely took no notice of his treachery. On the
3rd the king's physicians were examined by the privy council; they stated
that he was mentally incapable, that they believed that his illness was
curable, and that they could not say how long it might continue. The
opposition was anxious to make the worst of matters, for if the illness was
likely to be a long one, it would be difficult to refuse the regent full powers.
Accordingly, on the 4th, Fox urged that the physicians should be examined
by a committee of the house. Pitt assented readily, for a new physician had
been called in who took a favourable view of the case. This was Willis, a
clergyman, who had become a doctor, and was a specialist in insanity; he
took chief charge of the king, who was removed to Kew, pursued a new line
of treatment, prohibited irritating restraints, and controlled him by
establishing influence over him. He told the committee that he had found
Page 332
that such cases lasted on an average five months, and at worst about
eighteen; the other doctors, though less hopeful, held that ultimate recovery
was probable. The ministers were ready to proceed, and reckoned that
another month would see the prince appointed regent, and that their own
dismissal would follow at once.[217]
On the 10th Pitt moved for a committee to search for
precedents. Fox objected; it was not for parliament, he FOX ASSERTS
THE PRINCE'S
maintained, to consider who should be regent; the Prince RIGHT.
of Wales had a clear right to the regency, and parliament
was only qualified to decide when he should exercise his right. When Pitt
heard the authority of parliament thus called in question, he is said to have
slapped his leg and to have exultantly exclaimed to the minister sitting
beside him, "I'll unwhig the gentleman for the rest of his life!" He declared
that Fox's doctrine was in the highest degree unconstitutional, and that no
part of the royal authority could belong to the prince unless it was conferred
on him by parliament; the question, he told the house, concerned its right of
deliberation. Fox saw his mistake, and two days later stated that the prince
put forward no claim of right; both sides agreed that he must be regent and
that before he assumed the office he must be invited to do so by parliament;
his right was an abstract question upon which it was no use to argue. Pitt
was too good a tactician to allow him to minimise the point at issue; he
denied "that the prince had any right whatever". The difference between an
irresistible claim, which Pitt acknowledged, and an inherent right was not
one merely of words; if the prince could claim the regency as of right,
parliament could not restrict his power without his consent. The effect of
Fox's false move was heightened by the folly of Sheridan who raised a
storm of indignation by a threat of the danger of provoking the prince to
assert his claim. Once again Fox made Pitt the champion of the king and the
nation against the pretensions of a whig faction. The character of the
struggle was understood, and bills were posted with the heading: "Fox for
the prince's prerogative," and "Pitt for the privilege of parliament and the
liberties of the nation". Yet in both houses several supporters of the
government ratted, for the prince seemed the rising sun, and he and the
Duke of York openly canvassed on Fox's side.
Nevertheless the commons approved Pitt's resolutions to the effect that, as
the personal exercise of the royal authority was interrupted, it was the duty
eighteen; the other doctors, though less hopeful, held that ultimate recovery
was probable. The ministers were ready to proceed, and reckoned that
another month would see the prince appointed regent, and that their own
dismissal would follow at once.[217]
On the 10th Pitt moved for a committee to search for
precedents. Fox objected; it was not for parliament, he FOX ASSERTS
THE PRINCE'S
maintained, to consider who should be regent; the Prince RIGHT.
of Wales had a clear right to the regency, and parliament
was only qualified to decide when he should exercise his right. When Pitt
heard the authority of parliament thus called in question, he is said to have
slapped his leg and to have exultantly exclaimed to the minister sitting
beside him, "I'll unwhig the gentleman for the rest of his life!" He declared
that Fox's doctrine was in the highest degree unconstitutional, and that no
part of the royal authority could belong to the prince unless it was conferred
on him by parliament; the question, he told the house, concerned its right of
deliberation. Fox saw his mistake, and two days later stated that the prince
put forward no claim of right; both sides agreed that he must be regent and
that before he assumed the office he must be invited to do so by parliament;
his right was an abstract question upon which it was no use to argue. Pitt
was too good a tactician to allow him to minimise the point at issue; he
denied "that the prince had any right whatever". The difference between an
irresistible claim, which Pitt acknowledged, and an inherent right was not
one merely of words; if the prince could claim the regency as of right,
parliament could not restrict his power without his consent. The effect of
Fox's false move was heightened by the folly of Sheridan who raised a
storm of indignation by a threat of the danger of provoking the prince to
assert his claim. Once again Fox made Pitt the champion of the king and the
nation against the pretensions of a whig faction. The character of the
struggle was understood, and bills were posted with the heading: "Fox for
the prince's prerogative," and "Pitt for the privilege of parliament and the
liberties of the nation". Yet in both houses several supporters of the
government ratted, for the prince seemed the rising sun, and he and the
Duke of York openly canvassed on Fox's side.
Nevertheless the commons approved Pitt's resolutions to the effect that, as
the personal exercise of the royal authority was interrupted, it was the duty
Page 333
of the two houses to supply the defect, and that it was necessary to
determine on means by which the royal assent might be given to bills for
that purpose. None of the precedents adduced by the committee met the
present case. Fox argued that to appoint a regent by a law was to treat the
monarchy as elective, and that the two houses had no legislative power
independently of the crown; and assuming that he was about to re-enter on
office taunted the ministers with a design to weaken their successors by
limiting the powers of the regent. The ministerial majority was 268 to 204.
Pitt proposed to provide for the royal assent by placing the great seal in a
commission with authority to affix it to the bill. This daring fiction, the only
means by which a regency could be established by enactment, was
approved by 251 to 178. On this question, and throughout the whole course
of the struggle, Burke spoke with a violence and impropriety which injured
his party and suggested a disordered mind. He called Pitt the prince's
competitor, referred to the chancellor as Priapus and as "a man with a large
black brow and a big wig," and later disgusted the house by speaking of the
king as "hurled from his throne" by the Almighty. In the lords the
proceedings followed the same lines as in the commons. Willis's account of
the king convinced Thurlow that he was playing a wrong game, and when
the question of the prince's right was discussed in the lords' he spoke
strongly on the government side. Several members of the lower house were
present to hear him. He referred to the favours he had received from the
king, "When I forget them," he said, "may God forget me!" "Forget you!"
said Wilkes with exquisite wit, "He will see you damned first." "The best
thing that can happen to you," said Burke. Pitt left the house exclaiming,
"Oh, the rascal!" On the 25th Thurlow formally severed his connexion with
Fox. After a warm debate the ministerial resolutions were affirmed by the
lords by 99 to 66.
The restrictions which the cabinet proposed to place on
the power of the regent were laid before the prince. He RESTRICTIONS
ON THE
was to be debarred from conferring peerages except on REGENT'S
the king's issue of full age; from granting reversions or POWER.
any office or pension except during pleasure, and from
disposing of the king's property; and the charge of the king's person and the
management of the household were to be in the queen's hands. These
restrictions were based on the idea that the king would speedily recover; if
determine on means by which the royal assent might be given to bills for
that purpose. None of the precedents adduced by the committee met the
present case. Fox argued that to appoint a regent by a law was to treat the
monarchy as elective, and that the two houses had no legislative power
independently of the crown; and assuming that he was about to re-enter on
office taunted the ministers with a design to weaken their successors by
limiting the powers of the regent. The ministerial majority was 268 to 204.
Pitt proposed to provide for the royal assent by placing the great seal in a
commission with authority to affix it to the bill. This daring fiction, the only
means by which a regency could be established by enactment, was
approved by 251 to 178. On this question, and throughout the whole course
of the struggle, Burke spoke with a violence and impropriety which injured
his party and suggested a disordered mind. He called Pitt the prince's
competitor, referred to the chancellor as Priapus and as "a man with a large
black brow and a big wig," and later disgusted the house by speaking of the
king as "hurled from his throne" by the Almighty. In the lords the
proceedings followed the same lines as in the commons. Willis's account of
the king convinced Thurlow that he was playing a wrong game, and when
the question of the prince's right was discussed in the lords' he spoke
strongly on the government side. Several members of the lower house were
present to hear him. He referred to the favours he had received from the
king, "When I forget them," he said, "may God forget me!" "Forget you!"
said Wilkes with exquisite wit, "He will see you damned first." "The best
thing that can happen to you," said Burke. Pitt left the house exclaiming,
"Oh, the rascal!" On the 25th Thurlow formally severed his connexion with
Fox. After a warm debate the ministerial resolutions were affirmed by the
lords by 99 to 66.
The restrictions which the cabinet proposed to place on
the power of the regent were laid before the prince. He RESTRICTIONS
ON THE
was to be debarred from conferring peerages except on REGENT'S
the king's issue of full age; from granting reversions or POWER.
any office or pension except during pleasure, and from
disposing of the king's property; and the charge of the king's person and the
management of the household were to be in the queen's hands. These
restrictions were based on the idea that the king would speedily recover; if
Page 334
his illness was prolonged they were to be open to revision by parliament.
The prince promised to accept the regency, and stated his objections to the
restrictions. The existence of the government seemed drawing to an end.
Pitt was extremely popular, and the London merchants, expecting that he
would soon be driven from office, offered him a gift of £100,000, which he
declined to accept. Before he could bring the restrictions before the
commons, the speaker, Cornwall, died, and on January 5, 1789, William
Wyndham Grenville, joint-paymaster of the forces, was elected in his place.
A fresh examination of the physicians was urged by the opposition. Willis
told the committee that good progress was made; Dr. Warren's account was
less favourable. Willis was represented by the prince's party as a charlatan,
and Warren was pitted against him as the doctor of the opposition. After this
delay Pitt laid the restrictions before the house as resolutions. They
certainly impaired the power of the executive, and would have weakened
any ministry appointed by the regent. No exact date was fixed for their
duration, and it is conceivable that, after the regency had lasted for some
years, the upper house would have refused to remove the restriction as to
the creation of peers, and would, as in 1719, have attempted to limit their
number by withholding from the regent a part of the royal prerogative. And
as the management of the household would have placed a patronage of over
£80,000 a year[218] at the disposal of the queen, who was hostile to Fox, a
court influence might have been established in favour of Pitt and adverse to
the new ministry. The queen was accused of intrigue and violently attacked
by the opposition press. Fox urged his objections to the resolutions with
much force, but they were adopted by both houses, and on the 31st the
prince accepted the offer of the regency made by the lords and commons on
those terms, on the understanding that the restrictions were temporary.
His party was in high glee; medals were struck to commemorate his
regency, whig ladies wore regency caps and ribbons, and a list of new
ministers was drawn up. The conduct of the prince and the Duke of York
caused much scandal. Stories of the ill-treatment of the king while in the
prince's charge may be dismissed as unfounded; it is alleged that the prince
made sport of his father's ravings, it is certain that his associates did so, and
that he and his brother behaved with brutal callousness and openly indulged
in riotous merry-making during the king's illness.[219] Before the resolutions
could be made law it was thought that a formal opening of parliament was
The prince promised to accept the regency, and stated his objections to the
restrictions. The existence of the government seemed drawing to an end.
Pitt was extremely popular, and the London merchants, expecting that he
would soon be driven from office, offered him a gift of £100,000, which he
declined to accept. Before he could bring the restrictions before the
commons, the speaker, Cornwall, died, and on January 5, 1789, William
Wyndham Grenville, joint-paymaster of the forces, was elected in his place.
A fresh examination of the physicians was urged by the opposition. Willis
told the committee that good progress was made; Dr. Warren's account was
less favourable. Willis was represented by the prince's party as a charlatan,
and Warren was pitted against him as the doctor of the opposition. After this
delay Pitt laid the restrictions before the house as resolutions. They
certainly impaired the power of the executive, and would have weakened
any ministry appointed by the regent. No exact date was fixed for their
duration, and it is conceivable that, after the regency had lasted for some
years, the upper house would have refused to remove the restriction as to
the creation of peers, and would, as in 1719, have attempted to limit their
number by withholding from the regent a part of the royal prerogative. And
as the management of the household would have placed a patronage of over
£80,000 a year[218] at the disposal of the queen, who was hostile to Fox, a
court influence might have been established in favour of Pitt and adverse to
the new ministry. The queen was accused of intrigue and violently attacked
by the opposition press. Fox urged his objections to the resolutions with
much force, but they were adopted by both houses, and on the 31st the
prince accepted the offer of the regency made by the lords and commons on
those terms, on the understanding that the restrictions were temporary.
His party was in high glee; medals were struck to commemorate his
regency, whig ladies wore regency caps and ribbons, and a list of new
ministers was drawn up. The conduct of the prince and the Duke of York
caused much scandal. Stories of the ill-treatment of the king while in the
prince's charge may be dismissed as unfounded; it is alleged that the prince
made sport of his father's ravings, it is certain that his associates did so, and
that he and his brother behaved with brutal callousness and openly indulged
in riotous merry-making during the king's illness.[219] Before the resolutions
could be made law it was thought that a formal opening of parliament was
Page 335
necessary in order to invest it with legislative capacity, and this was
effected on February 3 by a commission under the great seal. Pitt then
brought in the regency bill, and while it was before the commons, agreed
that all restriction should terminate in three years if the king remained ill so
long. The bill passed the commons after warm debate, and had reached the
committee stage in the lords when, on the 19th, the king was declared to be
convalescent. His recovery progressed steadily, and on March 10 he
announced to parliament, through commissioners, his complete restoration
to health. Both on that night, and on April 23, when he returned thanks in
St. Paul's, there were great rejoicings, for his illness enshrined him in the
hearts of his people. The skill and temper which Pitt exhibited throughout
the long crisis strengthened his position in parliament and his place in the
esteem of the public, and from that time more cordial relations were
established between him and the king, who warmly acknowledged his
obligations to him. Though he was fortunate in the king's timely recovery,
he owed much also to Fox's bad management. The hasty assertion of the
prince's rights and the delays interposed in the proceedings in the commons
put off the settlement of the regency until it was no longer needed, while the
attack on the authority of parliament on behalf of the prince's prerogative
and the reckless attempt of Fox and his party to displace a ministry which
had the confidence of the nation, in order to obtain office for themselves,
brought general censure upon them and added to Pitt's popularity.
In Ireland the parliament met in 1789 when the regency question was still
before the English parliament. Buckingham, who as Earl Temple was lord-
lieutenant in 1782-83, had succeeded Rutland in 1787. He hoped that the
Irish would adopt the English plan. He was disappointed by their extreme
jealousy of anything which might look like dependence. The functions of
the viceroy rendered the question of restrictions of little importance, and,
under the guidance of Grattan, an address was voted inviting the prince to
assume the regency of the kingdom without limitations. Buckingham
refused to forward it on the ground that it purported to invest the prince
with a power not conferred on him by law; for the prince could not lawfully
take any part of the royal authority without an act of parliament, and no
Irish bill could be enacted without the royal assent under the great seal. The
cabinet approved of his refusal. The parliament sent commissioners over
with the address; but by the time that it was presented the king was virtually
effected on February 3 by a commission under the great seal. Pitt then
brought in the regency bill, and while it was before the commons, agreed
that all restriction should terminate in three years if the king remained ill so
long. The bill passed the commons after warm debate, and had reached the
committee stage in the lords when, on the 19th, the king was declared to be
convalescent. His recovery progressed steadily, and on March 10 he
announced to parliament, through commissioners, his complete restoration
to health. Both on that night, and on April 23, when he returned thanks in
St. Paul's, there were great rejoicings, for his illness enshrined him in the
hearts of his people. The skill and temper which Pitt exhibited throughout
the long crisis strengthened his position in parliament and his place in the
esteem of the public, and from that time more cordial relations were
established between him and the king, who warmly acknowledged his
obligations to him. Though he was fortunate in the king's timely recovery,
he owed much also to Fox's bad management. The hasty assertion of the
prince's rights and the delays interposed in the proceedings in the commons
put off the settlement of the regency until it was no longer needed, while the
attack on the authority of parliament on behalf of the prince's prerogative
and the reckless attempt of Fox and his party to displace a ministry which
had the confidence of the nation, in order to obtain office for themselves,
brought general censure upon them and added to Pitt's popularity.
In Ireland the parliament met in 1789 when the regency question was still
before the English parliament. Buckingham, who as Earl Temple was lord-
lieutenant in 1782-83, had succeeded Rutland in 1787. He hoped that the
Irish would adopt the English plan. He was disappointed by their extreme
jealousy of anything which might look like dependence. The functions of
the viceroy rendered the question of restrictions of little importance, and,
under the guidance of Grattan, an address was voted inviting the prince to
assume the regency of the kingdom without limitations. Buckingham
refused to forward it on the ground that it purported to invest the prince
with a power not conferred on him by law; for the prince could not lawfully
take any part of the royal authority without an act of parliament, and no
Irish bill could be enacted without the royal assent under the great seal. The
cabinet approved of his refusal. The parliament sent commissioners over
with the address; but by the time that it was presented the king was virtually
Page 336
recovered, and the matter ended ineffectually. No serious consequences
probably would in any case have arisen from the course adopted by the Irish
parliament, but the difference between the two countries on so important a
question enforced the need of a legislative union. Soon after the conclusion
of this business Sydney resigned the home office. He differed from Pitt on
the slave trade question, and Pitt was probably glad to get a colleague more
thoroughly at one with him. He was succeeded by William Grenville on
June 5, and Henry Addington was elected speaker in Grenville's place.
In the summer news of a revolution arrived from Paris.
The reforming movement, in which all European states THE FRENCH
had some share, was promoted in France by ideas of REVOLUTION BEGINS.
constitutional government borrowed from England, by
the attacks of Voltaire on medievalism and religious authority, by the
advance of science, by the teaching of the encyclopædists, by the exaltation
of individual liberty by political economists, by Rousseau's romantic
theories on the foundations of society, and by sympathy with the American
revolution. It was supplied with practical aims by the misery of the poor,
the injustice done to the lower classes, which alone paid the heaviest of the
taxes, the privileges of the nobles and clergy, the harshness of the laws, and
arbitrary methods of government. England, as we have seen, shared in the
reforming movement. Here, however, it had no such violent results as in
France. No sharp lines divided class from class; the laws were the same for
all, there was no difference in taxation, and no privileged caste, for a peer's
younger sons were commoners, as was his eldest son so long as his father
lived. Parliamentary and other free institutions, imperfect as they were,
secured the liberties of the people. The life of the agricultural poor though
hard was not intolerable; landowners lived upon their estates and directed
local affairs, and the poor were at least kept from starvation. France was
almost bankrupt, ruined by the prodigality of her two last kings and their
neglect of their duties to their people. Louis XVI. was forced to summon
the states-general, which met at Versailles on May 4, 1789. Political
discontent was rife and was rendered dangerous by the distress of the poor;
the winter had been hard, prices were rising, and Paris was full of destitute
persons, of labourers out of work, and along with them a large number of
criminals and ruffians.
probably would in any case have arisen from the course adopted by the Irish
parliament, but the difference between the two countries on so important a
question enforced the need of a legislative union. Soon after the conclusion
of this business Sydney resigned the home office. He differed from Pitt on
the slave trade question, and Pitt was probably glad to get a colleague more
thoroughly at one with him. He was succeeded by William Grenville on
June 5, and Henry Addington was elected speaker in Grenville's place.
In the summer news of a revolution arrived from Paris.
The reforming movement, in which all European states THE FRENCH
had some share, was promoted in France by ideas of REVOLUTION BEGINS.
constitutional government borrowed from England, by
the attacks of Voltaire on medievalism and religious authority, by the
advance of science, by the teaching of the encyclopædists, by the exaltation
of individual liberty by political economists, by Rousseau's romantic
theories on the foundations of society, and by sympathy with the American
revolution. It was supplied with practical aims by the misery of the poor,
the injustice done to the lower classes, which alone paid the heaviest of the
taxes, the privileges of the nobles and clergy, the harshness of the laws, and
arbitrary methods of government. England, as we have seen, shared in the
reforming movement. Here, however, it had no such violent results as in
France. No sharp lines divided class from class; the laws were the same for
all, there was no difference in taxation, and no privileged caste, for a peer's
younger sons were commoners, as was his eldest son so long as his father
lived. Parliamentary and other free institutions, imperfect as they were,
secured the liberties of the people. The life of the agricultural poor though
hard was not intolerable; landowners lived upon their estates and directed
local affairs, and the poor were at least kept from starvation. France was
almost bankrupt, ruined by the prodigality of her two last kings and their
neglect of their duties to their people. Louis XVI. was forced to summon
the states-general, which met at Versailles on May 4, 1789. Political
discontent was rife and was rendered dangerous by the distress of the poor;
the winter had been hard, prices were rising, and Paris was full of destitute
persons, of labourers out of work, and along with them a large number of
criminals and ruffians.
Page 337
The deputies of the "third estate," who were about equal in number to those
of the two privileged orders and were supported by a few nobles and a large
minority of the clergy, demanded that the three estates should form a single
chamber. The king upheld the privileged orders in their refusal. The third
estate voted itself a "national assembly," and, after a struggle of six weeks,
gained its point, and the estates were constituted as a single assembly. Paris
was in a ferment of excitement. The king dismissed Necker, the minister of
finance, who was trusted by the popular party, and refused to withdraw his
troops from the city. A riot broke out, and on July 14 the Bastille, an ancient
fortress and prison, then little used, which was guarded by a few Swiss and
some old soldiers or invalides, was taken by the mob, and the governor and
some others were murdered. The king's brother, the Count of Artois, the
Prince of Condé, and several unpopular nobles fled from France. A new
municipality was established and Lafayette was chosen to command a new
civic militia or national guard. Disorder and rioting prevailed in the
provinces, country-houses were burnt and pillaged, and many murders were
committed. Louis was forced to assent to all the demands of the people; he
recalled Necker, and showed himself at the Hôtel de Ville wearing the
national cockade or tricolour. The assembly voted decrees sweeping away
the feudal system, abolishing the privileges of classes and corporations, and
ecclesiastical tithes, and promulgated a flatulent declaration of the rights of
man. Bread-riots broke out in Paris on October 5; a mob marched on
Versailles and invaded the palace, and on the 6th the national guard brought
the king and queen to Paris, where they remained in virtual captivity.
The first tidings of the movement were received in
England with satisfaction. It was generally believed that ENGLISH
OPINIONS ON
the insurrection would shortly end in the establishment EVENTS IN
of constitutional government, that while the troubles FRANCE.
lasted France would cease to be formidable, and that
consequently a continuance of peace and relief from taxation might be
expected. Before long, however, the acts of violence and the spoliation
effected by the decrees of the assembly roused widespread disgust. As late
as February, 1790, Pitt, while stigmatising the liberty proclaimed in France
as "absolute slavery," believed that the commotions would end in order and
true liberty. Burke from the first held that the outburst of "Parisian ferocity"
proved that it was doubtful whether the French were fit for liberty; he
of the two privileged orders and were supported by a few nobles and a large
minority of the clergy, demanded that the three estates should form a single
chamber. The king upheld the privileged orders in their refusal. The third
estate voted itself a "national assembly," and, after a struggle of six weeks,
gained its point, and the estates were constituted as a single assembly. Paris
was in a ferment of excitement. The king dismissed Necker, the minister of
finance, who was trusted by the popular party, and refused to withdraw his
troops from the city. A riot broke out, and on July 14 the Bastille, an ancient
fortress and prison, then little used, which was guarded by a few Swiss and
some old soldiers or invalides, was taken by the mob, and the governor and
some others were murdered. The king's brother, the Count of Artois, the
Prince of Condé, and several unpopular nobles fled from France. A new
municipality was established and Lafayette was chosen to command a new
civic militia or national guard. Disorder and rioting prevailed in the
provinces, country-houses were burnt and pillaged, and many murders were
committed. Louis was forced to assent to all the demands of the people; he
recalled Necker, and showed himself at the Hôtel de Ville wearing the
national cockade or tricolour. The assembly voted decrees sweeping away
the feudal system, abolishing the privileges of classes and corporations, and
ecclesiastical tithes, and promulgated a flatulent declaration of the rights of
man. Bread-riots broke out in Paris on October 5; a mob marched on
Versailles and invaded the palace, and on the 6th the national guard brought
the king and queen to Paris, where they remained in virtual captivity.
The first tidings of the movement were received in
England with satisfaction. It was generally believed that ENGLISH
OPINIONS ON
the insurrection would shortly end in the establishment EVENTS IN
of constitutional government, that while the troubles FRANCE.
lasted France would cease to be formidable, and that
consequently a continuance of peace and relief from taxation might be
expected. Before long, however, the acts of violence and the spoliation
effected by the decrees of the assembly roused widespread disgust. As late
as February, 1790, Pitt, while stigmatising the liberty proclaimed in France
as "absolute slavery," believed that the commotions would end in order and
true liberty. Burke from the first held that the outburst of "Parisian ferocity"
proved that it was doubtful whether the French were fit for liberty; he
Page 338
maintained that, though the power of France might cease to be formidable,
its example was to be dreaded, and expressed his abhorrence of the
destruction of the institutions of the kingdom. Fox, on the other hand, as he
had delighted in the American revolution, delighted in the revolution in
France. Of the fall of the Bastille, which had made hardly any impression
on French public opinion, he wrote: "How much the greatest event it is that
has happened in the world; and how much the best!" While he regretted the
bloodshed which accompanied the revolution, he constantly declared his
exultation in its successes. A comparatively small party of democrats,
supported by the political dissenters under the leadership of the Unitarian
ministers Price and Priestley, noisily expressed their sympathy with the
French democrats; and some men of high position, such as Lords Stanhope
and Lansdowne, professed more or less republican principles. The
revolution society under the presidency of Stanhope sent an address to the
French assembly, and clubs were formed in many large towns "avowedly
affiliated to the democratic clubs in France".[220]
The difference between Burke and Fox on this matter was openly declared
in the debate on the army estimates in February, 1790. Fox in a mischievous
speech referred to the part taken by the French army in forwarding the
revolution, and said that it was a time when he should be least jealous of an
increase in the army, since the example of France had shown that "a man by
becoming a soldier did not cease to be a citizen". Burke declared that
France was setting an example of anarchy, fraud, violence, and atheism, and
that the worst part of its example was the interference in civil affairs of
"base hireling mutineers" who deserted their officers "to join a furious
licentious populace". He protested against a comparison between the
revolution in France and the revolution of 1688, between the conduct of the
soldiery on that occasion and the behaviour of some of the French troops.
His speech, which was received with general applause, had a strong effect
on opinion, and Pitt and others expressed their agreement with it. Fox
answered him in a conciliatory tone. Sheridan fanned the flame; he taunted
Burke with inconsistency, and pronounced a panegyric on the revolutionary
leaders. Burke replied that thenceforth he and Sheridan were separated in
politics. A rift in the opposition was started, and an attempt to close it by a
conference two days later was ineffectual. The opinion of parliament on two
other questions during the session was, seemingly, influenced by events in
its example was to be dreaded, and expressed his abhorrence of the
destruction of the institutions of the kingdom. Fox, on the other hand, as he
had delighted in the American revolution, delighted in the revolution in
France. Of the fall of the Bastille, which had made hardly any impression
on French public opinion, he wrote: "How much the greatest event it is that
has happened in the world; and how much the best!" While he regretted the
bloodshed which accompanied the revolution, he constantly declared his
exultation in its successes. A comparatively small party of democrats,
supported by the political dissenters under the leadership of the Unitarian
ministers Price and Priestley, noisily expressed their sympathy with the
French democrats; and some men of high position, such as Lords Stanhope
and Lansdowne, professed more or less republican principles. The
revolution society under the presidency of Stanhope sent an address to the
French assembly, and clubs were formed in many large towns "avowedly
affiliated to the democratic clubs in France".[220]
The difference between Burke and Fox on this matter was openly declared
in the debate on the army estimates in February, 1790. Fox in a mischievous
speech referred to the part taken by the French army in forwarding the
revolution, and said that it was a time when he should be least jealous of an
increase in the army, since the example of France had shown that "a man by
becoming a soldier did not cease to be a citizen". Burke declared that
France was setting an example of anarchy, fraud, violence, and atheism, and
that the worst part of its example was the interference in civil affairs of
"base hireling mutineers" who deserted their officers "to join a furious
licentious populace". He protested against a comparison between the
revolution in France and the revolution of 1688, between the conduct of the
soldiery on that occasion and the behaviour of some of the French troops.
His speech, which was received with general applause, had a strong effect
on opinion, and Pitt and others expressed their agreement with it. Fox
answered him in a conciliatory tone. Sheridan fanned the flame; he taunted
Burke with inconsistency, and pronounced a panegyric on the revolutionary
leaders. Burke replied that thenceforth he and Sheridan were separated in
politics. A rift in the opposition was started, and an attempt to close it by a
conference two days later was ineffectual. The opinion of parliament on two
other questions during the session was, seemingly, influenced by events in
Page 339
France. Fox renewed the attack on the test acts. He was opposed by Pitt;
and Burke, whose speech, Fox said, filled him "with grief and shame,"
animadverted on the overthrow of the Church in France, and maintained
that Price, Priestley, and other dissenters hoped to overthrow the Church of
England. Fox's motion was defeated by 294 to 105. A motion for
parliamentary reform by Flood, who then represented an English
constituency, was opposed by Pitt, Windham, and Burke, and was rejected
without a division. The session ended on June 10, and parliament was
dissolved.
England reaped material benefit from the temporary
extinction of France as a factor in the affairs of Europe, SPANISH CLAIM
consequent on the proceedings of the assembly. Some TO NOOTKA
SOUND.
difficulties with Spain had been removed by a
convention arranged in 1786, by which Great Britain agreed to withdraw
the settlers from the Mosquito coast, and the Spanish king allowed them to
occupy a district in Honduras. As this compliance on the part of England
checked the smuggling of goods into the Spanish colonies, it was well
received by Spain. Hostile feelings towards England soon revived. Florida
Blanca, the Spanish minister, was anxious to increase trade with the
colonies, and was determined to keep it exclusively for the mother-country.
It was impossible to prevent English ships from interfering with it. The
colonies of Spanish America were discontented; some insurrections had
been made with the object of gaining direct trade with other nations, and the
malcontents hoped for help from England.[221] Florida Blanca believed that
England sought first to establish direct commercial communication with her
Spanish American colonies, and, finally, to separate them from the mother-
country.[222] He was determined to prevent these designs, which had no
existence in England, and was upheld in his purpose by the extravagant
opinion held by himself and his nation as to the strength of their country. He
found his opportunity in 1789. Some English merchants had established a
settlement at Nootka Sound, off Vancouver's island, for trade in furs and
ginseng with China. In April one of their ships with its cargo was seized in
the Sound by a Spanish frigate, the officers and crew were maltreated, and
two more ships were seized shortly afterwards. Satisfaction was demanded
by the English government, and was refused by Spain on the grounds that
all lands on the west coast of America as far as 60° north latitude were
and Burke, whose speech, Fox said, filled him "with grief and shame,"
animadverted on the overthrow of the Church in France, and maintained
that Price, Priestley, and other dissenters hoped to overthrow the Church of
England. Fox's motion was defeated by 294 to 105. A motion for
parliamentary reform by Flood, who then represented an English
constituency, was opposed by Pitt, Windham, and Burke, and was rejected
without a division. The session ended on June 10, and parliament was
dissolved.
England reaped material benefit from the temporary
extinction of France as a factor in the affairs of Europe, SPANISH CLAIM
consequent on the proceedings of the assembly. Some TO NOOTKA
SOUND.
difficulties with Spain had been removed by a
convention arranged in 1786, by which Great Britain agreed to withdraw
the settlers from the Mosquito coast, and the Spanish king allowed them to
occupy a district in Honduras. As this compliance on the part of England
checked the smuggling of goods into the Spanish colonies, it was well
received by Spain. Hostile feelings towards England soon revived. Florida
Blanca, the Spanish minister, was anxious to increase trade with the
colonies, and was determined to keep it exclusively for the mother-country.
It was impossible to prevent English ships from interfering with it. The
colonies of Spanish America were discontented; some insurrections had
been made with the object of gaining direct trade with other nations, and the
malcontents hoped for help from England.[221] Florida Blanca believed that
England sought first to establish direct commercial communication with her
Spanish American colonies, and, finally, to separate them from the mother-
country.[222] He was determined to prevent these designs, which had no
existence in England, and was upheld in his purpose by the extravagant
opinion held by himself and his nation as to the strength of their country. He
found his opportunity in 1789. Some English merchants had established a
settlement at Nootka Sound, off Vancouver's island, for trade in furs and
ginseng with China. In April one of their ships with its cargo was seized in
the Sound by a Spanish frigate, the officers and crew were maltreated, and
two more ships were seized shortly afterwards. Satisfaction was demanded
by the English government, and was refused by Spain on the grounds that
all lands on the west coast of America as far as 60° north latitude were
Page 340
under the dominion of Spain, and further that Nootka belonged to Spain,
because it had been discovered and occupied by a Spanish captain four
years before Cook visited those coasts.
The English government held that these pretensions
were inadmissible, for there was no effective occupation CONVENTION
WITH SPAIN.
by Spain; it refused to discuss them, and claimed that the
king's subjects had a right to navigate and fish in those waters and settle on
unoccupied lands.[223] Spain prepared for war, and Florida Blanca seems to
have made overtures to Austria and Russia in the vain hope that they would
enter into an active alliance with his court.[224] The affair was kept secret in
England until May 3, when the preparations of Spain demanded immediate
action. On that day an order in council was passed for pressing seamen in
every port in the kingdom, and the commons unanimously agreed to a vote
of credit of £1,000,000 for expenses. The matter was laid before the two
other members of the triple alliance; the Dutch at once fitted out a squadron
to act with the British fleet, and a favourable answer was received from the
Prussian king. The French ministers, moved by the news of the naval
preparations of Great Britain, and expecting to be called on to fulfil the
obligation expressed in the family compact, ordered the armament of
fourteen ships of the line. On this the national assembly voted that it had the
right to decide on questions of war, and on May 22 declared that the French
nation renounced wars of conquest. This grandiloquent decree destroyed the
effect of the armament. Nevertheless, Spain was set on war; fleets were
gathered at Ferrol and Cadiz, and a loan of £4,000,000 was arranged.
Florida Blanca seems to have relied on help from the United States, and
made some efforts to gain their good-will, but they did not respond to them.
[225]
From France he peremptorily demanded the assistance to which Louis
was pledged by the family compact. His demand was laid before the
national assembly, and on August 25 it was decided to substitute a new
pacte national for the pacte de famille, and to invite the king to arm forty-
five ships for defence, and to revise the treaty; and a suggestion was made
to Spain that she might confirm the new compact by the cession of
Louisiana. This was mere folly. The English ministers notified the French
government that any help given to Spain would be promptly resented,[226]
and Florida Blanca seeing that no reliance was to be placed on France
entered into negotiations with England. During their progress a fresh cause
because it had been discovered and occupied by a Spanish captain four
years before Cook visited those coasts.
The English government held that these pretensions
were inadmissible, for there was no effective occupation CONVENTION
WITH SPAIN.
by Spain; it refused to discuss them, and claimed that the
king's subjects had a right to navigate and fish in those waters and settle on
unoccupied lands.[223] Spain prepared for war, and Florida Blanca seems to
have made overtures to Austria and Russia in the vain hope that they would
enter into an active alliance with his court.[224] The affair was kept secret in
England until May 3, when the preparations of Spain demanded immediate
action. On that day an order in council was passed for pressing seamen in
every port in the kingdom, and the commons unanimously agreed to a vote
of credit of £1,000,000 for expenses. The matter was laid before the two
other members of the triple alliance; the Dutch at once fitted out a squadron
to act with the British fleet, and a favourable answer was received from the
Prussian king. The French ministers, moved by the news of the naval
preparations of Great Britain, and expecting to be called on to fulfil the
obligation expressed in the family compact, ordered the armament of
fourteen ships of the line. On this the national assembly voted that it had the
right to decide on questions of war, and on May 22 declared that the French
nation renounced wars of conquest. This grandiloquent decree destroyed the
effect of the armament. Nevertheless, Spain was set on war; fleets were
gathered at Ferrol and Cadiz, and a loan of £4,000,000 was arranged.
Florida Blanca seems to have relied on help from the United States, and
made some efforts to gain their good-will, but they did not respond to them.
[225]
From France he peremptorily demanded the assistance to which Louis
was pledged by the family compact. His demand was laid before the
national assembly, and on August 25 it was decided to substitute a new
pacte national for the pacte de famille, and to invite the king to arm forty-
five ships for defence, and to revise the treaty; and a suggestion was made
to Spain that she might confirm the new compact by the cession of
Louisiana. This was mere folly. The English ministers notified the French
government that any help given to Spain would be promptly resented,[226]
and Florida Blanca seeing that no reliance was to be placed on France
entered into negotiations with England. During their progress a fresh cause
Page 341
of offence was given to England; for in September McDonald, captain of a
British West Indiaman, reported that his ship had been stopped by a Spanish
frigate in the Gulf of Florida, that he had been forced to go aboard the
Spaniard, and had there been cruelly tortured, being set in the bilboes in the
blazing sun.[227] For this outrage satisfaction was promptly made, and on
October 28 a treaty was signed between Great Britain and Spain by which
Spain yielded to the demands of the British court with reference to the
Nootka Sound affair and restored the disputed territory. The submission of
Spain marks a complete change in her policy; she sought by compliance
towards England to gain the security no longer to be looked for from
alliance with France. It was a signal triumph for Pitt, who as usual had
directed the proceedings of the foreign office, for Carmarthen, who
succeeded his father as Duke of Leeds in 1789, was a feeble person. Pitt
had broken up the family compact and could reckon on the compliance of
Spain. France was isolated and had exhibited her weakness before the eyes
of Europe. The despicable proceedings of the national assembly saved
England from a war, and dissolved the alliance which had so long
threatened her.[228]
FOOTNOTES:
[208] Parl. Hist., xxv., 1094.
[209] George III. to Pitt, June 14, 1786, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted in
Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i., App. xix.
[210] Parl. Hist., xxvi., 287.
[211] Bulkeley to Buckingham, March 10, 1788, Court and Cabinets of George
III., i., 360-61; Parl. Hist., xxvii., 115-27.
[212] Copies of correspondence relating to the Prince of Wales given by the king
to Pitt in Jan., 1787, MS. Pitt Papers, 105; Malmesbury, Diaries, ii., 126-31.
[213] Holland, Memoirs of the Whig Party, ii., 123-42; Langdale, Memoirs of
Mrs. Fitzherbert, pp. 28-30; Parl. Hist., xxvi., 1019, 1048-56, 1070, 1080.
[214] Court and Cabinets, i., 363-64; Auckland Corr., i., 456.
[215] Grenville to Buckingham, Nov. 13, 1788, Court and Cabinets, i., 448-49.
[216] Same to same, Nov. 30, ibid., ii., 23; Administrations of Great Britain, p.
122 n.
[217] Grenville to Buckingham, Dec. 9, 1788, Court and Cabinets, ii., 41.
British West Indiaman, reported that his ship had been stopped by a Spanish
frigate in the Gulf of Florida, that he had been forced to go aboard the
Spaniard, and had there been cruelly tortured, being set in the bilboes in the
blazing sun.[227] For this outrage satisfaction was promptly made, and on
October 28 a treaty was signed between Great Britain and Spain by which
Spain yielded to the demands of the British court with reference to the
Nootka Sound affair and restored the disputed territory. The submission of
Spain marks a complete change in her policy; she sought by compliance
towards England to gain the security no longer to be looked for from
alliance with France. It was a signal triumph for Pitt, who as usual had
directed the proceedings of the foreign office, for Carmarthen, who
succeeded his father as Duke of Leeds in 1789, was a feeble person. Pitt
had broken up the family compact and could reckon on the compliance of
Spain. France was isolated and had exhibited her weakness before the eyes
of Europe. The despicable proceedings of the national assembly saved
England from a war, and dissolved the alliance which had so long
threatened her.[228]
FOOTNOTES:
[208] Parl. Hist., xxv., 1094.
[209] George III. to Pitt, June 14, 1786, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted in
Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i., App. xix.
[210] Parl. Hist., xxvi., 287.
[211] Bulkeley to Buckingham, March 10, 1788, Court and Cabinets of George
III., i., 360-61; Parl. Hist., xxvii., 115-27.
[212] Copies of correspondence relating to the Prince of Wales given by the king
to Pitt in Jan., 1787, MS. Pitt Papers, 105; Malmesbury, Diaries, ii., 126-31.
[213] Holland, Memoirs of the Whig Party, ii., 123-42; Langdale, Memoirs of
Mrs. Fitzherbert, pp. 28-30; Parl. Hist., xxvi., 1019, 1048-56, 1070, 1080.
[214] Court and Cabinets, i., 363-64; Auckland Corr., i., 456.
[215] Grenville to Buckingham, Nov. 13, 1788, Court and Cabinets, i., 448-49.
[216] Same to same, Nov. 30, ibid., ii., 23; Administrations of Great Britain, p.
122 n.
[217] Grenville to Buckingham, Dec. 9, 1788, Court and Cabinets, ii., 41.
Page 342
[218] Parl. Hist., xxvii., 1010.
[219] Compare Massey, Hist., iii., 383-84, 388, with Jesse, Memoirs of George
III., iii., 85 sqq., and Lecky, Hist., v., 147 sqq.; see also Court and Cabinets, ii.,
12, 25, 122; Auckland Corr., ii., 306.
[220] Annual Register, xxxii. (1790), 65.
[221] Despatches and Papers, MS. Pitt Papers, 345.
[222] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.
[223] Del Campo to Leeds, Feb. 10, 1790; Memorial, Spain, 18; Leeds to
Fitzherbert, Aug. 17, 1790, all MSS. Spain, R.O.
[224] Merry to Leeds, Feb. 8, 1790; Fitzherbert to Leeds, Nov. 8, 1790, MSS.
Spain, R.O.
[225] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.; Bond to Leeds, Jan.
3, 1791, Letters of P. Bond.
[226] Leeds to Lord Gower, Sept. 1, 1790, MS. France, R.O.
[227] McDonald's Affidavit, Sept. 25, 1790, MS. For. var., 816, R.O.
[228] A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, ii., 84-95.
[219] Compare Massey, Hist., iii., 383-84, 388, with Jesse, Memoirs of George
III., iii., 85 sqq., and Lecky, Hist., v., 147 sqq.; see also Court and Cabinets, ii.,
12, 25, 122; Auckland Corr., ii., 306.
[220] Annual Register, xxxii. (1790), 65.
[221] Despatches and Papers, MS. Pitt Papers, 345.
[222] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.
[223] Del Campo to Leeds, Feb. 10, 1790; Memorial, Spain, 18; Leeds to
Fitzherbert, Aug. 17, 1790, all MSS. Spain, R.O.
[224] Merry to Leeds, Feb. 8, 1790; Fitzherbert to Leeds, Nov. 8, 1790, MSS.
Spain, R.O.
[225] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.; Bond to Leeds, Jan.
3, 1791, Letters of P. Bond.
[226] Leeds to Lord Gower, Sept. 1, 1790, MS. France, R.O.
[227] McDonald's Affidavit, Sept. 25, 1790, MS. For. var., 816, R.O.
[228] A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, ii., 84-95.
Page 343
CHAPTER XVI.
DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.
For the sake of clearness it will be convenient in this chapter to notice first
some matters of domestic interest debated in parliament from 1790 to 1792,
next to take a general view of English foreign policy, and, lastly, to trace the
effects of the French revolution on English politics down to the outbreak of
the war with France. The general election of 1790 proved that Pitt had
thoroughly gained the confidence of the nation, for it increased his already
large majority. The election presented one noteworthy incident; Horne
Tooke, though in holy orders, and consequently supposed to be disqualified,
presented himself for election at Westminster; he retired before the close of
the poll, and the question of the qualification of clergymen to sit in
parliament was not decided until 1801. In consequence of the hostility of
the chancellor, Pitt needed some one to lead his party in the lords, and chose
William Grenville, the secretary of state for home affairs, who was created
Baron Grenville. The expenses of the armament against Spain amounted to
nearly £3,000,000; the prosperity of the country warranted Pitt's decision
not to allow any interruption in the progress of the reduction of debt; he
obtained £500,000 from the Bank of England without interest, on the
strength of unclaimed dividends, and proposed to obtain the remainder by
taxation. The question was raised whether the dissolution put an end to the
prosecution of Hastings. That an impeachment was not "abated" by a
dissolution had been affirmed by the lords in the case of Lord Danby in
1679, but this decision was reversed in 1685. Precedents were obscure, and
the great lawyers differed. Pitt, who on this question sided with Fox and
Burke, argued on broad constitutional grounds that an act of the crown
should not hinder the commons in the exercise of a right, and it was agreed
by both houses that an impeachment should remain in statu quo from one
parliament to another. The trial was resumed in 1791. After lasting for seven
years it ended in 1795 in the acquittal of the accused on every count. The
decision was generally approved. If in the midst of extraordinary difficulties
Hastings did some things hard to justify, he was at the least a great ruler,
DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.
For the sake of clearness it will be convenient in this chapter to notice first
some matters of domestic interest debated in parliament from 1790 to 1792,
next to take a general view of English foreign policy, and, lastly, to trace the
effects of the French revolution on English politics down to the outbreak of
the war with France. The general election of 1790 proved that Pitt had
thoroughly gained the confidence of the nation, for it increased his already
large majority. The election presented one noteworthy incident; Horne
Tooke, though in holy orders, and consequently supposed to be disqualified,
presented himself for election at Westminster; he retired before the close of
the poll, and the question of the qualification of clergymen to sit in
parliament was not decided until 1801. In consequence of the hostility of
the chancellor, Pitt needed some one to lead his party in the lords, and chose
William Grenville, the secretary of state for home affairs, who was created
Baron Grenville. The expenses of the armament against Spain amounted to
nearly £3,000,000; the prosperity of the country warranted Pitt's decision
not to allow any interruption in the progress of the reduction of debt; he
obtained £500,000 from the Bank of England without interest, on the
strength of unclaimed dividends, and proposed to obtain the remainder by
taxation. The question was raised whether the dissolution put an end to the
prosecution of Hastings. That an impeachment was not "abated" by a
dissolution had been affirmed by the lords in the case of Lord Danby in
1679, but this decision was reversed in 1685. Precedents were obscure, and
the great lawyers differed. Pitt, who on this question sided with Fox and
Burke, argued on broad constitutional grounds that an act of the crown
should not hinder the commons in the exercise of a right, and it was agreed
by both houses that an impeachment should remain in statu quo from one
parliament to another. The trial was resumed in 1791. After lasting for seven
years it ended in 1795 in the acquittal of the accused on every count. The
decision was generally approved. If in the midst of extraordinary difficulties
Hastings did some things hard to justify, he was at the least a great ruler,
Page 344
firm, self-reliant, patient, and enlightened, who served his country well. He
lived until 1818, honoured in his old age.
The relief granted to English Roman catholics in 1778
was extended in 1791. Though they were still precluded PITT ON THE
SLAVE TRADE.
from sitting in parliament and holding public offices, a
bill introduced by John Mitford, afterwards Lord Redesdale, gave complete
freedom of worship and education, admission to the legal profession, and
exemption from vexatious liabilities to all catholics who took an oath of an
unobjectionable character. Pitt approved of the bill, and Fox supported it,
though he wished that it had gone further, and declared his dislike of all
tests. A bill placing Scottish catholics in virtually the same position as their
co-religionists in England was passed in 1793. The confiscation of Church
property in France strengthened the unwillingness of the commons to
weaken the position of the Church at home. A motion to relieve the Scottish
presbyterians from the obligation of the test act was lost by a large majority,
and a motion for the relief of unitarians, which must be noticed later, also
failed. Since 1789 Wilberforce had been working on a committee for
collecting evidence with respect to the slave trade. In 1791 he made a
motion for its abolition which was supported both by Pitt and Fox, but was
defeated by 163 to 88. He repeated his motion in 1792. The king had at first
favoured the cause, but a shocking massacre of the white population in the
French portion of St. Domingo by the negroes, who were excited by the
preaching of the "rights of man," turned him against it, and he
thenceforward regarded abolition as jacobinical. Thurlow, Hawkesbury, and
Dundas were strongly opposed to it. Pitt could not, therefore, make it a
government measure without almost certainly wrecking his administration.
He supported the motion with a speech of surpassing eloquence. Public
opinion made a direct negative no longer possible; but the West India
merchants and planters and the shipping interest were powerful, and the
anti-abolitionists were strengthened by the king's known dislike to the
cause. The motion was met by arguments for delay, and an amendment
proposed by Dundas for gradual abolition was carried. A resolution was
finally adopted that the trade should cease in 1796. The lords postponed the
question. Year after year Wilberforce, supported by James Stephen, Zachary
Macaulay, and others, carried on the struggle for the abolition of the trade
with noble persistency. The victory was not attained until 1807.
lived until 1818, honoured in his old age.
The relief granted to English Roman catholics in 1778
was extended in 1791. Though they were still precluded PITT ON THE
SLAVE TRADE.
from sitting in parliament and holding public offices, a
bill introduced by John Mitford, afterwards Lord Redesdale, gave complete
freedom of worship and education, admission to the legal profession, and
exemption from vexatious liabilities to all catholics who took an oath of an
unobjectionable character. Pitt approved of the bill, and Fox supported it,
though he wished that it had gone further, and declared his dislike of all
tests. A bill placing Scottish catholics in virtually the same position as their
co-religionists in England was passed in 1793. The confiscation of Church
property in France strengthened the unwillingness of the commons to
weaken the position of the Church at home. A motion to relieve the Scottish
presbyterians from the obligation of the test act was lost by a large majority,
and a motion for the relief of unitarians, which must be noticed later, also
failed. Since 1789 Wilberforce had been working on a committee for
collecting evidence with respect to the slave trade. In 1791 he made a
motion for its abolition which was supported both by Pitt and Fox, but was
defeated by 163 to 88. He repeated his motion in 1792. The king had at first
favoured the cause, but a shocking massacre of the white population in the
French portion of St. Domingo by the negroes, who were excited by the
preaching of the "rights of man," turned him against it, and he
thenceforward regarded abolition as jacobinical. Thurlow, Hawkesbury, and
Dundas were strongly opposed to it. Pitt could not, therefore, make it a
government measure without almost certainly wrecking his administration.
He supported the motion with a speech of surpassing eloquence. Public
opinion made a direct negative no longer possible; but the West India
merchants and planters and the shipping interest were powerful, and the
anti-abolitionists were strengthened by the king's known dislike to the
cause. The motion was met by arguments for delay, and an amendment
proposed by Dundas for gradual abolition was carried. A resolution was
finally adopted that the trade should cease in 1796. The lords postponed the
question. Year after year Wilberforce, supported by James Stephen, Zachary
Macaulay, and others, carried on the struggle for the abolition of the trade
with noble persistency. The victory was not attained until 1807.
Page 345
Another measure on which Pitt and Fox were also in full accord was more
successful. Lord Mansfield's pronouncement in the action against Almon,
the bookseller, in 1770, which reserved the question of the criminality of a
libel for the decision of the court, was, it will be remembered, widely
condemned as an invasion of the rights of jurors. Of late years these rights
had successfully been maintained by the famous advocate Erskine. When,
for example, in 1789, in consequence of a motion by Fox, a publisher,
Stockdale, was prosecuted by the crown for a libel on the promoters of the
trial of Hastings, Erskine contended that the whole pamphlet in question
should be considered by the jury, and procured an acquittal. Fox, who in his
early days had jeered at the rights of jurors, introduced a bill in 1791
declaring their right to give a general verdict in a case of libel. His speech
was one of his finest; he was ably seconded by Erskine; Pitt gave him his
aid, and the bill was passed unanimously by the commons. Thurlow, who
disliked the bill, prevailed on the lords to postpone it until the next session.
When it was again sent up by the commons in 1792, he obtained a delay
until the judges should have been consulted. Their opinion, though
hesitating, was unfavourable to the bill. The aged Camden, however, spoke
strongly in its favour, and it was carried in spite of the chancellor's
opposition. This statute, of which Fox, Erskine, and Pitt share the credit,
placed the liberty of the press in the hands of jurors.
From 1788 Pitt's foreign policy was directed towards the
pacification of Europe and the maintenance of the EUROPEAN
POLITICS.
balance of power by means of the triple alliance between
Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland. Catherine of Russia, who was bent on
the overthrow of the Turkish empire, and on strengthening her hold on
Poland, pressed the Turks until they declared war in 1787. The next year the
emperor Joseph declared war against them. Gustavus III. of Sweden allied
himself with the Turks and invaded Finland. His expedition failed, and
Denmark, the ally of Russia, invaded his kingdom. Sweden was in
imminent danger; its overthrow would have given Russia absolute sway in
the Baltic; the commerce of England and Holland would have been
seriously affected, and the coast of Prussia endangered. The allied powers
interfered, and a threat that Prussia would invade Holstein, and a British
fleet sail for the Sound, compelled Denmark to cease hostilities, and saved
the independence of Sweden. Catherine was deeply offended, and when the
successful. Lord Mansfield's pronouncement in the action against Almon,
the bookseller, in 1770, which reserved the question of the criminality of a
libel for the decision of the court, was, it will be remembered, widely
condemned as an invasion of the rights of jurors. Of late years these rights
had successfully been maintained by the famous advocate Erskine. When,
for example, in 1789, in consequence of a motion by Fox, a publisher,
Stockdale, was prosecuted by the crown for a libel on the promoters of the
trial of Hastings, Erskine contended that the whole pamphlet in question
should be considered by the jury, and procured an acquittal. Fox, who in his
early days had jeered at the rights of jurors, introduced a bill in 1791
declaring their right to give a general verdict in a case of libel. His speech
was one of his finest; he was ably seconded by Erskine; Pitt gave him his
aid, and the bill was passed unanimously by the commons. Thurlow, who
disliked the bill, prevailed on the lords to postpone it until the next session.
When it was again sent up by the commons in 1792, he obtained a delay
until the judges should have been consulted. Their opinion, though
hesitating, was unfavourable to the bill. The aged Camden, however, spoke
strongly in its favour, and it was carried in spite of the chancellor's
opposition. This statute, of which Fox, Erskine, and Pitt share the credit,
placed the liberty of the press in the hands of jurors.
From 1788 Pitt's foreign policy was directed towards the
pacification of Europe and the maintenance of the EUROPEAN
POLITICS.
balance of power by means of the triple alliance between
Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland. Catherine of Russia, who was bent on
the overthrow of the Turkish empire, and on strengthening her hold on
Poland, pressed the Turks until they declared war in 1787. The next year the
emperor Joseph declared war against them. Gustavus III. of Sweden allied
himself with the Turks and invaded Finland. His expedition failed, and
Denmark, the ally of Russia, invaded his kingdom. Sweden was in
imminent danger; its overthrow would have given Russia absolute sway in
the Baltic; the commerce of England and Holland would have been
seriously affected, and the coast of Prussia endangered. The allied powers
interfered, and a threat that Prussia would invade Holstein, and a British
fleet sail for the Sound, compelled Denmark to cease hostilities, and saved
the independence of Sweden. Catherine was deeply offended, and when the
Page 346
allies offered to mediate a peace between her and the Turks, returned a
decided refusal. She pressed on the war with success, and the capture of
Ochakov extended her dominions to the Dniester.
The emperor's war was unsuccessful. He was in great difficulties; for
Hungary was restless and his Netherland provinces in revolt. The allies
might have mediated a peace between him and the Turks on the basis of the
status quo before the war, had it not been for the desire of Frederick
William to use the difficulties of Austria for his own advantage. He
designed to compel Austria to a peace by which she should restore Galicia
to Poland, in order that in return Poland should cede to him Dantzig and
Thorn; and he would have compensated Austria by allowing the emperor to
conquer and retain Moldavia and Walachia. He hoped to accomplish this
through his alliance with England and Holland, and in order further to
weaken Austria proposed that the revolted Netherlands should be united to
Holland as one republic, urging that they might otherwise fall into the hands
of France. Pitt desired to arrange a peace on the status quo basis, and to
extend the triple alliance by the inclusion of other powers; and, highly as he
valued the Prussian alliance, he would not consent that, merely to
aggrandise Prussia, England should lend herself to a policy which would
almost certainly have led to a new war. Accordingly, the Duke of Leeds
warned Frederick William that his plans went beyond the treaty of alliance,
which was purely defensive. The death of the emperor Joseph, on February
20, 1790, changed the situation, for his successor, Leopold II., was a
practical and wary statesman. Frederick William was bent on war against
Russia and Austria, his minister signed a treaty with the Turks, and he
pressed England to acknowledge the independence of the Austrian
Netherlands. The English government took a decided line, made him clearly
understand that in the event of a war he would be isolated, and proposed an
immediate armistice.
Frederick William at last yielded to the representations of England and
Holland. Through the mediation of the allies an armistice between Austria
and the Turks was arranged on the basis of the status quo at a congress at
Reichenbach in July, 1790, and a formal peace was concluded the next year
at Sistova. The English government, anxious to prevent an alliance between
the revolted Netherlands and France, desired the restoration of the Austrian
power in the provinces, under conditions which would shut out French
decided refusal. She pressed on the war with success, and the capture of
Ochakov extended her dominions to the Dniester.
The emperor's war was unsuccessful. He was in great difficulties; for
Hungary was restless and his Netherland provinces in revolt. The allies
might have mediated a peace between him and the Turks on the basis of the
status quo before the war, had it not been for the desire of Frederick
William to use the difficulties of Austria for his own advantage. He
designed to compel Austria to a peace by which she should restore Galicia
to Poland, in order that in return Poland should cede to him Dantzig and
Thorn; and he would have compensated Austria by allowing the emperor to
conquer and retain Moldavia and Walachia. He hoped to accomplish this
through his alliance with England and Holland, and in order further to
weaken Austria proposed that the revolted Netherlands should be united to
Holland as one republic, urging that they might otherwise fall into the hands
of France. Pitt desired to arrange a peace on the status quo basis, and to
extend the triple alliance by the inclusion of other powers; and, highly as he
valued the Prussian alliance, he would not consent that, merely to
aggrandise Prussia, England should lend herself to a policy which would
almost certainly have led to a new war. Accordingly, the Duke of Leeds
warned Frederick William that his plans went beyond the treaty of alliance,
which was purely defensive. The death of the emperor Joseph, on February
20, 1790, changed the situation, for his successor, Leopold II., was a
practical and wary statesman. Frederick William was bent on war against
Russia and Austria, his minister signed a treaty with the Turks, and he
pressed England to acknowledge the independence of the Austrian
Netherlands. The English government took a decided line, made him clearly
understand that in the event of a war he would be isolated, and proposed an
immediate armistice.
Frederick William at last yielded to the representations of England and
Holland. Through the mediation of the allies an armistice between Austria
and the Turks was arranged on the basis of the status quo at a congress at
Reichenbach in July, 1790, and a formal peace was concluded the next year
at Sistova. The English government, anxious to prevent an alliance between
the revolted Netherlands and France, desired the restoration of the Austrian
power in the provinces, under conditions which would shut out French
Page 347
influence by satisfying the people; and accordingly the allies guaranteed the
liberties of the provinces, and they were regained by the emperor. The
ministry agreed with Prussia that support must be given to Sweden, which
was exhausted by its war with Russia; a subsidy was promised and a
squadron lay in the Downs ready to sail for the Baltic. As soon as Catherine
heard of the issue of the conference at Reichenbach, she made a peace with
Gustavus without the mediation of the allies, which was concluded at
Werela in August. So far, then, in spite of serious difficulties arising from
the ambition of the Prussian king, the triple alliance had enabled the
government to carry out its policy with success. Its formation secured the
Dutch from the ascendency of France; it strengthened the position of
England in its quarrel with Spain, saved the independence of Sweden,
mediated peace on the basis of the status quo between Austria and the
Porte, hindered the spread of French influence in the Netherlands, and
indirectly restored peace in the Baltic.
Pitt's policy, however, received one decided check.
Catherine rejected the proposal of England that she THE RUSSIAN
ARMAMENT.
should make peace with the Turks on the basis of the
status quo before the war, and declared that she would keep Ochakov and
the line of the Dniester. Pitt differed from the views held by his father, the
whigs generally, and the coalition, with reference to Russia. They looked on
Russia as the natural ally of England, both for commercial reasons and as a
counterpoise to the Bourbon alliance, and Catherine owed much to
England's good-will in her war with the Turks in 1770 and during her
conquest of Crimea in 1783. Times had changed; and Pitt regarded with
displeasure the establishment of Russia on the Black Sea and the prospect
of the conquest of Constantinople, and held that the Turks were useful as a
check on Russian aggrandisement. The possession of Ochakov was believed
to be of the first importance in the struggle between the two powers.
Frederick William urged that Catherine should be forced to resign it. In
1790 Pitt was opposing his wishes elsewhere; he was unwilling to alienate
him altogether, and agreed to put pressure on Russia. The Turks were
repeatedly defeated, and in December Suvorov (Suwarrow) took Ismail;
12,000 Russians and 28,000 Turks perishing in the storming and sack of the
city, which are described in Byron's splendid verse. In the following March,
in spite of some opposition, Pitt persuaded the cabinet to agree to send a
liberties of the provinces, and they were regained by the emperor. The
ministry agreed with Prussia that support must be given to Sweden, which
was exhausted by its war with Russia; a subsidy was promised and a
squadron lay in the Downs ready to sail for the Baltic. As soon as Catherine
heard of the issue of the conference at Reichenbach, she made a peace with
Gustavus without the mediation of the allies, which was concluded at
Werela in August. So far, then, in spite of serious difficulties arising from
the ambition of the Prussian king, the triple alliance had enabled the
government to carry out its policy with success. Its formation secured the
Dutch from the ascendency of France; it strengthened the position of
England in its quarrel with Spain, saved the independence of Sweden,
mediated peace on the basis of the status quo between Austria and the
Porte, hindered the spread of French influence in the Netherlands, and
indirectly restored peace in the Baltic.
Pitt's policy, however, received one decided check.
Catherine rejected the proposal of England that she THE RUSSIAN
ARMAMENT.
should make peace with the Turks on the basis of the
status quo before the war, and declared that she would keep Ochakov and
the line of the Dniester. Pitt differed from the views held by his father, the
whigs generally, and the coalition, with reference to Russia. They looked on
Russia as the natural ally of England, both for commercial reasons and as a
counterpoise to the Bourbon alliance, and Catherine owed much to
England's good-will in her war with the Turks in 1770 and during her
conquest of Crimea in 1783. Times had changed; and Pitt regarded with
displeasure the establishment of Russia on the Black Sea and the prospect
of the conquest of Constantinople, and held that the Turks were useful as a
check on Russian aggrandisement. The possession of Ochakov was believed
to be of the first importance in the struggle between the two powers.
Frederick William urged that Catherine should be forced to resign it. In
1790 Pitt was opposing his wishes elsewhere; he was unwilling to alienate
him altogether, and agreed to put pressure on Russia. The Turks were
repeatedly defeated, and in December Suvorov (Suwarrow) took Ismail;
12,000 Russians and 28,000 Turks perishing in the storming and sack of the
city, which are described in Byron's splendid verse. In the following March,
in spite of some opposition, Pitt persuaded the cabinet to agree to send a
Page 348
fleet to the Baltic, and a squadron to the Black Sea to assist the Turks, while
Frederick William invaded Livonia, and on the 27th an ultimatum was
despatched to St. Petersburg.[229]
The next day a royal message to parliament announced the augmentation of
the navy. Pitt sought to obtain a pledge that parliament would support the
government in its proposed action. He met with strong opposition. Fox and
others in both houses maintained that our true policy was to be on good
terms with Russia, and that Russia had an undoubted right to retain
Ochakov. "The balance of Europe," it was urged, could not be overset by its
retention; it was a matter which did not concern England; a war with Russia
would be disastrous to English trade and manufactures; if Russia became a
power in the Mediterranean so much the better, as its fleet would be a check
on the fleets of France and Spain. Burke vehemently protested against
England embarking on an "anti-crusade" by assisting "destructive savages,"
as he called the Turks, against a Christian power. Four times, in one form or
another, the question was debated in the commons. The government
majorities were large, though less than normal. In the cabinet Grenville
opposed the armament, and Pitt found that the feeling of the country
generally, and specially of the city of London and the mercantile class, was
strong on the same side. He yielded on April 16; a messenger was sent in
hot haste to St. Petersburg to prevent the presentation of the ultimatum, and
the Prussian king was informed that the fleet would not sail to the Baltic.
Catherine was triumphant; she kept Ochakov and the line of the Dniester,
made terms with the Turks without the intervention of other powers on
August 11, 1791, and concluded a definite peace at Jassy in the following
January. Freed from her wars with Sweden and the Porte, and from the
danger of foreign intervention in both cases, she was again able to pursue
her designs on Poland. She complimented Fox on the part he had played,
and placed his bust in her palace between those of Demosthenes and Cicero.
Pitt, who had lately refused the king's offer of the garter, sarcastically
referred in parliament to the compliments his opponent received from a
foreign sovereign.
Pitt's prestige was for a time seriously injured by this failure and people
talked of a possible change of government. Leeds considered that as foreign
secretary he was specially compromised, and resigned the seals. As it was
more difficult to find a foreign than a home secretary, Pitt recommended
Frederick William invaded Livonia, and on the 27th an ultimatum was
despatched to St. Petersburg.[229]
The next day a royal message to parliament announced the augmentation of
the navy. Pitt sought to obtain a pledge that parliament would support the
government in its proposed action. He met with strong opposition. Fox and
others in both houses maintained that our true policy was to be on good
terms with Russia, and that Russia had an undoubted right to retain
Ochakov. "The balance of Europe," it was urged, could not be overset by its
retention; it was a matter which did not concern England; a war with Russia
would be disastrous to English trade and manufactures; if Russia became a
power in the Mediterranean so much the better, as its fleet would be a check
on the fleets of France and Spain. Burke vehemently protested against
England embarking on an "anti-crusade" by assisting "destructive savages,"
as he called the Turks, against a Christian power. Four times, in one form or
another, the question was debated in the commons. The government
majorities were large, though less than normal. In the cabinet Grenville
opposed the armament, and Pitt found that the feeling of the country
generally, and specially of the city of London and the mercantile class, was
strong on the same side. He yielded on April 16; a messenger was sent in
hot haste to St. Petersburg to prevent the presentation of the ultimatum, and
the Prussian king was informed that the fleet would not sail to the Baltic.
Catherine was triumphant; she kept Ochakov and the line of the Dniester,
made terms with the Turks without the intervention of other powers on
August 11, 1791, and concluded a definite peace at Jassy in the following
January. Freed from her wars with Sweden and the Porte, and from the
danger of foreign intervention in both cases, she was again able to pursue
her designs on Poland. She complimented Fox on the part he had played,
and placed his bust in her palace between those of Demosthenes and Cicero.
Pitt, who had lately refused the king's offer of the garter, sarcastically
referred in parliament to the compliments his opponent received from a
foreign sovereign.
Pitt's prestige was for a time seriously injured by this failure and people
talked of a possible change of government. Leeds considered that as foreign
secretary he was specially compromised, and resigned the seals. As it was
more difficult to find a foreign than a home secretary, Pitt recommended
Page 349
that Grenville should be transferred to the foreign department, that
Cornwallis should take Grenville's place, and that, until Cornwallis returned
from India, Dundas should have the seals, and further suggested that Lord
Hawkesbury (Jenkinson), then president of the board of trade, should be
called to the cabinet. George agreed, but as Cornwallis declined the offer
Dundas remained home secretary. Pitt learnt that Ochakov was not so
important as he at first imagined; indeed the possession of it by the Turks
would not have rendered Constantinople safe from attack nor protected
Poland from further partition. His failure, however, to carry out his scheme
of coercing Russia was a serious matter; it destroyed his hopes of an
extension of the defensive alliance, and the triple alliance itself, on which
his foreign policy had been built, virtually came to an end. Frederick
William was deeply annoyed and, in order to strengthen his position with
regard to Russia, made advances to Austria, which led to an alliance
between the two powers and to their joint invasion of France.
The opinion of the great majority of the nation with regard to the revolution
in France was decided by the publication of Burke's Reflections on the
French Revolution in November, 1790. This famous work was primarily
intended to rebut the assertions of Price and others that the revolution in
France was a more perfect development of the ideas of the English
revolution of 1688, that Englishmen had a right to choose their own
governors, cashier them for misconduct, and frame a government for
themselves. It describes the constitution as an inheritance to be handed
down to posterity uninjured and, if needs be, improved, and exhibits and
condemns the measures of the French assembly as precipitate, unjust, and
doomed to failure. Splendid alike as a literary achievement and as a store-
house of political wisdom, it is also remarkable as a proof of Burke's
prescience, for though he wrote at an early stage of the revolution, before
those savage excesses which have made it a by-word, he foretold its future
course, not indeed without errors, but with wonderful sagacity. Superbly
national in sentiment, the book met the propaganda of French ideas by
appealing to the pride with which Englishmen regarded their own
institutions. Its success was immense. Paine answered it in his Rights of
Man, expressing revolutionary ideas with a crude force which influenced
thousands too ignorant to detect its fallacies; and Mackintosh in his
Vindiciæ Gallicæ expounded in polished sentences the position of the whig
Cornwallis should take Grenville's place, and that, until Cornwallis returned
from India, Dundas should have the seals, and further suggested that Lord
Hawkesbury (Jenkinson), then president of the board of trade, should be
called to the cabinet. George agreed, but as Cornwallis declined the offer
Dundas remained home secretary. Pitt learnt that Ochakov was not so
important as he at first imagined; indeed the possession of it by the Turks
would not have rendered Constantinople safe from attack nor protected
Poland from further partition. His failure, however, to carry out his scheme
of coercing Russia was a serious matter; it destroyed his hopes of an
extension of the defensive alliance, and the triple alliance itself, on which
his foreign policy had been built, virtually came to an end. Frederick
William was deeply annoyed and, in order to strengthen his position with
regard to Russia, made advances to Austria, which led to an alliance
between the two powers and to their joint invasion of France.
The opinion of the great majority of the nation with regard to the revolution
in France was decided by the publication of Burke's Reflections on the
French Revolution in November, 1790. This famous work was primarily
intended to rebut the assertions of Price and others that the revolution in
France was a more perfect development of the ideas of the English
revolution of 1688, that Englishmen had a right to choose their own
governors, cashier them for misconduct, and frame a government for
themselves. It describes the constitution as an inheritance to be handed
down to posterity uninjured and, if needs be, improved, and exhibits and
condemns the measures of the French assembly as precipitate, unjust, and
doomed to failure. Splendid alike as a literary achievement and as a store-
house of political wisdom, it is also remarkable as a proof of Burke's
prescience, for though he wrote at an early stage of the revolution, before
those savage excesses which have made it a by-word, he foretold its future
course, not indeed without errors, but with wonderful sagacity. Superbly
national in sentiment, the book met the propaganda of French ideas by
appealing to the pride with which Englishmen regarded their own
institutions. Its success was immense. Paine answered it in his Rights of
Man, expressing revolutionary ideas with a crude force which influenced
thousands too ignorant to detect its fallacies; and Mackintosh in his
Vindiciæ Gallicæ expounded in polished sentences the position of the whig
Page 350
sympathisers with the revolution. Neither undid the effect of Burke's work.
Of the well-to-do of all classes there was scarcely one man in twenty who
did not become an ardent anti-jacobin.
Stimulated by the success of the Reflections, Fox lost no
opportunity of declaring his admiration of the revolution RUPTURE
BETWEEN BURKE
in parliament, and his followers irritated Burke by AND FOX.
thwarting his attempts to reply. At last the crisis came
during a debate on a bill for the government of Canada. After the settlement
of the United Empire Loyalists in western Canada, the demands of the
British colonists for the repeal of the Quebec act of 1774 became urgent.
Pitt recognised the value of the French population as a conservative force, a
check on revolt, and in order to do justice to both peoples, introduced a bill
dividing the dominion into two provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, each
with its own governor, elective assembly, and legislative council. Burke
supported this measure, which was passed, and is known as the
constitutional act of 1791. Fox objected to the principle of the bill on the
ground that the French and English inhabitants should coalesce, and to two
special provisions in it, one that the sovereign might grant hereditary titles
with a right to sit in the council, the other reserving certain crown lands for
the support of the protestant clergy. He blamed the proposal to revive titles
of honour in Canada when they had been abolished in France, and jeered at
Burke's lament in the Reflections on the extinction of the spirit of chivalry
among the French. A few days later, on May 6, Burke, after much baiting by
Fox's party, spoke strongly of the danger of French propagandism, and
declared that at the risk of the desertion of friends he would exclaim with
his latest breath, "Fly from the French constitution!" "There is no loss of
friends," Fox whispered. "Yes," he said, "there is a loss of friends. I have
done my duty at the price of my friend; our friendship is at an end." When
Fox rose to reply the tears trickled down his cheeks. The rupture was
permanent. Burke stood alone. His former friends treated him as a
renegade, and the whig newspapers showered abuse upon him. His answer
was a powerful vindication of the consistency of his position in his Appeal
from the New to the Old Whigs, which had a decided effect on the opinions
of many of Fox's party.
In June came the French king's flight to Varennes and his enforced return to
Paris. His queen Marie Antoinette appealed to her brother the emperor for
Of the well-to-do of all classes there was scarcely one man in twenty who
did not become an ardent anti-jacobin.
Stimulated by the success of the Reflections, Fox lost no
opportunity of declaring his admiration of the revolution RUPTURE
BETWEEN BURKE
in parliament, and his followers irritated Burke by AND FOX.
thwarting his attempts to reply. At last the crisis came
during a debate on a bill for the government of Canada. After the settlement
of the United Empire Loyalists in western Canada, the demands of the
British colonists for the repeal of the Quebec act of 1774 became urgent.
Pitt recognised the value of the French population as a conservative force, a
check on revolt, and in order to do justice to both peoples, introduced a bill
dividing the dominion into two provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, each
with its own governor, elective assembly, and legislative council. Burke
supported this measure, which was passed, and is known as the
constitutional act of 1791. Fox objected to the principle of the bill on the
ground that the French and English inhabitants should coalesce, and to two
special provisions in it, one that the sovereign might grant hereditary titles
with a right to sit in the council, the other reserving certain crown lands for
the support of the protestant clergy. He blamed the proposal to revive titles
of honour in Canada when they had been abolished in France, and jeered at
Burke's lament in the Reflections on the extinction of the spirit of chivalry
among the French. A few days later, on May 6, Burke, after much baiting by
Fox's party, spoke strongly of the danger of French propagandism, and
declared that at the risk of the desertion of friends he would exclaim with
his latest breath, "Fly from the French constitution!" "There is no loss of
friends," Fox whispered. "Yes," he said, "there is a loss of friends. I have
done my duty at the price of my friend; our friendship is at an end." When
Fox rose to reply the tears trickled down his cheeks. The rupture was
permanent. Burke stood alone. His former friends treated him as a
renegade, and the whig newspapers showered abuse upon him. His answer
was a powerful vindication of the consistency of his position in his Appeal
from the New to the Old Whigs, which had a decided effect on the opinions
of many of Fox's party.
In June came the French king's flight to Varennes and his enforced return to
Paris. His queen Marie Antoinette appealed to her brother the emperor for
Page 351
help. Leopold would do nothing save in concert with the other great
powers, and learnt that England would take no part in a congress.[230] Pitt,
always more interested in domestic reforms than in foreign politics, had no
intention of interfering in the internal affairs of France. War would hinder
the commercial progress of the country; he wanted fifteen years of peace to
secure the full benefits of his economic reforms: his policy was one of strict
neutrality. He shared in the general belief, so soon proved to be mistaken,
that the revolution would prevent France from engaging in war and would
ensure years of peace to England; the funds were high and commerce was
flourishing. Leopold could only look to Prussia for co-operation. The
attitude of England decided that of Spain. Gustavus of Sweden was, indeed,
eager for a war of a crusading kind to re-establish the old régime, but this
idea was contrary to the policy of both Austria and Prussia, and Gustavus
allied himself with the French emigrant princes who commanded an army at
Coblentz; themselves selfish and intriguing, their army undisciplined and
ill-provided; Leopold rated them at their proper value and was on his guard
against them. Frederick William, untrustworthy as he was, seems to have
been sincerely anxious to help the French king. Leopold hoped to avoid
war; he distrusted Prussia, and the designs of Catherine on Poland caused
both sovereigns to hesitate. In August, however, the diet demanded that
Leopold should support certain princes of the German empire against
France. He held a conference with Frederick William at Pilnitz, and on the
27th the two monarchs signed a declaration that they would employ force
on behalf of the French king, provided that the powers to which they
applied would join them. Leopold knew that England would refuse, and the
declaration was nugatory. It enraged the French, and was used by the
émigrés as though it promised the fulfilment of their hopes for an invasion
of France by a foreign confederation. Calonne, who acted as their minister,
applied to Pitt for an assurance of neutrality and for a loan. Pitt refused his
requests and would not recognise him as having any formal authority. On
September 13 Louis was forced to accept the new French constitution, and
Leopold declared that his acceptance put an end to all need for intervention.
powers, and learnt that England would take no part in a congress.[230] Pitt,
always more interested in domestic reforms than in foreign politics, had no
intention of interfering in the internal affairs of France. War would hinder
the commercial progress of the country; he wanted fifteen years of peace to
secure the full benefits of his economic reforms: his policy was one of strict
neutrality. He shared in the general belief, so soon proved to be mistaken,
that the revolution would prevent France from engaging in war and would
ensure years of peace to England; the funds were high and commerce was
flourishing. Leopold could only look to Prussia for co-operation. The
attitude of England decided that of Spain. Gustavus of Sweden was, indeed,
eager for a war of a crusading kind to re-establish the old régime, but this
idea was contrary to the policy of both Austria and Prussia, and Gustavus
allied himself with the French emigrant princes who commanded an army at
Coblentz; themselves selfish and intriguing, their army undisciplined and
ill-provided; Leopold rated them at their proper value and was on his guard
against them. Frederick William, untrustworthy as he was, seems to have
been sincerely anxious to help the French king. Leopold hoped to avoid
war; he distrusted Prussia, and the designs of Catherine on Poland caused
both sovereigns to hesitate. In August, however, the diet demanded that
Leopold should support certain princes of the German empire against
France. He held a conference with Frederick William at Pilnitz, and on the
27th the two monarchs signed a declaration that they would employ force
on behalf of the French king, provided that the powers to which they
applied would join them. Leopold knew that England would refuse, and the
declaration was nugatory. It enraged the French, and was used by the
émigrés as though it promised the fulfilment of their hopes for an invasion
of France by a foreign confederation. Calonne, who acted as their minister,
applied to Pitt for an assurance of neutrality and for a loan. Pitt refused his
requests and would not recognise him as having any formal authority. On
September 13 Louis was forced to accept the new French constitution, and
Leopold declared that his acceptance put an end to all need for intervention.
Page 352
The French were not content to leave other peoples
alone. To the more ardent revolutionists the revolution REVOLUTIONARY
was not a mere political event in the history of their PROPAGANDA.
country; it was a religion which it was the mission of France to propagate.
No part of France was to remain outside it; the feudal rights of princes of
the empire in Alsace and Lorraine were abolished, and Avignon and the
Venaissin were declared French territory. No people wishing to share in its
benefits was to be left unenlightened, and French democrats were already
intriguing with the factions in the Netherlands which were opposed to the
Austrian rule. In England the propaganda had as yet made little way, though
the democrats were noisy. At Birmingham, where Priestley had his chapel,
they arranged to hold a dinner on July 14 to celebrate the fall of the Bastille,
and a seditious address was circulated. In the evening of that day a violent
riot broke out. The mob, with shouts of "Church and king," wrecked two
dissenting chapels and seven houses belonging to prominent democrats, one
of them Priestley's house, where they destroyed his library, philosophical
apparatus, and papers. The riot lasted for two days and was finally quelled
by dragoons. Three of the rioters were hanged, and over £26,000 was paid
by the neighbouring hundreds as compensation to the sufferers.
Though both as a king and as a German prince George was indignant at the
proceedings of the French revolutionists, he fully acquiesced in Pitt's
determined neutrality. How little at the beginning of the session of 1792 Pitt
expected to be driven from his position is shown by the line which he
adopted in parliament. The king's speech declared that the state of Europe
seemed to promise that the country would continue to enjoy tranquillity.
The naval force was reduced to 16,000 men, and the proposed reductions in
the two services amounted to £200,000. For the last four years there had
been an average yearly surplus of £400,000, and Pitt proposed to add
£200,000 a year to the sinking fund and to remit taxes to the same amount.
He also instituted an additional system for the reduction of debt by
providing that every new loan should carry a sinking fund of its own. When
this scheme was before the lords, Thurlow poured ridicule upon it, and
spoke of its author with contempt. The king wrote to Pitt, hoping that his
old friend would own himself in the wrong, and that Pitt would overlook
the offence. Pitt, who had borne long enough with Thurlow's sullen temper
and constant opposition, told the king plainly that he must choose between
alone. To the more ardent revolutionists the revolution REVOLUTIONARY
was not a mere political event in the history of their PROPAGANDA.
country; it was a religion which it was the mission of France to propagate.
No part of France was to remain outside it; the feudal rights of princes of
the empire in Alsace and Lorraine were abolished, and Avignon and the
Venaissin were declared French territory. No people wishing to share in its
benefits was to be left unenlightened, and French democrats were already
intriguing with the factions in the Netherlands which were opposed to the
Austrian rule. In England the propaganda had as yet made little way, though
the democrats were noisy. At Birmingham, where Priestley had his chapel,
they arranged to hold a dinner on July 14 to celebrate the fall of the Bastille,
and a seditious address was circulated. In the evening of that day a violent
riot broke out. The mob, with shouts of "Church and king," wrecked two
dissenting chapels and seven houses belonging to prominent democrats, one
of them Priestley's house, where they destroyed his library, philosophical
apparatus, and papers. The riot lasted for two days and was finally quelled
by dragoons. Three of the rioters were hanged, and over £26,000 was paid
by the neighbouring hundreds as compensation to the sufferers.
Though both as a king and as a German prince George was indignant at the
proceedings of the French revolutionists, he fully acquiesced in Pitt's
determined neutrality. How little at the beginning of the session of 1792 Pitt
expected to be driven from his position is shown by the line which he
adopted in parliament. The king's speech declared that the state of Europe
seemed to promise that the country would continue to enjoy tranquillity.
The naval force was reduced to 16,000 men, and the proposed reductions in
the two services amounted to £200,000. For the last four years there had
been an average yearly surplus of £400,000, and Pitt proposed to add
£200,000 a year to the sinking fund and to remit taxes to the same amount.
He also instituted an additional system for the reduction of debt by
providing that every new loan should carry a sinking fund of its own. When
this scheme was before the lords, Thurlow poured ridicule upon it, and
spoke of its author with contempt. The king wrote to Pitt, hoping that his
old friend would own himself in the wrong, and that Pitt would overlook
the offence. Pitt, who had borne long enough with Thurlow's sullen temper
and constant opposition, told the king plainly that he must choose between
Page 353
him and the chancellor. George did not hesitate, and Thurlow, much to his
surprise, received an order to give up the great seal. He retired at the end of
the session, on June 15, and the great seal was put in commission. Pitt's
ascendency in the cabinet was placed beyond dispute. The dismissal of
Thurlow marks a step in the progress of the development of the cabinet
system. It was no longer possible, as in the earlier years of the reign, for a
minister to remain in office, through the king's favour, against the will of
the prime minister. When a prime minister is dissatisfied with one of his
colleagues he can insist on his resignation, for if he requests his dismissal,
his request cannot be rejected unless the sovereign is prepared to take new
advisers.
The loss of the chancellor was erroneously believed to
have weakened the government. Some of the whig party, A WHIG SCHEME
of which the Duke of Portland was the recognised head, OF COALITION.
busied themselves in devising a coalition government. Apart from the
sweets of office, the condition of their party rendered the idea specially
attractive to them. Burke's appeal to the whigs to maintain their old
principles, which he urged in person at a meeting of the heads of the party
on June 9, 1792, convinced them that unless Fox moderated "his tone and
temper," it might become impossible for them to continue to work with him.
A junction with the government might save them from disruption. It was
proposed that Pitt should resign the treasury, that he and Fox should be joint
secretaries of state and that the treasury should be held by the Duke of
Leeds, as a neutral, who would be little more than a figure-head. This
precious scheme, chiefly, at least, set on foot by Loughborough in the hope
of gaining the chancellorship, was debated among them for weeks.
Loughborough, who was not a man to be trusted, led them to believe that
some of Pitt's confidential friends were in favour of it, and had assured him
that Pitt would readily agree to it. Fox approved of the idea of coalition if
he was to have an equal share with Pitt of power and patronage. Leeds
mentioned the idea of a coalition to the king, who received it coldly, for
George hated Fox; he did not intend to alter his government to suit the whig
leaders, and he knew that they were mistaken as regards Pitt's attitude. At
last Leeds spoke of the scheme to Pitt who drily told him that circumstances
did not call for any alteration in the government and that no new
arrangement had ever been in contemplation.[231] If the Portland whigs were
surprise, received an order to give up the great seal. He retired at the end of
the session, on June 15, and the great seal was put in commission. Pitt's
ascendency in the cabinet was placed beyond dispute. The dismissal of
Thurlow marks a step in the progress of the development of the cabinet
system. It was no longer possible, as in the earlier years of the reign, for a
minister to remain in office, through the king's favour, against the will of
the prime minister. When a prime minister is dissatisfied with one of his
colleagues he can insist on his resignation, for if he requests his dismissal,
his request cannot be rejected unless the sovereign is prepared to take new
advisers.
The loss of the chancellor was erroneously believed to
have weakened the government. Some of the whig party, A WHIG SCHEME
of which the Duke of Portland was the recognised head, OF COALITION.
busied themselves in devising a coalition government. Apart from the
sweets of office, the condition of their party rendered the idea specially
attractive to them. Burke's appeal to the whigs to maintain their old
principles, which he urged in person at a meeting of the heads of the party
on June 9, 1792, convinced them that unless Fox moderated "his tone and
temper," it might become impossible for them to continue to work with him.
A junction with the government might save them from disruption. It was
proposed that Pitt should resign the treasury, that he and Fox should be joint
secretaries of state and that the treasury should be held by the Duke of
Leeds, as a neutral, who would be little more than a figure-head. This
precious scheme, chiefly, at least, set on foot by Loughborough in the hope
of gaining the chancellorship, was debated among them for weeks.
Loughborough, who was not a man to be trusted, led them to believe that
some of Pitt's confidential friends were in favour of it, and had assured him
that Pitt would readily agree to it. Fox approved of the idea of coalition if
he was to have an equal share with Pitt of power and patronage. Leeds
mentioned the idea of a coalition to the king, who received it coldly, for
George hated Fox; he did not intend to alter his government to suit the whig
leaders, and he knew that they were mistaken as regards Pitt's attitude. At
last Leeds spoke of the scheme to Pitt who drily told him that circumstances
did not call for any alteration in the government and that no new
arrangement had ever been in contemplation.[231] If the Portland whigs were
Page 354
to separate themselves from Fox and his friends and were to support the
government, they would have to support the government of Pitt, and that
after a while, as we shall see, they resolved to do.
Early in 1792 war between France and Austria and Prussia seemed at hand.
The French ministers hoped to obtain an alliance with England, or at the
least an assurance of neutrality in case of an invasion of the Netherlands,
and to arrange a loan. They were prepared to offer Tobago and even
Mauritius to boot. Talleyrand, the ex-Bishop of Autun, came over in an
unofficial capacity to see how matters stood and to intrigue with the
opposition. At court the king treated him coldly and the queen turned her
back on him. He had interviews with Pitt and Grenville, and got nothing out
of them; he received much attention from the opposition and returned to
France in March. Meanwhile, on February 7, Leopold, unable to disregard
the call of the diet and uneasy about the Netherlands, agreed with Frederick
William to restore order in France, both allies intending to be indemnified.
Yet war did not come at once, and on March 1 Leopold died. His son and
successor, Francis II., was less distrustful of Prussia, and was eager for war.
Under the influence of a party, somewhat later known as the Girondists, the
French assembly was brought to desire war with Austria. On the accession
of this party to power Dumouriez became minister of foreign affairs. He
designed to detach Prussia from the Austrian alliance, isolate Austria,
invade the Austrian Netherlands, where the people seemed ready for revolt,
and establish them as an independent republic, and prosecute further plans
for the extension of France to its "natural barriers". Gustavus was
assassinated, and Sweden adopted a neutral policy; Russia, though violently
hostile, was engaged in Poland, England decided the policy of Spain and
would be followed by Holland. Would England oppose an invasion of the
Netherlands on the understanding that France would not conquer them for
herself; could the government be persuaded to an alliance by offers of
Tobago, a mutual guarantee of possessions, and a treaty of commerce; and
could a loan be arranged? Negotiation on these points was entrusted to
Talleyrand who was to accompany Chauvelin, the accredited ambassador, to
England.[232] On April 20 France declared war on the "King of Hungary and
Bohemia," as Francis was entitled before his election.
While England's official relations with France remained friendly, dislike of
the revolution was growing stronger, and the more moderate whigs were
government, they would have to support the government of Pitt, and that
after a while, as we shall see, they resolved to do.
Early in 1792 war between France and Austria and Prussia seemed at hand.
The French ministers hoped to obtain an alliance with England, or at the
least an assurance of neutrality in case of an invasion of the Netherlands,
and to arrange a loan. They were prepared to offer Tobago and even
Mauritius to boot. Talleyrand, the ex-Bishop of Autun, came over in an
unofficial capacity to see how matters stood and to intrigue with the
opposition. At court the king treated him coldly and the queen turned her
back on him. He had interviews with Pitt and Grenville, and got nothing out
of them; he received much attention from the opposition and returned to
France in March. Meanwhile, on February 7, Leopold, unable to disregard
the call of the diet and uneasy about the Netherlands, agreed with Frederick
William to restore order in France, both allies intending to be indemnified.
Yet war did not come at once, and on March 1 Leopold died. His son and
successor, Francis II., was less distrustful of Prussia, and was eager for war.
Under the influence of a party, somewhat later known as the Girondists, the
French assembly was brought to desire war with Austria. On the accession
of this party to power Dumouriez became minister of foreign affairs. He
designed to detach Prussia from the Austrian alliance, isolate Austria,
invade the Austrian Netherlands, where the people seemed ready for revolt,
and establish them as an independent republic, and prosecute further plans
for the extension of France to its "natural barriers". Gustavus was
assassinated, and Sweden adopted a neutral policy; Russia, though violently
hostile, was engaged in Poland, England decided the policy of Spain and
would be followed by Holland. Would England oppose an invasion of the
Netherlands on the understanding that France would not conquer them for
herself; could the government be persuaded to an alliance by offers of
Tobago, a mutual guarantee of possessions, and a treaty of commerce; and
could a loan be arranged? Negotiation on these points was entrusted to
Talleyrand who was to accompany Chauvelin, the accredited ambassador, to
England.[232] On April 20 France declared war on the "King of Hungary and
Bohemia," as Francis was entitled before his election.
While England's official relations with France remained friendly, dislike of
the revolution was growing stronger, and the more moderate whigs were
Page 355
changing their opinions with regard to it. This change
was largely due to the active propagation of SEDITIOUS
PUBLICATIONS.
revolutionary ideas among the lower classes, which was
carried on by various societies. The Friends of the People, a respectable
association of the more extreme whigs, excluding Fox, who would not join
it, was formed in the spring of 1792 to promote parliamentary reform; some
of its proceedings were discreditable, but it kept clear of connexion with the
French revolutionists. Not so the Revolution Society, the Society for
Constitutional Information, and the London Correspondence Society, which
were in correspondence with the jacobins of Paris. The last, the most
formidable of them, was directed by a secret council, and had branches in
various large towns, the Sheffield branch alone numbering 2,400 members.
Meetings were held in which the most violent revolutionary sentiments
were loudly applauded, and seditious handbills and pamphlets, chief among
them the second part of Paine's Rights of Man, were distributed by tens of
thousands. Though the number of persons who adopted revolutionary ideas
was as yet comparatively small, the propaganda was carried on noisily, and
was certainly gaining ground. The government saw that it was time to
interfere, and, on May 21, issued a royal proclamation against seditious
writings. The address to the crown in answer to the proclamation was
opposed in the commons by Grey. Fox supported him, and declared that the
proclamation was merely a move taken by the government to divide the
"whig interest," which, he said, nothing could divide. Nevertheless
Windham and others of Fox's party supported the government, and the
address was carried without a division. Proceedings were taken against
Paine by the attorney-general; he fled to France and became a member of
the convention. For a time the propaganda was checked.
The feeling which it excited strengthened the government. Acting in
connexion with the Society of the Friends of the People, Grey gave notice
of a motion for a reform of parliament. Pitt said that it was "not a time to
make hazardous experiments"; and though Fox, Erskine, and Sheridan
spoke on the other side, he was supported by the larger number of the party.
Pitt was delighted at this split, and hoped to obtain a pledge of co-operation
against the propaganda from "the most respectable members of opposition".
[233]
Matters were not ripe for this. An attempt of Fox to procure the relief
of the unitarians from penal laws was defeated by a large majority, owing to
was largely due to the active propagation of SEDITIOUS
PUBLICATIONS.
revolutionary ideas among the lower classes, which was
carried on by various societies. The Friends of the People, a respectable
association of the more extreme whigs, excluding Fox, who would not join
it, was formed in the spring of 1792 to promote parliamentary reform; some
of its proceedings were discreditable, but it kept clear of connexion with the
French revolutionists. Not so the Revolution Society, the Society for
Constitutional Information, and the London Correspondence Society, which
were in correspondence with the jacobins of Paris. The last, the most
formidable of them, was directed by a secret council, and had branches in
various large towns, the Sheffield branch alone numbering 2,400 members.
Meetings were held in which the most violent revolutionary sentiments
were loudly applauded, and seditious handbills and pamphlets, chief among
them the second part of Paine's Rights of Man, were distributed by tens of
thousands. Though the number of persons who adopted revolutionary ideas
was as yet comparatively small, the propaganda was carried on noisily, and
was certainly gaining ground. The government saw that it was time to
interfere, and, on May 21, issued a royal proclamation against seditious
writings. The address to the crown in answer to the proclamation was
opposed in the commons by Grey. Fox supported him, and declared that the
proclamation was merely a move taken by the government to divide the
"whig interest," which, he said, nothing could divide. Nevertheless
Windham and others of Fox's party supported the government, and the
address was carried without a division. Proceedings were taken against
Paine by the attorney-general; he fled to France and became a member of
the convention. For a time the propaganda was checked.
The feeling which it excited strengthened the government. Acting in
connexion with the Society of the Friends of the People, Grey gave notice
of a motion for a reform of parliament. Pitt said that it was "not a time to
make hazardous experiments"; and though Fox, Erskine, and Sheridan
spoke on the other side, he was supported by the larger number of the party.
Pitt was delighted at this split, and hoped to obtain a pledge of co-operation
against the propaganda from "the most respectable members of opposition".
[233]
Matters were not ripe for this. An attempt of Fox to procure the relief
of the unitarians from penal laws was defeated by a large majority, owing to
Page 356
the active part which they were taking in spreading principles subversive,
so Pitt said, "of every established religion and every established
government". Chauvelin and Talleyrand found themselves avoided by
society generally. They held constant communication with Fox, Sheridan,
Lord Lansdowne, and other enemies of the government; and Chauvelin had
the impertinence to send a remonstrance to Grenville against the
proclamation of May 21, for which he was duly rebuked. All that they could
obtain from Grenville was an assurance that England desired to remain at
peace with France, and hoped that France would respect the rights of the
king and his allies; if, in other words, the French wished England to remain
neutral, they must keep their hands off Holland. No better success attended
the effort to detach Prussia from the Austrian alliance, and the Prussian king
declared himself at war with France.
An attempt of the French to snatch the Austrian Netherlands ended
miserably; their soldiers fled before the emperor's army of occupation on
April 29, mutinied, and murdered one of their generals. The allied armies
under the Duke of Brunswick were gathering, and Paris was in a ferment.
Neither of the two national assemblies, not the first, called the constituent,
nor its successor, the legislative assembly, could govern. The Paris mob,
bestial and sanguinary, was supreme, and was moved from time to time to
violent action by individuals or groups which played upon and pandered to
its passions. On June 20 a carefully engineered insurrection exposed the
king and queen to cruel insults and imminent danger. The long agony of the
monarchy was drawing to a close. After protracted delays the allies began to
move, and, on July 25, Brunswick published an ill-judged manifesto which
excited the French to fury. The British ambassador, Lord Gower, wrote that
the lives of the king and queen were threatened, and asked if he might
represent the sentiments of his court. Determined not to give any cause of
offence, the government refused to allow him to speak officially. On August
10 another prearranged insurrection was raised in Paris; the king and queen
sought refuge with the assembly, and the king's Swiss guards and officers
were massacred. He and the queen were imprisoned, and royalty was
"suspended". Gower was at once recalled. This was not a hostile act; the
king to whom he was accredited no longer reigned, and to have accredited
him to the provisional government, which had deposed the king, would
have been indecent and a just cause of offence to the allied powers. Before
so Pitt said, "of every established religion and every established
government". Chauvelin and Talleyrand found themselves avoided by
society generally. They held constant communication with Fox, Sheridan,
Lord Lansdowne, and other enemies of the government; and Chauvelin had
the impertinence to send a remonstrance to Grenville against the
proclamation of May 21, for which he was duly rebuked. All that they could
obtain from Grenville was an assurance that England desired to remain at
peace with France, and hoped that France would respect the rights of the
king and his allies; if, in other words, the French wished England to remain
neutral, they must keep their hands off Holland. No better success attended
the effort to detach Prussia from the Austrian alliance, and the Prussian king
declared himself at war with France.
An attempt of the French to snatch the Austrian Netherlands ended
miserably; their soldiers fled before the emperor's army of occupation on
April 29, mutinied, and murdered one of their generals. The allied armies
under the Duke of Brunswick were gathering, and Paris was in a ferment.
Neither of the two national assemblies, not the first, called the constituent,
nor its successor, the legislative assembly, could govern. The Paris mob,
bestial and sanguinary, was supreme, and was moved from time to time to
violent action by individuals or groups which played upon and pandered to
its passions. On June 20 a carefully engineered insurrection exposed the
king and queen to cruel insults and imminent danger. The long agony of the
monarchy was drawing to a close. After protracted delays the allies began to
move, and, on July 25, Brunswick published an ill-judged manifesto which
excited the French to fury. The British ambassador, Lord Gower, wrote that
the lives of the king and queen were threatened, and asked if he might
represent the sentiments of his court. Determined not to give any cause of
offence, the government refused to allow him to speak officially. On August
10 another prearranged insurrection was raised in Paris; the king and queen
sought refuge with the assembly, and the king's Swiss guards and officers
were massacred. He and the queen were imprisoned, and royalty was
"suspended". Gower was at once recalled. This was not a hostile act; the
king to whom he was accredited no longer reigned, and to have accredited
him to the provisional government, which had deposed the king, would
have been indecent and a just cause of offence to the allied powers. Before
Page 357
leaving he was instructed to express his master's determination to remain
neutral, and his earnest hope that the king and queen would be safe from
any violence, "which could not fail to produce one universal sentiment of
indignation throughout every country of Europe". Talleyrand left England;
Chauvelin remained, though the king's deposition deprived him of his
character as ambassador.
The allied armies entered France; Longwy surrendered
on the 26th and Verdun on the 31st. A few days later FRENCH
England was horrified by the news of the massacres of CONQUESTS.
September; the indignation was general, and Fox spoke of the massacres
with genuine disgust. The success of the allies was short-lived; Dumouriez
defeated the Prussians at Valmy on September 20, and before the end of
October the invaders were forced to evacuate France. A French army seized
Savoy and Nice, which were annexed to France, and another overran the
principalities on the left bank of the Rhine, receiving the surrenders of
Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, crossed the river and took Frankfort.
Meanwhile Dumouriez entered the Austrian Netherlands; he defeated the
Austrians at Jemappes, and the Netherlands were lost to the emperor.
Everywhere the French posed as liberators and set up republican
institutions. While France was allured by the Girondist idea of universal
emancipation, it carried on the traditions of the old monarchy in its
aggressions; it was so in the Rhineland and the Netherlands, and it was so
with regard to the Dutch republic. French republicanism was industriously
propagated in the provinces, and the "patriot" party, which was defeated in
1787, was again encouraged to revolt. Determined not to be drawn into war,
the British government, in July, warned the states-general not to be
persuaded to join the allies, and the Dutch remained neutral. In November, a
victorious French army was on their border, and a strong party among them
was ready to co-operate with it by overthrowing the stadholder as soon as it
entered their territory. England was bound alike by honour and her own
interest to defend the stadholder, and the French knew that, if they desired
that England should remain neutral, they must not molest Holland. On the
13th the states-general applied to England for an assurance of help if need
arose. It was, Pitt felt, "absolutely impossible to hesitate," and Grenville
assured the states-general that England would faithfully fulfil the
stipulations of the treaty of 1788.
neutral, and his earnest hope that the king and queen would be safe from
any violence, "which could not fail to produce one universal sentiment of
indignation throughout every country of Europe". Talleyrand left England;
Chauvelin remained, though the king's deposition deprived him of his
character as ambassador.
The allied armies entered France; Longwy surrendered
on the 26th and Verdun on the 31st. A few days later FRENCH
England was horrified by the news of the massacres of CONQUESTS.
September; the indignation was general, and Fox spoke of the massacres
with genuine disgust. The success of the allies was short-lived; Dumouriez
defeated the Prussians at Valmy on September 20, and before the end of
October the invaders were forced to evacuate France. A French army seized
Savoy and Nice, which were annexed to France, and another overran the
principalities on the left bank of the Rhine, receiving the surrenders of
Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, crossed the river and took Frankfort.
Meanwhile Dumouriez entered the Austrian Netherlands; he defeated the
Austrians at Jemappes, and the Netherlands were lost to the emperor.
Everywhere the French posed as liberators and set up republican
institutions. While France was allured by the Girondist idea of universal
emancipation, it carried on the traditions of the old monarchy in its
aggressions; it was so in the Rhineland and the Netherlands, and it was so
with regard to the Dutch republic. French republicanism was industriously
propagated in the provinces, and the "patriot" party, which was defeated in
1787, was again encouraged to revolt. Determined not to be drawn into war,
the British government, in July, warned the states-general not to be
persuaded to join the allies, and the Dutch remained neutral. In November, a
victorious French army was on their border, and a strong party among them
was ready to co-operate with it by overthrowing the stadholder as soon as it
entered their territory. England was bound alike by honour and her own
interest to defend the stadholder, and the French knew that, if they desired
that England should remain neutral, they must not molest Holland. On the
13th the states-general applied to England for an assurance of help if need
arose. It was, Pitt felt, "absolutely impossible to hesitate," and Grenville
assured the states-general that England would faithfully fulfil the
stipulations of the treaty of 1788.
Page 358
Holland was in imminent danger, and in the hope that
some combined action might lead to a general FRENCH
pacification, the English government sought to open PROVOCATIONS.
confidential communications with Austria and Prussia. The replies of the
two powers were delayed; they were arranging for their respective
indemnifications; for their plans were upset by the failure of their invasion
of France. Catherine had invaded Poland in the spring, and Frederick
William, who had more than once guaranteed the integrity of the kingdom,
betrayed the Poles, and agreed with the empress to make a second partition
of Poland between themselves. That was to be his indemnity; the emperor
was to be gratified by being allowed to exchange the Netherlands for
Bavaria. Great Britain protested, but in vain. The second partition of Poland
was carried out in 1793. Scarcely had Grenville assured the Dutch that
England would stand by them, when, on the 16th, the French executive
declared the Scheldt open, and soon afterwards sent ships of war by it to
Antwerp. This decree violated the rights of the Dutch, which had been
confirmed by the treaty of Fontainebleau in 1785, and which England was
bound to defend by the treaty of 1788. It showed that France assumed the
right of subverting the political system of Europe by setting treaties at
nought, and it was a direct defiance of England.
Nor was this the only provocation which England received. The downfall of
the French monarchy excited the revolutionary societies to fresh activity,
and the propaganda was carried on with amazing insolence. Deputations
from these societies appeared before the national convention with
congratulatory addresses and were received with effusion. The
constitutional society, for example, hoped that Frenchmen would soon have
to congratulate an English national convention, and the president in reply
expressed his belief that France would soon hail England as a sister-
republic. Emissaries from the French ministry promoted sedition both in
England and in Ireland, and their reports led their employers to believe that
England, Scotland, and Ireland were ripe for revolt.[234] It was an absurd
mistake. Yet though the number of revolutionists was still comparatively
small, the propaganda caused much uneasiness. Thousands of French
refugees were landing in England, mostly priests and members of the
aristocracy, many of them completely destitute. Subscriptions were raised
for their relief, and Burke and others exerted themselves nobly in their
some combined action might lead to a general FRENCH
pacification, the English government sought to open PROVOCATIONS.
confidential communications with Austria and Prussia. The replies of the
two powers were delayed; they were arranging for their respective
indemnifications; for their plans were upset by the failure of their invasion
of France. Catherine had invaded Poland in the spring, and Frederick
William, who had more than once guaranteed the integrity of the kingdom,
betrayed the Poles, and agreed with the empress to make a second partition
of Poland between themselves. That was to be his indemnity; the emperor
was to be gratified by being allowed to exchange the Netherlands for
Bavaria. Great Britain protested, but in vain. The second partition of Poland
was carried out in 1793. Scarcely had Grenville assured the Dutch that
England would stand by them, when, on the 16th, the French executive
declared the Scheldt open, and soon afterwards sent ships of war by it to
Antwerp. This decree violated the rights of the Dutch, which had been
confirmed by the treaty of Fontainebleau in 1785, and which England was
bound to defend by the treaty of 1788. It showed that France assumed the
right of subverting the political system of Europe by setting treaties at
nought, and it was a direct defiance of England.
Nor was this the only provocation which England received. The downfall of
the French monarchy excited the revolutionary societies to fresh activity,
and the propaganda was carried on with amazing insolence. Deputations
from these societies appeared before the national convention with
congratulatory addresses and were received with effusion. The
constitutional society, for example, hoped that Frenchmen would soon have
to congratulate an English national convention, and the president in reply
expressed his belief that France would soon hail England as a sister-
republic. Emissaries from the French ministry promoted sedition both in
England and in Ireland, and their reports led their employers to believe that
England, Scotland, and Ireland were ripe for revolt.[234] It was an absurd
mistake. Yet though the number of revolutionists was still comparatively
small, the propaganda caused much uneasiness. Thousands of French
refugees were landing in England, mostly priests and members of the
aristocracy, many of them completely destitute. Subscriptions were raised
for their relief, and Burke and others exerted themselves nobly in their
Page 359
behalf. This large immigration made it easy for French spies and
revolutionary agents to carry on their work undetected. Its progress was
helped forward by discontent among the lower class. The harvest was bad
and the price of wheat rose, trade was depressed, and there was much
distress, specially in the manufacturing districts. Riots broke out at Carlisle,
Leeds, Yarmouth, Shields, Leith, Perth, and Dundee, and in some cases
were connected with revolutionary sentiments. At Dundee cries were raised
of "No excise, no king," and a tree of liberty was planted. On November 19
the convention openly asserted its right to overthrow the government of
other countries by decreeing that France would help, and would instruct her
generals to help, all peoples that desired freedom; and an order was given
that translations of this decree should be distributed in all countries. The
decree was an invitation to the subjects of every state in Europe to revolt,
and the propaganda which it authorised was a gross insult to the British
government and nation.
The danger of Holland and the activity of revolutionists at home convinced
the ministry that it was time to take measures of defence. On December 1 a
part of the militia was embodied, and parliament was summoned for the
13th; the Tower was fortified, naval preparations were set on foot, a
squadron was ordered to the mouth of the Scheldt, and an order of council
prohibited the exportation of grain to France. Grenville informed the Dutch
that England was arming, and called on them to arm also. Pitt still hoped for
peace, and suggested to a French envoy that his government should give
him assurances through an authorised agent with respect to the safety of
Holland and the decree of November 19. The executive council would only
treat through Chauvelin, who was offensive.[235] On the 27th he demanded
whether England was to be reckoned neutral or an enemy of France; he
protested that the decree did not apply to England, and that no attack would
be made on Holland, but said that France would not give way as to the
Scheldt, and threatened that if the ministers decided on war, they would find
the nation against them. Already a decree of the convention passed on the
15th had ordained that all states occupied by French armies should virtually
be subject to France, and should contribute to the support of the French
troops. The war of "liberation" had become a war of conquest.[236]
Grenville replied to Chauvelin on the 31st to the effect that the protestations
of the executive council were belied by its conduct, that England could not
revolutionary agents to carry on their work undetected. Its progress was
helped forward by discontent among the lower class. The harvest was bad
and the price of wheat rose, trade was depressed, and there was much
distress, specially in the manufacturing districts. Riots broke out at Carlisle,
Leeds, Yarmouth, Shields, Leith, Perth, and Dundee, and in some cases
were connected with revolutionary sentiments. At Dundee cries were raised
of "No excise, no king," and a tree of liberty was planted. On November 19
the convention openly asserted its right to overthrow the government of
other countries by decreeing that France would help, and would instruct her
generals to help, all peoples that desired freedom; and an order was given
that translations of this decree should be distributed in all countries. The
decree was an invitation to the subjects of every state in Europe to revolt,
and the propaganda which it authorised was a gross insult to the British
government and nation.
The danger of Holland and the activity of revolutionists at home convinced
the ministry that it was time to take measures of defence. On December 1 a
part of the militia was embodied, and parliament was summoned for the
13th; the Tower was fortified, naval preparations were set on foot, a
squadron was ordered to the mouth of the Scheldt, and an order of council
prohibited the exportation of grain to France. Grenville informed the Dutch
that England was arming, and called on them to arm also. Pitt still hoped for
peace, and suggested to a French envoy that his government should give
him assurances through an authorised agent with respect to the safety of
Holland and the decree of November 19. The executive council would only
treat through Chauvelin, who was offensive.[235] On the 27th he demanded
whether England was to be reckoned neutral or an enemy of France; he
protested that the decree did not apply to England, and that no attack would
be made on Holland, but said that France would not give way as to the
Scheldt, and threatened that if the ministers decided on war, they would find
the nation against them. Already a decree of the convention passed on the
15th had ordained that all states occupied by French armies should virtually
be subject to France, and should contribute to the support of the French
troops. The war of "liberation" had become a war of conquest.[236]
Grenville replied to Chauvelin on the 31st to the effect that the protestations
of the executive council were belied by its conduct, that England could not
Page 360
consent that France should annul treaties at her pleasure, or be indifferent to
her assumption of sovereignty over the Netherlands, and that if she desired
England's friendship, she should abandon her views of aggression and cease
to insult or disturb other governments.[237]
During the first days of the session Pitt was absent; he
had at the king's earnest wish accepted the valuable DISRUPTION OF
THE WHIG PARTY.
sinecure office of warden of the Cinque Ports, and was
not yet re-elected. In moving an amendment to the address on the 14th Fox
made a violent attack on the government. At that critical time when
England's welfare demanded that party enmities should yield before the
importance of union against sedition at home and aggression abroad, he did
not scruple to declare that the government had wilfully exaggerated
domestic disturbances, in order to establish a system of oppression more
intolerable than "the horrors of the inquisition of Spain," and implied that
the ministers were hostile to France merely because France was, as he
jeeringly said, "an unanointed republic". Windham and other whigs voted
against him, and his amendment was rejected by 290 to 50. He returned to
the charge, but spoke more moderately, on the next day and again on the
next, with a motion for sending an ambassador to Paris, which was
negatived without a division. The disruption of the whig party was obvious;
Portland, Fitzwilliam, Spencer, Carlisle, and Loughborough in the lords,
and in the commons Windham, Elliot, and many more voted with the
government, and Burke took his seat on the treasury bench. Loughborough
received the great seal on January 28, 1793, but the rest as yet gave the
ministers independent support. An addition of 9,000 men to the naval force
and increased army estimates were voted unanimously, Fox declaring his
approval on the ground that the position of foreign affairs demanded them.
An alien bill was also carried, subjecting foreign immigrants to police
regulations and empowering the secretary of state to expel them. This bill
was opposed in the lords by Lansdowne, and in the commons by Fox and
Grey. In the course of an almost frenzied speech in support of it, Burke
threw a dagger on the floor of the house, a specimen, he said, of three
thousand which, he was informed on excellent authority, had been ordered
in Birmingham by an English revolutionist.
Chauvelin, whose credentials as "minister plenipotentiary of the French
republic" were not accepted by the English court protested against the alien
her assumption of sovereignty over the Netherlands, and that if she desired
England's friendship, she should abandon her views of aggression and cease
to insult or disturb other governments.[237]
During the first days of the session Pitt was absent; he
had at the king's earnest wish accepted the valuable DISRUPTION OF
THE WHIG PARTY.
sinecure office of warden of the Cinque Ports, and was
not yet re-elected. In moving an amendment to the address on the 14th Fox
made a violent attack on the government. At that critical time when
England's welfare demanded that party enmities should yield before the
importance of union against sedition at home and aggression abroad, he did
not scruple to declare that the government had wilfully exaggerated
domestic disturbances, in order to establish a system of oppression more
intolerable than "the horrors of the inquisition of Spain," and implied that
the ministers were hostile to France merely because France was, as he
jeeringly said, "an unanointed republic". Windham and other whigs voted
against him, and his amendment was rejected by 290 to 50. He returned to
the charge, but spoke more moderately, on the next day and again on the
next, with a motion for sending an ambassador to Paris, which was
negatived without a division. The disruption of the whig party was obvious;
Portland, Fitzwilliam, Spencer, Carlisle, and Loughborough in the lords,
and in the commons Windham, Elliot, and many more voted with the
government, and Burke took his seat on the treasury bench. Loughborough
received the great seal on January 28, 1793, but the rest as yet gave the
ministers independent support. An addition of 9,000 men to the naval force
and increased army estimates were voted unanimously, Fox declaring his
approval on the ground that the position of foreign affairs demanded them.
An alien bill was also carried, subjecting foreign immigrants to police
regulations and empowering the secretary of state to expel them. This bill
was opposed in the lords by Lansdowne, and in the commons by Fox and
Grey. In the course of an almost frenzied speech in support of it, Burke
threw a dagger on the floor of the house, a specimen, he said, of three
thousand which, he was informed on excellent authority, had been ordered
in Birmingham by an English revolutionist.
Chauvelin, whose credentials as "minister plenipotentiary of the French
republic" were not accepted by the English court protested against the alien
Page 361
bill and the prohibition of the export of grain, and declared that France
considered the treaty of commerce of 1786 broken and annulled. The two
measures excited the indignation of the convention; the speedy downfall of
England was triumphantly predicted; 3,000,000 Irishmen were ready to
revolt, and India would shake off the British rule as soon as the French
appeared in Asia. The executive council was pressed to demand the repeal
of both measures, and a satisfactory explanation of the English military
preparations, and orders were given for the immediate armament of a fleet.
While the French ministers were already preparing for a descent on
England,[238] and France was reducing the Austrian Netherlands to a merely
municipal status, the contemplated invasion of Holland was delayed by the
condition of the French army; and negotiations with England were carried
on. Believing that if the English people were assured with respect to the
Netherlands and the intention of France not to interfere in their domestic
concerns, they would declare against the government in case of a war, the
French foreign minister protested that the occupation of the Netherlands
was merely temporary, that France looked forward to Belgian
independence, and that the decree of November 19 only applied to a case
where the general will of the people was expressed. The opening of the
Scheldt was defended as authorised by the law of nature. This paper, which
was a kind of ultimatum, did not withdraw the claim to propagate
republicanism in other states or to annul the treaty rights of England's allies,
and put no definite limit to the occupation of the Austrian Netherlands.
Grenville returned a haughty answer. War was almost certain. The
execution of the French king on the 21st hastened the end. The tidings were
received in London with universal grief and indignation; the theatres were
closed, and not the court alone, but all who could afford it, wore mourning.
As the king drove through the streets, cries were raised of "War with
France!" Chauvelin was ordered to quit the kingdom in eight days, and left
at once. On February 1 France declared war on England and Holland. In
common with the nation at large, George welcomed the declaration of war;
the "insolence" of France irritated him, and the execution of the French king
was an insult and a menace to every crowned head in Europe; yet the order
of the king in council for Chauvelin's departure was of course given on the
advice of the ministers.[239]
considered the treaty of commerce of 1786 broken and annulled. The two
measures excited the indignation of the convention; the speedy downfall of
England was triumphantly predicted; 3,000,000 Irishmen were ready to
revolt, and India would shake off the British rule as soon as the French
appeared in Asia. The executive council was pressed to demand the repeal
of both measures, and a satisfactory explanation of the English military
preparations, and orders were given for the immediate armament of a fleet.
While the French ministers were already preparing for a descent on
England,[238] and France was reducing the Austrian Netherlands to a merely
municipal status, the contemplated invasion of Holland was delayed by the
condition of the French army; and negotiations with England were carried
on. Believing that if the English people were assured with respect to the
Netherlands and the intention of France not to interfere in their domestic
concerns, they would declare against the government in case of a war, the
French foreign minister protested that the occupation of the Netherlands
was merely temporary, that France looked forward to Belgian
independence, and that the decree of November 19 only applied to a case
where the general will of the people was expressed. The opening of the
Scheldt was defended as authorised by the law of nature. This paper, which
was a kind of ultimatum, did not withdraw the claim to propagate
republicanism in other states or to annul the treaty rights of England's allies,
and put no definite limit to the occupation of the Austrian Netherlands.
Grenville returned a haughty answer. War was almost certain. The
execution of the French king on the 21st hastened the end. The tidings were
received in London with universal grief and indignation; the theatres were
closed, and not the court alone, but all who could afford it, wore mourning.
As the king drove through the streets, cries were raised of "War with
France!" Chauvelin was ordered to quit the kingdom in eight days, and left
at once. On February 1 France declared war on England and Holland. In
common with the nation at large, George welcomed the declaration of war;
the "insolence" of France irritated him, and the execution of the French king
was an insult and a menace to every crowned head in Europe; yet the order
of the king in council for Chauvelin's departure was of course given on the
advice of the ministers.[239]
Page 362
Pitt had striven long and earnestly to avoid war. It was
finally forced upon him. Grossly as the government was WAR WITH
FRANCE.
provoked by French attempts to spread republicanism in
the king's dominions, that alone would not have forced him into war; the
great mass of the English people was thoroughly loyal, and the resources of
government were sufficient to deal with sedition. But England was bound in
honour to defend the rights of the Dutch, and her own security demanded
that she should withstand the French designs of aggrandisement. Burke
would have had war declared on France as an enemy of God and mankind,
because she trampled on institutions which he regarded as sacred in
themselves and essential to the well-being of society. The feelings of the
nation were excited by the excesses of the revolution, until the crowning act
of the king's execution called forth a demand for war; and as the war went
on hatred of French principles made Englishmen willing to bear the heavy
burdens it entailed. But in the great decision Pitt was unmoved by
sentiments such as these. Unlike the rulers of Austria and Prussia, the
government was not embarking on a war either of principles or ambition,
not on a crusade against republicanism nor, in its inception, a struggle for
extended dominions; its object was to maintain the honour and the security
of England. The opening of the Scheldt by France was a far more serious
matter for England than if Leopold II. had succeeded in his attempt to carry
out the same measure; for France was a great maritime power and
entertained schemes of boundless ambition. That she contemplated the
annexation of the Austrian Netherlands and the conquest of Holland was
certain, and if she became mistress of the Netherlands and Holland, and had
Antwerp as a station for her fleet, the security of England would be at an
end.
Security could only be attained either by war or by an alliance with the
republic, which would have been repugnant to the nation, would have made
England partner in unjustifiable aggressions, and would have betrayed the
interests of Europe to France. While it may be urged that the haughty tone
adopted by Grenville during the last few weeks of peace irritated France,
and that the dismissal of Chauvelin put an end to further attempts at
reconciliation, it will scarcely be denied that the government was justified
in refusing to prolong useless communications, and that it acted wisely in
taking a decided step when the country was thoroughly prepared to support
finally forced upon him. Grossly as the government was WAR WITH
FRANCE.
provoked by French attempts to spread republicanism in
the king's dominions, that alone would not have forced him into war; the
great mass of the English people was thoroughly loyal, and the resources of
government were sufficient to deal with sedition. But England was bound in
honour to defend the rights of the Dutch, and her own security demanded
that she should withstand the French designs of aggrandisement. Burke
would have had war declared on France as an enemy of God and mankind,
because she trampled on institutions which he regarded as sacred in
themselves and essential to the well-being of society. The feelings of the
nation were excited by the excesses of the revolution, until the crowning act
of the king's execution called forth a demand for war; and as the war went
on hatred of French principles made Englishmen willing to bear the heavy
burdens it entailed. But in the great decision Pitt was unmoved by
sentiments such as these. Unlike the rulers of Austria and Prussia, the
government was not embarking on a war either of principles or ambition,
not on a crusade against republicanism nor, in its inception, a struggle for
extended dominions; its object was to maintain the honour and the security
of England. The opening of the Scheldt by France was a far more serious
matter for England than if Leopold II. had succeeded in his attempt to carry
out the same measure; for France was a great maritime power and
entertained schemes of boundless ambition. That she contemplated the
annexation of the Austrian Netherlands and the conquest of Holland was
certain, and if she became mistress of the Netherlands and Holland, and had
Antwerp as a station for her fleet, the security of England would be at an
end.
Security could only be attained either by war or by an alliance with the
republic, which would have been repugnant to the nation, would have made
England partner in unjustifiable aggressions, and would have betrayed the
interests of Europe to France. While it may be urged that the haughty tone
adopted by Grenville during the last few weeks of peace irritated France,
and that the dismissal of Chauvelin put an end to further attempts at
reconciliation, it will scarcely be denied that the government was justified
in refusing to prolong useless communications, and that it acted wisely in
taking a decided step when the country was thoroughly prepared to support
Page 363
its decision. Having to choose between war and all that an alliance with
France would have entailed, England chose war, and took her stand in the
breach which France made in the political system, true to herself and finally
the saviour of Europe.
The violent opposition of Fox seems to have proceeded from mixed causes.
That he sincerely loved liberty must be allowed, but he was less attracted by
the constitutional liberty of Burke's devotion, which like some stately
building grows towards completeness as each successive generation enters
into and carries on the labours of its predecessors, than by the cause of
liberty, whether truly or falsely so called, in revolt. Unbridled in his own
life, he loved resistance to authority. And he was one of those, in England
unfortunately there are always such, who rate the cause they love above
their country's cause. It was so with him during the American war. When he
would describe how much an event pleased him he wrote, "no public event,
not excepting Saratoga and Yorktown, ever gave me so much delight". It
was so during the war with France. His opposition, however, also proceeded
from hatred to the government.[240] Abhorred by the king and rejected by
the country, he resented his exclusion from office by opposing the
government at a time when Englishmen should have sunk all party
differences in the face of their country's peril. He ascribed the measures
taken to repress sedition and defeat the French propaganda as attempts at
tyranny. While he acknowledged that the opening of the Scheldt was a
casus belli, he spoke of it as a matter which England could well afford to
overlook, and he represented the action of the government as unfair to
France and as the result of monarchical prejudice. As the war went on his
unpatriotic feelings were constantly displayed in a most offensive manner.
His conduct broke up the whig party. England was entering on a period of
fearful conflict; happy at least in that the confidence of the nation was given
to a statesman whose one absorbing care was for the welfare of his country.
FOOTNOTES:
[229] Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, pp. 150-52; Lecky, Hist., v.,
222-99.
[230] Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, ii., 236.
[231] Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, p. 194.
France would have entailed, England chose war, and took her stand in the
breach which France made in the political system, true to herself and finally
the saviour of Europe.
The violent opposition of Fox seems to have proceeded from mixed causes.
That he sincerely loved liberty must be allowed, but he was less attracted by
the constitutional liberty of Burke's devotion, which like some stately
building grows towards completeness as each successive generation enters
into and carries on the labours of its predecessors, than by the cause of
liberty, whether truly or falsely so called, in revolt. Unbridled in his own
life, he loved resistance to authority. And he was one of those, in England
unfortunately there are always such, who rate the cause they love above
their country's cause. It was so with him during the American war. When he
would describe how much an event pleased him he wrote, "no public event,
not excepting Saratoga and Yorktown, ever gave me so much delight". It
was so during the war with France. His opposition, however, also proceeded
from hatred to the government.[240] Abhorred by the king and rejected by
the country, he resented his exclusion from office by opposing the
government at a time when Englishmen should have sunk all party
differences in the face of their country's peril. He ascribed the measures
taken to repress sedition and defeat the French propaganda as attempts at
tyranny. While he acknowledged that the opening of the Scheldt was a
casus belli, he spoke of it as a matter which England could well afford to
overlook, and he represented the action of the government as unfair to
France and as the result of monarchical prejudice. As the war went on his
unpatriotic feelings were constantly displayed in a most offensive manner.
His conduct broke up the whig party. England was entering on a period of
fearful conflict; happy at least in that the confidence of the nation was given
to a statesman whose one absorbing care was for the welfare of his country.
FOOTNOTES:
[229] Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, pp. 150-52; Lecky, Hist., v.,
222-99.
[230] Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, ii., 236.
[231] Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, p. 194.
Page 364
[232] Sorel, u.s., ii., 417-23.
[233] Auckland Corr., ii., 401-3.
[234] Sorel, u.s., iii., 214-15.
[235] Ibid., 221-22, 225, 229.
[236] Sorel, u.s., iii., 235-37, 259; Sybel, Geschichte der Revolutionzeit, French
trans. Histoire de l'Europe pendant la Révolution Française, ii., 58-60.
[237] Correspondence between M. Chauvelin and Lord Grenville, Parl. Hist.,
xxx., 250-56.
[238] Sorel, u.s., iii., 243.
[239] Pitt to Grenville, Jan. 23, 1793, and following letters, Dropmore Papers, ii.
371-72, 378.
[240] Memorials of C. J. Fox, iii., 349.
[233] Auckland Corr., ii., 401-3.
[234] Sorel, u.s., iii., 214-15.
[235] Ibid., 221-22, 225, 229.
[236] Sorel, u.s., iii., 235-37, 259; Sybel, Geschichte der Revolutionzeit, French
trans. Histoire de l'Europe pendant la Révolution Française, ii., 58-60.
[237] Correspondence between M. Chauvelin and Lord Grenville, Parl. Hist.,
xxx., 250-56.
[238] Sorel, u.s., iii., 243.
[239] Pitt to Grenville, Jan. 23, 1793, and following letters, Dropmore Papers, ii.
371-72, 378.
[240] Memorials of C. J. Fox, iii., 349.
Page 365
CHAPTER XVII.
THE FIRST COALITION.
The nine years between Pitt's accession to office and the outbreak of the
war with France were a period of advance in constitutional freedom and
financial prosperity. All progress in these directions was arrested by the war.
The security of England, a matter of higher importance than these, was at
stake. The war demanded all the energies of the nation. Questions which
would have divided the country or weakened the government were shelved,
for it was not a time to debate reforms when the state itself was in peril. Pitt
defeated efforts for parliamentary reform and grew cold to the cause of the
abolition of the slave trade. But the war brought worse than an arrest of
progress; it brought repression of freedom and a tremendous load of debt.
The French propaganda roused general indignation and alarm. Towards the
end of 1792 the ministers were convinced of the existence of a plot for
effecting a revolution by the aid of France. There was much to justify their
alarm; Ireland seemed ripe for revolt, political discontent was strong in
Scotland, and evidence, gained later, confirmed them in their belief that
sedition was reaching a dangerous height in England. They overrated the
existing danger, though if sedition had remained unchecked it might soon
have become dangerous; for France was attacking the state by secret
seduction as well as by open arms. Extraordinary precautions were taken to
meet a peril which was specially terrible because its extent was unknown.
Measures of repression were eagerly welcomed by parliament; judges and
magistrates exercised their powers with harshness, and juries were often
biassed by the feeling of the bench. The nation was alarmed, and severity
was popular.
Pitt, who had guided England in peace, was to remain at
the helm in war. The conduct of the war is therefore PITT AS A WAR
closely connected with the question whether, great as he MINISTER.
was in peace, he was a great war minister.[241] The British army, which in
1792 only numbered about 17,300 men and at the outbreak of the war was
increased by 9,945, was so small that it could only either act a secondary
THE FIRST COALITION.
The nine years between Pitt's accession to office and the outbreak of the
war with France were a period of advance in constitutional freedom and
financial prosperity. All progress in these directions was arrested by the war.
The security of England, a matter of higher importance than these, was at
stake. The war demanded all the energies of the nation. Questions which
would have divided the country or weakened the government were shelved,
for it was not a time to debate reforms when the state itself was in peril. Pitt
defeated efforts for parliamentary reform and grew cold to the cause of the
abolition of the slave trade. But the war brought worse than an arrest of
progress; it brought repression of freedom and a tremendous load of debt.
The French propaganda roused general indignation and alarm. Towards the
end of 1792 the ministers were convinced of the existence of a plot for
effecting a revolution by the aid of France. There was much to justify their
alarm; Ireland seemed ripe for revolt, political discontent was strong in
Scotland, and evidence, gained later, confirmed them in their belief that
sedition was reaching a dangerous height in England. They overrated the
existing danger, though if sedition had remained unchecked it might soon
have become dangerous; for France was attacking the state by secret
seduction as well as by open arms. Extraordinary precautions were taken to
meet a peril which was specially terrible because its extent was unknown.
Measures of repression were eagerly welcomed by parliament; judges and
magistrates exercised their powers with harshness, and juries were often
biassed by the feeling of the bench. The nation was alarmed, and severity
was popular.
Pitt, who had guided England in peace, was to remain at
the helm in war. The conduct of the war is therefore PITT AS A WAR
closely connected with the question whether, great as he MINISTER.
was in peace, he was a great war minister.[241] The British army, which in
1792 only numbered about 17,300 men and at the outbreak of the war was
increased by 9,945, was so small that it could only either act a secondary
Page 366
part in a continental war, or engage in isolated expeditions to support
insurrections in France. During the first part of the war our successes on
land were trifling and our failures many. This was partly at least due to the
custom of regarding noble birth rather than military attainments as a claim
to command. Though Pitt, as we shall see, insisted on the recall of the Duke
of York, he did not break through this evil custom, and our generals, though
brave, were often incompetent. Pitt built great hopes on the co-operation of
the French royalists and many expeditions were sent out to act with them. A
belligerent power should place little dependence on insurrectionary
movements in an enemy's country; for insurgents, however hostile they may
be to their own government, will seldom act cordially with a foreign
invader; their forces are generally unorganised, and they are apt to expect
too much of their foreign ally. It is good policy to encourage them by
sending them supplies, for their revolts embarrass their government and are
useful as diversions in war. But a belligerent should not squander on
diversions strength which might be employed in the main conflict. Pitt's
expeditions of this kind were costly failures; they inflicted no deadly wound
and were expensive both in men and money. On the other hand England
was victorious by sea; the naval force was raised to 45,000 men in
February, 1793, was constantly increased, and was commanded by admirals
whose right to command was based on their skill in seamanship and
maritime warfare.
For the security of England and the peace of Europe France, it was held,
must be reduced to powerlessness. England's greatness at sea might enable
her to destroy the enemy's commerce, conquer her colonies, and blockade
her ports; the object of the war could be attained only by victories on land.
Politically the continental states were rotten; their rulers were selfish
despots, each bent on extending his dominions by any means, however
dishonest; for international morality had broken down before the bait
offered by the weakness of Poland. What barrier could they oppose to the
flood of French aggression, the outcome of the enthusiasm of a great
people? When France forced England into war she provoked a more
dangerous enemy—the will of a nation. Supported by the national will, Pitt
embarked on the task of combining the powers of Europe against France,
and as some were unwilling and some unable to fight at their own expense,
he paid them with English gold, and England found money for them as well
insurrections in France. During the first part of the war our successes on
land were trifling and our failures many. This was partly at least due to the
custom of regarding noble birth rather than military attainments as a claim
to command. Though Pitt, as we shall see, insisted on the recall of the Duke
of York, he did not break through this evil custom, and our generals, though
brave, were often incompetent. Pitt built great hopes on the co-operation of
the French royalists and many expeditions were sent out to act with them. A
belligerent power should place little dependence on insurrectionary
movements in an enemy's country; for insurgents, however hostile they may
be to their own government, will seldom act cordially with a foreign
invader; their forces are generally unorganised, and they are apt to expect
too much of their foreign ally. It is good policy to encourage them by
sending them supplies, for their revolts embarrass their government and are
useful as diversions in war. But a belligerent should not squander on
diversions strength which might be employed in the main conflict. Pitt's
expeditions of this kind were costly failures; they inflicted no deadly wound
and were expensive both in men and money. On the other hand England
was victorious by sea; the naval force was raised to 45,000 men in
February, 1793, was constantly increased, and was commanded by admirals
whose right to command was based on their skill in seamanship and
maritime warfare.
For the security of England and the peace of Europe France, it was held,
must be reduced to powerlessness. England's greatness at sea might enable
her to destroy the enemy's commerce, conquer her colonies, and blockade
her ports; the object of the war could be attained only by victories on land.
Politically the continental states were rotten; their rulers were selfish
despots, each bent on extending his dominions by any means, however
dishonest; for international morality had broken down before the bait
offered by the weakness of Poland. What barrier could they oppose to the
flood of French aggression, the outcome of the enthusiasm of a great
people? When France forced England into war she provoked a more
dangerous enemy—the will of a nation. Supported by the national will, Pitt
embarked on the task of combining the powers of Europe against France,
and as some were unwilling and some unable to fight at their own expense,
he paid them with English gold, and England found money for them as well
Page 367
as for her own naval and military operations. Pitt raised enormous loans.
The funded debt, which in 1792 was, roughly, £238,000,000, rose during
nine years of war to about £574,000,000. He began to borrow at once; in
1793 he raised a loan of £4,500,000, and in 1794 another of £11,000,000,
besides imposing new taxes amounting to £913,000.
He has been blamed for not raising more by taxation during the early years
of the war instead of burdening posterity so heavily. The financial
difficulties of France led him to believe that the war would be short. "It will
be a short war," he said, "and certainly ended in one or two campaigns."
"No, sir," replied the more prescient Burke, "it will be a long war and a
dangerous war; but it must be undertaken." In its earliest years Pitt had
good reason for avoiding high taxation. It began in the midst of a financial
crisis. The harvest of 1792 was seriously defective, and there was much
want. The rapid advance in agriculture, commerce, and manufactures had
led to the foundation of many country banks, which eagerly pushed their
own notes into circulation, and credit was unduly strained. Currency
became redundant, and a violent revulsion began in November, 1792, when
the number of bankruptcies in the month amounted to 105, more than
double the average number of the ten earlier months of the year. The crisis
became more acute in the spring of 1793, and during the year there were
1,926 failures, of which twenty-six were failures of country banks. In order
to relieve the distress Pitt, in April, obtained the assent of parliament for the
issue of exchequer bills to the extent of £5,000,000 to be applied in
advances at fair interest and on good security. Fox offered a factious
opposition to this measure, alleging that it conferred a dangerous power on
the executive. It was completely successful, and the panic was checked. As,
then, Pitt believed that the war would be short, and as it was not a time for
attempting to raise taxation to an amount sufficient to furnish the supplies
within the year, he was justified in having an early recourse to loans.
In return for the £336,000,000 of debt created by Pitt in nine years, the
country only received about £223,000,000 in money; and he has been
accused of extravagance because he raised money mainly in 3 per cent.
stock instead of at a rate more nearly corresponding to its market value. In
1793 every £100 borrowed created £138 stock, and when in 1797 the 3 per
cents. fell to 47, the sacrifice was enormous. Pitt did attempt to raise a loan
at a higher rate in 1793, and found it impossible; and it is at least doubtful
The funded debt, which in 1792 was, roughly, £238,000,000, rose during
nine years of war to about £574,000,000. He began to borrow at once; in
1793 he raised a loan of £4,500,000, and in 1794 another of £11,000,000,
besides imposing new taxes amounting to £913,000.
He has been blamed for not raising more by taxation during the early years
of the war instead of burdening posterity so heavily. The financial
difficulties of France led him to believe that the war would be short. "It will
be a short war," he said, "and certainly ended in one or two campaigns."
"No, sir," replied the more prescient Burke, "it will be a long war and a
dangerous war; but it must be undertaken." In its earliest years Pitt had
good reason for avoiding high taxation. It began in the midst of a financial
crisis. The harvest of 1792 was seriously defective, and there was much
want. The rapid advance in agriculture, commerce, and manufactures had
led to the foundation of many country banks, which eagerly pushed their
own notes into circulation, and credit was unduly strained. Currency
became redundant, and a violent revulsion began in November, 1792, when
the number of bankruptcies in the month amounted to 105, more than
double the average number of the ten earlier months of the year. The crisis
became more acute in the spring of 1793, and during the year there were
1,926 failures, of which twenty-six were failures of country banks. In order
to relieve the distress Pitt, in April, obtained the assent of parliament for the
issue of exchequer bills to the extent of £5,000,000 to be applied in
advances at fair interest and on good security. Fox offered a factious
opposition to this measure, alleging that it conferred a dangerous power on
the executive. It was completely successful, and the panic was checked. As,
then, Pitt believed that the war would be short, and as it was not a time for
attempting to raise taxation to an amount sufficient to furnish the supplies
within the year, he was justified in having an early recourse to loans.
In return for the £336,000,000 of debt created by Pitt in nine years, the
country only received about £223,000,000 in money; and he has been
accused of extravagance because he raised money mainly in 3 per cent.
stock instead of at a rate more nearly corresponding to its market value. In
1793 every £100 borrowed created £138 stock, and when in 1797 the 3 per
cents. fell to 47, the sacrifice was enormous. Pitt did attempt to raise a loan
at a higher rate in 1793, and found it impossible; and it is at least doubtful
Page 368
whether he did not act more prudently in borrowing in the 3 per cents. than
at a high rate.[242] In his budget speech of 1793 he announced that he would
always maintain the sinking fund. He kept his promise, and this expensive
economy provided a deduction of £42,500,000 from the £336,000,000 of
debt. Financially, as we have seen, this was a mistake; politically it was
useful in encouraging and comforting the country in a time of stress; for the
opposition was as fully persuaded as the ministry of the efficacy of the
fund. If, then, it be allowed that the war was just and necessary, little fault
should be found with the way in which money was provided for it. That
Pitt's subsidies were sometimes unwise may be conceded; that his coalitions
disappointed him is certain. He had to contend with selfishness and deceit
in the rulers of Europe, and laboured with ability and courage to keep them
steadfast to the common cause, again and again taking up his task,
undismayed by failures which are not to be laid to his charge. While
mistakes in the conduct of the war forbid us to call him a great war minister
in the narrow sense of the term, we should scarcely refuse that praise in a
wider, truer sense to a minister so dauntless in adversity, so fertile in
resource, so deservedly trusted by the nation as "the pilot that weathered the
storm".
In March the government hired troops from Hanover and
Hesse Cassel; and during the year, Holland being THE COALITION
FORMED.
already an ally, made treaties hostile to France with all
the other Christian powers of Europe except Denmark, Sweden, the Swiss,
Tuscany Venice, and Genoa, which decided on neutrality. The emperor and
the Prussian king agreed to carry on the war in concert with England.
Catherine of Russia made a treaty of commerce, and another promising co-
operation against the commerce of France. Her army was engaged in
Poland, and she took no part in the war beyond carrying out her
engagement by means of her fleet. In May, the convention declared war on
Spain and the king entered into the coalition. The King of Sardinia was
already at war, and the British government granted him a subsidy of
£200,000 to enable him to keep up his army, and agreed to send a fleet into
the Mediterranean. A treaty for concerted action in the Mediterranean was
made with the king of the Two Sicilies, and another treaty with Portugal,
our ancient ally, which became of importance after Spain deserted the
coalition. The accession of England to the enemies of France gave them a
at a high rate.[242] In his budget speech of 1793 he announced that he would
always maintain the sinking fund. He kept his promise, and this expensive
economy provided a deduction of £42,500,000 from the £336,000,000 of
debt. Financially, as we have seen, this was a mistake; politically it was
useful in encouraging and comforting the country in a time of stress; for the
opposition was as fully persuaded as the ministry of the efficacy of the
fund. If, then, it be allowed that the war was just and necessary, little fault
should be found with the way in which money was provided for it. That
Pitt's subsidies were sometimes unwise may be conceded; that his coalitions
disappointed him is certain. He had to contend with selfishness and deceit
in the rulers of Europe, and laboured with ability and courage to keep them
steadfast to the common cause, again and again taking up his task,
undismayed by failures which are not to be laid to his charge. While
mistakes in the conduct of the war forbid us to call him a great war minister
in the narrow sense of the term, we should scarcely refuse that praise in a
wider, truer sense to a minister so dauntless in adversity, so fertile in
resource, so deservedly trusted by the nation as "the pilot that weathered the
storm".
In March the government hired troops from Hanover and
Hesse Cassel; and during the year, Holland being THE COALITION
FORMED.
already an ally, made treaties hostile to France with all
the other Christian powers of Europe except Denmark, Sweden, the Swiss,
Tuscany Venice, and Genoa, which decided on neutrality. The emperor and
the Prussian king agreed to carry on the war in concert with England.
Catherine of Russia made a treaty of commerce, and another promising co-
operation against the commerce of France. Her army was engaged in
Poland, and she took no part in the war beyond carrying out her
engagement by means of her fleet. In May, the convention declared war on
Spain and the king entered into the coalition. The King of Sardinia was
already at war, and the British government granted him a subsidy of
£200,000 to enable him to keep up his army, and agreed to send a fleet into
the Mediterranean. A treaty for concerted action in the Mediterranean was
made with the king of the Two Sicilies, and another treaty with Portugal,
our ancient ally, which became of importance after Spain deserted the
coalition. The accession of England to the enemies of France gave them a
Page 369
new weapon against her. Great Britain and Russia agreed to prevent neutral
ships from supplying her with provisions, and, on June 8, British officers
were ordered to stop all ships so engaged and send them to England, where
their cargoes would be sold and their freights paid by the government.
The emperor did not relish the idea of a disinterested war; and Grenville
agreed that the allies should indemnify themselves, and should make
conquests on the Belgian frontier of France, which in Austrian hands would
form a strong barrier against her. This met the emperor's views, for an
enlargement of the Austrian Netherlands would forward his plan of
exchanging them for Bavaria. The proposed exchange, however, was
contrary to English policy, for it would have created a weak state on the
French frontier. As soon as war was declared, Dumouriez invaded Holland,
but was soon called back to Belgium, where the French were losing ground.
He was defeated at Neerwinden on March 18, and the French withdrew
from the Netherlands. They were unsuccessful on the Rhine, and Mainz was
threatened by the Prussians. Dissatisfied with the proceedings of his
government, Dumouriez intrigued with the enemy and finally fled to the
Austrian camp, but was unable to carry his army with him. On April 8 a
conference between representatives of the allies was held at Antwerp. Lord
Auckland, the British minister in Holland, appeared for England,
accompanied by the king's second son, the Duke of York, who was to
command the British and Hanoverian army. The allies agreed to make
conquests and keep them. Auckland declared that this was the policy of his
court. Austria was to gain places on the frontier which would shut France
out from the Netherlands, England would look to the conquest of Dunkirk
and the French colonies.[243]
On May 20 the British army with its Hanoverian and Hessian contingents
joined the Prince of Coburg, and took a distinguished part in driving the
French from their camp at Famars. The smart appearance of the English
troops was much admired, but their officers were careless. The French army
of the north was disorderly and discouraged. While the regular troops
generally behaved well, the volunteers, who had a separate organisation and
elected their own officers, were insubordinate and lacking in soldierly
qualities; the representatives of the people who accompanied the army,
though they did some good, meddled in military matters; the generals were
suspected, were constantly displaced, and were fortunate if they escaped the
ships from supplying her with provisions, and, on June 8, British officers
were ordered to stop all ships so engaged and send them to England, where
their cargoes would be sold and their freights paid by the government.
The emperor did not relish the idea of a disinterested war; and Grenville
agreed that the allies should indemnify themselves, and should make
conquests on the Belgian frontier of France, which in Austrian hands would
form a strong barrier against her. This met the emperor's views, for an
enlargement of the Austrian Netherlands would forward his plan of
exchanging them for Bavaria. The proposed exchange, however, was
contrary to English policy, for it would have created a weak state on the
French frontier. As soon as war was declared, Dumouriez invaded Holland,
but was soon called back to Belgium, where the French were losing ground.
He was defeated at Neerwinden on March 18, and the French withdrew
from the Netherlands. They were unsuccessful on the Rhine, and Mainz was
threatened by the Prussians. Dissatisfied with the proceedings of his
government, Dumouriez intrigued with the enemy and finally fled to the
Austrian camp, but was unable to carry his army with him. On April 8 a
conference between representatives of the allies was held at Antwerp. Lord
Auckland, the British minister in Holland, appeared for England,
accompanied by the king's second son, the Duke of York, who was to
command the British and Hanoverian army. The allies agreed to make
conquests and keep them. Auckland declared that this was the policy of his
court. Austria was to gain places on the frontier which would shut France
out from the Netherlands, England would look to the conquest of Dunkirk
and the French colonies.[243]
On May 20 the British army with its Hanoverian and Hessian contingents
joined the Prince of Coburg, and took a distinguished part in driving the
French from their camp at Famars. The smart appearance of the English
troops was much admired, but their officers were careless. The French army
of the north was disorderly and discouraged. While the regular troops
generally behaved well, the volunteers, who had a separate organisation and
elected their own officers, were insubordinate and lacking in soldierly
qualities; the representatives of the people who accompanied the army,
though they did some good, meddled in military matters; the generals were
suspected, were constantly displaced, and were fortunate if they escaped the
Page 370
scaffold; and the ministry of war was utterly incompetent. The allies
besieged Condé and Valenciennes; Condé surrendered on July 13 and
Valenciennes on the 28th, and the Austrians took possession of both.
Coburg's allies were anxious to secure territory for themselves, and he had
some difficulty in persuading them to join him in an attack on the French at
Cæsar's camp, a strong position covered by the Scheldt, the Sensée, and the
Agache. The French were driven out and fell back on Arras. France was in
sore straits. Mainz capitulated on July 23, and the army of the Moselle
retreated behind the Saar. On the Spanish frontier Roussillon was invaded.
In the Alps the republican army was driven back near Saorgio, and its best
troops were sent off to quell insurrection in the cities of the south; for the
country was torn by civil discord. The Girondins were overthrown in June,
and the party called the Mountain gained absolute power. Bordeaux was a
centre of resistance; Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon were in revolt, and were
supported by the towns of the Jura and Provence. An insurrection which
began in the Vendean district of Anjou grew to a formidable height. The
army of La Vendée, of 40,000 men, defeated the republican generals,
captured Saumur, and threatened Nantes. Between Basle and the sea the
allies were 280,000 strong; an advance on Paris in two directions, from the
Belgian border by Soissons and from Mainz by Reims, would almost
certainly have ended the war. After the capture of Cæsar's camp the way to
Paris lay open to Coburg; there was no French force strong enough to arrest
the march of the allies.[244]
The coalition was paralysed by discord and by the
insistence of its members on the pursuit of different DISCORDANT
AIMS OF THE
objects. The English ministers made the security of the ALLIES.
Netherlands as an Austrian province a prime
consideration, and to satisfy them the emperor promised to give up the
exchange of the Netherlands for Bavaria. He was to be indemnified by the
acquisition of Alsace and Lorraine, which were to be conquered by the help
of Prussia.[245] Frederick William, however, would not help to conquer
territory for Austria, nor assist in the dismemberment of France, unless the
emperor assented to the treaty for the partition of Poland secretly arranged
between him and Catherine of Russia, and signed on January 23. Baron
Thugut, the Austrian minister, who was violently hostile toward Prussia,
would not assent to a treaty which aggrandised that power and did not give
besieged Condé and Valenciennes; Condé surrendered on July 13 and
Valenciennes on the 28th, and the Austrians took possession of both.
Coburg's allies were anxious to secure territory for themselves, and he had
some difficulty in persuading them to join him in an attack on the French at
Cæsar's camp, a strong position covered by the Scheldt, the Sensée, and the
Agache. The French were driven out and fell back on Arras. France was in
sore straits. Mainz capitulated on July 23, and the army of the Moselle
retreated behind the Saar. On the Spanish frontier Roussillon was invaded.
In the Alps the republican army was driven back near Saorgio, and its best
troops were sent off to quell insurrection in the cities of the south; for the
country was torn by civil discord. The Girondins were overthrown in June,
and the party called the Mountain gained absolute power. Bordeaux was a
centre of resistance; Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon were in revolt, and were
supported by the towns of the Jura and Provence. An insurrection which
began in the Vendean district of Anjou grew to a formidable height. The
army of La Vendée, of 40,000 men, defeated the republican generals,
captured Saumur, and threatened Nantes. Between Basle and the sea the
allies were 280,000 strong; an advance on Paris in two directions, from the
Belgian border by Soissons and from Mainz by Reims, would almost
certainly have ended the war. After the capture of Cæsar's camp the way to
Paris lay open to Coburg; there was no French force strong enough to arrest
the march of the allies.[244]
The coalition was paralysed by discord and by the
insistence of its members on the pursuit of different DISCORDANT
AIMS OF THE
objects. The English ministers made the security of the ALLIES.
Netherlands as an Austrian province a prime
consideration, and to satisfy them the emperor promised to give up the
exchange of the Netherlands for Bavaria. He was to be indemnified by the
acquisition of Alsace and Lorraine, which were to be conquered by the help
of Prussia.[245] Frederick William, however, would not help to conquer
territory for Austria, nor assist in the dismemberment of France, unless the
emperor assented to the treaty for the partition of Poland secretly arranged
between him and Catherine of Russia, and signed on January 23. Baron
Thugut, the Austrian minister, who was violently hostile toward Prussia,
would not assent to a treaty which aggrandised that power and did not give
Page 371
his master a share in the spoil. While, then, France, distressed by invasion,
revolt, and scarcity, seemed an easy prey, Brunswick remained on the
Rhine, and refused to co-operate with Austria in Alsace, and Coburg was
intent on gaining frontier towns. The English government was anxious to
secure its own share in the conquests from France, and, on August 10,
acting on instructions from home, York went off with a force of 37,000
men, his own English and German troops with 11,000 Austrians, to lay
siege to Dunkirk. About the same time Frederick William ordered 8,000
Prussian troops engaged in Flanders to withdraw to Luxemburg, and
Coburg invested Le Quesnoy.
On one side only was full advantage taken of the distress of France. In
consequence of the late disputes with Spain and Russia the British navy was
in an efficient state. Of 113 ships of the line nearly ninety were in good
condition. Howe commanded the channel fleet; he kept it at Spithead, and it
did nothing of importance during the year. The Mediterranean fleet under
Hood sailed in June and blockaded Toulon. The insurrectionary movement
at Marseilles was quelled by the convention, and the royalists at Toulon
were threatened by the jacobin forces. Though the town was well supplied
with provisions, the chiefs of the royalist party persuaded the people that
the only way to escape starvation was to treat with the English. The
inhabitants declared for Louis XVII., the son of the late king, and the
constitution of 1791, and surrendered the town to Hood, together with the
ships in the port, thirty ships of the line, more than a third of the whole
French line of battle, and other smaller vessels. Hood received the forts and
the ships for King Louis and promised to restore them at the end of the war.
He invited the co-operation of the Spanish fleet under Lángara and when it
appeared entered the harbour, on August 29. The news was received in
England with delight, and Grenville declared his belief that "the business at
Toulon" would probably be "decisive of the war". England desired the
establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and it was hoped that the
occupation of the place would strengthen the movement in that direction in
the south. The émigré Count of Provence, the next younger brother of Louis
XVI., who had assumed the title of regent, desired the government to allow
him to enter the town. As the émigrés aimed at the restoration of absolutism
it would have been fatal to the hopes built on the movement in the south in
favour of a constitutional monarchy to have granted his request, and it
revolt, and scarcity, seemed an easy prey, Brunswick remained on the
Rhine, and refused to co-operate with Austria in Alsace, and Coburg was
intent on gaining frontier towns. The English government was anxious to
secure its own share in the conquests from France, and, on August 10,
acting on instructions from home, York went off with a force of 37,000
men, his own English and German troops with 11,000 Austrians, to lay
siege to Dunkirk. About the same time Frederick William ordered 8,000
Prussian troops engaged in Flanders to withdraw to Luxemburg, and
Coburg invested Le Quesnoy.
On one side only was full advantage taken of the distress of France. In
consequence of the late disputes with Spain and Russia the British navy was
in an efficient state. Of 113 ships of the line nearly ninety were in good
condition. Howe commanded the channel fleet; he kept it at Spithead, and it
did nothing of importance during the year. The Mediterranean fleet under
Hood sailed in June and blockaded Toulon. The insurrectionary movement
at Marseilles was quelled by the convention, and the royalists at Toulon
were threatened by the jacobin forces. Though the town was well supplied
with provisions, the chiefs of the royalist party persuaded the people that
the only way to escape starvation was to treat with the English. The
inhabitants declared for Louis XVII., the son of the late king, and the
constitution of 1791, and surrendered the town to Hood, together with the
ships in the port, thirty ships of the line, more than a third of the whole
French line of battle, and other smaller vessels. Hood received the forts and
the ships for King Louis and promised to restore them at the end of the war.
He invited the co-operation of the Spanish fleet under Lángara and when it
appeared entered the harbour, on August 29. The news was received in
England with delight, and Grenville declared his belief that "the business at
Toulon" would probably be "decisive of the war". England desired the
establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and it was hoped that the
occupation of the place would strengthen the movement in that direction in
the south. The émigré Count of Provence, the next younger brother of Louis
XVI., who had assumed the title of regent, desired the government to allow
him to enter the town. As the émigrés aimed at the restoration of absolutism
it would have been fatal to the hopes built on the movement in the south in
favour of a constitutional monarchy to have granted his request, and it
Page 372
would have been unfair to the Toulonese who stipulated for the acceptance
of the constitution of 1791. Besides this, the émigrés were strongly opposed
to the policy of conquest adopted at Antwerp; and, though Toulon was not
to be taken from France, England could not at that time encourage the
count's pretensions. His presence in the town would have been
embarrassing to Hood, and he would certainly have interfered with the
defence. England did not acknowledge his claim to the regency, and he was
not admitted into Toulon.
While the allies were divided in purpose and action, the danger of France
and the violation of her territory roused the party in power to energy in her
defence. In August the second committee of public safety decreed a levée en
masse, and on the 23rd substituted for it a universal conscription. Men were
poured into the army, but they had to be turned into soldiers; and efficient
generals, and above all a competent military administration, had to be
provided. At this crisis Carnot, who was to earn the title of "organiser of
victories," took the direction of the war. The new troops were at first worse
than useless, but after a while they were brought to order by being drafted
into the old battalions; the amalgamation of the volunteers with the regulars
was effected early in 1794, and the army of the revolution became a well-
ordered fighting machine. While the new levies of August, 1793, were still
undisciplined Carnot's genius began to raise the fortunes of France.
When York marched off to the siege of Dunkirk on
August 10 he divided his army into two corps, placing HONDSCHOOTE.
one, composed of 14,500 German and Austrian troops,
under Marshal Freytag, to act as an army of observation, while he
commanded the army of the siege in person. On his march a detachment of
his troops surprised and routed a French force at Linselles while engaged in
pillaging the place. He summoned Dunkirk on the 23rd. The fleet, which
was to have bombarded the town and brought a siege-train, had not arrived.
He was only able to invest the town on the east, for the French laid the
country between Bergues and Dunkirk under water, and the causeway from
Bergues was strongly defended. His army occupied a wretched position,
was in want of good water, and was cut off from direct communication with
Freytag, who was encamped in front of Bergues.[246] On September 6-8
Freytag's army was attacked by a French army under Houchard of nearly
four times its strength. Walmoden, who succeeded Freytag, might have
of the constitution of 1791. Besides this, the émigrés were strongly opposed
to the policy of conquest adopted at Antwerp; and, though Toulon was not
to be taken from France, England could not at that time encourage the
count's pretensions. His presence in the town would have been
embarrassing to Hood, and he would certainly have interfered with the
defence. England did not acknowledge his claim to the regency, and he was
not admitted into Toulon.
While the allies were divided in purpose and action, the danger of France
and the violation of her territory roused the party in power to energy in her
defence. In August the second committee of public safety decreed a levée en
masse, and on the 23rd substituted for it a universal conscription. Men were
poured into the army, but they had to be turned into soldiers; and efficient
generals, and above all a competent military administration, had to be
provided. At this crisis Carnot, who was to earn the title of "organiser of
victories," took the direction of the war. The new troops were at first worse
than useless, but after a while they were brought to order by being drafted
into the old battalions; the amalgamation of the volunteers with the regulars
was effected early in 1794, and the army of the revolution became a well-
ordered fighting machine. While the new levies of August, 1793, were still
undisciplined Carnot's genius began to raise the fortunes of France.
When York marched off to the siege of Dunkirk on
August 10 he divided his army into two corps, placing HONDSCHOOTE.
one, composed of 14,500 German and Austrian troops,
under Marshal Freytag, to act as an army of observation, while he
commanded the army of the siege in person. On his march a detachment of
his troops surprised and routed a French force at Linselles while engaged in
pillaging the place. He summoned Dunkirk on the 23rd. The fleet, which
was to have bombarded the town and brought a siege-train, had not arrived.
He was only able to invest the town on the east, for the French laid the
country between Bergues and Dunkirk under water, and the causeway from
Bergues was strongly defended. His army occupied a wretched position,
was in want of good water, and was cut off from direct communication with
Freytag, who was encamped in front of Bergues.[246] On September 6-8
Freytag's army was attacked by a French army under Houchard of nearly
four times its strength. Walmoden, who succeeded Freytag, might have
Page 373
avoided the battle of Hondschoote on the 8th; he fought in obedience to
York's orders and was defeated with heavy loss. York hastily retreated to
Furnes. If Houchard had followed up his success he might have crushed
York's army. He turned aside to attack the Dutch quartered on the Lys and
routed them at Menin. Le Quesnoy surrendered to the Austrians on the 11th,
and Coburg invested Maubeuge. Jourdan, the new commander of the army
of the north, and Carnot, who accompanied him, attacked and defeated the
Austrian covering army at Wattignies on October 16, and forced Coburg to
raise the siege. This was practically the end of the campaign, which closed
far more favourably for France than it had begun.
On the German frontier political disunion was fatal to the success of the
allies. Frederick William believed that the emperor's refusal to accept the
partition treaty encouraged the Poles to resist his demands. He left the army
of the Rhine, and went off to Posen to establish his rule in his new
dominions, ordering Brunswick not to engage in any operations which
might prevent him from sending him such troops as he might call for.
Wurmser, the Austrian commander, drove the French from their lines at
Weissenburg on October 13, but the limited co-operation of the Prussian
army was not enough to secure any material progress, and finally, on
December 26, Hoche inflicted a severe defeat on the Austrians at the
Geisberg. Wurmser retreated across the Rhine, and the Prussians were
forced to abandon the greater part of the Palatinate, and withdrew to Mainz.
No French territory on the north or east remained in the hands of the allies
except Condé, Valenciennes and Le Quesnoy, while on the Italian frontier
forward movements of the Piedmontese had ended in failure and the King
of Sardinia was reduced to a merely defensive attitude.
The republican armies were not less successful against domestic foes than
against foreign invasion. The loss of Mainz in July set free a large force
which was used to lay waste La Vendée. The Vendeans applied for help to
the emigrant princes and to England. Pitt, though he would not encourage
the hopes of the princes, was willing to support a movement which was
weakening the enemy and might forward the establishment of a
constitutional monarchy. Stores were sent to Noirmoutier for the insurgents
and further help was promised. Some 80,000 Vendeans, of both sexes and
all ages, crossed the Loire, marched through Anjou, and made an attempt on
Granville, in the hope of gaining a port at which they might receive succour
York's orders and was defeated with heavy loss. York hastily retreated to
Furnes. If Houchard had followed up his success he might have crushed
York's army. He turned aside to attack the Dutch quartered on the Lys and
routed them at Menin. Le Quesnoy surrendered to the Austrians on the 11th,
and Coburg invested Maubeuge. Jourdan, the new commander of the army
of the north, and Carnot, who accompanied him, attacked and defeated the
Austrian covering army at Wattignies on October 16, and forced Coburg to
raise the siege. This was practically the end of the campaign, which closed
far more favourably for France than it had begun.
On the German frontier political disunion was fatal to the success of the
allies. Frederick William believed that the emperor's refusal to accept the
partition treaty encouraged the Poles to resist his demands. He left the army
of the Rhine, and went off to Posen to establish his rule in his new
dominions, ordering Brunswick not to engage in any operations which
might prevent him from sending him such troops as he might call for.
Wurmser, the Austrian commander, drove the French from their lines at
Weissenburg on October 13, but the limited co-operation of the Prussian
army was not enough to secure any material progress, and finally, on
December 26, Hoche inflicted a severe defeat on the Austrians at the
Geisberg. Wurmser retreated across the Rhine, and the Prussians were
forced to abandon the greater part of the Palatinate, and withdrew to Mainz.
No French territory on the north or east remained in the hands of the allies
except Condé, Valenciennes and Le Quesnoy, while on the Italian frontier
forward movements of the Piedmontese had ended in failure and the King
of Sardinia was reduced to a merely defensive attitude.
The republican armies were not less successful against domestic foes than
against foreign invasion. The loss of Mainz in July set free a large force
which was used to lay waste La Vendée. The Vendeans applied for help to
the emigrant princes and to England. Pitt, though he would not encourage
the hopes of the princes, was willing to support a movement which was
weakening the enemy and might forward the establishment of a
constitutional monarchy. Stores were sent to Noirmoutier for the insurgents
and further help was promised. Some 80,000 Vendeans, of both sexes and
all ages, crossed the Loire, marched through Anjou, and made an attempt on
Granville, in the hope of gaining a port at which they might receive succour
Page 374
from England. An expedition was prepared to help them, and a force of
12,000 men, émigrés, British troops, and others under the Earl of Moira, the
Lord Rawdon of the American war, arrived off the Norman coast on
December 2. They made signals but no answer was returned. The Vendeans
had failed before Granville and had retreated a few days before. As they
were attempting to return to their homes they were caught by a republican
force; a large number was massacred and the rest dispersed. The English
expedition returned without accomplishing anything.
Toulon was threatened by the republicans both on the
east and west, while on the north Lyons was closely EVACUATION OF
besieged. Hood despatched Nelson to Naples for TOULON.
reinforcements which were sent by the king. Even with them the garrison,
made up of 2,000 British troops, Spaniards, Sardinians, Neapolitans, and
French royalists, many of them untrained, amounted to only about 12,000
men fit for duty, a wholly insufficient number, for the defences were widely
extended. Hood sent off four of the French ships, full of republican
prisoners, who were allowed to return to their homes because it was
inconvenient to keep them. By the middle of September the republicans
were pressing the siege, and on October 1 the garrison under Lord
Mulgrave smartly drove them from a commanding position which they had
seized on Mont Faron. The fall of Lyons on the 9th set free a large force to
act against the place, and the besieging army under Dugommier finally
numbered 37,000 men, with artillery organised and directed by a young
Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, who since September 16 had taken
an active part in the siege. General O'Hara, then in command in the town,
was wounded and taken prisoner while leading a sortie, and on the night of
December 16-17 the enemy forced the line of defence and planted their
batteries in commanding positions. Neither the harbour nor the town was
tenable any longer, and orders were given for the embarkation of the troops.
Of the twenty-seven French ships of the line in the harbour, nine, together
with smaller vessels, were burnt by British seamen under Sir Sidney Smith,
in spite of a furious bombardment from the heights, and three accompanied
the retreat. The remaining fifteen were left to the enemy, and an attempt to
destroy the dockyard was only partially successful, for time was short and
the Spaniards, either through treachery or more probably through the
incompetence of their officers, failed to accomplish their share of the work.
12,000 men, émigrés, British troops, and others under the Earl of Moira, the
Lord Rawdon of the American war, arrived off the Norman coast on
December 2. They made signals but no answer was returned. The Vendeans
had failed before Granville and had retreated a few days before. As they
were attempting to return to their homes they were caught by a republican
force; a large number was massacred and the rest dispersed. The English
expedition returned without accomplishing anything.
Toulon was threatened by the republicans both on the
east and west, while on the north Lyons was closely EVACUATION OF
besieged. Hood despatched Nelson to Naples for TOULON.
reinforcements which were sent by the king. Even with them the garrison,
made up of 2,000 British troops, Spaniards, Sardinians, Neapolitans, and
French royalists, many of them untrained, amounted to only about 12,000
men fit for duty, a wholly insufficient number, for the defences were widely
extended. Hood sent off four of the French ships, full of republican
prisoners, who were allowed to return to their homes because it was
inconvenient to keep them. By the middle of September the republicans
were pressing the siege, and on October 1 the garrison under Lord
Mulgrave smartly drove them from a commanding position which they had
seized on Mont Faron. The fall of Lyons on the 9th set free a large force to
act against the place, and the besieging army under Dugommier finally
numbered 37,000 men, with artillery organised and directed by a young
Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, who since September 16 had taken
an active part in the siege. General O'Hara, then in command in the town,
was wounded and taken prisoner while leading a sortie, and on the night of
December 16-17 the enemy forced the line of defence and planted their
batteries in commanding positions. Neither the harbour nor the town was
tenable any longer, and orders were given for the embarkation of the troops.
Of the twenty-seven French ships of the line in the harbour, nine, together
with smaller vessels, were burnt by British seamen under Sir Sidney Smith,
in spite of a furious bombardment from the heights, and three accompanied
the retreat. The remaining fifteen were left to the enemy, and an attempt to
destroy the dockyard was only partially successful, for time was short and
the Spaniards, either through treachery or more probably through the
incompetence of their officers, failed to accomplish their share of the work.
Page 375
The English and Spanish fleets sailed on the 19th, carrying off some 6,000
refugees, and Hood's fleet anchored in Hyères bay. The remainder of the
population was exposed to the cruel vengeance of the jacobins.
There is good reason to believe that the government did not intend to
violate the terms of the surrender by keeping Toulon as a British possession.
As an isolated station it could not have been defended and supplied without
an enormous strain on England's resources. Its value to Great Britain was
purely temporary; it was of incalculable importance to the enemy, and it
was expected to serve as a base for the movement in the south against the
jacobin government. The issue of the insurrection was decided by the fall of
Lyons. Hopes of a success to be gained through French disaffection were as
ill-founded as those based on American loyalism. The ministers pursued a
mistaken policy, and pursued it weakly; for as they believed that the
occupation of Toulon was of first-rate importance, they should have
concentrated their efforts upon its defence instead of squandering their
resources by trying to do two things at once, to co-operate with the
Vendeans and to defend Toulon, while the war on the Flemish frontier was a
constant drain on England's small army. Grenville ascribed the disaster to
the "common cause" to the failure of the Austrian government to fulfil its
promise of sending a reinforcement of 5,000 men to the garrison.[247] The
loss of the place was a bitter disappointment; it was mortifying in itself, and
it declared the futility of the high hopes built on the insurrectionary
movement in the south. Reckoning it with Dunkirk and the Vendean
expedition, the government had to confess to three failures in the year. Yet
England had some grounds for satisfaction. Tobago and the fishery islands
of St. Pierre and Miquelon were taken without difficulty, Pondicherry and
the other French factories in India were surrendered, several French ships of
war were captured in single-ship and other small combats, and a substantial
advantage was gained by the destruction of the ships at Toulon.
The success of the allies in the spring of 1793 gave Fox
an opportunity for moving for the re-establishment of REPRESSION.
peace. If, he argued, the war was undertaken to preserve
Holland and check the aggrandisement of France, that object was attained.
France had been the aggressor; so much the more reason was there to regard
the war as purely defensive, and end it when the aggression ended. Pitt said
that he would no longer pledge himself that England would not interfere in
refugees, and Hood's fleet anchored in Hyères bay. The remainder of the
population was exposed to the cruel vengeance of the jacobins.
There is good reason to believe that the government did not intend to
violate the terms of the surrender by keeping Toulon as a British possession.
As an isolated station it could not have been defended and supplied without
an enormous strain on England's resources. Its value to Great Britain was
purely temporary; it was of incalculable importance to the enemy, and it
was expected to serve as a base for the movement in the south against the
jacobin government. The issue of the insurrection was decided by the fall of
Lyons. Hopes of a success to be gained through French disaffection were as
ill-founded as those based on American loyalism. The ministers pursued a
mistaken policy, and pursued it weakly; for as they believed that the
occupation of Toulon was of first-rate importance, they should have
concentrated their efforts upon its defence instead of squandering their
resources by trying to do two things at once, to co-operate with the
Vendeans and to defend Toulon, while the war on the Flemish frontier was a
constant drain on England's small army. Grenville ascribed the disaster to
the "common cause" to the failure of the Austrian government to fulfil its
promise of sending a reinforcement of 5,000 men to the garrison.[247] The
loss of the place was a bitter disappointment; it was mortifying in itself, and
it declared the futility of the high hopes built on the insurrectionary
movement in the south. Reckoning it with Dunkirk and the Vendean
expedition, the government had to confess to three failures in the year. Yet
England had some grounds for satisfaction. Tobago and the fishery islands
of St. Pierre and Miquelon were taken without difficulty, Pondicherry and
the other French factories in India were surrendered, several French ships of
war were captured in single-ship and other small combats, and a substantial
advantage was gained by the destruction of the ships at Toulon.
The success of the allies in the spring of 1793 gave Fox
an opportunity for moving for the re-establishment of REPRESSION.
peace. If, he argued, the war was undertaken to preserve
Holland and check the aggrandisement of France, that object was attained.
France had been the aggressor; so much the more reason was there to regard
the war as purely defensive, and end it when the aggression ended. Pitt said
that he would no longer pledge himself that England would not interfere in
Page 376
the internal affairs of France. So long as the existing French government
was in power, there could be no security that the system of aggression and
propagandism would cease, or that treaties would be observed. Fox's
motion was defeated by 187 to 47. Earlier in the session the government
brought in a bill against traitorous correspondence, to prevent intercourse
with France, and specially such acts as the purchase of French stocks,
which tended to support the enemy. Some of its provisions were unusually
restrictive, and the penalty of treason was attached to the breach of any of
them. The bill was passed without material alteration. In spite of the strong
feeling against societies believed to advocate revolutionary principles, Grey,
in accordance with his notice of the last session, moved that the petition of
the Friends of the People for parliamentary reform should be considered.
His motion, which was supported by Fox, was defeated by 282 to 41.
Violent efforts were made by the government to crush the effects of the
French propaganda, by prosecutions for uttering, printing, or publishing
sedition. The attack was indiscriminate; spies were employed, and idle
words of obscure persons were made grounds of indictment. Both in the
superior courts and at quarter sessions severe penalties were inflicted. One
Frost, a broken-down attorney, and a pestilent rascal enough, though
convicted merely of saying in a coffee-house that he was "for equality and
no king," was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to stand in the
pillory, and be struck off the roll. A dissenting preacher, found guilty of
using seditious language in the pulpit, was sentenced to fines of £200 and
four years' imprisonment; and Ridgway, a bookseller in Piccadilly, was
awarded the same penalty for selling the Rights of Man and two other
pamphlets of a kindred tendency. In Scotland, where the government
business was managed by Dundas, the parliamentary representation was
extremely unsatisfactory; the reformers were violent, and belonged to
revolutionary societies. The sedition cases were mostly heard before the
lord-justice clerk Braxfield, who behaved with scandalous harshness and
severity. One Muir, who had been expelled from the society of advocates,
though no offence of any magnitude was proved against him at his trial, was
condemned to fourteen years' transportation. Three others received like
sentences, and a dissenting preacher named Palmer was transported for five
years. Adam, an eminent Scottish lawyer, contended in parliament that the
was in power, there could be no security that the system of aggression and
propagandism would cease, or that treaties would be observed. Fox's
motion was defeated by 187 to 47. Earlier in the session the government
brought in a bill against traitorous correspondence, to prevent intercourse
with France, and specially such acts as the purchase of French stocks,
which tended to support the enemy. Some of its provisions were unusually
restrictive, and the penalty of treason was attached to the breach of any of
them. The bill was passed without material alteration. In spite of the strong
feeling against societies believed to advocate revolutionary principles, Grey,
in accordance with his notice of the last session, moved that the petition of
the Friends of the People for parliamentary reform should be considered.
His motion, which was supported by Fox, was defeated by 282 to 41.
Violent efforts were made by the government to crush the effects of the
French propaganda, by prosecutions for uttering, printing, or publishing
sedition. The attack was indiscriminate; spies were employed, and idle
words of obscure persons were made grounds of indictment. Both in the
superior courts and at quarter sessions severe penalties were inflicted. One
Frost, a broken-down attorney, and a pestilent rascal enough, though
convicted merely of saying in a coffee-house that he was "for equality and
no king," was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to stand in the
pillory, and be struck off the roll. A dissenting preacher, found guilty of
using seditious language in the pulpit, was sentenced to fines of £200 and
four years' imprisonment; and Ridgway, a bookseller in Piccadilly, was
awarded the same penalty for selling the Rights of Man and two other
pamphlets of a kindred tendency. In Scotland, where the government
business was managed by Dundas, the parliamentary representation was
extremely unsatisfactory; the reformers were violent, and belonged to
revolutionary societies. The sedition cases were mostly heard before the
lord-justice clerk Braxfield, who behaved with scandalous harshness and
severity. One Muir, who had been expelled from the society of advocates,
though no offence of any magnitude was proved against him at his trial, was
condemned to fourteen years' transportation. Three others received like
sentences, and a dissenting preacher named Palmer was transported for five
years. Adam, an eminent Scottish lawyer, contended in parliament that the
Page 377
sentences on Muir and Palmer were illegal. His opinion was traversed by
Dundas and Pitt, and his motion on their behalf was negatived by 171 to 32.
It must be remembered that the proceedings of the corresponding and
constitutional societies were such as no settled government could leave
unpunished. Some few arms and a mass of compromising documents were
seized in Edinburgh, and twelve of the leading members of these societies
were arrested in May, 1794. A secret committee of the commons presented
reports on seditious practices, which show that some persons had conspired
to raise an armed insurrection, and that a so-called national convention at
Edinburgh was concerned in treasonable conspiracy. Later in the year one
Watt was hanged for engaging in a wild plot to seize Edinburgh castle and
commit other acts of treason. On the presentation of the first report of the
committee the government brought in a bill to suspend the habeas corpus
act. Pitt declared the matter urgent, and the bill, which was introduced in the
commons on Friday the 16th, was passed in a special sitting the next day,
though not without a struggle, Fox accusing the ministers of a design to
terrorise the people in order to shield themselves from the condemnation
which they deserved for wickedly involving the country in a disastrous war.
The opposition in the commons did not rise in any division above 39, and
the lords passed the bill by 92 to 7. The ordinary law had hitherto proved
sufficient for the occasion, and a review of the evidence before parliament
does not appear to show adequate cause for arming the executive with an
authority so dangerous to liberty. Parliament was alarmed, and the
government shared its alarm and yielded to its desires. A revulsion of
feeling ensued. When the prisoners arrested in May were tried for treason,
the evidence was found to be weak. The first, Hardy, a shoemaker, was
brilliantly defended by Erskine, and was acquitted. Horne Tooke, the only
one of the lot in a superior social position, jeered at the court, and called
Pitt, the Duke of Richmond, and other great persons to give evidence as to
their former connexion with societies for parliamentary reform. He and
Thelwall, a lecturer, were acquitted, and the rest were set at liberty. The
general alarm was pacified, and people rejoiced that the high character of
the English courts of justice should have been vindicated.
When parliament met on January 21, 1794, the
opposition was able to taunt the government with the ACTIVITY OF THE
OPPOSITION.
feebleness and failure of the military operations of the
Dundas and Pitt, and his motion on their behalf was negatived by 171 to 32.
It must be remembered that the proceedings of the corresponding and
constitutional societies were such as no settled government could leave
unpunished. Some few arms and a mass of compromising documents were
seized in Edinburgh, and twelve of the leading members of these societies
were arrested in May, 1794. A secret committee of the commons presented
reports on seditious practices, which show that some persons had conspired
to raise an armed insurrection, and that a so-called national convention at
Edinburgh was concerned in treasonable conspiracy. Later in the year one
Watt was hanged for engaging in a wild plot to seize Edinburgh castle and
commit other acts of treason. On the presentation of the first report of the
committee the government brought in a bill to suspend the habeas corpus
act. Pitt declared the matter urgent, and the bill, which was introduced in the
commons on Friday the 16th, was passed in a special sitting the next day,
though not without a struggle, Fox accusing the ministers of a design to
terrorise the people in order to shield themselves from the condemnation
which they deserved for wickedly involving the country in a disastrous war.
The opposition in the commons did not rise in any division above 39, and
the lords passed the bill by 92 to 7. The ordinary law had hitherto proved
sufficient for the occasion, and a review of the evidence before parliament
does not appear to show adequate cause for arming the executive with an
authority so dangerous to liberty. Parliament was alarmed, and the
government shared its alarm and yielded to its desires. A revulsion of
feeling ensued. When the prisoners arrested in May were tried for treason,
the evidence was found to be weak. The first, Hardy, a shoemaker, was
brilliantly defended by Erskine, and was acquitted. Horne Tooke, the only
one of the lot in a superior social position, jeered at the court, and called
Pitt, the Duke of Richmond, and other great persons to give evidence as to
their former connexion with societies for parliamentary reform. He and
Thelwall, a lecturer, were acquitted, and the rest were set at liberty. The
general alarm was pacified, and people rejoiced that the high character of
the English courts of justice should have been vindicated.
When parliament met on January 21, 1794, the
opposition was able to taunt the government with the ACTIVITY OF THE
OPPOSITION.
feebleness and failure of the military operations of the
Page 378
past year. An amendment to the address recommending proposals of peace
was moved in both houses. In the lords it was supported only by 12 against
97 votes, the Duke of Bedford and Lords Lansdowne, Stanhope, and
Lauderdale as usual being conspicuous in opposition to the ministry. In the
commons, Fox urged that the cruel acts of the jacobin government should
not prevent England from negotiating with it, to which Pitt replied that no
dependence could be placed on the existing French government, and that
"any alternative was preferable to making peace with France upon the
system of its present rulers". The address was carried by 277 to 59. Votes
were passed for 60,000 regular troops and a naval force of 85,000 men.
Weak as the opposition was, it lost no opportunity. Some Hessian troops
sent to join a British force arrived off the Isle of Wight before the
expedition was ready, and were landed for a short time to prevent them
from suffering from sickness. The opposition maintained that this was a
violation of the bill of rights and the act of settlement. It was easily shown
that the law had not been violated and that the course pursued was not
irregular, and both lords and commons declined to allow that the matter
called for an act of indemnity. Compared with the trifling nature of the
occurrence, the fuss made over it by the opposition can only be explained
by a desire to impede the government in the performance of its duty at a
time of national danger. An invasion was threatened. The defence of
England, Grenville said, would best be secured by her "water-guard". It was
further provided for by raising volunteers. Dundas wrote to the lord-
lieutenants of counties, recommending subscriptions towards the expenses
of the movement. Fox and Sheridan declared that this recommendation was
illegal. Their contention that it was a demand for "benevolences" was
absurd. Yet a request by the government for money, not addressed to the
house of commons, seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution. Nor did
the safety of the state, which would outweigh all such considerations,
require the step. But the matter was of no practical importance and the
action of the government was approved by parliament.
As Frederick William was evidently withdrawing from the war,
Malmesbury was sent to Berlin, late in 1793, to persuade him to continue it.
He would not do so at his own expense, and it was proposed that the allies
should pay him to keep 100,000 men in the field. Thugut objected; Austria
could not pay her share and it would be better for Europe and for Austria
was moved in both houses. In the lords it was supported only by 12 against
97 votes, the Duke of Bedford and Lords Lansdowne, Stanhope, and
Lauderdale as usual being conspicuous in opposition to the ministry. In the
commons, Fox urged that the cruel acts of the jacobin government should
not prevent England from negotiating with it, to which Pitt replied that no
dependence could be placed on the existing French government, and that
"any alternative was preferable to making peace with France upon the
system of its present rulers". The address was carried by 277 to 59. Votes
were passed for 60,000 regular troops and a naval force of 85,000 men.
Weak as the opposition was, it lost no opportunity. Some Hessian troops
sent to join a British force arrived off the Isle of Wight before the
expedition was ready, and were landed for a short time to prevent them
from suffering from sickness. The opposition maintained that this was a
violation of the bill of rights and the act of settlement. It was easily shown
that the law had not been violated and that the course pursued was not
irregular, and both lords and commons declined to allow that the matter
called for an act of indemnity. Compared with the trifling nature of the
occurrence, the fuss made over it by the opposition can only be explained
by a desire to impede the government in the performance of its duty at a
time of national danger. An invasion was threatened. The defence of
England, Grenville said, would best be secured by her "water-guard". It was
further provided for by raising volunteers. Dundas wrote to the lord-
lieutenants of counties, recommending subscriptions towards the expenses
of the movement. Fox and Sheridan declared that this recommendation was
illegal. Their contention that it was a demand for "benevolences" was
absurd. Yet a request by the government for money, not addressed to the
house of commons, seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution. Nor did
the safety of the state, which would outweigh all such considerations,
require the step. But the matter was of no practical importance and the
action of the government was approved by parliament.
As Frederick William was evidently withdrawing from the war,
Malmesbury was sent to Berlin, late in 1793, to persuade him to continue it.
He would not do so at his own expense, and it was proposed that the allies
should pay him to keep 100,000 men in the field. Thugut objected; Austria
could not pay her share and it would be better for Europe and for Austria
Page 379
that the king should stay in Prussia than lead so large an army to the Rhine.
[248]
This upset the arrangement. England wanted a strong force on the
frontier of the Austrian Netherlands, and at last, on April 19, a treaty was
signed by which Frederick William agreed to furnish 62,400 men to act
with the armies of Great Britain and Holland "wherever it shall be judged
most suitable to the interests of the two maritime powers," all conquests
being at their disposal, on consideration of £50,000 a month, and £300,000
at the beginning, and £100,000 at the end of the campaign, with bread and
forage money. Of these sums £400,000 was to be paid by Holland and the
rest by England. Mack, the Austrian quartermaster-general, came to London
and laid a plan of campaign before the ministers. It was decided that the
Austrian and British armies should widen the breach made in the line of
French fortresses, should march on Cambrai and then perhaps on Paris,
supported by an advance of the Prussians from the Moselle, under
Möllendorf, who had succeeded Brunswick in command. Prompted by
Mack, who was then generally believed to be a strategist of supreme skill,
the ministers expressed dissatisfaction with Coburg, and as difficulties arose
with respect to the command,[249] the emperor took the ostensible command
himself and came to Brussels on April 2.
The campaign opened well. The allies invested
Landrecies, and an attempt to turn the British position at ENGLAND'S
Cateau was repulsed by a brilliant charge of the 15th ALLIES.
light dragoons; a more serious effort to raise the siege failed, and
Landrecies capitulated on the 30th. The Austrians under Clairfait, however,
were defeated at Mouscron. York marched to Tournai and the allies
attempted by a series of combined movements to cut off the French in West
Flanders from their communications with Lille. Their plan was wrecked by
their utter defeat at Tourcoing on May 16, where the British suffered
heavily. The French attacked the camp near Tournai on the 23rd with the
object of forcing the line of the Scheldt, but were foiled, and the British
infantry highly distinguished themselves by their gallant recapture of the
post at Pont-à-chin. Prussian help was urgently needed for the protection of
the Netherlands, and, though paid for by English gold, was not forthcoming.
A formidable insurrection broke out in Poland, and Frederick William
marched to quell it, ordering Möllendorf to confine himself to the defence
of the empire. Malmesbury and Cornwallis went to Mainz and urged
[248]
This upset the arrangement. England wanted a strong force on the
frontier of the Austrian Netherlands, and at last, on April 19, a treaty was
signed by which Frederick William agreed to furnish 62,400 men to act
with the armies of Great Britain and Holland "wherever it shall be judged
most suitable to the interests of the two maritime powers," all conquests
being at their disposal, on consideration of £50,000 a month, and £300,000
at the beginning, and £100,000 at the end of the campaign, with bread and
forage money. Of these sums £400,000 was to be paid by Holland and the
rest by England. Mack, the Austrian quartermaster-general, came to London
and laid a plan of campaign before the ministers. It was decided that the
Austrian and British armies should widen the breach made in the line of
French fortresses, should march on Cambrai and then perhaps on Paris,
supported by an advance of the Prussians from the Moselle, under
Möllendorf, who had succeeded Brunswick in command. Prompted by
Mack, who was then generally believed to be a strategist of supreme skill,
the ministers expressed dissatisfaction with Coburg, and as difficulties arose
with respect to the command,[249] the emperor took the ostensible command
himself and came to Brussels on April 2.
The campaign opened well. The allies invested
Landrecies, and an attempt to turn the British position at ENGLAND'S
Cateau was repulsed by a brilliant charge of the 15th ALLIES.
light dragoons; a more serious effort to raise the siege failed, and
Landrecies capitulated on the 30th. The Austrians under Clairfait, however,
were defeated at Mouscron. York marched to Tournai and the allies
attempted by a series of combined movements to cut off the French in West
Flanders from their communications with Lille. Their plan was wrecked by
their utter defeat at Tourcoing on May 16, where the British suffered
heavily. The French attacked the camp near Tournai on the 23rd with the
object of forcing the line of the Scheldt, but were foiled, and the British
infantry highly distinguished themselves by their gallant recapture of the
post at Pont-à-chin. Prussian help was urgently needed for the protection of
the Netherlands, and, though paid for by English gold, was not forthcoming.
A formidable insurrection broke out in Poland, and Frederick William
marched to quell it, ordering Möllendorf to confine himself to the defence
of the empire. Malmesbury and Cornwallis went to Mainz and urged
Page 380
Möllendorf to proceed to Flanders; nothing would move him. The emperor
was more anxious about his interests in Poland than the defence of the
Netherlands, and returned to Vienna. On June 26, Coburg was defeated by
Jourdan at Fleurus and rapidly retired on Waterloo. On July 11, the French
entered Brussels. The Austrians retreated to the Meuse, and York's corps to
Malines where it was joined by 7,000 men under Lord Moira, who had
landed at Ostend on June 26. Disgusted at the supineness of the Austrians,
who were leaving the British and Dutch to their fate, the English
government insisted that Coburg should be superseded.[250] They urged the
emperor to make an effort to reconquer the Netherlands. Thugut replied that
Austria had no money, that the Netherlands were more important to
England and Holland than to the emperor, who did not get £200 a year from
them, and that the Prussian subsidy ought to be transferred to Austria, or a
large loan guaranteed.[251] Austria was set on her interests in Poland, and it
is scarcely too much to say that she virtually betrayed the common cause.
These negotiations were brought to an end by the success of the French
arms in Germany. The Austrians retreated across the Rhine in October, and
England was not going to pay for the defence of the empire. The useless
subsidy to Prussia was stopped on the 17th, and Möllendorf withdrew his
army across the Rhine. Meanwhile York's army had fallen back on the line
of Dutch fortresses; it was driven across the Meuse, was forced to retreat
from Nimeguen, and encamped behind the Waal. Dissatisfied with his
generalship, Pitt, as early as October 11, represented to the king that the
division of command between him and the Prince of Orange was
mischievous, and suggested that some experienced general should be sent
out. George, who was deeply attached to his son, seems to have put the
suggestion aside, for on November 23, Pitt wrote again insisting on the
duke's recall. The king, though "very much hurt" was forced to yield and
the command-in-chief devolved on General Walmoden.[252] York had
shown himself a gallant soldier and had already proved his capacity as a
military administrator, but he was not equal to the command of an army in
the field.
The first attempt of the French on the line of the Waal was smartly repulsed
by Sir David Dundas on January 4, 1795, but they crossed in large force a
week later, and the British fell back. The line of the Lek was abandoned and
was more anxious about his interests in Poland than the defence of the
Netherlands, and returned to Vienna. On June 26, Coburg was defeated by
Jourdan at Fleurus and rapidly retired on Waterloo. On July 11, the French
entered Brussels. The Austrians retreated to the Meuse, and York's corps to
Malines where it was joined by 7,000 men under Lord Moira, who had
landed at Ostend on June 26. Disgusted at the supineness of the Austrians,
who were leaving the British and Dutch to their fate, the English
government insisted that Coburg should be superseded.[250] They urged the
emperor to make an effort to reconquer the Netherlands. Thugut replied that
Austria had no money, that the Netherlands were more important to
England and Holland than to the emperor, who did not get £200 a year from
them, and that the Prussian subsidy ought to be transferred to Austria, or a
large loan guaranteed.[251] Austria was set on her interests in Poland, and it
is scarcely too much to say that she virtually betrayed the common cause.
These negotiations were brought to an end by the success of the French
arms in Germany. The Austrians retreated across the Rhine in October, and
England was not going to pay for the defence of the empire. The useless
subsidy to Prussia was stopped on the 17th, and Möllendorf withdrew his
army across the Rhine. Meanwhile York's army had fallen back on the line
of Dutch fortresses; it was driven across the Meuse, was forced to retreat
from Nimeguen, and encamped behind the Waal. Dissatisfied with his
generalship, Pitt, as early as October 11, represented to the king that the
division of command between him and the Prince of Orange was
mischievous, and suggested that some experienced general should be sent
out. George, who was deeply attached to his son, seems to have put the
suggestion aside, for on November 23, Pitt wrote again insisting on the
duke's recall. The king, though "very much hurt" was forced to yield and
the command-in-chief devolved on General Walmoden.[252] York had
shown himself a gallant soldier and had already proved his capacity as a
military administrator, but he was not equal to the command of an army in
the field.
The first attempt of the French on the line of the Waal was smartly repulsed
by Sir David Dundas on January 4, 1795, but they crossed in large force a
week later, and the British fell back. The line of the Lek was abandoned and
Page 381
the province of Utrecht evacuated. As the French advanced, their party
among the Dutch gathered strength; the stadholder fled to England, the
Dutch troops separated from the British, Amsterdam received the invaders,
and on the 30th the Dutch fleet, which lay frozen up in the Texel, was
captured by French cavalry. Meanwhile the British suffered terribly from
the severe cold; and their sick and wounded were often exposed to ill-
treatment by the people. The government decided to withdraw the army and
bring it back by Bremen. It retreated across the Yssel and by the end of
February evacuated the United Provinces and entered Westphalia by way of
Enschede. Westphalia was held by Möllendorf's army, and the British
troops, worn out by sickness and privations, were embarked at Bremen on
April 12.
By the end of 1794 the French were everywhere
victorious on land. They were masters of the DEFECTIONS
Netherlands and were over-running Holland; they held FROM THE
COALITION.
all the country to the left of the Rhine except Mainz and
Luxemburg; a victorious French army wintered in Catalonia; the passes of
the maritime Alps were opened, and the Piedmontese were driven back
from Mont Cenis and the Little St. Bernard. The states-general proclaimed
the establishment of the Batavian republic, and a treaty with France signed
on May 16 placed the Dutch in a position of virtual dependence. Frederick
William, anxious to forward his interests in Poland, had abandoned the war,
and was turning towards peace with France. The spoliation of Poland,
which exercised so deadly an effect on the fortunes of the coalition, was
completed in January, 1795, when Russia divided the remainder of the
country between herself, Austria, and Prussia by an arrangement confirmed
by treaties later in the year. The coalition suffered from further defections.
The Grand-duke of Tuscany, who was compelled by Hood's fleet to break
off intercourse with the republic in the summer of 1793, was restored to his
former state of neutrality by a treaty with France. Spain also was deserting
the coalition. Godoy, the lover of the queen of Charles IV., who controlled
the policy of the court, opened negotiations with France before the end of
1794. Among the questions which retarded their progress was the fate of the
Spanish king's young kinsman, the dauphin, or Louis XVII. Death released
the poor boy from his misery in June. The French entered Vittoria and were
preparing for the siege of Pampeluna. Their successes hastened matters; the
among the Dutch gathered strength; the stadholder fled to England, the
Dutch troops separated from the British, Amsterdam received the invaders,
and on the 30th the Dutch fleet, which lay frozen up in the Texel, was
captured by French cavalry. Meanwhile the British suffered terribly from
the severe cold; and their sick and wounded were often exposed to ill-
treatment by the people. The government decided to withdraw the army and
bring it back by Bremen. It retreated across the Yssel and by the end of
February evacuated the United Provinces and entered Westphalia by way of
Enschede. Westphalia was held by Möllendorf's army, and the British
troops, worn out by sickness and privations, were embarked at Bremen on
April 12.
By the end of 1794 the French were everywhere
victorious on land. They were masters of the DEFECTIONS
Netherlands and were over-running Holland; they held FROM THE
COALITION.
all the country to the left of the Rhine except Mainz and
Luxemburg; a victorious French army wintered in Catalonia; the passes of
the maritime Alps were opened, and the Piedmontese were driven back
from Mont Cenis and the Little St. Bernard. The states-general proclaimed
the establishment of the Batavian republic, and a treaty with France signed
on May 16 placed the Dutch in a position of virtual dependence. Frederick
William, anxious to forward his interests in Poland, had abandoned the war,
and was turning towards peace with France. The spoliation of Poland,
which exercised so deadly an effect on the fortunes of the coalition, was
completed in January, 1795, when Russia divided the remainder of the
country between herself, Austria, and Prussia by an arrangement confirmed
by treaties later in the year. The coalition suffered from further defections.
The Grand-duke of Tuscany, who was compelled by Hood's fleet to break
off intercourse with the republic in the summer of 1793, was restored to his
former state of neutrality by a treaty with France. Spain also was deserting
the coalition. Godoy, the lover of the queen of Charles IV., who controlled
the policy of the court, opened negotiations with France before the end of
1794. Among the questions which retarded their progress was the fate of the
Spanish king's young kinsman, the dauphin, or Louis XVII. Death released
the poor boy from his misery in June. The French entered Vittoria and were
preparing for the siege of Pampeluna. Their successes hastened matters; the
Page 382
treaty with France was concluded on July 22, 1795, and the minion Godoy
was saluted as "Prince of the Peace". Pitt's coalition was well-nigh ruined.
While the year 1794 saw the hopes of England frustrated on the continent,
she was victorious at sea. Acting on overtures from Paoli, Hood attacked
the French in Corsica, and sent Nelson to blockade Bastia, which was
surrendered on May 22. Calvi was besieged by a military force under
General Stuart and by Nelson, who lost his right eye there. Its capitulation,
on August 10, completed the conquest of the island. In the West Indies a
squadron under Sir John Jervis and troops commanded by Sir Charles,
afterwards the first Earl Grey, compelled the surrender of Martinique, St.
Lucia, and Guadaloupe with Mariegalante. Port-au-Prince and harbours
important to the Jamaica trade were also taken in the French part of San
Domingo. But the British force was insufficient for all that it had to do in
the West Indies. French troops landed in Guadaloupe during the absence of
Jervis and Grey, were welcomed by a large part of the creole population,
and after a long struggle forced the British to evacuate the island.
England's maritime strength, combined with a bad
harvest, war, and insurrection, caused a scarcity of food THE GLORIOUS
FIRST OF JUNE.
in France which threatened to amount to a famine. A
fleet of merchant ships laden with provisions was anxiously expected from
America, and a convoying squadron was sent to bring it over. The channel
fleet, thirty-four ships of the line and fifteen frigates, under Howe, sailed on
May 2 with 148 merchantmen bound for different parts. Howe despatched
the merchantmen and their convoys under Admiral Montagu, with orders
that after Montagu had convoyed the merchantmen a certain distance, he
was to cruise about with six ships of the line and look out for the provision
ships. Their safe arrival was vital to France, and Rear-admiral Villaret-
Joyeuse sailed with the Brest fleet to bring them in. As soon as Howe found
that the French fleet had sailed, he determined to strike at the main force of
the enemy. He sighted the French to windward on the 28th, about 400 miles
west of Ushant. Their fleet consisted of twenty-six ships of the line, the
same number as his own. He at once sent four of his fastest ships to get to
windward of them, and attack their rear. A partial action took place in which
the Révolutionnaire (110) was utterly disabled, and her last assailant, the
Audacious (74), was so crippled that she went home. On the 29th Howe
planned to obtain the weather-gage and to deliver a concentrated attack on
was saluted as "Prince of the Peace". Pitt's coalition was well-nigh ruined.
While the year 1794 saw the hopes of England frustrated on the continent,
she was victorious at sea. Acting on overtures from Paoli, Hood attacked
the French in Corsica, and sent Nelson to blockade Bastia, which was
surrendered on May 22. Calvi was besieged by a military force under
General Stuart and by Nelson, who lost his right eye there. Its capitulation,
on August 10, completed the conquest of the island. In the West Indies a
squadron under Sir John Jervis and troops commanded by Sir Charles,
afterwards the first Earl Grey, compelled the surrender of Martinique, St.
Lucia, and Guadaloupe with Mariegalante. Port-au-Prince and harbours
important to the Jamaica trade were also taken in the French part of San
Domingo. But the British force was insufficient for all that it had to do in
the West Indies. French troops landed in Guadaloupe during the absence of
Jervis and Grey, were welcomed by a large part of the creole population,
and after a long struggle forced the British to evacuate the island.
England's maritime strength, combined with a bad
harvest, war, and insurrection, caused a scarcity of food THE GLORIOUS
FIRST OF JUNE.
in France which threatened to amount to a famine. A
fleet of merchant ships laden with provisions was anxiously expected from
America, and a convoying squadron was sent to bring it over. The channel
fleet, thirty-four ships of the line and fifteen frigates, under Howe, sailed on
May 2 with 148 merchantmen bound for different parts. Howe despatched
the merchantmen and their convoys under Admiral Montagu, with orders
that after Montagu had convoyed the merchantmen a certain distance, he
was to cruise about with six ships of the line and look out for the provision
ships. Their safe arrival was vital to France, and Rear-admiral Villaret-
Joyeuse sailed with the Brest fleet to bring them in. As soon as Howe found
that the French fleet had sailed, he determined to strike at the main force of
the enemy. He sighted the French to windward on the 28th, about 400 miles
west of Ushant. Their fleet consisted of twenty-six ships of the line, the
same number as his own. He at once sent four of his fastest ships to get to
windward of them, and attack their rear. A partial action took place in which
the Révolutionnaire (110) was utterly disabled, and her last assailant, the
Audacious (74), was so crippled that she went home. On the 29th Howe
planned to obtain the weather-gage and to deliver a concentrated attack on
Page 383
the rear of the enemy. He took his flagship, the Queen Charlotte (100),
through the French line, and was followed by two others. Villaret
manœuvred skilfully, but three of his ships were badly damaged. The result
of Howe's admirable tactics during these two days was that four French
ships were forced to leave the fleet, and another had to be towed by a
consort, and that he won the windward position and so was enabled to force
an action. On the 30th there was a thick fog, and during the day the French
received a reinforcement of four ships, giving them the advantage of one
over the British. The fog cleared at noon on the 31st; the British fleet came
up with the enemy, then to leeward, and "near sunset" formed the line of
battle.
On Sunday morning, June 1, a fresh breeze blowing south by west, the two
fleets lay in parallel lines, the leading British ship being opposite to the
seventh of the French fleet. The British having formed on the larboard line
of bearing, Howe brought them down slantwise on the enemy, apparently
intending that each ship should pass across the stern of her opponent, rake
her, and engage to leeward. Unlike Rodney in the battle of the Saints, he
deliberately adopted the manœuvre of breaking the line, and planned that
his ships should fight to leeward instead of to windward, and so bar the
crippled ships of the enemy from getting away. As the Queen Charlotte
bore down, he bade the master, Bowen, lay her as close as he could to
Villaret's flagship, the Montagne (120). Bowen brought her so close round
the Frenchman's stern that the tricolour ensign flapped against her shrouds,
and as she passed she raked her gigantic enemy from stern to stem with her
larboard broadside to such effect that the Montagne lost 300 killed and
wounded before she could make reply. Six British ships broke through the
line and engaged to leeward; the others remained to windward, the captains
perhaps not fully understanding Howe's plan.
As the Brunswick (74) tried to force her way through the French line, her
anchors caught in the rigging of the Vengeur du Peuple (74), and the two
ships drifted side by side in deadly embrace for three hours. When at last
they parted the Brunswick had received much damage and lost 158 men,
including her captain, who was mortally wounded. The Vengeur was a
wreck. A broadside from the Ramillies (74) finished her. She "hauled her
colours down and displayed a Union Jack over her quarter, and hailed for
quarter having struck, her masts going soon after, and a-sinking".[253] The
through the French line, and was followed by two others. Villaret
manœuvred skilfully, but three of his ships were badly damaged. The result
of Howe's admirable tactics during these two days was that four French
ships were forced to leave the fleet, and another had to be towed by a
consort, and that he won the windward position and so was enabled to force
an action. On the 30th there was a thick fog, and during the day the French
received a reinforcement of four ships, giving them the advantage of one
over the British. The fog cleared at noon on the 31st; the British fleet came
up with the enemy, then to leeward, and "near sunset" formed the line of
battle.
On Sunday morning, June 1, a fresh breeze blowing south by west, the two
fleets lay in parallel lines, the leading British ship being opposite to the
seventh of the French fleet. The British having formed on the larboard line
of bearing, Howe brought them down slantwise on the enemy, apparently
intending that each ship should pass across the stern of her opponent, rake
her, and engage to leeward. Unlike Rodney in the battle of the Saints, he
deliberately adopted the manœuvre of breaking the line, and planned that
his ships should fight to leeward instead of to windward, and so bar the
crippled ships of the enemy from getting away. As the Queen Charlotte
bore down, he bade the master, Bowen, lay her as close as he could to
Villaret's flagship, the Montagne (120). Bowen brought her so close round
the Frenchman's stern that the tricolour ensign flapped against her shrouds,
and as she passed she raked her gigantic enemy from stern to stem with her
larboard broadside to such effect that the Montagne lost 300 killed and
wounded before she could make reply. Six British ships broke through the
line and engaged to leeward; the others remained to windward, the captains
perhaps not fully understanding Howe's plan.
As the Brunswick (74) tried to force her way through the French line, her
anchors caught in the rigging of the Vengeur du Peuple (74), and the two
ships drifted side by side in deadly embrace for three hours. When at last
they parted the Brunswick had received much damage and lost 158 men,
including her captain, who was mortally wounded. The Vengeur was a
wreck. A broadside from the Ramillies (74) finished her. She "hauled her
colours down and displayed a Union Jack over her quarter, and hailed for
quarter having struck, her masts going soon after, and a-sinking".[253] The
Page 384
Alfred (74) sent an officer aboard her, and the boats of three English ships
saved about 333 of her crew. The "rest went down with her". The flatulent
account of her end, given by Barrère in the convention, is largely imaginary.
The crew of the Vengeur did not choose death rather than the surrender of
their ship. Some of those whom the efforts of the British seamen failed to
save, went down with a cry of Vive la république! They had surrendered
after a hard-fought fight, and they died as gallant seamen die. The battle of
"the glorious first of June" ended in the complete victory of the British fleet.
Six French ships were taken besides the Vengeur; five dismasted and
several crippled ships were brought away by Villaret. Howe might easily
have secured more prizes, but he was an old man, and was completely worn
out by the fatigue and anxiety of the last five days. His tactics were
splendid, though the detaching of part of his fleet under Montagu was a
strategic mistake. The provision ships got safely into Brest, but the French
purchased their food at the cost of their fleet.
In July the whigs who supported Pitt coalesced with the government. A
third secretaryship of state was again instituted. Grenville remained foreign
secretary; the Duke of Portland, the nominal head of the seceding whigs,
took the home department, with the colonies, and Dundas retained the
conduct of the war as secretary of state for war. Earl Fitzwilliam became
president of the council, and was promised the vice-royalty of Ireland as
soon as a suitable place was found for the present lord lieutenant, the Earl
of Westmorland. The Marquis of Stafford resigned the privy seal, which
was given to Earl Spencer, and Windham entered the cabinet as secretary-
at-war, though his office was not then considered as one of cabinet rank.
Burke retired from parliament at the close of the trial of Hastings, and, as he
was in straitened circumstances, accepted two pensions of £1,200 and
£2,500. The death of his only son clouded the last years of his noble life.
Two later changes in office were salutary. Pitt had the unpleasant duty of
urging the king to remove his brother Chatham from the admiralty;[254] he
resigned on December 20, was succeeded as first lord by Earl Spencer, an
excellent appointment, and succeeded Spencer as privy seal, an office more
suited to his temperament and talents. The Duke of Richmond was held to
be inefficient as master of the ordnance; the new ministers insisted on his
removal, and he was succeeded on February 13, 1795, by Cornwallis. At the
same time the king appointed his son York field-marshal on the staff; he
saved about 333 of her crew. The "rest went down with her". The flatulent
account of her end, given by Barrère in the convention, is largely imaginary.
The crew of the Vengeur did not choose death rather than the surrender of
their ship. Some of those whom the efforts of the British seamen failed to
save, went down with a cry of Vive la république! They had surrendered
after a hard-fought fight, and they died as gallant seamen die. The battle of
"the glorious first of June" ended in the complete victory of the British fleet.
Six French ships were taken besides the Vengeur; five dismasted and
several crippled ships were brought away by Villaret. Howe might easily
have secured more prizes, but he was an old man, and was completely worn
out by the fatigue and anxiety of the last five days. His tactics were
splendid, though the detaching of part of his fleet under Montagu was a
strategic mistake. The provision ships got safely into Brest, but the French
purchased their food at the cost of their fleet.
In July the whigs who supported Pitt coalesced with the government. A
third secretaryship of state was again instituted. Grenville remained foreign
secretary; the Duke of Portland, the nominal head of the seceding whigs,
took the home department, with the colonies, and Dundas retained the
conduct of the war as secretary of state for war. Earl Fitzwilliam became
president of the council, and was promised the vice-royalty of Ireland as
soon as a suitable place was found for the present lord lieutenant, the Earl
of Westmorland. The Marquis of Stafford resigned the privy seal, which
was given to Earl Spencer, and Windham entered the cabinet as secretary-
at-war, though his office was not then considered as one of cabinet rank.
Burke retired from parliament at the close of the trial of Hastings, and, as he
was in straitened circumstances, accepted two pensions of £1,200 and
£2,500. The death of his only son clouded the last years of his noble life.
Two later changes in office were salutary. Pitt had the unpleasant duty of
urging the king to remove his brother Chatham from the admiralty;[254] he
resigned on December 20, was succeeded as first lord by Earl Spencer, an
excellent appointment, and succeeded Spencer as privy seal, an office more
suited to his temperament and talents. The Duke of Richmond was held to
be inefficient as master of the ordnance; the new ministers insisted on his
removal, and he was succeeded on February 13, 1795, by Cornwallis. At the
same time the king appointed his son York field-marshal on the staff; he
Page 385
became commander-in-chief in 1798, but at no time had a seat in the
cabinet.
These accessions and changes strengthened the ministry.
For a time, however, the new ministers recruited from THE IRISH
CATHOLIC
the whigs were inclined to act as a party on questions QUESTION.
concerning office. This caused some trouble in the
cabinet, specially in connexion with Ireland. Although the trade of Ireland
was increased by the removal of restrictions, its agriculture stimulated by
bounties on exported corn, and its manufactures and other resources
enlarged by parliamentary grants and wise legislation, its political condition
was unsatisfactory. It needed a reform of parliament, the admission of
catholics to political power, the overthrow of the system by which the castle
secured power by the distribution of pensions and offices, and a change in
the tithe law. The Earl of Westmorland had succeeded Buckingham as lord-
lieutenant in 1790. Round him stood a group of ministers, bishops, and
great lords opposed to any changes. Revolutionary principles gained ground
among the people. The society of United Irishmen, founded by Wolfe Tone,
a lawyer, in 1791, aimed at uniting protestants and catholics for the purpose
of overthrowing the English ascendency and effecting a reform of
parliament of a democratic kind. While religious animosity was dying out
among the upper classes, it was rife among the peasantry, and catholic
"defenders" and protestant "peep of day boys" were at constant war. The
catholics still suffered from many disabilities. Their hopes of relief were
encouraged by the English relief act of 1791, and by the advocacy of Burke,
who in his Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe (1792), argued against the
monopoly of power by the protestants, and allowed his son to act as the
professional adviser of the catholic committee. The English ministers
favoured the catholics, and dreaded an alliance between them and the
democratic party among the protestants, which would bring them over to
join in the demand for parliamentary reform.
Dundas urged the Irish government to assent to the enfranchisement of the
catholics on grounds both of justice and expediency. Westmorland and his
advisers objected. Pitt recommended them to give way, and wrote that in
any case they must not deprive the catholics of hope. In a letter to
Westmorland he pointed out that no danger could possibly arise from
enfranchisement if Ireland were united to England, a plan which, he said,
cabinet.
These accessions and changes strengthened the ministry.
For a time, however, the new ministers recruited from THE IRISH
CATHOLIC
the whigs were inclined to act as a party on questions QUESTION.
concerning office. This caused some trouble in the
cabinet, specially in connexion with Ireland. Although the trade of Ireland
was increased by the removal of restrictions, its agriculture stimulated by
bounties on exported corn, and its manufactures and other resources
enlarged by parliamentary grants and wise legislation, its political condition
was unsatisfactory. It needed a reform of parliament, the admission of
catholics to political power, the overthrow of the system by which the castle
secured power by the distribution of pensions and offices, and a change in
the tithe law. The Earl of Westmorland had succeeded Buckingham as lord-
lieutenant in 1790. Round him stood a group of ministers, bishops, and
great lords opposed to any changes. Revolutionary principles gained ground
among the people. The society of United Irishmen, founded by Wolfe Tone,
a lawyer, in 1791, aimed at uniting protestants and catholics for the purpose
of overthrowing the English ascendency and effecting a reform of
parliament of a democratic kind. While religious animosity was dying out
among the upper classes, it was rife among the peasantry, and catholic
"defenders" and protestant "peep of day boys" were at constant war. The
catholics still suffered from many disabilities. Their hopes of relief were
encouraged by the English relief act of 1791, and by the advocacy of Burke,
who in his Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe (1792), argued against the
monopoly of power by the protestants, and allowed his son to act as the
professional adviser of the catholic committee. The English ministers
favoured the catholics, and dreaded an alliance between them and the
democratic party among the protestants, which would bring them over to
join in the demand for parliamentary reform.
Dundas urged the Irish government to assent to the enfranchisement of the
catholics on grounds both of justice and expediency. Westmorland and his
advisers objected. Pitt recommended them to give way, and wrote that in
any case they must not deprive the catholics of hope. In a letter to
Westmorland he pointed out that no danger could possibly arise from
enfranchisement if Ireland were united to England, a plan which, he said,
Page 386
had long been in his mind.[255] The Irish government yielded, and a bill
granting the catholics the suffrage and other relief became law in April,
1793. They were still shut out from parliament and from high offices of
state. The measure was ill-conceived, for while it conferred political power
upon the poor and ignorant catholics, it left the catholic gentry, a loyal and
conservative body, debarred from exercising the influence to which their
position entitled them. On the outbreak of the war Grattan supported the
government; and parliament voted liberal supplies for the army and navy,
and passed a bill establishing an Irish militia of the same kind as that of
England. The country was disturbed by troubles over the compulsory
enlistment for the militia and by the lawlessness of the defenders. A period
of comparative quiet, however, followed the relief act, and the rejection of a
moderate reform bill in 1794 created no disturbance. Nevertheless secret
disloyalty increased, and Tone and some of his allies held seditious
correspondence with France.[256] The United Irishmen grew in numbers, for
while the leaders, Tone, Emmet, and Rowan were protestants, they were
joined by many catholics. On the other hand, Grattan and his party,
supported by most of the protestant and many of the catholic gentry, though
anxious for reforms and specially for the complete repeal of the catholic
disabilities, were strongly opposed to the democratic movement and were
loyal to the constitution of 1782.
Their hopes were raised by the prospect of the speedy
appointment of Fitzwilliam as lord-lieutenant, which FITZWILLIAM AS
VICEROY.
seemed to promise a change of system favourable to the
hopes of the Irish whigs. On taking office as president of the council in July,
Fitzwilliam, in common with Portland, to whose department Ireland
belonged, thought that he was to succeed Westmorland without delay; he
appointed his chief secretary and openly entered into communications with
Grattan and Ponsonby which implied extensive changes both of men and
measures.[257] The Irish were delighted. Pitt, however, did not mean to give
Ireland over to Portland and Fitzwilliam. Unfortunately he let matters slide;
though he did not recall Westmorland, he abstained from checking
Fitzwilliam's somewhat premature proceedings. In October, Portland
pressed for Fitzwilliam's immediate appointment. Pitt then said that he
would not consent to a change of system, and specially not to the dismissal
of the chancellor, Fitzgibbon, and would not recall Westmorland until he
granting the catholics the suffrage and other relief became law in April,
1793. They were still shut out from parliament and from high offices of
state. The measure was ill-conceived, for while it conferred political power
upon the poor and ignorant catholics, it left the catholic gentry, a loyal and
conservative body, debarred from exercising the influence to which their
position entitled them. On the outbreak of the war Grattan supported the
government; and parliament voted liberal supplies for the army and navy,
and passed a bill establishing an Irish militia of the same kind as that of
England. The country was disturbed by troubles over the compulsory
enlistment for the militia and by the lawlessness of the defenders. A period
of comparative quiet, however, followed the relief act, and the rejection of a
moderate reform bill in 1794 created no disturbance. Nevertheless secret
disloyalty increased, and Tone and some of his allies held seditious
correspondence with France.[256] The United Irishmen grew in numbers, for
while the leaders, Tone, Emmet, and Rowan were protestants, they were
joined by many catholics. On the other hand, Grattan and his party,
supported by most of the protestant and many of the catholic gentry, though
anxious for reforms and specially for the complete repeal of the catholic
disabilities, were strongly opposed to the democratic movement and were
loyal to the constitution of 1782.
Their hopes were raised by the prospect of the speedy
appointment of Fitzwilliam as lord-lieutenant, which FITZWILLIAM AS
VICEROY.
seemed to promise a change of system favourable to the
hopes of the Irish whigs. On taking office as president of the council in July,
Fitzwilliam, in common with Portland, to whose department Ireland
belonged, thought that he was to succeed Westmorland without delay; he
appointed his chief secretary and openly entered into communications with
Grattan and Ponsonby which implied extensive changes both of men and
measures.[257] The Irish were delighted. Pitt, however, did not mean to give
Ireland over to Portland and Fitzwilliam. Unfortunately he let matters slide;
though he did not recall Westmorland, he abstained from checking
Fitzwilliam's somewhat premature proceedings. In October, Portland
pressed for Fitzwilliam's immediate appointment. Pitt then said that he
would not consent to a change of system, and specially not to the dismissal
of the chancellor, Fitzgibbon, and would not recall Westmorland until he
Page 387
had a suitable place to offer him. A serious quarrel ensued between him and
the new ministers of Portland's party. At last a compromise was effected. A
court office was found for Westmorland. Fitzwilliam in an interview with
Pitt and other ministers disavowed all idea of a general change of system,
agreed to some arrangements with regard to appointments, and was
instructed to prevent, if possible, the agitation of the catholic question
during the coming session, though if he could not evade it he was to be at
liberty to give the measure his full support.[258] Pitt was favourable to
catholic emancipation, but wished to have no changes during the war.
Fitzwilliam received his appointment and was succeeded as president of the
council by the Earl of Mansfield.
He landed in Ireland on January 4, 1795. His
appointment had inspired the catholic committee with FITZWILLIAM
RECALLED.
fresh vigour, and he found that the catholics were united
on the question of a complete removal of disabilities and that the mass of
the protestant gentry favoured their demand. Defenderism was active and
the country was in a disturbed state. He informed the cabinet that the
catholic question was urgent. Parliament met and in a loyal humour voted
large supplies for the war. Grattan undertook the catholic business, and
Fitzwilliam promised his support, and pressed for the approval of the
cabinet on the ground that a complete repeal of all disqualifying laws was
necessary in order to secure the pacification and loyalty of the country. No
answer was sent to his appeals. Meanwhile Fitzwilliam dismissed some
administrative officers and among them Beresford, a powerful member of
the party which had so long been preponderant at the castle. Beresford
carried his complaint to London, and Pitt remonstrated with Fitzwilliam on
his dismissal. Portland, too, at last wrote, warning him not to commit
himself on the catholic question. It was too late. Portland wrote again and
declared himself hostile to emancipation. Fitzwilliam expostulated in vain,
and finally, on February 23, the cabinet agreed to recall him. He left Ireland
on March 25. It was a day of general gloom; the Dublin tradesmen put up
their shutters, no business was transacted, and many persons wore
mourning. The hopes of Ireland were bitterly disappointed and the door
seemed shut against reforms by constitutional means. Lord Camden was
appointed lord-lieutenant, the catholic bill was rejected, Fitzgibbon was
made Earl of Clare, and the party in favour of the protestant ascendency
the new ministers of Portland's party. At last a compromise was effected. A
court office was found for Westmorland. Fitzwilliam in an interview with
Pitt and other ministers disavowed all idea of a general change of system,
agreed to some arrangements with regard to appointments, and was
instructed to prevent, if possible, the agitation of the catholic question
during the coming session, though if he could not evade it he was to be at
liberty to give the measure his full support.[258] Pitt was favourable to
catholic emancipation, but wished to have no changes during the war.
Fitzwilliam received his appointment and was succeeded as president of the
council by the Earl of Mansfield.
He landed in Ireland on January 4, 1795. His
appointment had inspired the catholic committee with FITZWILLIAM
RECALLED.
fresh vigour, and he found that the catholics were united
on the question of a complete removal of disabilities and that the mass of
the protestant gentry favoured their demand. Defenderism was active and
the country was in a disturbed state. He informed the cabinet that the
catholic question was urgent. Parliament met and in a loyal humour voted
large supplies for the war. Grattan undertook the catholic business, and
Fitzwilliam promised his support, and pressed for the approval of the
cabinet on the ground that a complete repeal of all disqualifying laws was
necessary in order to secure the pacification and loyalty of the country. No
answer was sent to his appeals. Meanwhile Fitzwilliam dismissed some
administrative officers and among them Beresford, a powerful member of
the party which had so long been preponderant at the castle. Beresford
carried his complaint to London, and Pitt remonstrated with Fitzwilliam on
his dismissal. Portland, too, at last wrote, warning him not to commit
himself on the catholic question. It was too late. Portland wrote again and
declared himself hostile to emancipation. Fitzwilliam expostulated in vain,
and finally, on February 23, the cabinet agreed to recall him. He left Ireland
on March 25. It was a day of general gloom; the Dublin tradesmen put up
their shutters, no business was transacted, and many persons wore
mourning. The hopes of Ireland were bitterly disappointed and the door
seemed shut against reforms by constitutional means. Lord Camden was
appointed lord-lieutenant, the catholic bill was rejected, Fitzgibbon was
made Earl of Clare, and the party in favour of the protestant ascendency
Page 388
was re-established in power. Whether the presence of catholics in the
parliament would have led to such a thorough removal of the causes of Irish
discontent as would have pacified the country and saved it from the
rebellion of 1798 seems extremely doubtful, but it is certain that the recall
of Fitzwilliam was fatal to any chance of so happy a settlement.
Although he acted hastily and unadvisedly as regards the dismissals, he was
right in saying that it was impossible for him to stave off the catholic
claims, and that no measures would secure the loyalty of the catholics or the
peace of Ireland unless they were satisfied. As Pitt desired to defer
emancipation to an uncertain date, the end of the war, he should not have
excited the expectation of the Irish by an appointment which they naturally
interpreted as a sign of immediate acquiescence. Fitzwilliam, before his
actual appointment, was allowed to commit himself to a line of conduct to
which Pitt afterwards objected; his instructions were somewhat vague, and
he did not receive timely notice that the cabinet would not assent to the
policy he was adopting.[259] Deeply immersed in the conduct of the war, Pitt
seems to have neglected the affairs of Ireland at this time, and to have failed
to appreciate the gravity of the crisis. Fitzwilliam's recall was due partly to
Pitt's unwillingness to offend Beresford's powerful friends in both countries
and the whole party which had given him valuable support,[260] partly to his
determination to avoid any change of system during the war, and partly to
the dislike of some other members of the cabinet, plainly expressed by
Portland, to the proposed overthrow of the protestant ascendency. Yet
another influence was brought to bear on the decision of the cabinet. On
February 6 the king sent Pitt a statement of his strong objection to
emancipation, both as a matter of policy and on religious grounds, ending
with the remark that it would be better to change the new Irish
administration than to submit to it.[261] His feelings were strengthened by
hearing, perhaps from Westmorland, that Fitzgibbon was of opinion that he
could not give the royal assent to catholic emancipation without a breach of
his coronation oath and of the act of succession,[262] a mistaken idea which
ruled his later conduct with lamentable results. He consulted some great
lawyers on the point; Lord Kenyon and Scott, the attorney-general, assured
him that he could assent to a change in the test act without breach of his
oath, but the chancellor, Loughborough, gave him an undecided answer
which tended to strengthen his opinion. His feelings on the question
parliament would have led to such a thorough removal of the causes of Irish
discontent as would have pacified the country and saved it from the
rebellion of 1798 seems extremely doubtful, but it is certain that the recall
of Fitzwilliam was fatal to any chance of so happy a settlement.
Although he acted hastily and unadvisedly as regards the dismissals, he was
right in saying that it was impossible for him to stave off the catholic
claims, and that no measures would secure the loyalty of the catholics or the
peace of Ireland unless they were satisfied. As Pitt desired to defer
emancipation to an uncertain date, the end of the war, he should not have
excited the expectation of the Irish by an appointment which they naturally
interpreted as a sign of immediate acquiescence. Fitzwilliam, before his
actual appointment, was allowed to commit himself to a line of conduct to
which Pitt afterwards objected; his instructions were somewhat vague, and
he did not receive timely notice that the cabinet would not assent to the
policy he was adopting.[259] Deeply immersed in the conduct of the war, Pitt
seems to have neglected the affairs of Ireland at this time, and to have failed
to appreciate the gravity of the crisis. Fitzwilliam's recall was due partly to
Pitt's unwillingness to offend Beresford's powerful friends in both countries
and the whole party which had given him valuable support,[260] partly to his
determination to avoid any change of system during the war, and partly to
the dislike of some other members of the cabinet, plainly expressed by
Portland, to the proposed overthrow of the protestant ascendency. Yet
another influence was brought to bear on the decision of the cabinet. On
February 6 the king sent Pitt a statement of his strong objection to
emancipation, both as a matter of policy and on religious grounds, ending
with the remark that it would be better to change the new Irish
administration than to submit to it.[261] His feelings were strengthened by
hearing, perhaps from Westmorland, that Fitzgibbon was of opinion that he
could not give the royal assent to catholic emancipation without a breach of
his coronation oath and of the act of succession,[262] a mistaken idea which
ruled his later conduct with lamentable results. He consulted some great
lawyers on the point; Lord Kenyon and Scott, the attorney-general, assured
him that he could assent to a change in the test act without breach of his
oath, but the chancellor, Loughborough, gave him an undecided answer
which tended to strengthen his opinion. His feelings on the question
Page 389
doubtless confirmed the ministers in their decision, but must not be
supposed to have dictated it.[263]
FOOTNOTES:
[241] This question is admirably dealt with by Lord Rosebery in his Pitt, pp.
148-60.
[242] Newmarch, On the Loans Raised by Mr. Pitt, pp. 25-27; W. E. Gladstone
to H. Gladstone, March 10, 1876, in Morley's Life of Gladstone, ii., 637-38.
[243] Sorel, u.s., iii., 366-68; Sybel, u.s., ii., 239-41; Auckland to Grenville, Ap.
8 and 9, 1793, MS. Holland, R.O.
[244] Chuquet, Les Guerres de la Révolution, xi., 115.
[245] Auckland to Grenville, April 26 and May 14, 1793, MS. Holland, R.O.;
Eden to Grenville, April 15 and May 13, MS. Austria, R.O.
[246] Chuquet, Les Guerres de la Révolution, xi., 149, 151-52, 251.
[247] Grenville to Eden, Jan. 3, 1791, MS., Austria, R.O.
[248] Eden to Grenville, Jan. 29 and Feb. 15, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.
[249] Grenville to Eden, Feb. 18, and Eden to Grenville, March 11, 1794, MS.
Austria, R.O.; Grenville to King, Feb. 16, Dropmore Papers, ii., 505.
[250] Grenville to Spencer, July 19, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.
[251] Spencer and J. Grenville to Grenville, Aug. 12 and Oct. 1, 1794, MS.
Austria, R.O.
[252] Pitt to George III., Oct. 11 and Nov. 23, 1794 (rough drafts), MSS. Pitt
Papers, 101; George III. to Pitt, Nov. 19, in Stanhope's Life of Pitt, ii., App. xxi.
The drafts of Pitt's letters escaped Lord Stanhope's notice.
[253] "Log of the Brunswick," Great Sea Fights, i., 102, ed. Admiral T. S.
Jackson.
[254] Pitt to George III., Dec. 8, 1794. MS. Pitt Papers, 101.
[255] Lecky, History, vi., 513.
[256] W. W. Tone, Life of T. W. Tone, i., 111-18.
[257] Grenville to T. Grenville, Sept. 15 and Oct. 15, 1794, Court and Cabinets,
ii., 301,312.
[258] Add. MS., 33,118, ff. 268-78 (Pelham Papers), dated March, 1795, and
First Letter of Fitzwilliam to Earl of Carlisle, p. 19, Dublin, 1795.
[259] Second Letter of Fitzwilliam to Carlisle, pp. 12, 13, 2nd ed., 1795.
supposed to have dictated it.[263]
FOOTNOTES:
[241] This question is admirably dealt with by Lord Rosebery in his Pitt, pp.
148-60.
[242] Newmarch, On the Loans Raised by Mr. Pitt, pp. 25-27; W. E. Gladstone
to H. Gladstone, March 10, 1876, in Morley's Life of Gladstone, ii., 637-38.
[243] Sorel, u.s., iii., 366-68; Sybel, u.s., ii., 239-41; Auckland to Grenville, Ap.
8 and 9, 1793, MS. Holland, R.O.
[244] Chuquet, Les Guerres de la Révolution, xi., 115.
[245] Auckland to Grenville, April 26 and May 14, 1793, MS. Holland, R.O.;
Eden to Grenville, April 15 and May 13, MS. Austria, R.O.
[246] Chuquet, Les Guerres de la Révolution, xi., 149, 151-52, 251.
[247] Grenville to Eden, Jan. 3, 1791, MS., Austria, R.O.
[248] Eden to Grenville, Jan. 29 and Feb. 15, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.
[249] Grenville to Eden, Feb. 18, and Eden to Grenville, March 11, 1794, MS.
Austria, R.O.; Grenville to King, Feb. 16, Dropmore Papers, ii., 505.
[250] Grenville to Spencer, July 19, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.
[251] Spencer and J. Grenville to Grenville, Aug. 12 and Oct. 1, 1794, MS.
Austria, R.O.
[252] Pitt to George III., Oct. 11 and Nov. 23, 1794 (rough drafts), MSS. Pitt
Papers, 101; George III. to Pitt, Nov. 19, in Stanhope's Life of Pitt, ii., App. xxi.
The drafts of Pitt's letters escaped Lord Stanhope's notice.
[253] "Log of the Brunswick," Great Sea Fights, i., 102, ed. Admiral T. S.
Jackson.
[254] Pitt to George III., Dec. 8, 1794. MS. Pitt Papers, 101.
[255] Lecky, History, vi., 513.
[256] W. W. Tone, Life of T. W. Tone, i., 111-18.
[257] Grenville to T. Grenville, Sept. 15 and Oct. 15, 1794, Court and Cabinets,
ii., 301,312.
[258] Add. MS., 33,118, ff. 268-78 (Pelham Papers), dated March, 1795, and
First Letter of Fitzwilliam to Earl of Carlisle, p. 19, Dublin, 1795.
[259] Second Letter of Fitzwilliam to Carlisle, pp. 12, 13, 2nd ed., 1795.
Page 390
[260] That it was largely a question of "men" with Pitt was held by Pelham, the
chief secretary, 1795-97 (Pelham to Portland, March 22, 1795, Add. MS., 33,
113), as well as by Fitzwilliam (Second Letter to Carlisle, pp. 4, 24) and Burke
(Life of Grattan, iv., 202).
[261] Stanhope, Life of Pitt, ii., App. xiii.-xiv.
[262] Auckland Corr., iii., 303-5; Add. MS., 33,118, f. 283.
[263] For full treatment of this crisis see Lecky, Hist., vii., 1-98.
chief secretary, 1795-97 (Pelham to Portland, March 22, 1795, Add. MS., 33,
113), as well as by Fitzwilliam (Second Letter to Carlisle, pp. 4, 24) and Burke
(Life of Grattan, iv., 202).
[261] Stanhope, Life of Pitt, ii., App. xiii.-xiv.
[262] Auckland Corr., iii., 303-5; Add. MS., 33,118, f. 283.
[263] For full treatment of this crisis see Lecky, Hist., vii., 1-98.
Page 391
CHAPTER XVIII.
ENGLAND'S DARKEST DAYS.
Before parliament met on December 30, 1794, a change in the public affairs
of France encouraged hopes of peace in England. The fall of Robespierre
and the end of the Terror on July 28 (10th Thermidor) were followed by a
reaction; the revolutionary committees lost their dictatorial power, the
convention regained its supremacy, and the jacobin club was closed. This
reaction, combined with the success of the French arms in the Netherlands
and Holland, the decay of the coalition, the burdens entailed by the war, and
the conviction that the republican government would gain in stability by
foreign opposition, led some of Pitt's followers to desire an attempt at
negotiation. The king's speech urged a vigorous prosecution of the war, and
was ably seconded in the commons by a young member, George Canning,
one of Pitt's devoted adherents. Pitt's friend, Wilberforce, moved an
amendment for opening negotiations, and the minority against the
government was 73. Soon afterwards in two divisions, arising out of a
resolution moved by Grey in January, 1795, the minority rose to 86 and 90.
As in these divisions the minority included some of Pitt's regular
supporters, they are highly significant. As regards domestic affairs the
opposition remained in its normal condition. A motion for the repeal of the
habeas corpus suspension act, which led to a debate on the late trials for
treason, was defeated by 239 to 41, and attacks on the government with
reference to the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam were easily foiled by the
assertion of the right of the crown to dismiss its confidential servants.
The affairs of the Prince of Wales again demanded the
attention of parliament. He had not mended his ways THE PRINCE OF
WALES.
since 1787; his creditors pressed him and put executions
in his house. He could no longer reckon on the support of the opposition in
any application to parliament, for he had voted against them on the
seditious publications bill in 1792. In order to escape from his difficulties
he promised the king to marry Caroline, daughter of the Duke of
Brunswick. She was brought over to England by Lord Malmesbury, and
ENGLAND'S DARKEST DAYS.
Before parliament met on December 30, 1794, a change in the public affairs
of France encouraged hopes of peace in England. The fall of Robespierre
and the end of the Terror on July 28 (10th Thermidor) were followed by a
reaction; the revolutionary committees lost their dictatorial power, the
convention regained its supremacy, and the jacobin club was closed. This
reaction, combined with the success of the French arms in the Netherlands
and Holland, the decay of the coalition, the burdens entailed by the war, and
the conviction that the republican government would gain in stability by
foreign opposition, led some of Pitt's followers to desire an attempt at
negotiation. The king's speech urged a vigorous prosecution of the war, and
was ably seconded in the commons by a young member, George Canning,
one of Pitt's devoted adherents. Pitt's friend, Wilberforce, moved an
amendment for opening negotiations, and the minority against the
government was 73. Soon afterwards in two divisions, arising out of a
resolution moved by Grey in January, 1795, the minority rose to 86 and 90.
As in these divisions the minority included some of Pitt's regular
supporters, they are highly significant. As regards domestic affairs the
opposition remained in its normal condition. A motion for the repeal of the
habeas corpus suspension act, which led to a debate on the late trials for
treason, was defeated by 239 to 41, and attacks on the government with
reference to the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam were easily foiled by the
assertion of the right of the crown to dismiss its confidential servants.
The affairs of the Prince of Wales again demanded the
attention of parliament. He had not mended his ways THE PRINCE OF
WALES.
since 1787; his creditors pressed him and put executions
in his house. He could no longer reckon on the support of the opposition in
any application to parliament, for he had voted against them on the
seditious publications bill in 1792. In order to escape from his difficulties
he promised the king to marry Caroline, daughter of the Duke of
Brunswick. She was brought over to England by Lord Malmesbury, and
Page 392
though at his first interview with her the prince did not conceal his disgust,
the marriage took place on April 8. Pitt brought a royal message to the
commons requesting in humble terms that they would enable the prince to
pay his debts and would make a provision for him and the princess. He
stated the prince's debts at about £630,000, and proposed that the princess
should have a jointure of £50,000 a year, that the prince's income should be
increased by £65,000, making it £125,000 a year, exclusive of the duchy of
Cornwall, and that £25,000 a year should be deducted for the interest on his
debts, and the revenues of the duchy appropriated for the gradual payment
of them. Grey moved that the increase should only be £40,000. Fox
reminded the house that in 1787 the prince promised that he would not
again apply to parliament for payment of his debts, and suggested that the
augmentation of £65,000 and the income of the duchy should be used for
the purpose. Pitt's proposals were carried. The princess, a coarse-minded
and giddy young woman, was shamefully treated by her husband, and after
the birth of their daughter, the Princess Charlotte, in January, 1796, they
finally separated.
For the prosecution of the war parliament voted 100,000 seamen, including
marines, and £14,500,000 for army expenses; the total supplies were about
£27,500,000. Ten new taxes were imposed, one of them on hair-powder at
twenty-one shillings a head, which was calculated at £210,000; and a loan
of £18,000,000 was effected. With this year began a period of difficulty in
raising money and the loan was only obtained at the total rate of £4 16s. 2d.
per cent. In February Pitt hoped to prevent Prussia from making peace with
France, and to induce the king to renew the war by the grant of another
subsidy. Grenville, who was convinced that no reliance could be placed on
Prussia, objected and threatened to resign if Pitt persisted in his plan. He
desired a close alliance with Austria, and believed that the grant of a
subsidy to Prussia would alienate the courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg.
Pitt would not give way, and Grenville promised to keep his intended
resignation a secret until the end of the session. He privately announced his
resignation to the king, who, though he had at first been opposed to a
Prussian subsidy, was then on Pitt's side, for he was discouraged by the ill-
success of Austria. Pitt's project came to naught; for on April 5 Frederick
William made a treaty with France at Basle, by which he surrendered the
Prussian territories on the left bank of the Rhine. Secret articles provided
the marriage took place on April 8. Pitt brought a royal message to the
commons requesting in humble terms that they would enable the prince to
pay his debts and would make a provision for him and the princess. He
stated the prince's debts at about £630,000, and proposed that the princess
should have a jointure of £50,000 a year, that the prince's income should be
increased by £65,000, making it £125,000 a year, exclusive of the duchy of
Cornwall, and that £25,000 a year should be deducted for the interest on his
debts, and the revenues of the duchy appropriated for the gradual payment
of them. Grey moved that the increase should only be £40,000. Fox
reminded the house that in 1787 the prince promised that he would not
again apply to parliament for payment of his debts, and suggested that the
augmentation of £65,000 and the income of the duchy should be used for
the purpose. Pitt's proposals were carried. The princess, a coarse-minded
and giddy young woman, was shamefully treated by her husband, and after
the birth of their daughter, the Princess Charlotte, in January, 1796, they
finally separated.
For the prosecution of the war parliament voted 100,000 seamen, including
marines, and £14,500,000 for army expenses; the total supplies were about
£27,500,000. Ten new taxes were imposed, one of them on hair-powder at
twenty-one shillings a head, which was calculated at £210,000; and a loan
of £18,000,000 was effected. With this year began a period of difficulty in
raising money and the loan was only obtained at the total rate of £4 16s. 2d.
per cent. In February Pitt hoped to prevent Prussia from making peace with
France, and to induce the king to renew the war by the grant of another
subsidy. Grenville, who was convinced that no reliance could be placed on
Prussia, objected and threatened to resign if Pitt persisted in his plan. He
desired a close alliance with Austria, and believed that the grant of a
subsidy to Prussia would alienate the courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg.
Pitt would not give way, and Grenville promised to keep his intended
resignation a secret until the end of the session. He privately announced his
resignation to the king, who, though he had at first been opposed to a
Prussian subsidy, was then on Pitt's side, for he was discouraged by the ill-
success of Austria. Pitt's project came to naught; for on April 5 Frederick
William made a treaty with France at Basle, by which he surrendered the
Prussian territories on the left bank of the Rhine. Secret articles provided
Page 393
that if France kept those territories he should be indemnified elsewhere.
Grenville continued in office; Pitt had cause to rejoice that he was saved
from a serious mistake, and the threatened disruption of the cabinet
remained a secret.[264]
George himself had advised Grenville in December, 1794, to persuade
Austria to renew the war by granting her a subsidy or a loan. His advice
was in accordance with Grenville's own wishes. An arrangement with
Catherine of Russia determined the Austrian emperor to carry on the war,
with the intention of indemnifying himself at the expense of Bavaria and
Venice, if he was unable to recover the Netherlands and conquer Lorraine
and Alsace, and England had to find him money. By a convention signed on
May 4 the government guaranteed a loan of £4,600,000 to be raised in
London, to enable him to employ an army of 200,000 men. Defensive
treaties were also concluded with Russia and Austria, and a triple alliance
was formed in virtue of which Russia sent subsidies to Austria; for
Catherine would take no part in the war by land. The imperial loan, which
in 1798 became a charge on the consolidated fund, was raised at the rate of
7½ per cent. It was unsuccessfully opposed by Fox, who argued against the
general policy of making grants to foreign powers, whether by way of loans
or subsidies, and pointed out that the only real difference between a loan
and a subsidy was that, in the case of a loan England would not be able to
get rid of the payment, whereas a monthly subsidy could be stopped if the
contract was broken.
In Germany the war was not marked by any great event. France was much
distressed by domestic troubles. Public credit failed; and Pitt, speaking on
Grey's motion for peace, argued that France was near the end of her
resources. Food was scarce and half Paris was only kept alive by
distributions of bread and meat at low prices. The jacobins of Paris were
crushed by the thermidoriens, and in the south-east a sanguinary movement
of the enemies of the republic, the "white terror," pursued its course
unchecked. In August a new constitution was adopted of a far less
democratic character than that of 1793; the executive was vested in a
directory of five and the legislative in two assemblies. An insurrection in
Paris on October 5 was quelled mainly by the fire of a few cannon under the
command of Bonaparte, and the revolution assumed an organised and
settled form. Three years of war had brought Austria also to a state of
Grenville continued in office; Pitt had cause to rejoice that he was saved
from a serious mistake, and the threatened disruption of the cabinet
remained a secret.[264]
George himself had advised Grenville in December, 1794, to persuade
Austria to renew the war by granting her a subsidy or a loan. His advice
was in accordance with Grenville's own wishes. An arrangement with
Catherine of Russia determined the Austrian emperor to carry on the war,
with the intention of indemnifying himself at the expense of Bavaria and
Venice, if he was unable to recover the Netherlands and conquer Lorraine
and Alsace, and England had to find him money. By a convention signed on
May 4 the government guaranteed a loan of £4,600,000 to be raised in
London, to enable him to employ an army of 200,000 men. Defensive
treaties were also concluded with Russia and Austria, and a triple alliance
was formed in virtue of which Russia sent subsidies to Austria; for
Catherine would take no part in the war by land. The imperial loan, which
in 1798 became a charge on the consolidated fund, was raised at the rate of
7½ per cent. It was unsuccessfully opposed by Fox, who argued against the
general policy of making grants to foreign powers, whether by way of loans
or subsidies, and pointed out that the only real difference between a loan
and a subsidy was that, in the case of a loan England would not be able to
get rid of the payment, whereas a monthly subsidy could be stopped if the
contract was broken.
In Germany the war was not marked by any great event. France was much
distressed by domestic troubles. Public credit failed; and Pitt, speaking on
Grey's motion for peace, argued that France was near the end of her
resources. Food was scarce and half Paris was only kept alive by
distributions of bread and meat at low prices. The jacobins of Paris were
crushed by the thermidoriens, and in the south-east a sanguinary movement
of the enemies of the republic, the "white terror," pursued its course
unchecked. In August a new constitution was adopted of a far less
democratic character than that of 1793; the executive was vested in a
directory of five and the legislative in two assemblies. An insurrection in
Paris on October 5 was quelled mainly by the fire of a few cannon under the
command of Bonaparte, and the revolution assumed an organised and
settled form. Three years of war had brought Austria also to a state of
Page 394
exhaustion. Active operations, therefore, did not begin until late.
Luxemburg surrendered after a blockade; and in the autumn Jourdan and
Pichegru led two armies across the Rhine at different points. Jourdan drove
the Austrians back and invested Mainz; Pichegru occupied Mannheim.
Clairfait, however, forced Jourdan to abandon the siege of Mainz and cut
the two French generals off from one another. Mannheim was retaken and
both the French armies were pushed back across the Rhine.
In the war on the Italian frontier the British fleet in the
Mediterranean bore some part. In Hood's absence it was A LOST
OPPORTUNITY.
commanded by Admiral Hotham, a distinguished officer,
though lacking in dash and resolution. The French threatened Corsica with
their Toulon fleet. Hotham engaged them on March 13 and 14, and cut off
their two rearmost ships, but in Nelson's opinion lost an opportunity of
destroying the whole fleet. The attempt on Corsica, however, was
abandoned. Both fleets were reinforced; for the watch on Brest was slackly
kept and six ships were allowed to leave the port and sail to Toulon.
Another engagement in Hyères bay on July 13 only resulted in the
destruction of one French ship, and was another lost opportunity. The
command of the sea, which would have carried with it the control of the
Italian states, was not secured. Meanwhile an Austrian army, acting with the
Sardinians and relying on the co-operation of the British fleet, forced the
French to evacuate Vado. The two armies faced one another, the Austrians
waiting until the French should be compelled to retire by want of
provisions; for as they were cut off from Genoa they depended on supplies
by sea. Hotham detached Nelson with a small squadron to intercept their
supplies and co-operate with the Austrians. He performed his duty with
characteristic energy, but the ships which Hotham allowed him were too
few for the work he had to do. The French army was strongly reinforced
and was supplied by coasting vessels. The allies were totally defeated in the
battle of Loano on November 23. The Austrians retreated beyond the
Apennines, and the French had no further difficulty in obtaining provisions.
Before the end of 1794 Pitt was persuaded by the Count
de Puisaye, a leader of the Breton Chouans, to send an QUIBERON.
expedition to support them. The expeditionary force was
to consist of French emigrants headed by the Count of Artois, the youngest
brother of Louis XVI. Emigrants were enlisted in England and from the
Luxemburg surrendered after a blockade; and in the autumn Jourdan and
Pichegru led two armies across the Rhine at different points. Jourdan drove
the Austrians back and invested Mainz; Pichegru occupied Mannheim.
Clairfait, however, forced Jourdan to abandon the siege of Mainz and cut
the two French generals off from one another. Mannheim was retaken and
both the French armies were pushed back across the Rhine.
In the war on the Italian frontier the British fleet in the
Mediterranean bore some part. In Hood's absence it was A LOST
OPPORTUNITY.
commanded by Admiral Hotham, a distinguished officer,
though lacking in dash and resolution. The French threatened Corsica with
their Toulon fleet. Hotham engaged them on March 13 and 14, and cut off
their two rearmost ships, but in Nelson's opinion lost an opportunity of
destroying the whole fleet. The attempt on Corsica, however, was
abandoned. Both fleets were reinforced; for the watch on Brest was slackly
kept and six ships were allowed to leave the port and sail to Toulon.
Another engagement in Hyères bay on July 13 only resulted in the
destruction of one French ship, and was another lost opportunity. The
command of the sea, which would have carried with it the control of the
Italian states, was not secured. Meanwhile an Austrian army, acting with the
Sardinians and relying on the co-operation of the British fleet, forced the
French to evacuate Vado. The two armies faced one another, the Austrians
waiting until the French should be compelled to retire by want of
provisions; for as they were cut off from Genoa they depended on supplies
by sea. Hotham detached Nelson with a small squadron to intercept their
supplies and co-operate with the Austrians. He performed his duty with
characteristic energy, but the ships which Hotham allowed him were too
few for the work he had to do. The French army was strongly reinforced
and was supplied by coasting vessels. The allies were totally defeated in the
battle of Loano on November 23. The Austrians retreated beyond the
Apennines, and the French had no further difficulty in obtaining provisions.
Before the end of 1794 Pitt was persuaded by the Count
de Puisaye, a leader of the Breton Chouans, to send an QUIBERON.
expedition to support them. The expeditionary force was
to consist of French emigrants headed by the Count of Artois, the youngest
brother of Louis XVI. Emigrants were enlisted in England and from the
Page 395
force lately serving on the Rhine, and the government supplied arms and
money. It was hoped that an unexpected descent on the coast would enable
the royalists in the west to gain an immediate success, which was to be
followed up by an invasion of a British force under Lord Moira. The plan
became known, and in June it was necessary to act at once. The first body
of emigrants, about 3,500 men, under Puisaye and Hervilly, with large
supplies of all kinds and specially of arms for future recruits, sailed on the
16th in a squadron commanded by Sir John Warren. The Brest fleet was on
the watch for them, and Warren sent for help to Lord Bridport, then in
command of the channel fleet. Bridport caught the French, who were
inferior in strength, off the Ile de Groix and captured three of their line of
battle, but allowed the rest to escape into L'Orient. On the 27th the
emigrants were landed on the peninsula of Quiberon and, with some help
from the squadron, took the fortress of Penthièvre which commanded it. A
large number of Chouans joined them and arms were distributed among the
peasantry.
Puisaye and Hervilly quarrelled. Time was wasted, and Hoche, who was in
command in Brittany, drove in the Chouans from their advanced posts and
shut the whole force up in the peninsula. They made an attempt to break out
on July 16; Hervilly was wounded and his troops retreated under cover of
the fire from British gunboats. A second party landed under Sombreuil.
More quarrelling ensued and then treachery, for Hervilly had enlisted some
who were republicans at heart. These men betrayed their companions, and
with their help Hoche stormed the fort of Penthièvre, and fell on the
royalists in the peninsula. Many were slaughtered; others fled. It blew hard,
and for a time the British ships could do little for the fugitives. At last they
were able to take off Puisaye and some 3,500 others. Sombreuil and about a
thousand under him were cut off, and laid down their arms. Sombreuil was
tried and executed at Vannes, and over 700 were shot in batches on
successive days in a field near Auray. The fugitives were landed on the
islands of Houat and Hædik which were covered by the squadron. Then the
Count of Artois with a third division of the expedition and a body of British
troops appeared, took possession of the Ile d'Yeu, and seemed about to cross
over to the mainland to co-operate with the Vendeans. However nothing
further was done of any importance, and in October the troops were
embarked for England. The Vendeans, who had hoped in vain to receive
money. It was hoped that an unexpected descent on the coast would enable
the royalists in the west to gain an immediate success, which was to be
followed up by an invasion of a British force under Lord Moira. The plan
became known, and in June it was necessary to act at once. The first body
of emigrants, about 3,500 men, under Puisaye and Hervilly, with large
supplies of all kinds and specially of arms for future recruits, sailed on the
16th in a squadron commanded by Sir John Warren. The Brest fleet was on
the watch for them, and Warren sent for help to Lord Bridport, then in
command of the channel fleet. Bridport caught the French, who were
inferior in strength, off the Ile de Groix and captured three of their line of
battle, but allowed the rest to escape into L'Orient. On the 27th the
emigrants were landed on the peninsula of Quiberon and, with some help
from the squadron, took the fortress of Penthièvre which commanded it. A
large number of Chouans joined them and arms were distributed among the
peasantry.
Puisaye and Hervilly quarrelled. Time was wasted, and Hoche, who was in
command in Brittany, drove in the Chouans from their advanced posts and
shut the whole force up in the peninsula. They made an attempt to break out
on July 16; Hervilly was wounded and his troops retreated under cover of
the fire from British gunboats. A second party landed under Sombreuil.
More quarrelling ensued and then treachery, for Hervilly had enlisted some
who were republicans at heart. These men betrayed their companions, and
with their help Hoche stormed the fort of Penthièvre, and fell on the
royalists in the peninsula. Many were slaughtered; others fled. It blew hard,
and for a time the British ships could do little for the fugitives. At last they
were able to take off Puisaye and some 3,500 others. Sombreuil and about a
thousand under him were cut off, and laid down their arms. Sombreuil was
tried and executed at Vannes, and over 700 were shot in batches on
successive days in a field near Auray. The fugitives were landed on the
islands of Houat and Hædik which were covered by the squadron. Then the
Count of Artois with a third division of the expedition and a body of British
troops appeared, took possession of the Ile d'Yeu, and seemed about to cross
over to the mainland to co-operate with the Vendeans. However nothing
further was done of any importance, and in October the troops were
embarked for England. The Vendeans, who had hoped in vain to receive
Page 396
help, and to be headed by Artois, were again crushed, and the only result of
this ill-planned and deplorable expedition was the ruin of the royalist cause
in the west.
Nor were events cheering in the West Indies during 1795. The reconquest of
Guadaloupe, due to the insufficiency of the British force sent out in 1794,
led to disastrous consequences. The French firmly established themselves in
the island and made it a centre for operations, St. Lucia was taken, and
insurrections of French inhabitants, negroes, and native races were
fomented and supported in St. Vincent's, Grenada, and Dominica. An
insurrection of the Maroons caused much trouble in Jamaica, and the
government of the island imported bloodhounds from Cuba to track the
fugitive insurgents. Great indignation was expressed in parliament at this
measure, and it was asserted that the dogs tore the natives in pieces. Dundas
explained that the home government was not responsible for the
importation of the dogs, and promised that if they were used for such a
horrid purpose the practice should be stopped. In 1796 a large force was
sent to the West Indies under Sir Ralph Abercromby and Admiral Christian.
St. Lucia was retaken and the British power re-established in the Antilles.
The French, however, retained Guadaloupe, and privateers both from that
island and Cuba did much damage to the West India trade. England gained
largely by the alliance between Holland and France, for it threw the Dutch
colonies open to attack. Their rich settlements in Ceylon, Malacca, and on
the Malabar coast; the Cape (September, 1795); Demarara, Essequibo, and
the Moluccas (1796) were taken without difficulty.
England's naval power was already forwarding the increase of her trade,
and the total loss of commerce with France, Holland, and the Belgian
Netherlands was more than counterbalanced by its increase with Germany,
Russia, and the United States. With the United States some serious
difficulties with respect to neutral rights were happily settled in 1794 by a
treaty which was negotiated on their part by Jay, and finally ratified in
1796. Yet the year 1795 was one of great distress among the poor. Two bad
harvests in succession raised the average price of wheat, which in 1792 had
been 43s., to 75s. 2d. Bread riots broke out in Sussex, in Birmingham,
Nottingham, Coventry, and other places. Bills were passed with the object
of husbanding the supply of wheat; liberal bounties were granted on
importation, and the members of parliament entered into an agreement to
this ill-planned and deplorable expedition was the ruin of the royalist cause
in the west.
Nor were events cheering in the West Indies during 1795. The reconquest of
Guadaloupe, due to the insufficiency of the British force sent out in 1794,
led to disastrous consequences. The French firmly established themselves in
the island and made it a centre for operations, St. Lucia was taken, and
insurrections of French inhabitants, negroes, and native races were
fomented and supported in St. Vincent's, Grenada, and Dominica. An
insurrection of the Maroons caused much trouble in Jamaica, and the
government of the island imported bloodhounds from Cuba to track the
fugitive insurgents. Great indignation was expressed in parliament at this
measure, and it was asserted that the dogs tore the natives in pieces. Dundas
explained that the home government was not responsible for the
importation of the dogs, and promised that if they were used for such a
horrid purpose the practice should be stopped. In 1796 a large force was
sent to the West Indies under Sir Ralph Abercromby and Admiral Christian.
St. Lucia was retaken and the British power re-established in the Antilles.
The French, however, retained Guadaloupe, and privateers both from that
island and Cuba did much damage to the West India trade. England gained
largely by the alliance between Holland and France, for it threw the Dutch
colonies open to attack. Their rich settlements in Ceylon, Malacca, and on
the Malabar coast; the Cape (September, 1795); Demarara, Essequibo, and
the Moluccas (1796) were taken without difficulty.
England's naval power was already forwarding the increase of her trade,
and the total loss of commerce with France, Holland, and the Belgian
Netherlands was more than counterbalanced by its increase with Germany,
Russia, and the United States. With the United States some serious
difficulties with respect to neutral rights were happily settled in 1794 by a
treaty which was negotiated on their part by Jay, and finally ratified in
1796. Yet the year 1795 was one of great distress among the poor. Two bad
harvests in succession raised the average price of wheat, which in 1792 had
been 43s., to 75s. 2d. Bread riots broke out in Sussex, in Birmingham,
Nottingham, Coventry, and other places. Bills were passed with the object
of husbanding the supply of wheat; liberal bounties were granted on
importation, and the members of parliament entered into an agreement to
Page 397
curtail the use of wheaten flour in their own households. A bill for the
regulation of wages, introduced by Whitbread, the brewer, and advocated
by Fox, was opposed by Pitt and was rejected. Starving men are quick to
believe assertions that their sufferings are caused by ill-government, and the
corresponding society, encouraged by the failure of the prosecutions in
1794, was active in spreading political discontent. At a large meeting held
in St. George's Fields on July 29, an address to the king was voted and
resolutions were passed demanding annual parliaments, universal suffrage,
and above all peace, as remedies for the high price of food. Parliament was
summoned for October 29. On the 26th, a meeting in Copenhagen Fields,
Mary-le-bone, at which 150,000 persons are said to have been present,
adopted a strongly worded "remonstrance" to the king, praying for
parliamentary reform, the dismissal of the ministers, and a speedy peace.
When the king went to open parliament a large crowd greeted him with
hisses and cries of "Bread! Peace! No Pitt!" His carriage was pelted, and a
missile, probably from an air-gun, broke the glass. On his return the same
cries were raised; there was more pelting, and the king was only rescued
from the crowd by the arrival of some horse-guards. George, than whom no
braver man lived in his dominions, remained perfectly calm throughout
these scenes, read the royal speech without a sign of excitement, and the
next night went with the queen and the princesses to Covent Garden theatre,
where he was received with enthusiasm. The soldiers also acted admirably
and abstained from hurting any one.
The insult to the king and the proceedings of the
corresponding society were met by repressive measures. REPRESSIVE
ACTS.
Proclamations relating to the outrage and to seditious
assemblies were followed by two bills, one introduced in the lords by
Grenville, the other in the commons by Pitt. The first, the treasonable
practices bill, extended the crime of treason to spoken and written words
not followed by any overt act, and created a new crime by subjecting to
heavy penalties any one convicted of inciting others to hatred of the
sovereign or the established government. The second, the seditious
meetings bill, forbade all political meetings of which notice had not
previously been given by resident householders, and empowered any two
justices to dissolve a legally constituted meeting at their discretion by using
the riot act. Both these measures were grievous encroachments on liberty.
regulation of wages, introduced by Whitbread, the brewer, and advocated
by Fox, was opposed by Pitt and was rejected. Starving men are quick to
believe assertions that their sufferings are caused by ill-government, and the
corresponding society, encouraged by the failure of the prosecutions in
1794, was active in spreading political discontent. At a large meeting held
in St. George's Fields on July 29, an address to the king was voted and
resolutions were passed demanding annual parliaments, universal suffrage,
and above all peace, as remedies for the high price of food. Parliament was
summoned for October 29. On the 26th, a meeting in Copenhagen Fields,
Mary-le-bone, at which 150,000 persons are said to have been present,
adopted a strongly worded "remonstrance" to the king, praying for
parliamentary reform, the dismissal of the ministers, and a speedy peace.
When the king went to open parliament a large crowd greeted him with
hisses and cries of "Bread! Peace! No Pitt!" His carriage was pelted, and a
missile, probably from an air-gun, broke the glass. On his return the same
cries were raised; there was more pelting, and the king was only rescued
from the crowd by the arrival of some horse-guards. George, than whom no
braver man lived in his dominions, remained perfectly calm throughout
these scenes, read the royal speech without a sign of excitement, and the
next night went with the queen and the princesses to Covent Garden theatre,
where he was received with enthusiasm. The soldiers also acted admirably
and abstained from hurting any one.
The insult to the king and the proceedings of the
corresponding society were met by repressive measures. REPRESSIVE
ACTS.
Proclamations relating to the outrage and to seditious
assemblies were followed by two bills, one introduced in the lords by
Grenville, the other in the commons by Pitt. The first, the treasonable
practices bill, extended the crime of treason to spoken and written words
not followed by any overt act, and created a new crime by subjecting to
heavy penalties any one convicted of inciting others to hatred of the
sovereign or the established government. The second, the seditious
meetings bill, forbade all political meetings of which notice had not
previously been given by resident householders, and empowered any two
justices to dissolve a legally constituted meeting at their discretion by using
the riot act. Both these measures were grievous encroachments on liberty.
Page 398
Apart from its extension of the law of treason, the first might be used to
prevent all discussion of political reforms; the second checked the public
expression of opinion on public affairs. The ministry, however, was acting
in accordance with the will of parliament and of the vast majority of the
respectable part of the nation, who were alarmed and indignant at the
success of seditious agitators in exciting political discontent among the
uneducated classes. England was engaged in a struggle for existence, and
could not afford to tolerate sedition. Looking back on issues then
incalculable, we may think that repression was carried farther than was
necessary; but anything was better than the least sign of weakness in
dealing with seditious practices. Excited meetings, over one of which Fox
presided, were held to condemn the bills. Numerous petitions, mostly got
up by the corresponding society, were presented against them; and many
were presented in their favour. They were violently opposed by the minority
in parliament, and Fox declared that if they became law, obedience would
no longer be a question of duty but of prudence, a direct incitement to
rebellion only to be excused as uttered in the heat of debate, an excuse
which is also needed for some foolish and intemperate language on the
other side. The sedition bill, which was limited to three years, was amended
by giving up the clause empowering magistrates to dissolve meetings at
their discretion as dangerous to the public peace. The two bills were passed
in both houses by overwhelming majorities. The treason act was only to last
during the king's life, and both acts proved quite harmless, for neither was
ever called into operation.
Pitt's budget for 1796 included another loan of £18,000,000 and several new
taxes, one of them on salt. He proposed duties on legacies and on collateral
successions to real estate. The first was easily carried, but Fox, in spite of
his democratic professions, seized on the proposal to make landed estates
equally liable with other property to taxation, as an opportunity for
thwarting the government by exciting the selfishness of the landed gentry,
and Pitt found that so many of his supporters were hostile to the tax that he
withdrew his proposal. Nor was the inequality redressed until 1853, when
Gladstone, following Pitt's lead, made all successions alike liable to duty.
As at the end of the session in May parliament was near the term of its
natural life, a new parliament was elected. The returns showed that the
government had lost no ground in the confidence of the country: as a rule,
prevent all discussion of political reforms; the second checked the public
expression of opinion on public affairs. The ministry, however, was acting
in accordance with the will of parliament and of the vast majority of the
respectable part of the nation, who were alarmed and indignant at the
success of seditious agitators in exciting political discontent among the
uneducated classes. England was engaged in a struggle for existence, and
could not afford to tolerate sedition. Looking back on issues then
incalculable, we may think that repression was carried farther than was
necessary; but anything was better than the least sign of weakness in
dealing with seditious practices. Excited meetings, over one of which Fox
presided, were held to condemn the bills. Numerous petitions, mostly got
up by the corresponding society, were presented against them; and many
were presented in their favour. They were violently opposed by the minority
in parliament, and Fox declared that if they became law, obedience would
no longer be a question of duty but of prudence, a direct incitement to
rebellion only to be excused as uttered in the heat of debate, an excuse
which is also needed for some foolish and intemperate language on the
other side. The sedition bill, which was limited to three years, was amended
by giving up the clause empowering magistrates to dissolve meetings at
their discretion as dangerous to the public peace. The two bills were passed
in both houses by overwhelming majorities. The treason act was only to last
during the king's life, and both acts proved quite harmless, for neither was
ever called into operation.
Pitt's budget for 1796 included another loan of £18,000,000 and several new
taxes, one of them on salt. He proposed duties on legacies and on collateral
successions to real estate. The first was easily carried, but Fox, in spite of
his democratic professions, seized on the proposal to make landed estates
equally liable with other property to taxation, as an opportunity for
thwarting the government by exciting the selfishness of the landed gentry,
and Pitt found that so many of his supporters were hostile to the tax that he
withdrew his proposal. Nor was the inequality redressed until 1853, when
Gladstone, following Pitt's lead, made all successions alike liable to duty.
As at the end of the session in May parliament was near the term of its
natural life, a new parliament was elected. The returns showed that the
government had lost no ground in the confidence of the country: as a rule,
Page 399
the large constituencies elected supporters of Pitt; indeed, twenty-three of
Fox's small following were returned for nomination boroughs.
The policy of England in 1796 was closely connected with the course of the
war between her Austrian ally and the French. In March Bonaparte took the
command of the army of Italy. He defeated the Austrians at Montenotte, and
compelled the Sardinian king to abandon the coalition. He crossed the Po,
forced the passage of the Adda at Lodi, and occupied Milan on May 14. The
Austrians fell back behind the Mincio, and garrisoned the strong fortress of
Mantua. Bonaparte levied contributions on the Dukes of Parma and
Modena, forced the papal states to submission, occupied Leghorn, which
was thus closed against our ships, and reduced the Grand Duke of Tuscany
to obedience. In June Ferdinand of Naples and the pope made armistices
with France. The Austrian power in Italy depended on the possession of
Mantua. Wurmser forced Bonaparte to raise the siege, and the Austrians
though defeated at Lonato and Castiglione, regarrisoned the place. A second
attempt by Wurmser to relieve it was defeated in August, and he was shut
into Mantua. If Hotham had destroyed the French fleet in the
Mediterranean, Bonaparte would not have carried everything before him in
the Italian states south of the Po. As it was, his success had an unfortunate
effect on England's naval war.
After 1795 the French made no more attempts to cope
with an English fleet. They employed their navy only in FLEET LEAVES
military expeditions and in the destruction of British THE MEDITERRANEAN
commerce.[265] The watch upon their ports was slackly .
kept and ships constantly left them. Much damage was
done to England's trade, specially by privateers; her navy was largely
employed in convoy duty, and actions between small squadrons and single
ships were frequent. In this year a French squadron cruelly ravaged the
coast of Newfoundland, another captured part of a West India convoy, and a
third made some prizes in the Levant. Warfare of this kind, though
troublesome to England, could not affect her maritime supremacy. That was
impaired by the results of Bonaparte's campaign in Italy. In December,
1795, the command in the Mediterranean was taken by Sir John Jervis, a
fine seaman and a strict disciplinarian, who soon brought the fleet to a high
state of efficiency. He kept a strict watch on Toulon, and employed Nelson
in intercepting the French communications by sea. By the end of June the
Fox's small following were returned for nomination boroughs.
The policy of England in 1796 was closely connected with the course of the
war between her Austrian ally and the French. In March Bonaparte took the
command of the army of Italy. He defeated the Austrians at Montenotte, and
compelled the Sardinian king to abandon the coalition. He crossed the Po,
forced the passage of the Adda at Lodi, and occupied Milan on May 14. The
Austrians fell back behind the Mincio, and garrisoned the strong fortress of
Mantua. Bonaparte levied contributions on the Dukes of Parma and
Modena, forced the papal states to submission, occupied Leghorn, which
was thus closed against our ships, and reduced the Grand Duke of Tuscany
to obedience. In June Ferdinand of Naples and the pope made armistices
with France. The Austrian power in Italy depended on the possession of
Mantua. Wurmser forced Bonaparte to raise the siege, and the Austrians
though defeated at Lonato and Castiglione, regarrisoned the place. A second
attempt by Wurmser to relieve it was defeated in August, and he was shut
into Mantua. If Hotham had destroyed the French fleet in the
Mediterranean, Bonaparte would not have carried everything before him in
the Italian states south of the Po. As it was, his success had an unfortunate
effect on England's naval war.
After 1795 the French made no more attempts to cope
with an English fleet. They employed their navy only in FLEET LEAVES
military expeditions and in the destruction of British THE MEDITERRANEAN
commerce.[265] The watch upon their ports was slackly .
kept and ships constantly left them. Much damage was
done to England's trade, specially by privateers; her navy was largely
employed in convoy duty, and actions between small squadrons and single
ships were frequent. In this year a French squadron cruelly ravaged the
coast of Newfoundland, another captured part of a West India convoy, and a
third made some prizes in the Levant. Warfare of this kind, though
troublesome to England, could not affect her maritime supremacy. That was
impaired by the results of Bonaparte's campaign in Italy. In December,
1795, the command in the Mediterranean was taken by Sir John Jervis, a
fine seaman and a strict disciplinarian, who soon brought the fleet to a high
state of efficiency. He kept a strict watch on Toulon, and employed Nelson
in intercepting the French communications by sea. By the end of June the
Page 400
ports of Tuscany, Naples, and the papal dominions were shut against his
ships; Corsica was restless, and the fleet was in danger of being left without
a base. In July Nelson, who was then blockading Leghorn, occupied Elba in
order to gain a harbour and establish a place of stores at Porto Ferrajo. A
new danger, however, threatened the fleet, for Spain, influenced by
Bonaparte's successes, made an offensive and defensive alliance with
France by a treaty signed on August 19; and as the Spaniards had over fifty
ships of the line, the position of the British fleet became critical. And there
was work for it elsewhere, for Portugal was in need of help. The Austrian
cause in Italy seemed almost hopeless, and Jervis received orders to
evacuate the Mediterranean.
Then better news came to England; the Austrians had achieved a signal
success in Germany. Two French armies under Jourdan and Moreau crossed
the Rhine in the summer and acted independently of each other. After a
campaign of about two months Jourdan was defeated by the Archduke
Charles at Amberg, and again near Würzburg on September 3, and was
forced to recross the Rhine. Moreau advanced as far as Munich, for
Bonaparte intended, after the fall of Mantua, which he believed would not
be delayed, to effect a junction with him in Bavaria. Jourdan's overthrow
left Moreau in a critical position, and he only saved his army by a masterly
retreat through the Black Forest. Bonaparte's hope that he would soon bring
the war to an end by marching into Bavaria, and on Vienna, was
disappointed. His army was kept on the Mincio, for Mantua remained
untaken, and another army under Alvinzi was preparing to march to its
relief. Italy was not conquered yet, and on October 19 the cabinet decided
that the fleet should remain in the Mediterranean.[266] It was then too late.
Corsica and Elba were abandoned; Ferdinand of Naples made peace with
France, and Jervis sailed for Lisbon. After three years in the Mediterranean
the fleet retired from its waters; its departure left that sea closed to British
commerce, assured Bonaparte's communications, and strengthened his hold
over Italy.
Pitt, driven into war against his will, was sincerely
anxious for peace. He had entered on the war for NEGOTIATIONS
FOR PEACE.
political reasons, and would not be deterred from
negotiation by dislike of the French republican government. His views were
not shared by all his colleagues; Windham and Pitt's whig supporters
ships; Corsica was restless, and the fleet was in danger of being left without
a base. In July Nelson, who was then blockading Leghorn, occupied Elba in
order to gain a harbour and establish a place of stores at Porto Ferrajo. A
new danger, however, threatened the fleet, for Spain, influenced by
Bonaparte's successes, made an offensive and defensive alliance with
France by a treaty signed on August 19; and as the Spaniards had over fifty
ships of the line, the position of the British fleet became critical. And there
was work for it elsewhere, for Portugal was in need of help. The Austrian
cause in Italy seemed almost hopeless, and Jervis received orders to
evacuate the Mediterranean.
Then better news came to England; the Austrians had achieved a signal
success in Germany. Two French armies under Jourdan and Moreau crossed
the Rhine in the summer and acted independently of each other. After a
campaign of about two months Jourdan was defeated by the Archduke
Charles at Amberg, and again near Würzburg on September 3, and was
forced to recross the Rhine. Moreau advanced as far as Munich, for
Bonaparte intended, after the fall of Mantua, which he believed would not
be delayed, to effect a junction with him in Bavaria. Jourdan's overthrow
left Moreau in a critical position, and he only saved his army by a masterly
retreat through the Black Forest. Bonaparte's hope that he would soon bring
the war to an end by marching into Bavaria, and on Vienna, was
disappointed. His army was kept on the Mincio, for Mantua remained
untaken, and another army under Alvinzi was preparing to march to its
relief. Italy was not conquered yet, and on October 19 the cabinet decided
that the fleet should remain in the Mediterranean.[266] It was then too late.
Corsica and Elba were abandoned; Ferdinand of Naples made peace with
France, and Jervis sailed for Lisbon. After three years in the Mediterranean
the fleet retired from its waters; its departure left that sea closed to British
commerce, assured Bonaparte's communications, and strengthened his hold
over Italy.
Pitt, driven into war against his will, was sincerely
anxious for peace. He had entered on the war for NEGOTIATIONS
FOR PEACE.
political reasons, and would not be deterred from
negotiation by dislike of the French republican government. His views were
not shared by all his colleagues; Windham and Pitt's whig supporters
Page 401
generally were averse from peace because they desired the overthrow of the
revolutionary system. The king fully sympathised with them, and their
sentiments were stimulated and expressed by Burke, whose first Letter on a
Regicide Peace appeared in the autumn. Pitt believed that the new French
government would be willing to treat, and that it would remain in power, so
that a stable peace might be hoped for. The king's speech at the opening of
parliament in October, 1795, stated that the government would be willing to
treat, and this was emphatically declared in a royal message to parliament
on December 8. Sorely against the king's will, an attempt at negotiation was
made in the early spring through Wickham, the British ambassador at
Berne. His overtures were scornfully rejected, the directors replying that no
proposition for the surrender of any of the countries declared by France to
be "re-united" to herself would be entertained. This was final; for England
was bound by treaty to maintain the integrity of the Austrian dominions,
and could treat only on the basis of the surrender of the Austrian
Netherlands by France.
In July the cabinet determined to make another attempt. A strong party in
France desired peace, and the friends and agents of the British government
abroad represented that the directors would be unable to resist its demands.
The expenses of the war were enormous, for Austria clamoured for
financial support; and it seemed possible that the emperor, pressed by the
double French invasion of Germany and by Bonaparte's victories in Italy,
might make a separate peace.[267] England's naval successes had given her
much that Pitt could offer. And he would offer much, for he was in earnest
in his attempt. If it did not succeed he would at least show the nation that he
desired peace, and the rejection of his offers would wound its pride, rouse
its spirit, and encourage it to bear the burden of the war. George believed
that the attempt would fail, and consented to it because he reckoned that its
failure would have this effect on the nation. In September the cabinet
requested the Danish ambassador in Paris to ask for a passport for an
English minister. The directors rejected his mediation, but the strength of
the peace party prevented them from declining all negotiation, and they
offered to receive a minister if the British government made an official
request. Great Britain was, in fact, to sue for peace. The government
acquiesced, and Malmesbury was sent over to Paris. England offered all
that she had conquered from France for a peace which should include her
revolutionary system. The king fully sympathised with them, and their
sentiments were stimulated and expressed by Burke, whose first Letter on a
Regicide Peace appeared in the autumn. Pitt believed that the new French
government would be willing to treat, and that it would remain in power, so
that a stable peace might be hoped for. The king's speech at the opening of
parliament in October, 1795, stated that the government would be willing to
treat, and this was emphatically declared in a royal message to parliament
on December 8. Sorely against the king's will, an attempt at negotiation was
made in the early spring through Wickham, the British ambassador at
Berne. His overtures were scornfully rejected, the directors replying that no
proposition for the surrender of any of the countries declared by France to
be "re-united" to herself would be entertained. This was final; for England
was bound by treaty to maintain the integrity of the Austrian dominions,
and could treat only on the basis of the surrender of the Austrian
Netherlands by France.
In July the cabinet determined to make another attempt. A strong party in
France desired peace, and the friends and agents of the British government
abroad represented that the directors would be unable to resist its demands.
The expenses of the war were enormous, for Austria clamoured for
financial support; and it seemed possible that the emperor, pressed by the
double French invasion of Germany and by Bonaparte's victories in Italy,
might make a separate peace.[267] England's naval successes had given her
much that Pitt could offer. And he would offer much, for he was in earnest
in his attempt. If it did not succeed he would at least show the nation that he
desired peace, and the rejection of his offers would wound its pride, rouse
its spirit, and encourage it to bear the burden of the war. George believed
that the attempt would fail, and consented to it because he reckoned that its
failure would have this effect on the nation. In September the cabinet
requested the Danish ambassador in Paris to ask for a passport for an
English minister. The directors rejected his mediation, but the strength of
the peace party prevented them from declining all negotiation, and they
offered to receive a minister if the British government made an official
request. Great Britain was, in fact, to sue for peace. The government
acquiesced, and Malmesbury was sent over to Paris. England offered all
that she had conquered from France for a peace which should include her
Page 402
allies, if France would surrender the Austrian Netherlands either to the
emperor or in exchange for some equivalent which he would accept, and
restore the Milanese. The surrender of the Netherlands was refused, and on
December 19 Malmesbury was ordered to leave Paris in twenty-four hours.
This abrupt termination was connected with the death of Catherine of
Russia on November 17, soon after she had agreed to support Austria with
an army of 60,000 men to be paid by England. Her half-crazy son and
successor, Paul, declared himself neutral. On the part of the directory,
however, the negotiations were illusory, undertaken merely to appease
domestic discontent. The French declared that England's offers were
insincere. Fox and his party adopted the same line, and their attacks on the
government left them with thirty-seven supporters in the commons and
eight in the lords.
This ineffectual negotiation roughly coincides with the beginning of an
awful period of stress and depression. The directory designed to isolate
England, reduce her to bankruptcy by destroying her commerce, and
complete her ruin by invasion. Already Austria, her one efficient ally, was
nearly exhausted; her commerce was shut out from the Mediterranean, and,
though vigorously pushed in other quarters, was constantly harassed, and a
plan of invasion was ripe for prosecution. Pitt met the prospect of invasion
by proposals for increasing the army and navy by parochial levies, and for
the formation of militia reserves and irregular cavalry. Fox asserted that the
French did not contemplate an invasion, and that the immediate duty of
parliament was to guard the freedom of the people against its domestic
enemies, the ministers. This disgraceful speech roused the indignation of
the peace-loving Wilberforce, who declared that Fox and his friends seemed
to wish that just so much evil should befall their country as would bring
them into office. Though the government easily carried its proposals for
defence, it was embarrassed by financial difficulties. Pitt had granted an
advance of £1,200,000 to the emperor without the consent of parliament.
He was justly blamed for this unconstitutional act, and eighty-one members
voted against the government. In his budget of December 7 he proposed
another loan of £18,000,000. The public debt already exceeded
£400,000,000; the 3 per cents. had fallen with its growth, and in September
were at 53. In the dangerous position of the country, financiers would have
declined the loan, and Pitt offered it to the public at 5 per cent. and £112
emperor or in exchange for some equivalent which he would accept, and
restore the Milanese. The surrender of the Netherlands was refused, and on
December 19 Malmesbury was ordered to leave Paris in twenty-four hours.
This abrupt termination was connected with the death of Catherine of
Russia on November 17, soon after she had agreed to support Austria with
an army of 60,000 men to be paid by England. Her half-crazy son and
successor, Paul, declared himself neutral. On the part of the directory,
however, the negotiations were illusory, undertaken merely to appease
domestic discontent. The French declared that England's offers were
insincere. Fox and his party adopted the same line, and their attacks on the
government left them with thirty-seven supporters in the commons and
eight in the lords.
This ineffectual negotiation roughly coincides with the beginning of an
awful period of stress and depression. The directory designed to isolate
England, reduce her to bankruptcy by destroying her commerce, and
complete her ruin by invasion. Already Austria, her one efficient ally, was
nearly exhausted; her commerce was shut out from the Mediterranean, and,
though vigorously pushed in other quarters, was constantly harassed, and a
plan of invasion was ripe for prosecution. Pitt met the prospect of invasion
by proposals for increasing the army and navy by parochial levies, and for
the formation of militia reserves and irregular cavalry. Fox asserted that the
French did not contemplate an invasion, and that the immediate duty of
parliament was to guard the freedom of the people against its domestic
enemies, the ministers. This disgraceful speech roused the indignation of
the peace-loving Wilberforce, who declared that Fox and his friends seemed
to wish that just so much evil should befall their country as would bring
them into office. Though the government easily carried its proposals for
defence, it was embarrassed by financial difficulties. Pitt had granted an
advance of £1,200,000 to the emperor without the consent of parliament.
He was justly blamed for this unconstitutional act, and eighty-one members
voted against the government. In his budget of December 7 he proposed
another loan of £18,000,000. The public debt already exceeded
£400,000,000; the 3 per cents. had fallen with its growth, and in September
were at 53. In the dangerous position of the country, financiers would have
declined the loan, and Pitt offered it to the public at 5 per cent. and £112
Page 403
10s. stock for £100 money. Liberal as these terms may seem, they were
exiguous at that critical time, and the stock was at 4 per cent. discount
before the deposit was paid. Pitt, however, appealed to the loyalty of the
country. Patriotic enthusiasm was aroused, and the "loyalty loan" was
promptly subscribed. Twenty-nine new items of taxation were imposed
during the session; one of them raised the stamp duty on newspapers, which
Pitt described as a luxury, from 2d. to 3½d., and was calculated to produce
£114,000.
The threats of invasion were not vain; a descent on
Ireland was attempted. The government, though RELIGIOUS FEUD
IN IRELAND.
withholding emancipation, had made an effort to
conciliate the catholics. While the penal code was in force Irish priests were
educated abroad. Burke held that they required a special education, and that
seminaries should be established for them in Ireland as a means of keeping
them from disloyalty. The destruction of the French seminaries by the
republicans left no choice between a priesthood educated at home and one
without education, and therefore likely to be dangerous to civil order.
Camden met the difficulty by favouring the foundation of the college of
Maynooth. Religious animosity had broken out afresh since the recall of
Fitzwilliam, and many outrages were committed on both sides. On
September 1, 1795, the defenders and peep-of-day boys fought near a
village called Diamond, in Armagh, and the defenders were worsted with
some slaughter. Immediately afterwards the Orange society was founded to
maintain the protestant cause. In 1796 protestant mobs assuming the name
of Orangemen, persecuted the catholics in Armagh, and drove them from
their homes, bidding them go "to hell or Connaught". The magistrates gave
the catholics little help, and the government minimised the outrages of the
protestants.
Religious hatred changed the position of parties. The United Irishmen no
longer attempted to unite men of the two religions; they encouraged the
catholics to believe that the protestants were determined to destroy them
and conquer the land for themselves. There was much anarchy. Catholic
disloyalty was increased by the feeling that the government favoured the
Orangemen, and attacks were made on royal troops in Connaught. A
stringent insurrection act was passed, which gave the magistrates power to
send on board the fleet those attending unlawful assemblies or otherwise
exiguous at that critical time, and the stock was at 4 per cent. discount
before the deposit was paid. Pitt, however, appealed to the loyalty of the
country. Patriotic enthusiasm was aroused, and the "loyalty loan" was
promptly subscribed. Twenty-nine new items of taxation were imposed
during the session; one of them raised the stamp duty on newspapers, which
Pitt described as a luxury, from 2d. to 3½d., and was calculated to produce
£114,000.
The threats of invasion were not vain; a descent on
Ireland was attempted. The government, though RELIGIOUS FEUD
IN IRELAND.
withholding emancipation, had made an effort to
conciliate the catholics. While the penal code was in force Irish priests were
educated abroad. Burke held that they required a special education, and that
seminaries should be established for them in Ireland as a means of keeping
them from disloyalty. The destruction of the French seminaries by the
republicans left no choice between a priesthood educated at home and one
without education, and therefore likely to be dangerous to civil order.
Camden met the difficulty by favouring the foundation of the college of
Maynooth. Religious animosity had broken out afresh since the recall of
Fitzwilliam, and many outrages were committed on both sides. On
September 1, 1795, the defenders and peep-of-day boys fought near a
village called Diamond, in Armagh, and the defenders were worsted with
some slaughter. Immediately afterwards the Orange society was founded to
maintain the protestant cause. In 1796 protestant mobs assuming the name
of Orangemen, persecuted the catholics in Armagh, and drove them from
their homes, bidding them go "to hell or Connaught". The magistrates gave
the catholics little help, and the government minimised the outrages of the
protestants.
Religious hatred changed the position of parties. The United Irishmen no
longer attempted to unite men of the two religions; they encouraged the
catholics to believe that the protestants were determined to destroy them
and conquer the land for themselves. There was much anarchy. Catholic
disloyalty was increased by the feeling that the government favoured the
Orangemen, and attacks were made on royal troops in Connaught. A
stringent insurrection act was passed, which gave the magistrates power to
send on board the fleet those attending unlawful assemblies or otherwise
Page 404
acting disloyally, and in the autumn the habeas corpus act was suspended.
Corps of yeomanry and infantry were formed by the gentry for their own
protection, and were accepted by the crown. The defenders coalesced with
the United Irishmen, and the society adopted a military organisation. On
different pretexts, such as a potato-digging, funerals, or football matches,
large bodies of men assembled in military array; guns were collected, and
pike-heads forged. Leading members of the United Irishmen pressed the
directory to send an expedition to Ireland, representing that the catholic
peasantry and the dissenters of Ulster were alike ripe for revolt. Among the
most active of these agents were Wolfe Tone, Arthur O'Connor, and Lord
Edward Fitzgerald, a son of the Duke of Leinster, a young man of romantic
disposition and no special abilities, who had married a lady of great beauty,
well known in French society, Pamela, supposed to be a daughter of
Madame de Genlis by the Duke of Orleans.
The directors appointed Hoche to command an invading force, and a fleet
of seventeen ships of the line, thirteen frigates, and other vessels sailed
from Brest on December 15 with 15,000 troops and a supply of arms for
distribution. Though an invasion was expected, the fleet met with no enemy,
and evaded a squadron which was on the look-out off Ushant. Some of the
ships, however, were separated from the others, and one of seventy-four
guns was wrecked through the incapacity of the French naval officers. On
the 21st thirty-five ships of the fleet arrived at the mouth of Bantry bay, "in
most delicious weather," wrote Tone, who accompanied the expedition.
Then the wind changed and blew hard. Only fifteen ships managed to enter
the bay, and five of them were forced by the gale to put out to sea again.
The ship on which Hoche sailed did not arrive. No landing was effected,
and, on January 17, the battered fleet returned to Brest, less five ships lost,
six captured by some British ships lying at Cork, and one of seventy-four
guns, which was attacked on its way home by two English frigates off
Ushant, driven ashore, and wrecked.
If the wind had remained light and favourable, or if the French had been
better seamen, and their force had landed, Ireland would probably have
been conquered for a time, for the country was drained of regular troops.
Between Bantry and Cork were only 4,000 men hastily collected at Bandon,
and stores and artillery were virtually non-existent. That a French fleet
should have been able to leave Brest, remain five days on the Irish coast,
Corps of yeomanry and infantry were formed by the gentry for their own
protection, and were accepted by the crown. The defenders coalesced with
the United Irishmen, and the society adopted a military organisation. On
different pretexts, such as a potato-digging, funerals, or football matches,
large bodies of men assembled in military array; guns were collected, and
pike-heads forged. Leading members of the United Irishmen pressed the
directory to send an expedition to Ireland, representing that the catholic
peasantry and the dissenters of Ulster were alike ripe for revolt. Among the
most active of these agents were Wolfe Tone, Arthur O'Connor, and Lord
Edward Fitzgerald, a son of the Duke of Leinster, a young man of romantic
disposition and no special abilities, who had married a lady of great beauty,
well known in French society, Pamela, supposed to be a daughter of
Madame de Genlis by the Duke of Orleans.
The directors appointed Hoche to command an invading force, and a fleet
of seventeen ships of the line, thirteen frigates, and other vessels sailed
from Brest on December 15 with 15,000 troops and a supply of arms for
distribution. Though an invasion was expected, the fleet met with no enemy,
and evaded a squadron which was on the look-out off Ushant. Some of the
ships, however, were separated from the others, and one of seventy-four
guns was wrecked through the incapacity of the French naval officers. On
the 21st thirty-five ships of the fleet arrived at the mouth of Bantry bay, "in
most delicious weather," wrote Tone, who accompanied the expedition.
Then the wind changed and blew hard. Only fifteen ships managed to enter
the bay, and five of them were forced by the gale to put out to sea again.
The ship on which Hoche sailed did not arrive. No landing was effected,
and, on January 17, the battered fleet returned to Brest, less five ships lost,
six captured by some British ships lying at Cork, and one of seventy-four
guns, which was attacked on its way home by two English frigates off
Ushant, driven ashore, and wrecked.
If the wind had remained light and favourable, or if the French had been
better seamen, and their force had landed, Ireland would probably have
been conquered for a time, for the country was drained of regular troops.
Between Bantry and Cork were only 4,000 men hastily collected at Bandon,
and stores and artillery were virtually non-existent. That a French fleet
should have been able to leave Brest, remain five days on the Irish coast,
Page 405
and return without being attacked by the channel fleet caused great alarm in
England, and was due to Bridport's slackness. The Irish of all classes
behaved with exemplary loyalty; the country people afforded every
assistance in their power to the troops at Bandon, and no symptom of
disaffection appeared in Dublin. It was evident that many who had joined
the disloyal societies had been driven to do so by fear, and that the catholics
as a body were not as yet ready to revolt.[268] Either merely to harass
England, or to prove the feasibility of a more serious invasion, two frigates
and two other vessels were despatched from Brest in February with about
1,200 men, half of them convicts. After destroying some merchantmen in
the Bristol channel, they anchored in Fishguard bay. The troops landed on
the 23rd, and were, it is said, much alarmed through mistaking a body of
Welshwomen in their red cloaks and beaver hats for soldiers. The next day
Lord Cawdor, captain of the Pembrokeshire yeomanry, appeared with a
force of local troops and country folk, and they at once surrendered. The
two frigates which brought them were captured on their way back to Brest.
England, and was due to Bridport's slackness. The Irish of all classes
behaved with exemplary loyalty; the country people afforded every
assistance in their power to the troops at Bandon, and no symptom of
disaffection appeared in Dublin. It was evident that many who had joined
the disloyal societies had been driven to do so by fear, and that the catholics
as a body were not as yet ready to revolt.[268] Either merely to harass
England, or to prove the feasibility of a more serious invasion, two frigates
and two other vessels were despatched from Brest in February with about
1,200 men, half of them convicts. After destroying some merchantmen in
the Bristol channel, they anchored in Fishguard bay. The troops landed on
the 23rd, and were, it is said, much alarmed through mistaking a body of
Welshwomen in their red cloaks and beaver hats for soldiers. The next day
Lord Cawdor, captain of the Pembrokeshire yeomanry, appeared with a
force of local troops and country folk, and they at once surrendered. The
two frigates which brought them were captured on their way back to Brest.
Page 406
The expenses of the war, loans and subsidies to foreign
princes, and bills drawn by British agents abroad caused SUSPENSION OF
a continual drain of specie from the bank of England. By CASH PAYMENTS.
1795 the exchange became unfavourable, and since then the drain had been
enormous. Pitt anticipated taxes and borrowed heavily. Believing that an
invasion was imminent, many small tradesmen and others were eager to
turn their property into cash; a run on country banks set in, and some failed.
The bank of England was pressed for gold. On Saturday, February 25, the
floating debt owed to it by government was about £7,500,000, and its stock
of coin and bullion, which in 1794 was over £8,500,000, was reduced to
£1,272,000; and a sharp run was expected on Monday. The bank itself, and
the private banks which depended on it, were threatened with immediate
stoppage, and the consequences to the country would have been disastrous.
The directors applied to Pitt. He called the king to London; a privy council
was held on Sunday, and an order was issued suspending cash payments at
the bank until the will of parliament was expressed. The leading merchants
and bankers at once declared that they would accept bank of England notes.
Committees of both houses of parliament reported that the bank was in a
thoroughly stable condition, and, after much debating, during which Fox
asserted that Pitt deserved impeachment for defrauding the public creditor, a
bill was passed on May 3 prohibiting the bank from issuing cash, except in
sums below £1, until six months after the end of the war. Cash payments
were not resumed until 1819. A fair, though constantly decreasing amount
of gold remained in circulation for some years, and was supplemented by
the issue of one pound notes. The bank was moderate in its issues, and,
except in 1800, there was no appreciable difference between the value of its
paper and gold until 1808. The government was undoubtedly justified in
saving the bank from the effects of panic. Whether the suspension should
have been continued after the restoration of public confidence is another
matter. It was continued chiefly because it enabled the bank to make large
advances to government without incurring a drain of bullion. Currency was
at once expanded, and Pitt obtained a new loan of £14,500,000; it was
raised mainly in the 3 per cents., and created a debt of £175 for each £100
cash. Pitt therefore paid, including the provision for long annuity, at the rate
of £6 7s. per cent. The imperial loan of £1,620,000 was raised on even more
onerous terms.
princes, and bills drawn by British agents abroad caused SUSPENSION OF
a continual drain of specie from the bank of England. By CASH PAYMENTS.
1795 the exchange became unfavourable, and since then the drain had been
enormous. Pitt anticipated taxes and borrowed heavily. Believing that an
invasion was imminent, many small tradesmen and others were eager to
turn their property into cash; a run on country banks set in, and some failed.
The bank of England was pressed for gold. On Saturday, February 25, the
floating debt owed to it by government was about £7,500,000, and its stock
of coin and bullion, which in 1794 was over £8,500,000, was reduced to
£1,272,000; and a sharp run was expected on Monday. The bank itself, and
the private banks which depended on it, were threatened with immediate
stoppage, and the consequences to the country would have been disastrous.
The directors applied to Pitt. He called the king to London; a privy council
was held on Sunday, and an order was issued suspending cash payments at
the bank until the will of parliament was expressed. The leading merchants
and bankers at once declared that they would accept bank of England notes.
Committees of both houses of parliament reported that the bank was in a
thoroughly stable condition, and, after much debating, during which Fox
asserted that Pitt deserved impeachment for defrauding the public creditor, a
bill was passed on May 3 prohibiting the bank from issuing cash, except in
sums below £1, until six months after the end of the war. Cash payments
were not resumed until 1819. A fair, though constantly decreasing amount
of gold remained in circulation for some years, and was supplemented by
the issue of one pound notes. The bank was moderate in its issues, and,
except in 1800, there was no appreciable difference between the value of its
paper and gold until 1808. The government was undoubtedly justified in
saving the bank from the effects of panic. Whether the suspension should
have been continued after the restoration of public confidence is another
matter. It was continued chiefly because it enabled the bank to make large
advances to government without incurring a drain of bullion. Currency was
at once expanded, and Pitt obtained a new loan of £14,500,000; it was
raised mainly in the 3 per cents., and created a debt of £175 for each £100
cash. Pitt therefore paid, including the provision for long annuity, at the rate
of £6 7s. per cent. The imperial loan of £1,620,000 was raised on even more
onerous terms.
Page 407
In the midst of anxiety and financial depression England
was cheered by a great naval victory. France called on BATTLE OF CAPE
Spain to form a junction of fleets. It was the old idea of ST. VINCENT.
1779 when the two Bourbon powers were to destroy the channel fleet and
lay England open to invasion. The Spanish fleet, twenty-seven ships of the
line, under Admiral de Córdova, sailed from Carthagena for Cadiz on
February 1. Jervis was then cruising off Cape St. Vincent, and before dawn
on the 14th he received tidings that the Spaniards were near. He had only
fifteen ships of the line, but his squadron was in splendid order, and among
its commanders were Commodore Nelson and Captains Collingwood,
Troubridge, and Saumarez. The Spaniards were eager to get to port, and ten
of their ships were far ahead of the rest on the leeward side. He made for
the gap and attacked the main body of seventeen ships, keeping the nine lee
ships (one had got away) in check meanwhile. After some cannonading and
manœuvring the Spaniards attempted to join their lee division. They were
stopped by Nelson who, on his own responsibility, wore his ship, the
Captain (74), took her out of the line, crossed the bows of five Spaniards,
and promptly supported by Troubridge in the Culloden (74), engaged the
gigantic Spanish flagship, the Santisima Trinidad (130), and two others. His
daring manœuvre threw the enemy into confusion and enabled the British to
come to close quarters.
During the fight the Captain was crippled, "her wheel and foretopmast gone
and not a sail or rope left". She was engaged by several of the enemy,
particularly by the San Nicolas (80) and the San Josef (112), whose mizzen-
mast she had shot away. Collingwood pushed his ship, the Excellent (74),
between her and the San Nicolas, gave the Spaniard a broadside within
pistol shot, and passed on. The San Nicolas "luffing and the San Josef's
mizzen-mast being gone, they fell on board of each other". Nelson boarded
the San Nicolas and captured her. From her he and his men boarded the San
Josef, which also surrendered, and on her deck he received the swords of
the Spanish officers. Four of the enemy's ships were taken and the
Santisima Trinidad surrendered but was not secured.[269] The fight lasted
until evening, and though the Spaniards had ten ships which had not been
closely engaged and eight more uncrippled, they drew off in the night. They
showed an utter lack of seamanship in the action. The number of their fleet,
the size and quality of their ships, and the weight of metal they carried place
was cheered by a great naval victory. France called on BATTLE OF CAPE
Spain to form a junction of fleets. It was the old idea of ST. VINCENT.
1779 when the two Bourbon powers were to destroy the channel fleet and
lay England open to invasion. The Spanish fleet, twenty-seven ships of the
line, under Admiral de Córdova, sailed from Carthagena for Cadiz on
February 1. Jervis was then cruising off Cape St. Vincent, and before dawn
on the 14th he received tidings that the Spaniards were near. He had only
fifteen ships of the line, but his squadron was in splendid order, and among
its commanders were Commodore Nelson and Captains Collingwood,
Troubridge, and Saumarez. The Spaniards were eager to get to port, and ten
of their ships were far ahead of the rest on the leeward side. He made for
the gap and attacked the main body of seventeen ships, keeping the nine lee
ships (one had got away) in check meanwhile. After some cannonading and
manœuvring the Spaniards attempted to join their lee division. They were
stopped by Nelson who, on his own responsibility, wore his ship, the
Captain (74), took her out of the line, crossed the bows of five Spaniards,
and promptly supported by Troubridge in the Culloden (74), engaged the
gigantic Spanish flagship, the Santisima Trinidad (130), and two others. His
daring manœuvre threw the enemy into confusion and enabled the British to
come to close quarters.
During the fight the Captain was crippled, "her wheel and foretopmast gone
and not a sail or rope left". She was engaged by several of the enemy,
particularly by the San Nicolas (80) and the San Josef (112), whose mizzen-
mast she had shot away. Collingwood pushed his ship, the Excellent (74),
between her and the San Nicolas, gave the Spaniard a broadside within
pistol shot, and passed on. The San Nicolas "luffing and the San Josef's
mizzen-mast being gone, they fell on board of each other". Nelson boarded
the San Nicolas and captured her. From her he and his men boarded the San
Josef, which also surrendered, and on her deck he received the swords of
the Spanish officers. Four of the enemy's ships were taken and the
Santisima Trinidad surrendered but was not secured.[269] The fight lasted
until evening, and though the Spaniards had ten ships which had not been
closely engaged and eight more uncrippled, they drew off in the night. They
showed an utter lack of seamanship in the action. The number of their fleet,
the size and quality of their ships, and the weight of metal they carried place
Page 408
this battle of St. Valentine's Day, or Cape St. Vincent, among the splendid
victories of the British navy. Its moral effect was excellent; it helped the
nation to pass through the banking crisis with calmness, and raised its
spirits. The long-standing belief that Spain was a first-rate maritime power
was destroyed at last. Jervis was created Earl of St. Vincent and received a
pension of £3,000 a year, and Nelson, already gazetted rear-admiral, a
pension of £1,000 and the order of the Bath. About the same time Admiral
Harvey, commanding in the Leeward islands, and Sir Ralph Abercromby
captured Trinidad from the Spaniards, but failed in an attack on Puerto-rico.
It was well that England should be encouraged, for darker days were at
hand. The Austrian attempt in Italy in the autumn of 1796 ended in disaster.
Although Alvinzi beat the French at Caldiero on November 12, he was no
match for Bonaparte in generalship, and the Austrians were defeated in a
three days' battle at Arcola on the 15th-17th. A last attempt to save Mantua
was foiled by Bonaparte's victory at Rivoli on January 14, and on February
2 the great fortress was surrendered by Wurmser. Bonaparte led his
victorious army into Carinthia, overcame the Austrian resistance with the
help of Masséna and Joubert, and advanced to Leoben about 100 miles from
Vienna. The death of Catherine had deprived the emperor of his hopes of
help from Russia, and on April 18 preliminaries of peace were signed at
Leoben. Francis renounced his rights over the Netherlands and agreed to a
congress for the conclusion of a peace with the empire. By secret articles he
promised to surrender his territories west of the Oglio and to accept in
exchange the terra firma of Venice from the Oglio eastward, with Venetian
Dalmatia and Istria. Lombardy and the rest of the Venetian terra firma were
to be constituted an independent republic by France, and Venice was to be
indemnified by the Legations, Romagna, Ferrara, and Bologna. The
emperor negotiated apart from Great Britain and without sending any notice
of his intentions to London,[270] and England suddenly found herself
deprived of her one efficient ally.
Her enemies were preparing to close in upon her. Three
fleets threatened her with invasion. A French fleet lay at DISCONTENT IN
THE NAVY.
Brest, inadequately watched by Bridport; a Spanish fleet
at Cadiz was closely blockaded by Jervis; and Duncan with the North sea
fleet kept watch for a fleet which the Dutch at the bidding of France were
fitting out in the Texel. The safety of the realm depended on the navy, and
victories of the British navy. Its moral effect was excellent; it helped the
nation to pass through the banking crisis with calmness, and raised its
spirits. The long-standing belief that Spain was a first-rate maritime power
was destroyed at last. Jervis was created Earl of St. Vincent and received a
pension of £3,000 a year, and Nelson, already gazetted rear-admiral, a
pension of £1,000 and the order of the Bath. About the same time Admiral
Harvey, commanding in the Leeward islands, and Sir Ralph Abercromby
captured Trinidad from the Spaniards, but failed in an attack on Puerto-rico.
It was well that England should be encouraged, for darker days were at
hand. The Austrian attempt in Italy in the autumn of 1796 ended in disaster.
Although Alvinzi beat the French at Caldiero on November 12, he was no
match for Bonaparte in generalship, and the Austrians were defeated in a
three days' battle at Arcola on the 15th-17th. A last attempt to save Mantua
was foiled by Bonaparte's victory at Rivoli on January 14, and on February
2 the great fortress was surrendered by Wurmser. Bonaparte led his
victorious army into Carinthia, overcame the Austrian resistance with the
help of Masséna and Joubert, and advanced to Leoben about 100 miles from
Vienna. The death of Catherine had deprived the emperor of his hopes of
help from Russia, and on April 18 preliminaries of peace were signed at
Leoben. Francis renounced his rights over the Netherlands and agreed to a
congress for the conclusion of a peace with the empire. By secret articles he
promised to surrender his territories west of the Oglio and to accept in
exchange the terra firma of Venice from the Oglio eastward, with Venetian
Dalmatia and Istria. Lombardy and the rest of the Venetian terra firma were
to be constituted an independent republic by France, and Venice was to be
indemnified by the Legations, Romagna, Ferrara, and Bologna. The
emperor negotiated apart from Great Britain and without sending any notice
of his intentions to London,[270] and England suddenly found herself
deprived of her one efficient ally.
Her enemies were preparing to close in upon her. Three
fleets threatened her with invasion. A French fleet lay at DISCONTENT IN
THE NAVY.
Brest, inadequately watched by Bridport; a Spanish fleet
at Cadiz was closely blockaded by Jervis; and Duncan with the North sea
fleet kept watch for a fleet which the Dutch at the bidding of France were
fitting out in the Texel. The safety of the realm depended on the navy, and
Page 409
the navy mutinied. Both soldiers and sailors had just grievances, specially
as regards their pay. Seditious pamphlets were distributed among the
soldiers by the democratic societies, and, it was believed, among the sailors
also.[271] The discontent in the army, which for a time appeared likely to
have serious consequences, was allayed through the influence of the Duke
of York. The pay of privates of the line was raised from 8¼d. to 1s. a day,
though a deduction on account of the existing high price of provisions
reduced the actual increase to 2d.; and other advantages were granted.[272]
The sailors had no royal duke to speak for them. Mutinies had broken out
sporadically in the navy during the American war and temporary
concessions had been made, but there was no general removal of
grievances. The pay remained as it was fixed in the reign of Charles II. at
22s. 6d. a month (of twenty-eight days) for able seamen and 19s. for
ordinary seamen, though the cost of living had risen, the men said, 30 per
cent., so that they could not provide for their families. The system on which
they were paid was unfair to them; a deduction of two ounces in the pound
was made in their rations by the admiralty to balance waste of stores; the
medical service was disgracefully bad, and they complained bitterly of the
shameful practice of not providing them with fresh vegetables as a
protection from scurvy when in English ports. Punishments were sometimes
frightfully severe and a tyrannical captain could make a ship a floating hell.
A mutiny, only remotely connected with the general movement, was
provoked on the Hermione (32) on the Jamaica station by the insane cruelty
of Pigot, the captain; the crew murdered him and the other officers, and
delivered the ship to the Spaniards from whom it was afterwards retaken.
Owing to the large demand for men in war time many crews contained a
large number of bad characters, criminals whose sentences were remitted on
condition of entering the navy, and such like, and on some ships there were
many Irishmen who had imbibed disaffection on shore. Such men would
naturally be inclined to mutiny. A ship's crew, however, took its tone from
the able seamen, the A.B.'s, from whom the petty officers were chosen. At
that time they were often not more than a fourth of the crew, and
unfortunately they had special grievances. They were skilled men, and
might have been mates with good pay on a merchant ship. They were forced
to serve in the navy by impressment, and when in port were refused leave to
visit their families for fear they should desert. In the winter of 1796-97 the
as regards their pay. Seditious pamphlets were distributed among the
soldiers by the democratic societies, and, it was believed, among the sailors
also.[271] The discontent in the army, which for a time appeared likely to
have serious consequences, was allayed through the influence of the Duke
of York. The pay of privates of the line was raised from 8¼d. to 1s. a day,
though a deduction on account of the existing high price of provisions
reduced the actual increase to 2d.; and other advantages were granted.[272]
The sailors had no royal duke to speak for them. Mutinies had broken out
sporadically in the navy during the American war and temporary
concessions had been made, but there was no general removal of
grievances. The pay remained as it was fixed in the reign of Charles II. at
22s. 6d. a month (of twenty-eight days) for able seamen and 19s. for
ordinary seamen, though the cost of living had risen, the men said, 30 per
cent., so that they could not provide for their families. The system on which
they were paid was unfair to them; a deduction of two ounces in the pound
was made in their rations by the admiralty to balance waste of stores; the
medical service was disgracefully bad, and they complained bitterly of the
shameful practice of not providing them with fresh vegetables as a
protection from scurvy when in English ports. Punishments were sometimes
frightfully severe and a tyrannical captain could make a ship a floating hell.
A mutiny, only remotely connected with the general movement, was
provoked on the Hermione (32) on the Jamaica station by the insane cruelty
of Pigot, the captain; the crew murdered him and the other officers, and
delivered the ship to the Spaniards from whom it was afterwards retaken.
Owing to the large demand for men in war time many crews contained a
large number of bad characters, criminals whose sentences were remitted on
condition of entering the navy, and such like, and on some ships there were
many Irishmen who had imbibed disaffection on shore. Such men would
naturally be inclined to mutiny. A ship's crew, however, took its tone from
the able seamen, the A.B.'s, from whom the petty officers were chosen. At
that time they were often not more than a fourth of the crew, and
unfortunately they had special grievances. They were skilled men, and
might have been mates with good pay on a merchant ship. They were forced
to serve in the navy by impressment, and when in port were refused leave to
visit their families for fear they should desert. In the winter of 1796-97 the
Page 410
able seamen in the channel fleet seem to have combined to obtain a redress
of grievances. Anonymous petitions were sent to Lord Howe, who
forwarded them to the admiralty where they were disregarded.
On April 15 the fleet, which was then at Spithead, was
ordered to put to sea. The crews instead of weighing MUTINY IN THE
anchor manned the yards, cheered, and hoisted the red NAVY.
flag, the usual signal for battle. They were joined by the marines. No
personal disrespect was shown to the officers, but the ships were taken out
of their command. The admiralty board went down to Portsmouth and held
an interview with the delegates from the ships, who presented a list of their
demands. The commissioners haggled; the men stood firm, and further
demanded that officers accused of tyranny should be dismissed their ships.
On the 25th the commissioners gave way on all points; the pay of able
seamen was to be the same as that of privates in the army, though without
deductions, 1s. a day, or a rise of 5s. 6d. a month; ordinary seamen were to
receive a rise of 4s. 6d.; their other grievances were to be redressed; and a
promise was given that the fleet should not be sent to sea until the increase
of pay had been voted by the house of commons, and the king's pardon had
been proclaimed. Various hindrances, which might perhaps have been
overcome if the government had appreciated the need of promptitude,
delayed the application to parliament. Days passed by; the sailors heard
nothing of a bill for the rise in their wages or of a proclamation of pardon,
and an ill-judged order sent by the admiralty to the captains with reference
to stores and to mutinous conduct roused their suspicions. They believed
that they had been cajoled. Hitherto their conduct had been as blameless as
the nature of the case allowed. It was so no longer. Two of the ships
remained at Spithead; the rest had gone to St. Helen's. On May 7 all the
crews again mutinied and most of the officers were sent ashore. A struggle
took place on board the London; a mutineer was shot dead, and a
midshipman and a marine officer were wounded. Pitt proposed a grant for
the increase of pay on the 8th, and, as discussion might be mischievous,
asked for a silent vote. To their shame, Fox and his friends used this crisis
as an opportunity for a violent party attack on the government.[273] The
money was voted, and on the 10th Howe, the sailors' favourite "Black
Dick," went down to the fleet with the vote and the king's proclamation.
of grievances. Anonymous petitions were sent to Lord Howe, who
forwarded them to the admiralty where they were disregarded.
On April 15 the fleet, which was then at Spithead, was
ordered to put to sea. The crews instead of weighing MUTINY IN THE
anchor manned the yards, cheered, and hoisted the red NAVY.
flag, the usual signal for battle. They were joined by the marines. No
personal disrespect was shown to the officers, but the ships were taken out
of their command. The admiralty board went down to Portsmouth and held
an interview with the delegates from the ships, who presented a list of their
demands. The commissioners haggled; the men stood firm, and further
demanded that officers accused of tyranny should be dismissed their ships.
On the 25th the commissioners gave way on all points; the pay of able
seamen was to be the same as that of privates in the army, though without
deductions, 1s. a day, or a rise of 5s. 6d. a month; ordinary seamen were to
receive a rise of 4s. 6d.; their other grievances were to be redressed; and a
promise was given that the fleet should not be sent to sea until the increase
of pay had been voted by the house of commons, and the king's pardon had
been proclaimed. Various hindrances, which might perhaps have been
overcome if the government had appreciated the need of promptitude,
delayed the application to parliament. Days passed by; the sailors heard
nothing of a bill for the rise in their wages or of a proclamation of pardon,
and an ill-judged order sent by the admiralty to the captains with reference
to stores and to mutinous conduct roused their suspicions. They believed
that they had been cajoled. Hitherto their conduct had been as blameless as
the nature of the case allowed. It was so no longer. Two of the ships
remained at Spithead; the rest had gone to St. Helen's. On May 7 all the
crews again mutinied and most of the officers were sent ashore. A struggle
took place on board the London; a mutineer was shot dead, and a
midshipman and a marine officer were wounded. Pitt proposed a grant for
the increase of pay on the 8th, and, as discussion might be mischievous,
asked for a silent vote. To their shame, Fox and his friends used this crisis
as an opportunity for a violent party attack on the government.[273] The
money was voted, and on the 10th Howe, the sailors' favourite "Black
Dick," went down to the fleet with the vote and the king's proclamation.
Page 411
The men were pacified; more than 100 officers to whom they objected were
removed from the ships; discipline was restored, and the fleet put to sea.
The admiralty commissioners, after contesting the just demands of the men,
had yielded to a dangerous point by removing officers at the dictation of
mutineers. Their vacillation encouraged the idea that mutiny paid, and
mutiny accordingly spread. On the 12th it broke out in the ships lying at the
Little Nore with reinforcements for the North sea fleet. These ships
contained a large number of London roughs and some disaffected Irishmen.
Unlike the mutiny at Spithead, it was a violent and criminal movement. It
was directed by Richard Parker, a seaman of some education on board the
Sandwich (90), who is said to have entered the navy as a midshipman, to
have been dismissed his ship for immorality, and as mate to have been
broken for insubordination; he had been imprisoned for debt at Perth, and
had volunteered for the navy in order to obtain his release. Delegates were
chosen; the red flag was hoisted, and the officers were deprived of
command. From the first an element of weakness existed in the movement,
for the men were not unanimous; two loyal frigates were forced to join the
mutiny, and there was a loyal minority on the others. The squadron moved
out to the Great Nore, and the mutineers paraded Sheerness with a red flag.
Lord Spencer and his colleagues went down to Sheerness and had an
interview with the delegates; they failed to persuade them to return to their
duty, and Parker treated them with insolence. Besides the demands made by
the channel fleet, which were already granted, the mutineers required that
no officer that had been removed from his ship should again be employed in
her without the consent of the ship's company, and that the articles of war
should be revised. Demands of that kind, of course, could not be discussed.
The first sign of weakness in the movement appeared on the 29th; the two
loyal frigates left the squadron and, though fired on by the rest, made good
their escape. The mutineers, however, soon received an accession of
strength which encouraged them to proceed to further acts of rebellion.
The mutiny spread to Duncan's fleet then in Yarmouth Roads. The men
knew that the Dutch fleet was preparing for an invasion of the kingdom,
and they left the way open. All the ships, save Duncan's flagship and one
other, deserted him and joined the mutineers at the Nore. Nevertheless, the
stouthearted admiral sailed with his two ships to his station off the Texel,
determined if the Dutch came out to fight them. While there he concealed
removed from the ships; discipline was restored, and the fleet put to sea.
The admiralty commissioners, after contesting the just demands of the men,
had yielded to a dangerous point by removing officers at the dictation of
mutineers. Their vacillation encouraged the idea that mutiny paid, and
mutiny accordingly spread. On the 12th it broke out in the ships lying at the
Little Nore with reinforcements for the North sea fleet. These ships
contained a large number of London roughs and some disaffected Irishmen.
Unlike the mutiny at Spithead, it was a violent and criminal movement. It
was directed by Richard Parker, a seaman of some education on board the
Sandwich (90), who is said to have entered the navy as a midshipman, to
have been dismissed his ship for immorality, and as mate to have been
broken for insubordination; he had been imprisoned for debt at Perth, and
had volunteered for the navy in order to obtain his release. Delegates were
chosen; the red flag was hoisted, and the officers were deprived of
command. From the first an element of weakness existed in the movement,
for the men were not unanimous; two loyal frigates were forced to join the
mutiny, and there was a loyal minority on the others. The squadron moved
out to the Great Nore, and the mutineers paraded Sheerness with a red flag.
Lord Spencer and his colleagues went down to Sheerness and had an
interview with the delegates; they failed to persuade them to return to their
duty, and Parker treated them with insolence. Besides the demands made by
the channel fleet, which were already granted, the mutineers required that
no officer that had been removed from his ship should again be employed in
her without the consent of the ship's company, and that the articles of war
should be revised. Demands of that kind, of course, could not be discussed.
The first sign of weakness in the movement appeared on the 29th; the two
loyal frigates left the squadron and, though fired on by the rest, made good
their escape. The mutineers, however, soon received an accession of
strength which encouraged them to proceed to further acts of rebellion.
The mutiny spread to Duncan's fleet then in Yarmouth Roads. The men
knew that the Dutch fleet was preparing for an invasion of the kingdom,
and they left the way open. All the ships, save Duncan's flagship and one
other, deserted him and joined the mutineers at the Nore. Nevertheless, the
stouthearted admiral sailed with his two ships to his station off the Texel,
determined if the Dutch came out to fight them. While there he concealed
Page 412
his weakness from the enemy by making signals as though his fleet lay in
the offing. England was in imminent danger, and Count Vorontsov
(Woronzow), the tsar's ambassador, directed the Russian squadron, then at
Yarmouth and under orders for home, to delay its departure and join
Duncan until he could be reinforced from Spithead, the greatest service,
wrote Grenville, that England has ever received from any nation.[274]
Happily, the Dutch fleet was not ready to put to sea. The mutinous crews
attempted to intimidate the government by blockading the Thames, and
trading vessels were stopped at the entrance of the river. Some officers were
ill-treated. Farmhouses on the coast were sacked. The country was greatly
alarmed, and the 3 per cents. fell to a trifle over 48. The government acted
with vigour; the garrison at Sheerness was strongly reinforced; furnaces for
heating shot were made ready in the forts on the Thames; gunboats were
fitted out, and the buoys at the mouth of the river were taken up to prevent
the escape of the mutineers. In response to a royal message, parliament
passed bills on June 3 and 6 providing that incitement to mutiny should be
punishable with the highest penalties of misdemeanour, and that intercourse
with the mutinous ships should be a capital felony.
The mutineers "ordered" captain Lord Northesk, who
was virtually imprisoned on his ship, to go to London NAVAL
DISCIPLINE
and lay their demands before the king. An official RESTORED.
answer was returned requiring unconditional surrender.
They grew uneasy, and their doubts of success were increased by addresses
sent from the seamen of the channel fleet, severely reprobating their
conduct. Cut off from communication with the shore and without hope of
support from the channel fleet, they soon lost heart altogether. Parker
became unpopular. Ship after ship either left the squadron or signalled a
return to obedience, and finally, on the 14th, the crew of the Sandwich
brought her under the battery at Sheerness, and surrendered Parker. He was
tried by a court-martial, and hanged at the yard-arm of his ship. About forty
were condemned to death, and some others were flogged. The government
was inclined to mercy, for the bulk of the men had been deluded by Parker
and other scoundrels; only fourteen seamen and four marines were
executed; the other condemned men were pardoned by the king after the
next great naval victory.
the offing. England was in imminent danger, and Count Vorontsov
(Woronzow), the tsar's ambassador, directed the Russian squadron, then at
Yarmouth and under orders for home, to delay its departure and join
Duncan until he could be reinforced from Spithead, the greatest service,
wrote Grenville, that England has ever received from any nation.[274]
Happily, the Dutch fleet was not ready to put to sea. The mutinous crews
attempted to intimidate the government by blockading the Thames, and
trading vessels were stopped at the entrance of the river. Some officers were
ill-treated. Farmhouses on the coast were sacked. The country was greatly
alarmed, and the 3 per cents. fell to a trifle over 48. The government acted
with vigour; the garrison at Sheerness was strongly reinforced; furnaces for
heating shot were made ready in the forts on the Thames; gunboats were
fitted out, and the buoys at the mouth of the river were taken up to prevent
the escape of the mutineers. In response to a royal message, parliament
passed bills on June 3 and 6 providing that incitement to mutiny should be
punishable with the highest penalties of misdemeanour, and that intercourse
with the mutinous ships should be a capital felony.
The mutineers "ordered" captain Lord Northesk, who
was virtually imprisoned on his ship, to go to London NAVAL
DISCIPLINE
and lay their demands before the king. An official RESTORED.
answer was returned requiring unconditional surrender.
They grew uneasy, and their doubts of success were increased by addresses
sent from the seamen of the channel fleet, severely reprobating their
conduct. Cut off from communication with the shore and without hope of
support from the channel fleet, they soon lost heart altogether. Parker
became unpopular. Ship after ship either left the squadron or signalled a
return to obedience, and finally, on the 14th, the crew of the Sandwich
brought her under the battery at Sheerness, and surrendered Parker. He was
tried by a court-martial, and hanged at the yard-arm of his ship. About forty
were condemned to death, and some others were flogged. The government
was inclined to mercy, for the bulk of the men had been deluded by Parker
and other scoundrels; only fourteen seamen and four marines were
executed; the other condemned men were pardoned by the king after the
next great naval victory.
Page 413
A mutinous spirit appeared in other divisions of the navy. The squadron at
the Cape was brought to order by Lord Macartney, the governor, who
threatened to sink the ship most forward in the movement by bombarding
her from the shore. One of the ships off Cadiz began a mutiny; St. Vincent,
a rigid disciplinarian, though, as the men knew, careful for their welfare,
was equal to the occasion; the ringleader was sentenced by a court-martial,
and St. Vincent surrounded the ship with gunboats, and forced the crew to
hang him themselves, and that on a Sunday morning, which, being against
all precedent, deeply impressed the sailors. Convinced that the idleness
attending a long blockade was bad for discipline, he kept his ships
employed as much as possible, and, in July, detached a squadron under
Nelson to attack Santa Cruz. The attack was unsuccessful, and cost Nelson
his right arm. England never passed through darker days than those of the
mutinies.[275] The lessons they teach are that a country which neglects the
legitimate grievances of its defenders pursues a course not less perilous than
shabby; and that mutinous conduct of every kind should at once be met with
exemplary severity. Neither impressment nor flogging was included in the
seamen's grievances, but they complained of unjust treatment by officers.
Since 1797 their condition steadily though slowly improved, and they were
treated both by their officers and the admiralty with more of the
consideration to which their splendid services entitled them. To Nelson the
health and contentment of his seamen were always matters of care and
pride.
Pitt, seeing England destitute of efficient allies,
threatened with invasion, short of money, burdened with NEGOTIATIONS
AT LILLE.
debt and taxation, with public credit at a low ebb, and
with her fleets in mutiny, was set on peace, if it could be had on reasonable
terms. He was encouraged by the state of parties in France, for in May the
moderates or royalists who desired to put an end to the war gained a
majority in the legislative councils. On June 1 the government proposed a
negotiation for preliminaries of a peace which should be definitely arranged
at a future congress. The proposal was rejected by the directors, who would
not allow any concert between Great Britain and Austria, or any discussion
of the general interests of Europe, and insisted that England should
negotiate for a definite and separate peace. Grenville considered that this
would be humiliating to England, and would have resigned rather than
the Cape was brought to order by Lord Macartney, the governor, who
threatened to sink the ship most forward in the movement by bombarding
her from the shore. One of the ships off Cadiz began a mutiny; St. Vincent,
a rigid disciplinarian, though, as the men knew, careful for their welfare,
was equal to the occasion; the ringleader was sentenced by a court-martial,
and St. Vincent surrounded the ship with gunboats, and forced the crew to
hang him themselves, and that on a Sunday morning, which, being against
all precedent, deeply impressed the sailors. Convinced that the idleness
attending a long blockade was bad for discipline, he kept his ships
employed as much as possible, and, in July, detached a squadron under
Nelson to attack Santa Cruz. The attack was unsuccessful, and cost Nelson
his right arm. England never passed through darker days than those of the
mutinies.[275] The lessons they teach are that a country which neglects the
legitimate grievances of its defenders pursues a course not less perilous than
shabby; and that mutinous conduct of every kind should at once be met with
exemplary severity. Neither impressment nor flogging was included in the
seamen's grievances, but they complained of unjust treatment by officers.
Since 1797 their condition steadily though slowly improved, and they were
treated both by their officers and the admiralty with more of the
consideration to which their splendid services entitled them. To Nelson the
health and contentment of his seamen were always matters of care and
pride.
Pitt, seeing England destitute of efficient allies,
threatened with invasion, short of money, burdened with NEGOTIATIONS
AT LILLE.
debt and taxation, with public credit at a low ebb, and
with her fleets in mutiny, was set on peace, if it could be had on reasonable
terms. He was encouraged by the state of parties in France, for in May the
moderates or royalists who desired to put an end to the war gained a
majority in the legislative councils. On June 1 the government proposed a
negotiation for preliminaries of a peace which should be definitely arranged
at a future congress. The proposal was rejected by the directors, who would
not allow any concert between Great Britain and Austria, or any discussion
of the general interests of Europe, and insisted that England should
negotiate for a definite and separate peace. Grenville considered that this
would be humiliating to England, and would have resigned rather than
Page 414
consent to it if he had not felt it his duty not to embarrass the government.
The king heartily agreed with him, and so did Lord Liverpool
(Hawkesbury) and Windham.[276] Pitt was too strong for them, and
Malmesbury was sent to meet the French commissioners at Lille. He had
scarcely arrived there when Burke, who by voice and pen had so long
warned England to have no peace with France, died on July 9. Here, wrote
Canning, "there is but one event, but that is an event for the world—Burke
is dead". One of the five French directors was a constitutional royalist,
another, Carnot, was inclined to that side, the other three were jacobins. A
struggle was impending between this jacobin triumvirate and the majority
in the councils. The success of Malmesbury's mission depended on its issue.
England's need of peace may be gauged by Pitt's offers of the recognition of
the French sovereignty over Belgium, Luxemburg, Savoy, and Nice, of the
cession of all her conquests from France, Spain, and Holland, except
Trinidad and the Cape, and of an exchange for Ceylon. In the discussions of
the cabinet Grenville opposed Pitt's pacific policy, and as he found that the
contents of Malmesbury's despatches became known out of doors, and that
Pitt was enabled to support his opinions by the opinions of others, he
arranged that Malmesbury's specially secret communications should be
withheld from his colleagues generally, and they were only seen by himself,
Pitt, and Canning,[277] the under-secretary for foreign affairs. Difficulties
were raised by the French as to the royal style "King of Great Britain and
France," the restitution of, or an equivalent for, the ships taken or destroyed
at Toulon, and the retention of any conquests from the Dutch.
The negotiations were prolonged, for Malmesbury hoped that the majority
in the councils would prove stronger than the triumvirate, and the triumvirs
would not break them off before they had secured their position. During
their progress Portugal, England's sole remaining ally, made a separate
peace. A coup d'état was effected by the army on September 4 (18th
Fructidor); the royalist and moderate deputies were condemned to
transportation, two new directors were chosen, and the jacobin, or war
party, was established in power. New commissioners were sent to Lille, and
on the 14th Malmesbury was asked if he would agree to the restitution of
every conquest made from France and her allies. He replied that that was
beyond his powers, and was ordered to depart in twenty-four hours. After
this abrupt termination of Malmesbury's mission the former friendly and
The king heartily agreed with him, and so did Lord Liverpool
(Hawkesbury) and Windham.[276] Pitt was too strong for them, and
Malmesbury was sent to meet the French commissioners at Lille. He had
scarcely arrived there when Burke, who by voice and pen had so long
warned England to have no peace with France, died on July 9. Here, wrote
Canning, "there is but one event, but that is an event for the world—Burke
is dead". One of the five French directors was a constitutional royalist,
another, Carnot, was inclined to that side, the other three were jacobins. A
struggle was impending between this jacobin triumvirate and the majority
in the councils. The success of Malmesbury's mission depended on its issue.
England's need of peace may be gauged by Pitt's offers of the recognition of
the French sovereignty over Belgium, Luxemburg, Savoy, and Nice, of the
cession of all her conquests from France, Spain, and Holland, except
Trinidad and the Cape, and of an exchange for Ceylon. In the discussions of
the cabinet Grenville opposed Pitt's pacific policy, and as he found that the
contents of Malmesbury's despatches became known out of doors, and that
Pitt was enabled to support his opinions by the opinions of others, he
arranged that Malmesbury's specially secret communications should be
withheld from his colleagues generally, and they were only seen by himself,
Pitt, and Canning,[277] the under-secretary for foreign affairs. Difficulties
were raised by the French as to the royal style "King of Great Britain and
France," the restitution of, or an equivalent for, the ships taken or destroyed
at Toulon, and the retention of any conquests from the Dutch.
The negotiations were prolonged, for Malmesbury hoped that the majority
in the councils would prove stronger than the triumvirate, and the triumvirs
would not break them off before they had secured their position. During
their progress Portugal, England's sole remaining ally, made a separate
peace. A coup d'état was effected by the army on September 4 (18th
Fructidor); the royalist and moderate deputies were condemned to
transportation, two new directors were chosen, and the jacobin, or war
party, was established in power. New commissioners were sent to Lille, and
on the 14th Malmesbury was asked if he would agree to the restitution of
every conquest made from France and her allies. He replied that that was
beyond his powers, and was ordered to depart in twenty-four hours. After
this abrupt termination of Malmesbury's mission the former friendly and
Page 415
confidential relations between Pitt and Grenville were fully restored. The
coup d'état baffled Pitt's efforts. It was followed by the conclusion of a
definite peace between France and the emperor, which destroyed all hope of
a concert between Great Britain and Austria. After the preliminaries of
Leoben, Bonaparte declared war on Venice, procured the overthrow of its
ancient constitution, and established a new municipality. By the treaty of
Campo Formio, concluded October 17, he betrayed the Venetians by
handing over their city to Austria, along with Istria, Dalmatia, and the
Venetian terra firma as far west as the Adige, while France took the Ionian
islands for herself. The emperor resigned the Belgic provinces, and by a
secret article promised to use his influence in the empire to secure to France
the left bank of the Rhine. The directors looked forward to an invasion of
England. While her navy was engaged with the fleets of Spain and Holland,
a French force was to cross the channel and march on London; Ireland
would revolt; England would accept a democracy, and Tipú would destroy
her power in India.[278]
The futility of their arrogant hopes was already exhibited. Another invasion
of Ireland was planned in the spring. A Dutch fleet was to carry over a land
force, and was to be followed by Hoche and the Brest fleet. The United
Irishmen eagerly expected a French invasion. Though the Dutch fleet was
not ready until the crisis of the mutinies was over, Duncan's force was still
small. Week after week the wind prevented the Dutch from leaving the
Texel. Provisions ran short, and Duncan's fleet was again in force. The great
opportunity had passed by. Fresh plans were made for descents on Ireland
and Scotland in concert with a French expedition; but the hopes of the
United Irishmen received a further blow in the death of Hoche. At last, on
October 6, the Dutch fleet left the Texel.
Duncan received the news at Yarmouth on the 9th, and on the 11th came up
with the enemy off Camperdown. In number of ships the fleets were about
equal, but the British were the stronger. Duncan attacked in two divisions,
broke through the Dutch line in two places and engaged to leeward, cutting
them off from their coast. He signalled for each ship to engage its opponent,
as in Howe's action of the First of June. Mistakes led to a concentration of
force on the Dutch rear, which had good results.[279] The Dutch fought with
splendid courage, and the carnage on both sides was terrible. Nine Dutch
ships, including the Vrijheid (74), the flagship of their admiral, De Winter,
coup d'état baffled Pitt's efforts. It was followed by the conclusion of a
definite peace between France and the emperor, which destroyed all hope of
a concert between Great Britain and Austria. After the preliminaries of
Leoben, Bonaparte declared war on Venice, procured the overthrow of its
ancient constitution, and established a new municipality. By the treaty of
Campo Formio, concluded October 17, he betrayed the Venetians by
handing over their city to Austria, along with Istria, Dalmatia, and the
Venetian terra firma as far west as the Adige, while France took the Ionian
islands for herself. The emperor resigned the Belgic provinces, and by a
secret article promised to use his influence in the empire to secure to France
the left bank of the Rhine. The directors looked forward to an invasion of
England. While her navy was engaged with the fleets of Spain and Holland,
a French force was to cross the channel and march on London; Ireland
would revolt; England would accept a democracy, and Tipú would destroy
her power in India.[278]
The futility of their arrogant hopes was already exhibited. Another invasion
of Ireland was planned in the spring. A Dutch fleet was to carry over a land
force, and was to be followed by Hoche and the Brest fleet. The United
Irishmen eagerly expected a French invasion. Though the Dutch fleet was
not ready until the crisis of the mutinies was over, Duncan's force was still
small. Week after week the wind prevented the Dutch from leaving the
Texel. Provisions ran short, and Duncan's fleet was again in force. The great
opportunity had passed by. Fresh plans were made for descents on Ireland
and Scotland in concert with a French expedition; but the hopes of the
United Irishmen received a further blow in the death of Hoche. At last, on
October 6, the Dutch fleet left the Texel.
Duncan received the news at Yarmouth on the 9th, and on the 11th came up
with the enemy off Camperdown. In number of ships the fleets were about
equal, but the British were the stronger. Duncan attacked in two divisions,
broke through the Dutch line in two places and engaged to leeward, cutting
them off from their coast. He signalled for each ship to engage its opponent,
as in Howe's action of the First of June. Mistakes led to a concentration of
force on the Dutch rear, which had good results.[279] The Dutch fought with
splendid courage, and the carnage on both sides was terrible. Nine Dutch
ships, including the Vrijheid (74), the flagship of their admiral, De Winter,
Page 416
were taken. The shattered remainder of their fleet put back into the Texel.
The British admiral was created Viscount Duncan of Camperdown, and
received a pension of £3,000 a year. The victory was of incalculable
importance. Three fleets threatened the kingdom, and Camperdown, as
Grenville said, broke the right wing of the invasion.[280] It raised the spirits
of the nation. Won by the fleet so lately in mutiny, it proved that England
could again, as of old, rely on the loyalty of her navy. It reasserted her
supremacy at sea, which, in spite of the victories of Howe and Jervis,
seemed weakened by the evacuation of the Mediterranean and the mutinies.
Supreme at sea, she carried the trade of the world. Since the great drop of
1793 her commerce had increased year by year until it again declined in
1797. From that year, fostered by the demands of war and fed by the
activity of British manufactures, it increased with extraordinary rapidity.
In parliament the opposition gained no ground. On May
26, Grey again brought forward the question of reform, SECESSION FROM
PARLIAMENT.
and this time propounded a scheme. He proposed that
the counties should return 113 instead of 92 members, that they should be
divided into districts each with one member, and that the franchise should
be extended to leaseholders and copyholders, that in boroughs householders
only should have votes, that polls should be held simultaneously, and that, if
possible, no one should record more than one vote; that all landowners,
traders, and "professors of science" should be qualified for a seat, and that
parliaments should be triennial. Pitt declared that the country did not desire
reform, and the motion was lost by 252 to 91. When parliament met in
November, Fox and some of his chief supporters in both houses seceded,
attending only on special occasions. Their conduct was unconstitutional and
ill-advised. It is the duty of a member of parliament to attend its
proceedings, and in the commons his attendance can be enforced. Secession
is a betrayal of a public trust and a declaration against the constitution. In
this case it was partial, and therefore specially futile. It caused a division
among the little band of the opposition, and injured the seceders in the
opinion of the country; their conduct was considered unpatriotic, and Fox's
absence from parliament when the thanks of the house were voted to
Duncan was particularly blamed. The secession of their leaders gave some
whigs of less standing an opportunity of coming to the front. In Fox's
absence the remnant of the opposition was led by Tierney, a clever financier
The British admiral was created Viscount Duncan of Camperdown, and
received a pension of £3,000 a year. The victory was of incalculable
importance. Three fleets threatened the kingdom, and Camperdown, as
Grenville said, broke the right wing of the invasion.[280] It raised the spirits
of the nation. Won by the fleet so lately in mutiny, it proved that England
could again, as of old, rely on the loyalty of her navy. It reasserted her
supremacy at sea, which, in spite of the victories of Howe and Jervis,
seemed weakened by the evacuation of the Mediterranean and the mutinies.
Supreme at sea, she carried the trade of the world. Since the great drop of
1793 her commerce had increased year by year until it again declined in
1797. From that year, fostered by the demands of war and fed by the
activity of British manufactures, it increased with extraordinary rapidity.
In parliament the opposition gained no ground. On May
26, Grey again brought forward the question of reform, SECESSION FROM
PARLIAMENT.
and this time propounded a scheme. He proposed that
the counties should return 113 instead of 92 members, that they should be
divided into districts each with one member, and that the franchise should
be extended to leaseholders and copyholders, that in boroughs householders
only should have votes, that polls should be held simultaneously, and that, if
possible, no one should record more than one vote; that all landowners,
traders, and "professors of science" should be qualified for a seat, and that
parliaments should be triennial. Pitt declared that the country did not desire
reform, and the motion was lost by 252 to 91. When parliament met in
November, Fox and some of his chief supporters in both houses seceded,
attending only on special occasions. Their conduct was unconstitutional and
ill-advised. It is the duty of a member of parliament to attend its
proceedings, and in the commons his attendance can be enforced. Secession
is a betrayal of a public trust and a declaration against the constitution. In
this case it was partial, and therefore specially futile. It caused a division
among the little band of the opposition, and injured the seceders in the
opinion of the country; their conduct was considered unpatriotic, and Fox's
absence from parliament when the thanks of the house were voted to
Duncan was particularly blamed. The secession of their leaders gave some
whigs of less standing an opportunity of coming to the front. In Fox's
absence the remnant of the opposition was led by Tierney, a clever financier
Page 417
and a brilliant speaker with a bitter tongue. From the beginning of the war
constant motions had been made for peace with France. They were
discontinued after 1797; for it was generally recognised that Pitt would
gladly welcome peace. Wit came to the support of the government; Gillray
bitterly caricatured Fox and the opposition, and in November the Anti-
Jacobin began its brilliant mockery of democratic principles and politics. Its
most telling verses were the work of Canning, who entered the ministry as
under-secretary for foreign affairs in January, 1796. The threats of invasion
roused the spirit of the country. Danger was no longer to be apprehended
from English disloyalty; the nation was justly proud of the achievements of
its navy and was full of loyalty and courage.
Pitt took advantage of this spirit. Parliament met on November 3, and he
brought in his budget on the 24th. All hope of a speedy termination of the
war ended with the rupture of the negotiations at Lille. He therefore
declared that though it was impossible to raise the whole of the supplies in
the year, it was the duty of the nation to contribute its full share towards the
expenses of the war in order that posterity might not be burdened with an
unfair accumulation of debt. The service of the year amounted to
£25,500,000, and a deficiency of £19,000,000 had to be supplied. He
proposed to borrow £12,000,000 and to raise £7,000,000 by taxation,
chiefly by a measure generally known as trebling the assessed taxes, by
which the amounts already charged in respect of these taxes were
augmented on a scale graduated according to income. Praiseworthy as his
effort was to keep down debt, his plan was open to serious objection.
Assessed taxes are essentially an optional expense, in that they can be
avoided by those who do not choose to incur them. Pitt's plan made the
payments of the preceding year an arbitrary standard of taxation, increasing
them by one quarter to treble and progressively to quadruple their amounts.
This was really an income tax in disguise, with the special drawback that it
forced those who reduced their style of living to pay on the basis of their
former expenditure. Fox returned to parliament to oppose the bill, and in
one division the minority numbered 75. Some feeling was excited against
Pitt out of doors. When, on December 19, the king and queen went in state
to St. Paul's to return thanks for the three great naval victories won by
Howe over the French, St. Vincent over the Spaniards, and Duncan over the
Dutch, Pitt was hooted by the London mob, and as he returned home was
constant motions had been made for peace with France. They were
discontinued after 1797; for it was generally recognised that Pitt would
gladly welcome peace. Wit came to the support of the government; Gillray
bitterly caricatured Fox and the opposition, and in November the Anti-
Jacobin began its brilliant mockery of democratic principles and politics. Its
most telling verses were the work of Canning, who entered the ministry as
under-secretary for foreign affairs in January, 1796. The threats of invasion
roused the spirit of the country. Danger was no longer to be apprehended
from English disloyalty; the nation was justly proud of the achievements of
its navy and was full of loyalty and courage.
Pitt took advantage of this spirit. Parliament met on November 3, and he
brought in his budget on the 24th. All hope of a speedy termination of the
war ended with the rupture of the negotiations at Lille. He therefore
declared that though it was impossible to raise the whole of the supplies in
the year, it was the duty of the nation to contribute its full share towards the
expenses of the war in order that posterity might not be burdened with an
unfair accumulation of debt. The service of the year amounted to
£25,500,000, and a deficiency of £19,000,000 had to be supplied. He
proposed to borrow £12,000,000 and to raise £7,000,000 by taxation,
chiefly by a measure generally known as trebling the assessed taxes, by
which the amounts already charged in respect of these taxes were
augmented on a scale graduated according to income. Praiseworthy as his
effort was to keep down debt, his plan was open to serious objection.
Assessed taxes are essentially an optional expense, in that they can be
avoided by those who do not choose to incur them. Pitt's plan made the
payments of the preceding year an arbitrary standard of taxation, increasing
them by one quarter to treble and progressively to quadruple their amounts.
This was really an income tax in disguise, with the special drawback that it
forced those who reduced their style of living to pay on the basis of their
former expenditure. Fox returned to parliament to oppose the bill, and in
one division the minority numbered 75. Some feeling was excited against
Pitt out of doors. When, on December 19, the king and queen went in state
to St. Paul's to return thanks for the three great naval victories won by
Howe over the French, St. Vincent over the Spaniards, and Duncan over the
Dutch, Pitt was hooted by the London mob, and as he returned home was
Page 418
guarded by a party of horse. This outbreak of ill-temper was of no important
significance. The nation was fully determined to support the government in
its efforts to maintain the safety and honour of England.
FOOTNOTES:
[264] Dropmore Papers, iii., 25-30, 50.
[265] Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution, i., 178, 201.
[266] Dropmore Papers, iii., 261.
[267] Perregaux to Lord "Courton" [Auckland], July 16, 1796, Rose to
Auckland, July 29, Auckland Corr., iii., 350-52; Pitt to Grenville, June 23,
Dropmore Papers, iii., 214.
[268] Pelham to Duke of York, Sept. 22 and Dec. 26, 1796, and Jan. 4, 1797,
Add. MS., 33,113; Beresford to Auckland, Jan. 28, 1797, Auckland Corr., iii.,
375-77.
[269] Logs of the Great Sea Fights, i., 232, 239.
[270] Grenville to Starhemberg, May 3, 1797, Dropmore Papers, iii., 317 sqq.
[271] Parl. Hist., xxxiii., 799, 806.
[272] Annual Register, xxxix. (1797), i., 222; ii., 252.
[273] Parl. Hist., xxxiii., 477-516.
[274] Grenville to Woronzow, June 5 and 22, Dropmore Papers, iii., 328, 335.
[275] An excellent narrative of the mutinies is given in a series of articles by Mr.
D. Hannay in the Saturday Review, June 6 to July 4, 1891.
[276] Letters of George III. and Grenville, June 1, 16 and 17, Dropmore Papers,
iii., 327, 329-30; Malmesbury, Diaries, iii., 590, 595.
[277] Canning to Grenville, July 31, 1797, Dropmore Papers, iii., 337; see also
pp. 341-43; Malmesbury, Diaries, iii., 416, 465.
[278] Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, v., 259-60.
[279] Logs of the Great Sea Fights, i., 258-60, 265 sqq.; Brenton, Naval History,
i., 347-55.
[280] Grenville to Woronzow, Oct. 16, 1797, Dropmore Papers, iii., 381.
significance. The nation was fully determined to support the government in
its efforts to maintain the safety and honour of England.
FOOTNOTES:
[264] Dropmore Papers, iii., 25-30, 50.
[265] Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution, i., 178, 201.
[266] Dropmore Papers, iii., 261.
[267] Perregaux to Lord "Courton" [Auckland], July 16, 1796, Rose to
Auckland, July 29, Auckland Corr., iii., 350-52; Pitt to Grenville, June 23,
Dropmore Papers, iii., 214.
[268] Pelham to Duke of York, Sept. 22 and Dec. 26, 1796, and Jan. 4, 1797,
Add. MS., 33,113; Beresford to Auckland, Jan. 28, 1797, Auckland Corr., iii.,
375-77.
[269] Logs of the Great Sea Fights, i., 232, 239.
[270] Grenville to Starhemberg, May 3, 1797, Dropmore Papers, iii., 317 sqq.
[271] Parl. Hist., xxxiii., 799, 806.
[272] Annual Register, xxxix. (1797), i., 222; ii., 252.
[273] Parl. Hist., xxxiii., 477-516.
[274] Grenville to Woronzow, June 5 and 22, Dropmore Papers, iii., 328, 335.
[275] An excellent narrative of the mutinies is given in a series of articles by Mr.
D. Hannay in the Saturday Review, June 6 to July 4, 1891.
[276] Letters of George III. and Grenville, June 1, 16 and 17, Dropmore Papers,
iii., 327, 329-30; Malmesbury, Diaries, iii., 590, 595.
[277] Canning to Grenville, July 31, 1797, Dropmore Papers, iii., 337; see also
pp. 341-43; Malmesbury, Diaries, iii., 416, 465.
[278] Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, v., 259-60.
[279] Logs of the Great Sea Fights, i., 258-60, 265 sqq.; Brenton, Naval History,
i., 347-55.
[280] Grenville to Woronzow, Oct. 16, 1797, Dropmore Papers, iii., 381.
Page 419
CHAPTER XIX.
IRISH REBELLION AND NAVAL SUPREMACY.
In spite of Duncan's victory the French directors were set on an invasion of
England. All their vague designs for the extension of French supremacy led
up to the ruin of the power which they recognised as their most formidable
enemy. From the Adriatic to the North sea a vast republic was to furnish the
armies of France with recruits. Europe was to be united in a coalition
against England. The Mediterranean was to be a French lake. Every port
was to be shut against England's ships; England's commerce was to be
destroyed and her pride humbled. A quicker means of bringing her into
subjection seemed possible. On a foggy night an army might be carried
across the Channel unobserved by her fleet. What a Norman duke had done
might be done by a mighty republic, and the English crown might be lost in
a second battle of Hastings. The victors would march on London, and be
received as deliverers by a people groaning under the oppression of "that
monster Pitt". They failed to understand that Pitt had the nation at his back,
and that even the most violent whigs would resist to the death an invasion
of their country. They formed an "army of England," and appointed
Bonaparte to command it. On his return to Paris in December, 1797, he set
himself to prepare for the invasion. Transports for over 24,000 men were
soon ready at Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Calais, and Dunkirk, and boat-
builders were hard at work. In February he made a tour of the coast from
Etaples to Ostend and heard what sailors said about the scheme. On the
23rd he told the directors that France could not gain supremacy by sea for
some years, and that without that no operation could be more hazardous
than an invasion of England, that a surprise was possible only in the long
winter nights, and that their naval preparations were too backward for such
an attempt to be made that year.[281] He turned to other projects of conquest
which might lead to the destruction of England's commerce in the east and
of her power in India. For some while longer he ostensibly devoted himself
to preparations for invasion. The "army of England," which in April
numbered 56,000 men, was quartered in the towns of the north, and every
port from Havre to the Texel was crowded with transports. But by that time
IRISH REBELLION AND NAVAL SUPREMACY.
In spite of Duncan's victory the French directors were set on an invasion of
England. All their vague designs for the extension of French supremacy led
up to the ruin of the power which they recognised as their most formidable
enemy. From the Adriatic to the North sea a vast republic was to furnish the
armies of France with recruits. Europe was to be united in a coalition
against England. The Mediterranean was to be a French lake. Every port
was to be shut against England's ships; England's commerce was to be
destroyed and her pride humbled. A quicker means of bringing her into
subjection seemed possible. On a foggy night an army might be carried
across the Channel unobserved by her fleet. What a Norman duke had done
might be done by a mighty republic, and the English crown might be lost in
a second battle of Hastings. The victors would march on London, and be
received as deliverers by a people groaning under the oppression of "that
monster Pitt". They failed to understand that Pitt had the nation at his back,
and that even the most violent whigs would resist to the death an invasion
of their country. They formed an "army of England," and appointed
Bonaparte to command it. On his return to Paris in December, 1797, he set
himself to prepare for the invasion. Transports for over 24,000 men were
soon ready at Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Calais, and Dunkirk, and boat-
builders were hard at work. In February he made a tour of the coast from
Etaples to Ostend and heard what sailors said about the scheme. On the
23rd he told the directors that France could not gain supremacy by sea for
some years, and that without that no operation could be more hazardous
than an invasion of England, that a surprise was possible only in the long
winter nights, and that their naval preparations were too backward for such
an attempt to be made that year.[281] He turned to other projects of conquest
which might lead to the destruction of England's commerce in the east and
of her power in India. For some while longer he ostensibly devoted himself
to preparations for invasion. The "army of England," which in April
numbered 56,000 men, was quartered in the towns of the north, and every
port from Havre to the Texel was crowded with transports. But by that time
Page 420
the army had lost its commander and the great scheme was definitely
abandoned. Nevertheless, the directors determined to be ready if an
opportunity for invasion should occur, and maritime preparations were
continued. In May a flotilla from Havre attacked the islands of St. Marcouf,
which had been seized by Sir Sidney Smith in 1795, and was beaten back
by the little garrison. Equally feeble efforts were made by England to check
the preparations for invasion. On tidings that the transports built at Flushing
were to be conveyed to Ostend by canal in order to avoid the British fleet, a
force of 1,200 men was sent to destroy the sluices of the Bruges canal. They
landed near Ostend and blew up the great sluice. A storm prevented them
from re-embarking and, after a smart engagement, they were all taken
prisoners. If the thing was worth doing, a sufficient force should have been
sent to do it.
The threatened invasion rallied the nation to the support
of the government. Though Fox and the other seceders INVASION
had ceased to attend parliament, they kept up an THREATENED.
agitation against the ministry. Fox's birthday, January 24, was celebrated by
a public dinner. The Duke of Norfolk in proposing his health said that
Washington began the war of independence with only 2,000 men, yet
America was free; he saw that number before him, let them apply his
words. He afterwards called on the company to drink "our sovereign's
health, the majesty of the people". Considered in connexion with the
circumstances of the time his words were in the highest degree seditious.
The government, strong in the support of the nation, took up the silly and
insolent challenge, and the duke was deprived of his lord-lieutenancy and
the command of his militia regiment. In May, Fox repeated the toast at a
meeting of the whig club. The ministers discussed what notice should be
taken of his offence. It is not pleasant to find Pitt considering whether he
might be led on to utter similar words in parliament and be sent to the
Tower for the rest of the session. With all his greatness Pitt lacked the
generosity which was a redeeming trait in Fox's character. The anxieties of
the past year, combined with his unfortunate failing, had shaken his health
and his temper had suffered. It was finally decided that Fox should be
removed from the privy council, and the king struck his name out of the
council book with his own hand.
abandoned. Nevertheless, the directors determined to be ready if an
opportunity for invasion should occur, and maritime preparations were
continued. In May a flotilla from Havre attacked the islands of St. Marcouf,
which had been seized by Sir Sidney Smith in 1795, and was beaten back
by the little garrison. Equally feeble efforts were made by England to check
the preparations for invasion. On tidings that the transports built at Flushing
were to be conveyed to Ostend by canal in order to avoid the British fleet, a
force of 1,200 men was sent to destroy the sluices of the Bruges canal. They
landed near Ostend and blew up the great sluice. A storm prevented them
from re-embarking and, after a smart engagement, they were all taken
prisoners. If the thing was worth doing, a sufficient force should have been
sent to do it.
The threatened invasion rallied the nation to the support
of the government. Though Fox and the other seceders INVASION
had ceased to attend parliament, they kept up an THREATENED.
agitation against the ministry. Fox's birthday, January 24, was celebrated by
a public dinner. The Duke of Norfolk in proposing his health said that
Washington began the war of independence with only 2,000 men, yet
America was free; he saw that number before him, let them apply his
words. He afterwards called on the company to drink "our sovereign's
health, the majesty of the people". Considered in connexion with the
circumstances of the time his words were in the highest degree seditious.
The government, strong in the support of the nation, took up the silly and
insolent challenge, and the duke was deprived of his lord-lieutenancy and
the command of his militia regiment. In May, Fox repeated the toast at a
meeting of the whig club. The ministers discussed what notice should be
taken of his offence. It is not pleasant to find Pitt considering whether he
might be led on to utter similar words in parliament and be sent to the
Tower for the rest of the session. With all his greatness Pitt lacked the
generosity which was a redeeming trait in Fox's character. The anxieties of
the past year, combined with his unfortunate failing, had shaken his health
and his temper had suffered. It was finally decided that Fox should be
removed from the privy council, and the king struck his name out of the
council book with his own hand.
Page 421
The belief that the country was in danger evoked patriotic enthusiasm, and
£2,300,000 was subscribed to augment the produce of the triple assessment.
Pitt's supplementary budget announced a further loan of £3,000,000 and
imposed fresh taxes. Chiefly as a means of supporting credit he brought
forward a scheme for the commutation of the land tax. For many years the
tax had been granted at four shillings in the pound; he proposed to make it
perpetual at that rate, to enable landowners to redeem it, and to apply their
payments to the reduction of debt. The bill, though opposed in both houses
on the plea that it was unfair to the landed interest, was carried by large
majorities. The alien act and the suspension of habeas corpus were revived,
for with the enemy threatening the country disloyalty was intolerable. With
a view to the organisation of defence the government was empowered to
ascertain the number of men who were prepared to take up arms in case of
invasion, to instruct each as to what he should do, and to arrange for the
removal of helpless persons, cattle, and other property from the coast.
It was a time of overwhelming anxiety to the ministers, for, in addition to
the expected invasion, they had to meet rebellion in Ireland. With so great a
strain upon him, Pitt was unable to bear with patience the attempts of
Tierney, the leader of the non-seceding section of the opposition, to thwart
his measures. On May 25 he brought in a bill to abrogate certain
exemptions from naval service, and asked the house to pass it through all its
stages in one day. Tierney objected, and Pitt accused him of desiring to
obstruct the defence of the country. The speaker ruled that the imputation
was unparliamentary. Pitt repeated his words, haughtily declaring that he
would "neither retract from nor explain them". The next day Tierney sent
him a challenge. They met on Sunday afternoon, the 27th, on Putney heath,
Pitt accompanied by his friend Dudley Ryder, afterwards Lord Harrowby,
the paymaster of the forces, and Tierney by Colonel Walpole. Two shots
were exchanged on each side without effect, Pitt firing his second shot into
the air. Honour was then declared to be satisfied. Wilberforce, in common
with many other religious people, was much shocked, and gave notice of a
motion against duelling by members of the house, but was persuaded to
withdraw it, for Pitt threatened to resign if it was carried. The king
expressed his disapproval, telling Pitt with characteristic good sense that a
public man should remember his duty to his country before what was due to
himself. Not until that generation had well-nigh passed away was duelling
£2,300,000 was subscribed to augment the produce of the triple assessment.
Pitt's supplementary budget announced a further loan of £3,000,000 and
imposed fresh taxes. Chiefly as a means of supporting credit he brought
forward a scheme for the commutation of the land tax. For many years the
tax had been granted at four shillings in the pound; he proposed to make it
perpetual at that rate, to enable landowners to redeem it, and to apply their
payments to the reduction of debt. The bill, though opposed in both houses
on the plea that it was unfair to the landed interest, was carried by large
majorities. The alien act and the suspension of habeas corpus were revived,
for with the enemy threatening the country disloyalty was intolerable. With
a view to the organisation of defence the government was empowered to
ascertain the number of men who were prepared to take up arms in case of
invasion, to instruct each as to what he should do, and to arrange for the
removal of helpless persons, cattle, and other property from the coast.
It was a time of overwhelming anxiety to the ministers, for, in addition to
the expected invasion, they had to meet rebellion in Ireland. With so great a
strain upon him, Pitt was unable to bear with patience the attempts of
Tierney, the leader of the non-seceding section of the opposition, to thwart
his measures. On May 25 he brought in a bill to abrogate certain
exemptions from naval service, and asked the house to pass it through all its
stages in one day. Tierney objected, and Pitt accused him of desiring to
obstruct the defence of the country. The speaker ruled that the imputation
was unparliamentary. Pitt repeated his words, haughtily declaring that he
would "neither retract from nor explain them". The next day Tierney sent
him a challenge. They met on Sunday afternoon, the 27th, on Putney heath,
Pitt accompanied by his friend Dudley Ryder, afterwards Lord Harrowby,
the paymaster of the forces, and Tierney by Colonel Walpole. Two shots
were exchanged on each side without effect, Pitt firing his second shot into
the air. Honour was then declared to be satisfied. Wilberforce, in common
with many other religious people, was much shocked, and gave notice of a
motion against duelling by members of the house, but was persuaded to
withdraw it, for Pitt threatened to resign if it was carried. The king
expressed his disapproval, telling Pitt with characteristic good sense that a
public man should remember his duty to his country before what was due to
himself. Not until that generation had well-nigh passed away was duelling
Page 422
virtually extinguished by the condemnation of society. In contrast to the
lack of moral perception on that point stands the quickening of the public
conscience with reference to the slave trade. Wilberforce again brought in
his annual motion for its abolition. It was seconded by Pitt and vigorously
supported by Fox, who pertinently asked why the minister did not use his
majority to accomplish the end he professed to desire. It was lost only by
four votes. The rest of the session was largely taken up by the affairs of
Ireland.
There, as we have already seen, religious animosity strengthened the party
of rebellion. Its leaders also took advantage of agrarian and other
grievances to allure the peasantry. The catholic peasants were little moved
by the questions which weighed with their more educated neighbours and
with the dwellers in towns. They were not enamoured of the republican
sentiments which appealed to the Ulster presbyterians, and did not care a
straw about parliamentary reform for its own sake, nor for catholic
emancipation. Their motives were more personal. They were poor and
oppressed. The national parliament, though it refused to grant political
reforms, had done much to improve the condition of the country by
subsidies for promoting manufactures, fisheries, and canals, and by
bounties on exported corn. The financial position of Ireland was bettered,
but the lot of the peasantry grew worse. Corn bounties and the high prices
of war time caused a rise in the value of land. Holdings were subdivided,
and, as the agricultural population was large, were eagerly taken at high
rents. The tenants could not make a living, especially as they were ignorant
and generally thriftless. The chief cause of their discontent was the system
of tithe which pressed heavily on the small cultivators. They believed that a
reformed parliament would rid them of that intolerable burden. Finding that
reform was withheld, they readily listened to men who bade them look for
relief to France, where tithe had been abolished. High rents, exacted by the
agents of absentee landlords or by middle-men, who rented large tracts of
land and sublet them in small holdings, were another though lesser
grievance from which they hoped to be delivered by revolution. Sentiment
urged them in the same direction. Proud and sensitive they resented the
dominance of an alien race; they held the wrongs of their forefathers in
remembrance, and looked back with mournful longing to the age, invested
by their poetic imagination with glory and happiness, when Ireland was yet
lack of moral perception on that point stands the quickening of the public
conscience with reference to the slave trade. Wilberforce again brought in
his annual motion for its abolition. It was seconded by Pitt and vigorously
supported by Fox, who pertinently asked why the minister did not use his
majority to accomplish the end he professed to desire. It was lost only by
four votes. The rest of the session was largely taken up by the affairs of
Ireland.
There, as we have already seen, religious animosity strengthened the party
of rebellion. Its leaders also took advantage of agrarian and other
grievances to allure the peasantry. The catholic peasants were little moved
by the questions which weighed with their more educated neighbours and
with the dwellers in towns. They were not enamoured of the republican
sentiments which appealed to the Ulster presbyterians, and did not care a
straw about parliamentary reform for its own sake, nor for catholic
emancipation. Their motives were more personal. They were poor and
oppressed. The national parliament, though it refused to grant political
reforms, had done much to improve the condition of the country by
subsidies for promoting manufactures, fisheries, and canals, and by
bounties on exported corn. The financial position of Ireland was bettered,
but the lot of the peasantry grew worse. Corn bounties and the high prices
of war time caused a rise in the value of land. Holdings were subdivided,
and, as the agricultural population was large, were eagerly taken at high
rents. The tenants could not make a living, especially as they were ignorant
and generally thriftless. The chief cause of their discontent was the system
of tithe which pressed heavily on the small cultivators. They believed that a
reformed parliament would rid them of that intolerable burden. Finding that
reform was withheld, they readily listened to men who bade them look for
relief to France, where tithe had been abolished. High rents, exacted by the
agents of absentee landlords or by middle-men, who rented large tracts of
land and sublet them in small holdings, were another though lesser
grievance from which they hoped to be delivered by revolution. Sentiment
urged them in the same direction. Proud and sensitive they resented the
dominance of an alien race; they held the wrongs of their forefathers in
remembrance, and looked back with mournful longing to the age, invested
by their poetic imagination with glory and happiness, when Ireland was yet
Page 423
unconquered. The United Irishmen told them that a fresh conquest would be
attempted, that the Orangemen, encouraged by government, designed to rob
them of their land and destroy them. They looked to France for protection
and were ready to take up arms against the crown.
The government was determined to nip rebellion in the
bud, and struck first at conspiracy in Ulster, where it was REBELLION
mainly engineered by protestant leaders. In the spring of FOILED
ULSTER.
IN
1797 the province was almost in open revolt. Martial
law was proclaimed, and on May 18 soldiers were empowered to act
without authority from a civil magistrate. An active search was made for
arms. It was carried out mainly by yeomanry and militia, for the regular
troops were few and mostly stationed in towns. The catholic districts were
ruthlessly harried. A fierce resistance was made. Many outrages were
committed by the soldiers, specially by a Welsh regiment of mounted
fencibles, the Ancient Britons. Houses were burned and peasants were
slaughtered. Crowds were imprisoned without process of law and many
were sent off to serve in the fleet. These severities which lasted for several
months crushed the life out of the conspiracy in Ulster. The government
was justified in using force to suppress rebellion, but it was lamentable that
the work should have been entrusted to troops which were little better than
banditti. An earnest attempt was made to restrain them by Sir Ralph
Abercromby, who succeeded Lord Carhampton as commander-in-chief in
November. He issued an order declaring that the army was in a state of
"licentiousness," and forbidding soldiers to act without the civil authority.
This order was contrary to the proclamation of May 18, and gave great
offence to the party of repression in the Irish government headed by Lord
Clare, and to the British ministry. A proclamation of March 30, 1798, re-
established martial law; Abercromby resigned his command, and was
succeeded by General Lake.
The British government upheld the Irish ministers. Early in 1797 the Prince
of Wales wished the king and Pitt to send him to Ireland as lord-lieutenant
to carry out a policy of concession. If he had been wholly different from
what he was, such a step, though it would not perhaps have averted the
coming rebellion, would have probably rendered it less formidable by
detaching some of the leaders of the conspiracy. The prince was not a man
to be trusted, and his offer was refused. The internal affairs of Ireland were
attempted, that the Orangemen, encouraged by government, designed to rob
them of their land and destroy them. They looked to France for protection
and were ready to take up arms against the crown.
The government was determined to nip rebellion in the
bud, and struck first at conspiracy in Ulster, where it was REBELLION
mainly engineered by protestant leaders. In the spring of FOILED
ULSTER.
IN
1797 the province was almost in open revolt. Martial
law was proclaimed, and on May 18 soldiers were empowered to act
without authority from a civil magistrate. An active search was made for
arms. It was carried out mainly by yeomanry and militia, for the regular
troops were few and mostly stationed in towns. The catholic districts were
ruthlessly harried. A fierce resistance was made. Many outrages were
committed by the soldiers, specially by a Welsh regiment of mounted
fencibles, the Ancient Britons. Houses were burned and peasants were
slaughtered. Crowds were imprisoned without process of law and many
were sent off to serve in the fleet. These severities which lasted for several
months crushed the life out of the conspiracy in Ulster. The government
was justified in using force to suppress rebellion, but it was lamentable that
the work should have been entrusted to troops which were little better than
banditti. An earnest attempt was made to restrain them by Sir Ralph
Abercromby, who succeeded Lord Carhampton as commander-in-chief in
November. He issued an order declaring that the army was in a state of
"licentiousness," and forbidding soldiers to act without the civil authority.
This order was contrary to the proclamation of May 18, and gave great
offence to the party of repression in the Irish government headed by Lord
Clare, and to the British ministry. A proclamation of March 30, 1798, re-
established martial law; Abercromby resigned his command, and was
succeeded by General Lake.
The British government upheld the Irish ministers. Early in 1797 the Prince
of Wales wished the king and Pitt to send him to Ireland as lord-lieutenant
to carry out a policy of concession. If he had been wholly different from
what he was, such a step, though it would not perhaps have averted the
coming rebellion, would have probably rendered it less formidable by
detaching some of the leaders of the conspiracy. The prince was not a man
to be trusted, and his offer was refused. The internal affairs of Ireland were
Page 424
not under English direction; the ministers knew nothing of them except
through reports from the castle and left them to the Irish government.
Addresses in favour of conciliation were moved in the lords by the prince's
friend, Lord Moira, an Ulster magnate, and in the commons by Fox. They
were resisted as attacks on the government and were rejected. Moira laid
the excesses of the soldiers before the lords in November and again in
February, 1798. The government refused to credit his accounts, or to
interfere with the measures taken by the Irish ministers to suppress
rebellion.
The progress of the conspiracy was reported by informers, of whom there
was no lack. Great preparations were, as we have seen, made in France for a
possible invasion of England; the United Irishmen expected that the French
would land in Ireland in the spring, and an organised army was ready to co-
operate with them, under the command of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. The
conspiracy was directed by a committee in Dublin. One of its leaders,
Arthur O'Connor, a priest named O'Coighly, and three more were arrested at
Margate while on their way to France to make further arrangements.
O'Coighly was hanged for treason. Fox, Sheridan, and other members of the
opposition bore witness to O'Connor's character, and he and the rest were
acquitted. He was arrested on another charge and was sent to Dublin. After
the rebellion he, in common with the other political prisoners, gave
evidence as to the conspiracy, and they were eventually released. No
government is worthy of the name that sits still and allows conspiracy to
ripen unchecked. The Irish government did not do so. It adopted measures
of repression which wrecked the plans of the conspirators and caused secret
conspiracy to break prematurely into open rebellion. It was thus enabled to
put an end to a prolonged state of danger before it could be augmented by
the anticipated foreign invasion. It struck swiftly at the heads of the
conspiracy. In pursuance of information from an officer of the rebel army
named Reynolds, fifteen of them were arrested together in Dublin on March
12. Fitzgerald escaped for the time. A reward of £1,000 was offered for his
detection, and in May his hiding-place was betrayed. He made a desperate
resistance, mortally wounded one of the officers sent to take him, and was
himself wounded in the arm. He was conveyed to prison, where he died on
June 4.
through reports from the castle and left them to the Irish government.
Addresses in favour of conciliation were moved in the lords by the prince's
friend, Lord Moira, an Ulster magnate, and in the commons by Fox. They
were resisted as attacks on the government and were rejected. Moira laid
the excesses of the soldiers before the lords in November and again in
February, 1798. The government refused to credit his accounts, or to
interfere with the measures taken by the Irish ministers to suppress
rebellion.
The progress of the conspiracy was reported by informers, of whom there
was no lack. Great preparations were, as we have seen, made in France for a
possible invasion of England; the United Irishmen expected that the French
would land in Ireland in the spring, and an organised army was ready to co-
operate with them, under the command of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. The
conspiracy was directed by a committee in Dublin. One of its leaders,
Arthur O'Connor, a priest named O'Coighly, and three more were arrested at
Margate while on their way to France to make further arrangements.
O'Coighly was hanged for treason. Fox, Sheridan, and other members of the
opposition bore witness to O'Connor's character, and he and the rest were
acquitted. He was arrested on another charge and was sent to Dublin. After
the rebellion he, in common with the other political prisoners, gave
evidence as to the conspiracy, and they were eventually released. No
government is worthy of the name that sits still and allows conspiracy to
ripen unchecked. The Irish government did not do so. It adopted measures
of repression which wrecked the plans of the conspirators and caused secret
conspiracy to break prematurely into open rebellion. It was thus enabled to
put an end to a prolonged state of danger before it could be augmented by
the anticipated foreign invasion. It struck swiftly at the heads of the
conspiracy. In pursuance of information from an officer of the rebel army
named Reynolds, fifteen of them were arrested together in Dublin on March
12. Fitzgerald escaped for the time. A reward of £1,000 was offered for his
detection, and in May his hiding-place was betrayed. He made a desperate
resistance, mortally wounded one of the officers sent to take him, and was
himself wounded in the arm. He was conveyed to prison, where he died on
June 4.
Page 425
The government having crushed the head of rebellion in
Ulster, proceeded to combat it in the midland and REPRESSIVE
SEVERITIES.
southern counties, where it was distinctly a catholic
movement. Officers were ordered to enforce disarmament by summary
methods; martial law was established, and they were enjoined to distribute
their troops at free quarters where arms were supposed to be concealed.
Scenes of cruelty sickening to contemplate followed. As soon as a district
was proclaimed, troops took up free quarters in it, burned every house
where a weapon was discovered, shot men without trial of any kind, put
many to cruel torture either on suspicion of concealing arms or to extort
evidence, and excited the bitterest feelings of revenge by outrages on
women, cutting the petticoats from the backs of girls who showed any sign
of sympathy with rebellion, such as wearing, it might be accidentally, a
green ribbon. Men were commonly tortured by floggings of fearful severity,
or by half-hanging. In imitation of the French republicans, the rebel party
cut their hair short, and it was a pastime with the soldiers to torture
"croppies" by fixing a covering lined with hot pitch, a "pitch-cap," on their
heads, which could not be removed without tearing the scalp. More than
one man died under the lash, and one from fear of the torture. No name is
more closely associated with these horrors than that of Thomas Judkin
Fitzgerald, high-sheriff of Tipperary. Resolute, courageous, and energetic,
he united with some fine qualities a violent temper and an insensibility to
human suffering. Conspiracy was rife in Tipperary, and he was determined
to stamp it out. One instance of his cruelties will suffice. A teacher of
French named Wright was suspected of treason, and a note of a harmless
kind, written in French, was found on him. Fitzgerald, who could not read
it, brutally assaulted him, declared that he would have him first flogged and
then shot; and failing to obtain a confession from him, caused him to
receive 150 severe lashes and had him put in prison, where he lay for some
days with his wounds uncared for. After the rebellion Wright sued him, and
obtained £500 damages. Fitzgerald's severity and the courage with which he
acted were effectual; Tipperary remained quiet. The government paid
Wright's damages, and Fitzgerald's services were rewarded with a
baronetcy.
The conspirators intended to wait for a French invasion. Their organisation
was deranged by the arrests of March 12. A plan was made for seizing the
Ulster, proceeded to combat it in the midland and REPRESSIVE
SEVERITIES.
southern counties, where it was distinctly a catholic
movement. Officers were ordered to enforce disarmament by summary
methods; martial law was established, and they were enjoined to distribute
their troops at free quarters where arms were supposed to be concealed.
Scenes of cruelty sickening to contemplate followed. As soon as a district
was proclaimed, troops took up free quarters in it, burned every house
where a weapon was discovered, shot men without trial of any kind, put
many to cruel torture either on suspicion of concealing arms or to extort
evidence, and excited the bitterest feelings of revenge by outrages on
women, cutting the petticoats from the backs of girls who showed any sign
of sympathy with rebellion, such as wearing, it might be accidentally, a
green ribbon. Men were commonly tortured by floggings of fearful severity,
or by half-hanging. In imitation of the French republicans, the rebel party
cut their hair short, and it was a pastime with the soldiers to torture
"croppies" by fixing a covering lined with hot pitch, a "pitch-cap," on their
heads, which could not be removed without tearing the scalp. More than
one man died under the lash, and one from fear of the torture. No name is
more closely associated with these horrors than that of Thomas Judkin
Fitzgerald, high-sheriff of Tipperary. Resolute, courageous, and energetic,
he united with some fine qualities a violent temper and an insensibility to
human suffering. Conspiracy was rife in Tipperary, and he was determined
to stamp it out. One instance of his cruelties will suffice. A teacher of
French named Wright was suspected of treason, and a note of a harmless
kind, written in French, was found on him. Fitzgerald, who could not read
it, brutally assaulted him, declared that he would have him first flogged and
then shot; and failing to obtain a confession from him, caused him to
receive 150 severe lashes and had him put in prison, where he lay for some
days with his wounds uncared for. After the rebellion Wright sued him, and
obtained £500 damages. Fitzgerald's severity and the courage with which he
acted were effectual; Tipperary remained quiet. The government paid
Wright's damages, and Fitzgerald's services were rewarded with a
baronetcy.
The conspirators intended to wait for a French invasion. Their organisation
was deranged by the arrests of March 12. A plan was made for seizing the
Page 426
castle and occupying Dublin. The city was proclaimed and violent measures
of repression were adopted. A new rebel executive was broken up by the
arrest of two brothers named Sheares, who were eventually hanged as
traitors. An outbreak of rebellion was certain; it was forced on prematurely
by drastic measures of repression. Though nothing can excuse the
barbarities perpetrated under the shield of so-called martial law, severe
repression was certainly necessary. Without it the conspiracy would have
continued to grow, and a rebellion coincident with a foreign invasion would
have been in the highest degree dangerous. The rebels lost their leaders;
their movements were paralysed in some districts and crippled in others;
they saw no hope except in an immediate outbreak, and were driven to it by
intolerable severities. So far the system pursued by the government was
successful. Yet in some districts the terror and rage it excited stimulated
rebellion, and when rebellion broke out led to horrible reprisals. The rising
began on an appointed day, May 23. Attacks were made on the garrisons at
Naas, Clane, and other places in Kildare. Nearly everywhere they were
repulsed with heavy loss, the catholics among the militia and yeomanry
behaving with perfect loyalty. It was a sanguinary struggle. The rebels
surprised a detachment of the North Cork militia by night, and slaughtered
them, killing many of them in their beds. The troops gave little quarter;
rebels taken in arms were commonly flogged, shot, or hanged without trial.
The citizens of Dublin, where the rebels had been thoroughly cowed by
floggings and hangings, were zealous in preparing to defend their city. On
the south-west small bodies of troops routed the rebels with heavy loss at
Carlow and Hacketstown. The communications of Dublin were secured on
the north by a loyalist victory at Tara, where, on the 26th, about 400
yeomanry and fencibles defeated ten times their number of rebels, and on
the west by another victory. By the 31st the rebels in Meath, Kildare, and
Carlow had lost all heart.
By that time rebellion had broken out in the county of
Wexford. There it soon took the form of a religious war, WEXFORD
though the catholic troops remained faithful to their REBELLION.
colours. There were only 600 regular troops and militia in the county, the
loyalist force being composed chiefly of yeomanry, who were generally
protestants. With and without the approval of the magistrates, they had
begun to practise the usual methods of enforcing disarmament, burning
of repression were adopted. A new rebel executive was broken up by the
arrest of two brothers named Sheares, who were eventually hanged as
traitors. An outbreak of rebellion was certain; it was forced on prematurely
by drastic measures of repression. Though nothing can excuse the
barbarities perpetrated under the shield of so-called martial law, severe
repression was certainly necessary. Without it the conspiracy would have
continued to grow, and a rebellion coincident with a foreign invasion would
have been in the highest degree dangerous. The rebels lost their leaders;
their movements were paralysed in some districts and crippled in others;
they saw no hope except in an immediate outbreak, and were driven to it by
intolerable severities. So far the system pursued by the government was
successful. Yet in some districts the terror and rage it excited stimulated
rebellion, and when rebellion broke out led to horrible reprisals. The rising
began on an appointed day, May 23. Attacks were made on the garrisons at
Naas, Clane, and other places in Kildare. Nearly everywhere they were
repulsed with heavy loss, the catholics among the militia and yeomanry
behaving with perfect loyalty. It was a sanguinary struggle. The rebels
surprised a detachment of the North Cork militia by night, and slaughtered
them, killing many of them in their beds. The troops gave little quarter;
rebels taken in arms were commonly flogged, shot, or hanged without trial.
The citizens of Dublin, where the rebels had been thoroughly cowed by
floggings and hangings, were zealous in preparing to defend their city. On
the south-west small bodies of troops routed the rebels with heavy loss at
Carlow and Hacketstown. The communications of Dublin were secured on
the north by a loyalist victory at Tara, where, on the 26th, about 400
yeomanry and fencibles defeated ten times their number of rebels, and on
the west by another victory. By the 31st the rebels in Meath, Kildare, and
Carlow had lost all heart.
By that time rebellion had broken out in the county of
Wexford. There it soon took the form of a religious war, WEXFORD
though the catholic troops remained faithful to their REBELLION.
colours. There were only 600 regular troops and militia in the county, the
loyalist force being composed chiefly of yeomanry, who were generally
protestants. With and without the approval of the magistrates, they had
begun to practise the usual methods of enforcing disarmament, burning
Page 427
houses and flogging and half-hanging suspected persons, and though these
severities had not as yet been practised so widely as in some other districts,
they excited violent terror and resentment. Led by a priest, Father John
Murphy, whose house or chapel had been burnt, the rebels defeated a small
number of militia at Oulart, and attacked Enniscorthy with a force of about
7,000 men. There and elsewhere they drove horses and cattle in front of
them to disorder the ranks of their opponents. After a stout defence the
survivors of the little garrison fled to Wexford, whither the loyal inhabitants
of the neighbourhood were flocking for protection. The rebel army, swelled
to the number of 15,000, advanced on the town. An attempt to relieve it
having failed, the garrison made terms and evacuated the place, which was
occupied by the enemy on the 30th. The rebels chose Bagenal Harvey, a
protestant gentleman and one of the United Irishmen, as commander-in-
chief, and leaving a garrison in Wexford, established a camp on Vinegar
hill. Hoping to penetrate into Carlow and join the rebels there and in
Wicklow and Kildare, they detached 5,000 men to take Newtownbarry.
Colonel L'Estrange, who commanded there, retreated with the garrison, and
the rebels rushed into the place. He was soon persuaded to return, surprised
them as they were pillaging, and routed them with the loss of only two men.
In the camp on Vinegar hill priests were dominant; mass was said every
morning, and the fury of the people was excited by violent sermons.
Protestants were brought in from the surrounding country, and all who did
not receive "protections" from the priests were butchered, sometimes with
ghastly cruelty. Though the priests often interfered to save the captives, it is
probable that at least 400 were slain in the camp.[282] The prime object of
the rebel leaders was to establish communication with other counties. Their
plans were ruined by lack of discipline and organisation, as well as by the
extraordinary gallantry of the loyalist troops. After some fighting a
detachment of rebels took Gorey in the north of the county. Instead of
pressing on into Wicklow, they remained there feasting and plundering the
neighbourhood. At the same time a large body under Harvey marched on
New Ross, with the object of opening communication with Kilkenny and
Waterford, where they believed that thousands were ready to rise in arms.
[283]
The town was attacked at daybreak on June 5, and was defended by
General Johnston and about 1,600 men against thousands of rebels. Again
and again the garrison, beaten back for a time by sheer weight of numbers,
severities had not as yet been practised so widely as in some other districts,
they excited violent terror and resentment. Led by a priest, Father John
Murphy, whose house or chapel had been burnt, the rebels defeated a small
number of militia at Oulart, and attacked Enniscorthy with a force of about
7,000 men. There and elsewhere they drove horses and cattle in front of
them to disorder the ranks of their opponents. After a stout defence the
survivors of the little garrison fled to Wexford, whither the loyal inhabitants
of the neighbourhood were flocking for protection. The rebel army, swelled
to the number of 15,000, advanced on the town. An attempt to relieve it
having failed, the garrison made terms and evacuated the place, which was
occupied by the enemy on the 30th. The rebels chose Bagenal Harvey, a
protestant gentleman and one of the United Irishmen, as commander-in-
chief, and leaving a garrison in Wexford, established a camp on Vinegar
hill. Hoping to penetrate into Carlow and join the rebels there and in
Wicklow and Kildare, they detached 5,000 men to take Newtownbarry.
Colonel L'Estrange, who commanded there, retreated with the garrison, and
the rebels rushed into the place. He was soon persuaded to return, surprised
them as they were pillaging, and routed them with the loss of only two men.
In the camp on Vinegar hill priests were dominant; mass was said every
morning, and the fury of the people was excited by violent sermons.
Protestants were brought in from the surrounding country, and all who did
not receive "protections" from the priests were butchered, sometimes with
ghastly cruelty. Though the priests often interfered to save the captives, it is
probable that at least 400 were slain in the camp.[282] The prime object of
the rebel leaders was to establish communication with other counties. Their
plans were ruined by lack of discipline and organisation, as well as by the
extraordinary gallantry of the loyalist troops. After some fighting a
detachment of rebels took Gorey in the north of the county. Instead of
pressing on into Wicklow, they remained there feasting and plundering the
neighbourhood. At the same time a large body under Harvey marched on
New Ross, with the object of opening communication with Kilkenny and
Waterford, where they believed that thousands were ready to rise in arms.
[283]
The town was attacked at daybreak on June 5, and was defended by
General Johnston and about 1,600 men against thousands of rebels. Again
and again the garrison, beaten back for a time by sheer weight of numbers,
Page 428
rallied and steadily faced the enemy. Lord Mountjoy was killed as he led a
charge of militia. The rebels fought desperately, but as a mere mob. After a
fierce struggle of ten hours they turned and fled through the burning town.
No quarter was given. At least 2,000 of them were slain. The loss on the
loyalist side was 230. During the battle some rebels fled to Scullabogue
House, where their army had left 224 prisoners, nearly all protestants, under
a strong guard. They declared that the day was lost, that the garrison were
slaughtering the catholics, and that Harvey had ordered that the prisoners
should be killed. Thirty-seven were massacred at the hall door, and 184,
including some women and children, were shut into a barn and burned to
death. Out of the whole number only three escaped.
After his defeat at New Ross, Harvey, who tried in vain
to check the savagery of his followers, was deposed BATTLE OF
from his command, and was succeeded by a priest ARKLOW.
named Philip Roche. The rebels at Gorey had been wasting their time. They
were largely reinforced, and on the 9th some 10,000 men attacked Arklow.
Its capture would have thrown open the road to Dublin. The garrison under
General Needham numbered about 1,500, and had some cannon. Mainly
owing to the splendid courage of the Durham fencibles they defeated the
rebels, who were much discouraged by the fall of one of their priests, for
they believed that he and some of their other priestly leaders could not be
harmed by shot or sword. Their defeat decided the issue of the rebellion. It
was almost confined to Leinster. Connaught remained quiet, and it scarcely
touched Munster. In Ulster, the chief seat of the conspiracy, there were only
two outbreaks, in Antrim and Down, which were easily suppressed.
Severity had nipped rebellion in the bud. Nor was this the only reason for
the comparative inaction of the province. The presbyterians, whose
republican sympathies had led them to look to France and seek the support
of the catholics against England, found France fail them again and again;
and they were bitterly incensed against the catholics on hearing how in
Wexford they made the rebellion a religious war and were torturing and
massacring the protestants. Nor were French politics any longer such as to
allure republicans, for France was rapidly tending towards military rule, and
was bringing the republics she had founded into subjection to herself.
Before long Ulster became, as it has since remained, thoroughly loyal to the
crown.
charge of militia. The rebels fought desperately, but as a mere mob. After a
fierce struggle of ten hours they turned and fled through the burning town.
No quarter was given. At least 2,000 of them were slain. The loss on the
loyalist side was 230. During the battle some rebels fled to Scullabogue
House, where their army had left 224 prisoners, nearly all protestants, under
a strong guard. They declared that the day was lost, that the garrison were
slaughtering the catholics, and that Harvey had ordered that the prisoners
should be killed. Thirty-seven were massacred at the hall door, and 184,
including some women and children, were shut into a barn and burned to
death. Out of the whole number only three escaped.
After his defeat at New Ross, Harvey, who tried in vain
to check the savagery of his followers, was deposed BATTLE OF
from his command, and was succeeded by a priest ARKLOW.
named Philip Roche. The rebels at Gorey had been wasting their time. They
were largely reinforced, and on the 9th some 10,000 men attacked Arklow.
Its capture would have thrown open the road to Dublin. The garrison under
General Needham numbered about 1,500, and had some cannon. Mainly
owing to the splendid courage of the Durham fencibles they defeated the
rebels, who were much discouraged by the fall of one of their priests, for
they believed that he and some of their other priestly leaders could not be
harmed by shot or sword. Their defeat decided the issue of the rebellion. It
was almost confined to Leinster. Connaught remained quiet, and it scarcely
touched Munster. In Ulster, the chief seat of the conspiracy, there were only
two outbreaks, in Antrim and Down, which were easily suppressed.
Severity had nipped rebellion in the bud. Nor was this the only reason for
the comparative inaction of the province. The presbyterians, whose
republican sympathies had led them to look to France and seek the support
of the catholics against England, found France fail them again and again;
and they were bitterly incensed against the catholics on hearing how in
Wexford they made the rebellion a religious war and were torturing and
massacring the protestants. Nor were French politics any longer such as to
allure republicans, for France was rapidly tending towards military rule, and
was bringing the republics she had founded into subjection to herself.
Before long Ulster became, as it has since remained, thoroughly loyal to the
crown.
Page 429
The rebellion was defeated by the gallantry of the Irish loyalists and the few
English troops which supported them. No help had as yet been sent from
England. Decisive as the battle of Arklow proved to be, the Irish ministers
believed that the rebellion was still likely to grow, and wrote urgently for
reinforcements. Five regiments were despatched, and several militia
regiments volunteered for service in Ireland. The crown could not accept
their offer without the consent of parliament. The opposition in the
commons raised objections, and were defeated by a large majority. On the
21st Lake, at the head of an army of over 13,000 men, attacked the rebels
on Vinegar hill. After a short resistance they fled in confusion. Enniscorthy
was taken, and the royal army marched on Wexford. When the rebels
occupied Wexford on May 30, they behaved with comparative moderation.
There was some pillaging, but few acts of violence were committed. Many
protestants were imprisoned, and the rest were confined to their houses and
lived in mortal terror, for the lower class of catholics showed a savage spirit
which was only kept in check by their leaders. It broke out on June 20,
when nearly all the armed rebels had marched out against the royal forces.
Infuriated by the news of disasters, the mob, under the leadership of a
ruffian named Dixon and his equally savage wife, slaughtered ninety-seven
of the prisoners. The next day the rebels offered to surrender the town on
terms. They believed that their offer was accepted, and surrendered before
they heard that Lake refused it. The rebel leaders and all found guilty of
murder were executed. Philip Roche and, in spite of his humane exertions,
Harvey were among the number. The remains of the rebellion were stamped
out with fearful severity. Many excesses were committed. Every execution
was hailed with exultation by the victorious party. Cornwallis, who had
succeeded Camden as lord-lieutenant in June, was disgusted with their
bloodthirsty and vengeful spirit. Seconded by the chancellor, he obtained
from parliament an act of general indemnity with special exceptions, and
did all in his power to restrain the ferocity of the troops.
The rebellion left Ireland burdened with debt. Throughout wide districts the
land lay waste, houses were in ashes, the peasants homeless and starving.
Old racial and religious hatreds were revived and were strengthened a
thousandfold by the barbarities perpetrated by both parties. If Ireland was
ever to be at peace, if Celts and Saxons, catholics and protestants, were ever
to dwell together as one people, it could only be by her acceptance of the
English troops which supported them. No help had as yet been sent from
England. Decisive as the battle of Arklow proved to be, the Irish ministers
believed that the rebellion was still likely to grow, and wrote urgently for
reinforcements. Five regiments were despatched, and several militia
regiments volunteered for service in Ireland. The crown could not accept
their offer without the consent of parliament. The opposition in the
commons raised objections, and were defeated by a large majority. On the
21st Lake, at the head of an army of over 13,000 men, attacked the rebels
on Vinegar hill. After a short resistance they fled in confusion. Enniscorthy
was taken, and the royal army marched on Wexford. When the rebels
occupied Wexford on May 30, they behaved with comparative moderation.
There was some pillaging, but few acts of violence were committed. Many
protestants were imprisoned, and the rest were confined to their houses and
lived in mortal terror, for the lower class of catholics showed a savage spirit
which was only kept in check by their leaders. It broke out on June 20,
when nearly all the armed rebels had marched out against the royal forces.
Infuriated by the news of disasters, the mob, under the leadership of a
ruffian named Dixon and his equally savage wife, slaughtered ninety-seven
of the prisoners. The next day the rebels offered to surrender the town on
terms. They believed that their offer was accepted, and surrendered before
they heard that Lake refused it. The rebel leaders and all found guilty of
murder were executed. Philip Roche and, in spite of his humane exertions,
Harvey were among the number. The remains of the rebellion were stamped
out with fearful severity. Many excesses were committed. Every execution
was hailed with exultation by the victorious party. Cornwallis, who had
succeeded Camden as lord-lieutenant in June, was disgusted with their
bloodthirsty and vengeful spirit. Seconded by the chancellor, he obtained
from parliament an act of general indemnity with special exceptions, and
did all in his power to restrain the ferocity of the troops.
The rebellion left Ireland burdened with debt. Throughout wide districts the
land lay waste, houses were in ashes, the peasants homeless and starving.
Old racial and religious hatreds were revived and were strengthened a
thousandfold by the barbarities perpetrated by both parties. If Ireland was
ever to be at peace, if Celts and Saxons, catholics and protestants, were ever
to dwell together as one people, it could only be by her acceptance of the
Page 430
control of a single imperial parliament. A legislative union had long been
contemplated by Pitt and by other English statesmen. That Pitt deliberately
planned and fostered the rebellion, as Irishmen have actually asserted, in
order to carry out a union is a charge so monstrous as scarcely to demand
serious refutation. It is enough to say that he would certainly not have
chosen to have Ireland in rebellion at a time so critical for England as the
spring of 1798. That the policy of the government both in England and
Ireland, which certainly conduced to the rebellion, was to some extent
swayed by the desire for union is probable.[284] That is quite another matter.
The rebellion made union absolutely necessary, and while the rebels were
still in arms, Pitt began to prepare for it. The history of the union must be
deferred to our next chapter.
The rebels' hopes of help from France were bitterly
disappointed. A serious invasion was impossible without HUMBERT'S
INVASION.
command of the sea; only small expeditions could be
sent out by stealth. On June 16 certain Irish conspirators represented that if
a small expedition landed on the north-west coast the independence of
Ireland might be secured. The directors determined to send one
immediately.[285] It was long delayed, for the navy was in disorder. At last,
on August 6, when the rebellion was over, and Ireland was full of troops,
General Humbert sailed from Rochelle with eighty-two officers and 1,017
men, together with supplies and arms for the natives, in three frigates under
the command of Captain Savary. The ships took a long route to avoid the
British fleet, and did not arrive in Killala bay until the 20th. Killala, which
had a garrison of only 200 men, was occupied, and Ballina was taken. The
French were joined by a large number of Irish, delighted at receiving arms,
clothes, and food. Many of these recruits deserted, carrying away their
guns, and those who remained were of little use. General Hutchinson, who
commanded in Connaught, advanced against the invaders. He was joined by
Lake, and their forces amounted to over 5,000 men. Lake posted a
detachment to guard Castlebar. Humbert avoided it by crossing the
mountains, and on the 27th, after a march of fifteen hours engaged the
British, though vastly inferior to them in number. The militia were seized
with panic, and though the artillery behaved well, the army was utterly
routed and fled in disorder leaving nine guns in the enemy's hands.
contemplated by Pitt and by other English statesmen. That Pitt deliberately
planned and fostered the rebellion, as Irishmen have actually asserted, in
order to carry out a union is a charge so monstrous as scarcely to demand
serious refutation. It is enough to say that he would certainly not have
chosen to have Ireland in rebellion at a time so critical for England as the
spring of 1798. That the policy of the government both in England and
Ireland, which certainly conduced to the rebellion, was to some extent
swayed by the desire for union is probable.[284] That is quite another matter.
The rebellion made union absolutely necessary, and while the rebels were
still in arms, Pitt began to prepare for it. The history of the union must be
deferred to our next chapter.
The rebels' hopes of help from France were bitterly
disappointed. A serious invasion was impossible without HUMBERT'S
INVASION.
command of the sea; only small expeditions could be
sent out by stealth. On June 16 certain Irish conspirators represented that if
a small expedition landed on the north-west coast the independence of
Ireland might be secured. The directors determined to send one
immediately.[285] It was long delayed, for the navy was in disorder. At last,
on August 6, when the rebellion was over, and Ireland was full of troops,
General Humbert sailed from Rochelle with eighty-two officers and 1,017
men, together with supplies and arms for the natives, in three frigates under
the command of Captain Savary. The ships took a long route to avoid the
British fleet, and did not arrive in Killala bay until the 20th. Killala, which
had a garrison of only 200 men, was occupied, and Ballina was taken. The
French were joined by a large number of Irish, delighted at receiving arms,
clothes, and food. Many of these recruits deserted, carrying away their
guns, and those who remained were of little use. General Hutchinson, who
commanded in Connaught, advanced against the invaders. He was joined by
Lake, and their forces amounted to over 5,000 men. Lake posted a
detachment to guard Castlebar. Humbert avoided it by crossing the
mountains, and on the 27th, after a march of fifteen hours engaged the
British, though vastly inferior to them in number. The militia were seized
with panic, and though the artillery behaved well, the army was utterly
routed and fled in disorder leaving nine guns in the enemy's hands.
Page 431
After this shameful rout, called "the race of Castlebar," Cornwallis took the
command in person at the head of a large army, and reached the
neighbourhood of Castlebar on September 4. Early on that day Humbert left
Castlebar to march on Sligo, for he heard that there were few troops in the
counties of Sligo and Leitrim. He probably intended to maintain himself
near the sea in order to meet reinforcements from France, and is said to
have hoped to reach Dublin by a circuit to the north-east. Wild as this hope
seems, it was encouraged by the news of insurrectionary movements. On
reaching Colooney he was met by Colonel Vereker with a small force from
Sligo, which he defeated after a smart engagement. He abruptly changed his
course and marched to the south-east, either because he believed that
Vereker's force was the vanguard of an army, or because he hoped to take
advantage of a rebellion which had broken out in Granard, and of
disaffection in Longford and Westmeath, and to reach Dublin through those
counties.[286] On the 9th Lake attacked him with an overwhelming force at
Ballinamuck, near Granard; Cornwallis was marching on his rear, and after
a short resistance the French surrendered themselves prisoners. They then
numbered ninety-six officers and 748 men. No terms were granted to their
Irish allies of whom 500 are said to have been slain. The adventure,
gallantry, and achievements of Humbert's little band form a notable episode
in the military history of France. Their conduct was worthy of their country,
for they committed no excesses. Killala was retaken from the rebels with
great slaughter and the rebellion in Connaught was soon at an end.
The expedition under General Hardy, which was to have sailed to support
Humbert, was prevented from leaving Brest by the British fleet. From
Dunkirk a brig got away on September 4, carrying Napper Tandy and some
other United Irishmen, a few soldiers, and stores. Tandy persuaded the
French that he was a man of importance in Ireland, and that if he appeared
there the people would rise in arms; so the French made him a general, and
gave him command of this little expedition. He reached the island of Aran,
in Donegal, on the 16th, and heard of Humbert's failure. No one paid any
heed to him. He read the letters in the post office, hoisted a green flag, got
very drunk, and was carried back to the brig eight hours after landing. The
brig sailed to the coast of Norway to avoid capture. Finally Tandy and some
of his friends took refuge in Hamburg. The city delivered them up to the
English and thereby incurred the wrath of Bonaparte. They were sentenced
command in person at the head of a large army, and reached the
neighbourhood of Castlebar on September 4. Early on that day Humbert left
Castlebar to march on Sligo, for he heard that there were few troops in the
counties of Sligo and Leitrim. He probably intended to maintain himself
near the sea in order to meet reinforcements from France, and is said to
have hoped to reach Dublin by a circuit to the north-east. Wild as this hope
seems, it was encouraged by the news of insurrectionary movements. On
reaching Colooney he was met by Colonel Vereker with a small force from
Sligo, which he defeated after a smart engagement. He abruptly changed his
course and marched to the south-east, either because he believed that
Vereker's force was the vanguard of an army, or because he hoped to take
advantage of a rebellion which had broken out in Granard, and of
disaffection in Longford and Westmeath, and to reach Dublin through those
counties.[286] On the 9th Lake attacked him with an overwhelming force at
Ballinamuck, near Granard; Cornwallis was marching on his rear, and after
a short resistance the French surrendered themselves prisoners. They then
numbered ninety-six officers and 748 men. No terms were granted to their
Irish allies of whom 500 are said to have been slain. The adventure,
gallantry, and achievements of Humbert's little band form a notable episode
in the military history of France. Their conduct was worthy of their country,
for they committed no excesses. Killala was retaken from the rebels with
great slaughter and the rebellion in Connaught was soon at an end.
The expedition under General Hardy, which was to have sailed to support
Humbert, was prevented from leaving Brest by the British fleet. From
Dunkirk a brig got away on September 4, carrying Napper Tandy and some
other United Irishmen, a few soldiers, and stores. Tandy persuaded the
French that he was a man of importance in Ireland, and that if he appeared
there the people would rise in arms; so the French made him a general, and
gave him command of this little expedition. He reached the island of Aran,
in Donegal, on the 16th, and heard of Humbert's failure. No one paid any
heed to him. He read the letters in the post office, hoisted a green flag, got
very drunk, and was carried back to the brig eight hours after landing. The
brig sailed to the coast of Norway to avoid capture. Finally Tandy and some
of his friends took refuge in Hamburg. The city delivered them up to the
English and thereby incurred the wrath of Bonaparte. They were sentenced
Page 432
to death but were not executed, and Tandy was allowed to go to France,
where he ended his days.
At last, on September 16th, Hardy succeeded in sailing
out from the Raz with 4,000 troops for the relief of ABORTIVE
ATTEMPTS ON
Humbert. They were carried in the Hoche (80) and nine IRELAND.
smaller ships, under Admiral Bompard. The French took
a wide course and arrived off Lough Swilly on October 10. They were met
the next day by Sir John Warren with three ships of the line and five
frigates. The French, who fought well, were overpowered. The Hoche and
three of their frigates surrendered, and three more of their vessels were
caught during the next few days. Only two frigates and a sloop returned to
Brest. On the Hoche was Wolfe Tone, who had embarked as a French
officer. He was tried by court-martial in Dublin and sentenced to be hanged.
His request that he might die a soldier's death was refused; he cut his throat
and died in prison. Of all the promoters of the rebellion he was, perhaps, the
most talented, and was excelled by none either in courage or in whole-
hearted devotion to the cause of Irish independence. One more attempt at
invasion was made by Savary, who after landing Humbert's force had
returned to France. Ignorant of the fate of Humbert's expedition, he sailed
from Rochelle on October 12 with three frigates and a corvette, carrying
1,090 troops, and appeared off Killala on the 27th. There he heard of the
failure of both Humbert and Bompard. He set sail again and was so hotly
chased by some British ships that he threw guns, stores, and ammunition
overboard.[287] His ships got away, though with some damage, and returned
to Rochelle. So ended the French attempts on Ireland. If in the height of the
rebellion a small expedition had succeeded, as Humbert did, in evading the
British fleet and had landed in Ireland, it might have prolonged the struggle,
but could not have changed its issue. Disorganisation and unreadiness
prevented France from seizing the opportunity of doing even so much as
that. In the face of England's superiority at sea the despatch of any large
force would have ended in signal disaster. Independently of the risk of
capture at sea, the little secret expeditions to which France was reduced
were a mere waste of money.
Bonaparte sailed from Toulon on May 19, intending to take Malta, conquer
Egypt, despoil England of her power and commerce in the east, and gain for
France exclusive possession of the Red sea. He had with him 35,000 troops,
where he ended his days.
At last, on September 16th, Hardy succeeded in sailing
out from the Raz with 4,000 troops for the relief of ABORTIVE
ATTEMPTS ON
Humbert. They were carried in the Hoche (80) and nine IRELAND.
smaller ships, under Admiral Bompard. The French took
a wide course and arrived off Lough Swilly on October 10. They were met
the next day by Sir John Warren with three ships of the line and five
frigates. The French, who fought well, were overpowered. The Hoche and
three of their frigates surrendered, and three more of their vessels were
caught during the next few days. Only two frigates and a sloop returned to
Brest. On the Hoche was Wolfe Tone, who had embarked as a French
officer. He was tried by court-martial in Dublin and sentenced to be hanged.
His request that he might die a soldier's death was refused; he cut his throat
and died in prison. Of all the promoters of the rebellion he was, perhaps, the
most talented, and was excelled by none either in courage or in whole-
hearted devotion to the cause of Irish independence. One more attempt at
invasion was made by Savary, who after landing Humbert's force had
returned to France. Ignorant of the fate of Humbert's expedition, he sailed
from Rochelle on October 12 with three frigates and a corvette, carrying
1,090 troops, and appeared off Killala on the 27th. There he heard of the
failure of both Humbert and Bompard. He set sail again and was so hotly
chased by some British ships that he threw guns, stores, and ammunition
overboard.[287] His ships got away, though with some damage, and returned
to Rochelle. So ended the French attempts on Ireland. If in the height of the
rebellion a small expedition had succeeded, as Humbert did, in evading the
British fleet and had landed in Ireland, it might have prolonged the struggle,
but could not have changed its issue. Disorganisation and unreadiness
prevented France from seizing the opportunity of doing even so much as
that. In the face of England's superiority at sea the despatch of any large
force would have ended in signal disaster. Independently of the risk of
capture at sea, the little secret expeditions to which France was reduced
were a mere waste of money.
Bonaparte sailed from Toulon on May 19, intending to take Malta, conquer
Egypt, despoil England of her power and commerce in the east, and gain for
France exclusive possession of the Red sea. He had with him 35,000 troops,
Page 433
and a fleet, which finally amounted to thirteen ships of the line, fourteen
frigates, and a vast number of smaller vessels, under the subordinate
command of Admiral Brueys. Malta was surrendered by the knights of St.
John. Bonaparte took Alexandria on July 2, and defeated the Mamelukes in
the battle of the Pyramids on the 21st. Lower Egypt was conquered. As the
port of Alexandria was unsuitable for his fleet, Brueys stationed it in Abukir
bay, near the Rosetta mouth of the Nile, in order to guard the rear of the
army. So far Bonaparte's schemes were successful. But they had been
formed without taking the British navy into account. Nelson again entered
the Mediterranean. Acting on orders from the admiralty, St. Vincent sent
him thither, and by June 7 he was in command of thirteen ships of seventy-
four, and the Leander of fifty guns. He at once began a long search for the
French fleet, in which he was hindered through lack of frigates to do
scouting work. He anchored off Naples on the 17th, and believing that the
enemy would attack Sicily, passed through the straits of Messina, and sailed
along the east of the island. He was off Alexandria on the 28th, two days
before the French arrived there, then he searched the Levant, and returned
to Sicily for supplies on July 19. On the 25th he put to sea again, sailed
along the coast of the Morea, and finally on August 1 discovered the enemy
in Abukir bay. The French fleet was anchored in line on the western side of
the bay, with wide shoals between it and the shore. It was sheltered by
Abukir (now Nelson's) island and its rocks, and its leading ship was pretty
close to the shoal off the island. It was composed of thirteen ships of the
line and four frigates, and was much superior to Nelson's in the size of the
ships and weight of metal. Some of the ships, however, were worn out, and
many of their crews were not seamen.
Though Troubridge's ship, the Culloden, and two others
were not with the main body, Nelson would not delay BATTLE OF THE
his attack, and at 5.30 P.M. formed his line of battle, the NILE.
wind being N.N.W. and blowing down the French line. Very skilfully the
British ships were taken round the island and the shoals. They then swept
round, and steering to the south-west headed for the French van about 6.30,
led by the Goliath under Captain Foley. Near as the leading French ship, the
Guerrier (74), was to the shoal, Foley passed across her bows, and engaged
the next ship, the Conquérant (74), on the inshore side. Hood followed with
the Zealous, and anchored by the Guerrier, and three more engaged on the
frigates, and a vast number of smaller vessels, under the subordinate
command of Admiral Brueys. Malta was surrendered by the knights of St.
John. Bonaparte took Alexandria on July 2, and defeated the Mamelukes in
the battle of the Pyramids on the 21st. Lower Egypt was conquered. As the
port of Alexandria was unsuitable for his fleet, Brueys stationed it in Abukir
bay, near the Rosetta mouth of the Nile, in order to guard the rear of the
army. So far Bonaparte's schemes were successful. But they had been
formed without taking the British navy into account. Nelson again entered
the Mediterranean. Acting on orders from the admiralty, St. Vincent sent
him thither, and by June 7 he was in command of thirteen ships of seventy-
four, and the Leander of fifty guns. He at once began a long search for the
French fleet, in which he was hindered through lack of frigates to do
scouting work. He anchored off Naples on the 17th, and believing that the
enemy would attack Sicily, passed through the straits of Messina, and sailed
along the east of the island. He was off Alexandria on the 28th, two days
before the French arrived there, then he searched the Levant, and returned
to Sicily for supplies on July 19. On the 25th he put to sea again, sailed
along the coast of the Morea, and finally on August 1 discovered the enemy
in Abukir bay. The French fleet was anchored in line on the western side of
the bay, with wide shoals between it and the shore. It was sheltered by
Abukir (now Nelson's) island and its rocks, and its leading ship was pretty
close to the shoal off the island. It was composed of thirteen ships of the
line and four frigates, and was much superior to Nelson's in the size of the
ships and weight of metal. Some of the ships, however, were worn out, and
many of their crews were not seamen.
Though Troubridge's ship, the Culloden, and two others
were not with the main body, Nelson would not delay BATTLE OF THE
his attack, and at 5.30 P.M. formed his line of battle, the NILE.
wind being N.N.W. and blowing down the French line. Very skilfully the
British ships were taken round the island and the shoals. They then swept
round, and steering to the south-west headed for the French van about 6.30,
led by the Goliath under Captain Foley. Near as the leading French ship, the
Guerrier (74), was to the shoal, Foley passed across her bows, and engaged
the next ship, the Conquérant (74), on the inshore side. Hood followed with
the Zealous, and anchored by the Guerrier, and three more engaged on the
Page 434
enemy's port side, Nelson's ship, the Vanguard, and the two next attacking
on the outside. Eight British ships set on the five of the French van, the two
others engaged two Frenchmen of much larger size in the centre, and one of
them, the Bellerophon, was dismasted and drifted off. Later two of the
missing ships of Nelson's squadron and the Leander came into action; the
Culloden having struck on a rock off the island, remained aground. By that
time the French van was crushed, and the battle raged round the centre.
Brueys fell, and soon afterwards his ship, the Orient (120), caught fire. Her
assailants poured so fierce a storm of shot upon her that her crew could not
get the fire under. The summer night was lightened by the sheet of flame
which wrapped her from the water-line to the mast-heads. The fire reached
her magazine, and the great ship blew up with a terrific explosion. During
the fight Nelson was badly wounded in the forehead. He was soon on deck
again, and sent boats to pick up the survivors of the crew of the Orient. The
British victory was completed in the morning, and never was victory so
complete. Of seventeen French ships two were burnt besides the Orient, one
sank, nine were taken, and only two ships of the line and two frigates
escaped.[288] Great was the rejoicing in England at the news of the battle of
the Nile. Nelson was raised to the peerage as Baron Nelson of the Nile and
Burnham Thorpe; other honours were conferred on him both at home and
by foreign sovereigns, and parliament voted him a pension of £2,000 a year
for two lives.
The king's speech on November 20 described the victory as foiling an
enterprise against the most valuable interests of the British empire, and as
likely to lead other powers to combine for the general deliverance of
Europe. Let us trace its effects under these two headings. Bonaparte's
conquest of Egypt was designed to be a step towards the overthrow of
British power and commerce in the east. He found himself shut up in his
conquest. Great ideas presented themselves to him. He would take
Constantinople, and conquer Europe by a flank attack. He would be a
second Alexander, and after another Issos would drive the English from
India. Already French envoys were inciting Tipú Sultán to war. From the
shores of the Red sea Bonaparte wrote to bid him expect his army. The
letter was seized by a British ship. Nelson's victory encouraged the sultan,
Selim III., the nominal lord of Egypt, to declare war. A Turkish army and
fleet were assembled at Rhodes, and another army in Syria. Bonaparte did
on the outside. Eight British ships set on the five of the French van, the two
others engaged two Frenchmen of much larger size in the centre, and one of
them, the Bellerophon, was dismasted and drifted off. Later two of the
missing ships of Nelson's squadron and the Leander came into action; the
Culloden having struck on a rock off the island, remained aground. By that
time the French van was crushed, and the battle raged round the centre.
Brueys fell, and soon afterwards his ship, the Orient (120), caught fire. Her
assailants poured so fierce a storm of shot upon her that her crew could not
get the fire under. The summer night was lightened by the sheet of flame
which wrapped her from the water-line to the mast-heads. The fire reached
her magazine, and the great ship blew up with a terrific explosion. During
the fight Nelson was badly wounded in the forehead. He was soon on deck
again, and sent boats to pick up the survivors of the crew of the Orient. The
British victory was completed in the morning, and never was victory so
complete. Of seventeen French ships two were burnt besides the Orient, one
sank, nine were taken, and only two ships of the line and two frigates
escaped.[288] Great was the rejoicing in England at the news of the battle of
the Nile. Nelson was raised to the peerage as Baron Nelson of the Nile and
Burnham Thorpe; other honours were conferred on him both at home and
by foreign sovereigns, and parliament voted him a pension of £2,000 a year
for two lives.
The king's speech on November 20 described the victory as foiling an
enterprise against the most valuable interests of the British empire, and as
likely to lead other powers to combine for the general deliverance of
Europe. Let us trace its effects under these two headings. Bonaparte's
conquest of Egypt was designed to be a step towards the overthrow of
British power and commerce in the east. He found himself shut up in his
conquest. Great ideas presented themselves to him. He would take
Constantinople, and conquer Europe by a flank attack. He would be a
second Alexander, and after another Issos would drive the English from
India. Already French envoys were inciting Tipú Sultán to war. From the
shores of the Red sea Bonaparte wrote to bid him expect his army. The
letter was seized by a British ship. Nelson's victory encouraged the sultan,
Selim III., the nominal lord of Egypt, to declare war. A Turkish army and
fleet were assembled at Rhodes, and another army in Syria. Bonaparte did
Page 435
not wait to be attacked in Egypt. The conquest of Syria would deprive the
British fleet of its source of supplies in the Levant, and would open the way
to a conquest either of Constantinople or Delhi.[289] On February 15, 1799,
he captured El Arish, and on March 6 took Jaffa by storm. Then with an
army weakened by disease and fighting, he marched on Acre. There he
again had to meet a British sea-captain.
After his distinguished service at Toulon, and some later
employment, Sir Sidney Smith, in 1795, was appointed DEFENCE OF
ACRE.
to the command of some small vessels with which he
did much damage to the enemy off the Norman coast. He was taken
prisoner in 1796 and kept in France for eighteen months. He escaped in
1798 with the help of a royalist officer of engineers, Colonel Phélypeaux,
was sent to Constantinople as joint-plenipotentiary with his brother, and,
Nelson being at Naples, became senior naval officer in the Levant. Acre, as
the best harbour on the Syrian coast, was specially important to British
maritime supremacy in those waters. So long as it remained uncaptured,
Bonaparte could not advance, for the door would be left open to an attack
on his rear. If he took the place, he believed that Syria would rise against
Djezzar, its Turkish ruler. The fortifications were weak, but Nelson's victory
deprived him of the power of investing it by sea. Smith sent his friend,
Phélypeaux, in the Theseus (74) to teach the Turks how to strengthen the
place, and followed himself in the Tigre (74). On March 18 he intercepted a
French flotilla with the artillery, ammunition, and stores on which
Bonaparte depended for the siege. They were brought into Acre; the French
were left only with field-pieces, and it was not until April 25 that they could
bring up heavy guns from Jaffa. Much fierce fighting took place between
the Turks and the French; and the British ships kept up a constant fire on the
French in their lines and whenever they advanced to attack. Smith, who was
given to vapouring, was offended by some communication from Bonaparte,
and sent him a challenge to which Bonaparte replied that he would fight
when the English sent a Marlborough to meet him.
Bonaparte's victory over the Turks at Mount Tabor seemed a great step
towards conquest. All depended on the fate of Acre. At last on May 7 the
Turkish fleet from Rhodes hove in sight. It was becalmed, and the French
made a desperate attempt to storm the place before the reinforcements could
arrive. They effected a lodgment, but Smith landed his seamen who helped
British fleet of its source of supplies in the Levant, and would open the way
to a conquest either of Constantinople or Delhi.[289] On February 15, 1799,
he captured El Arish, and on March 6 took Jaffa by storm. Then with an
army weakened by disease and fighting, he marched on Acre. There he
again had to meet a British sea-captain.
After his distinguished service at Toulon, and some later
employment, Sir Sidney Smith, in 1795, was appointed DEFENCE OF
ACRE.
to the command of some small vessels with which he
did much damage to the enemy off the Norman coast. He was taken
prisoner in 1796 and kept in France for eighteen months. He escaped in
1798 with the help of a royalist officer of engineers, Colonel Phélypeaux,
was sent to Constantinople as joint-plenipotentiary with his brother, and,
Nelson being at Naples, became senior naval officer in the Levant. Acre, as
the best harbour on the Syrian coast, was specially important to British
maritime supremacy in those waters. So long as it remained uncaptured,
Bonaparte could not advance, for the door would be left open to an attack
on his rear. If he took the place, he believed that Syria would rise against
Djezzar, its Turkish ruler. The fortifications were weak, but Nelson's victory
deprived him of the power of investing it by sea. Smith sent his friend,
Phélypeaux, in the Theseus (74) to teach the Turks how to strengthen the
place, and followed himself in the Tigre (74). On March 18 he intercepted a
French flotilla with the artillery, ammunition, and stores on which
Bonaparte depended for the siege. They were brought into Acre; the French
were left only with field-pieces, and it was not until April 25 that they could
bring up heavy guns from Jaffa. Much fierce fighting took place between
the Turks and the French; and the British ships kept up a constant fire on the
French in their lines and whenever they advanced to attack. Smith, who was
given to vapouring, was offended by some communication from Bonaparte,
and sent him a challenge to which Bonaparte replied that he would fight
when the English sent a Marlborough to meet him.
Bonaparte's victory over the Turks at Mount Tabor seemed a great step
towards conquest. All depended on the fate of Acre. At last on May 7 the
Turkish fleet from Rhodes hove in sight. It was becalmed, and the French
made a desperate attempt to storm the place before the reinforcements could
arrive. They effected a lodgment, but Smith landed his seamen who helped
Page 436
to drive them out with their pikes, and they fell back with heavy loss. On
the 20th Bonaparte raised the siege which had cost him nearly 5,000 men
by war and sickness. Smith received the thanks of parliament and a pension
of £1,000 a year. Though vainglorious and arrogant, he conducted the
defence of Acre with sound judgment as well as with energy and courage.
By weary marches through the desert, Bonaparte led his army back to
Egypt, where he defeated an invasion of Turks. Smith sent him a bundle of
newspapers, and from them he received tidings which determined him to
leave his army and return to France. Before we enter on the European
events which chiefly led to his return, let us see how the ruin of his plan of
eastern conquest, the fruit of Nelson's victory, affected the British rule in
India.
By reducing the resources of Tipú in 1792 Cornwallis believed that he was
establishing a balance of power in India which would enable the English to
adopt a policy of nonintervention. This policy was pursued both by him and
his successor, Sir John Shore, afterwards Lord Teignmouth. It was defeated
through the revival of French influence. The nizám put his army under
French officers who held a large part of his territories and paid their troops
out of their revenues. Daulat Ráo Sindhia, the strongest of the Maráthá
lords, also employed French officers and was inclined to help Tipú rather
than the English. From neither of these powers, which were in alliance with
the company in Cornwallis's war with Tipú, could any help be expected in a
fresh struggle with him; and as in 1797 Tipú proposed an alliance with
France against the English, a struggle could not be far off. In October of
that year Pitt's friend, Lord Mornington, was appointed governor-general.
On the day that he reached Madras, in April, 1798, Tipú received a French
force from Mauritius. Mornington at once persuaded the nizám to enter into
a subsidiary treaty by which he agreed to dismiss his French officers and to
form a close alliance with the company. The Frenchmen were made
prisoners and his army was placed under British officers. Bonaparte's
expedition to Egypt encouraged Tipú in his hostility, for he expected that a
French army would shortly appear in India. This hope was frustrated by
Nelson's victory. Nevertheless, he believed that the time would come when
he would be able to co-operate with a French invasion; he tried to play a
waiting game, and evaded the British attempts at pacification. Mornington
determined to put an end to his subterfuges, and, in February, 1799, ordered
the 20th Bonaparte raised the siege which had cost him nearly 5,000 men
by war and sickness. Smith received the thanks of parliament and a pension
of £1,000 a year. Though vainglorious and arrogant, he conducted the
defence of Acre with sound judgment as well as with energy and courage.
By weary marches through the desert, Bonaparte led his army back to
Egypt, where he defeated an invasion of Turks. Smith sent him a bundle of
newspapers, and from them he received tidings which determined him to
leave his army and return to France. Before we enter on the European
events which chiefly led to his return, let us see how the ruin of his plan of
eastern conquest, the fruit of Nelson's victory, affected the British rule in
India.
By reducing the resources of Tipú in 1792 Cornwallis believed that he was
establishing a balance of power in India which would enable the English to
adopt a policy of nonintervention. This policy was pursued both by him and
his successor, Sir John Shore, afterwards Lord Teignmouth. It was defeated
through the revival of French influence. The nizám put his army under
French officers who held a large part of his territories and paid their troops
out of their revenues. Daulat Ráo Sindhia, the strongest of the Maráthá
lords, also employed French officers and was inclined to help Tipú rather
than the English. From neither of these powers, which were in alliance with
the company in Cornwallis's war with Tipú, could any help be expected in a
fresh struggle with him; and as in 1797 Tipú proposed an alliance with
France against the English, a struggle could not be far off. In October of
that year Pitt's friend, Lord Mornington, was appointed governor-general.
On the day that he reached Madras, in April, 1798, Tipú received a French
force from Mauritius. Mornington at once persuaded the nizám to enter into
a subsidiary treaty by which he agreed to dismiss his French officers and to
form a close alliance with the company. The Frenchmen were made
prisoners and his army was placed under British officers. Bonaparte's
expedition to Egypt encouraged Tipú in his hostility, for he expected that a
French army would shortly appear in India. This hope was frustrated by
Nelson's victory. Nevertheless, he believed that the time would come when
he would be able to co-operate with a French invasion; he tried to play a
waiting game, and evaded the British attempts at pacification. Mornington
determined to put an end to his subterfuges, and, in February, 1799, ordered
Page 437
an invasion of Mysore under General Harris, the governor of Madras.
Harris's army was joined by the army of the nizám, and, on March 27,
routed Tipú at Malvalli, the left wing of the British, which consisted mainly
of the nizám's contingent, being under the command of Mornington's
brother, Sir Arthur Wellesley, afterwards Duke of Wellington. Seringapatam
was taken by storm and Tipú was slain. Mornington, who was created
Marquis Wellesley, partitioned Mysore, set up a youthful rájá, and placed
him under British protection.
While Nelson's victory enabled Englishmen to uphold
the power and interests of their country in the east, it led A NEW
COALITION
also to a second coalition against France. Already PROPOSED.
mistress of the Batavian, Cisalpine, and Ligurian
republics, France occupied Rome in February, 1798, drove out Pius VI., and
founded a Roman republic. In August, the Helvetic republic, established
partly by intrigue and partly by force, in place of the Swiss confederation,
became her dependent ally. The German empire was hopelessly divided,
Piedmont was in process of annexation, Naples was threatened. Yet the
power of France was not so great as it seemed. Among the peoples of the
new republics many resented the destruction of their old independent
governments. Pitt poured money from the secret service funds into the
hands of agents, who in every country of Europe recruited for the interest of
England. He seems generally to have received a good return, except in
Holland, where the democratic party remained strong. In other lands the
rising feeling against France was of no small importance in the coming
struggle.
Paul, the Russian tsar, was deeply offended by the capture of Malta, for he
had a romantic predilection for the order of St. John, of which he
constituted himself the protector. The eastward advance of the French
seemed to threaten the spread of republicanism to his dominions and the
revival of trouble in Poland. Encouraged by Nelson's victory, he incited the
Porte to declare war on France, sent ships to act with the British and
Portuguese squadrons in the Mediterranean, and formed a defensive
alliance with the Turks to which England acceded.[290] He tried in vain to
induce the courts of Berlin and Vienna to combine against France, and
appears to have made a secret treaty with Austria concerning the passage of
troops, for some 60,000 Russians were soon marching towards the Danube.
Harris's army was joined by the army of the nizám, and, on March 27,
routed Tipú at Malvalli, the left wing of the British, which consisted mainly
of the nizám's contingent, being under the command of Mornington's
brother, Sir Arthur Wellesley, afterwards Duke of Wellington. Seringapatam
was taken by storm and Tipú was slain. Mornington, who was created
Marquis Wellesley, partitioned Mysore, set up a youthful rájá, and placed
him under British protection.
While Nelson's victory enabled Englishmen to uphold
the power and interests of their country in the east, it led A NEW
COALITION
also to a second coalition against France. Already PROPOSED.
mistress of the Batavian, Cisalpine, and Ligurian
republics, France occupied Rome in February, 1798, drove out Pius VI., and
founded a Roman republic. In August, the Helvetic republic, established
partly by intrigue and partly by force, in place of the Swiss confederation,
became her dependent ally. The German empire was hopelessly divided,
Piedmont was in process of annexation, Naples was threatened. Yet the
power of France was not so great as it seemed. Among the peoples of the
new republics many resented the destruction of their old independent
governments. Pitt poured money from the secret service funds into the
hands of agents, who in every country of Europe recruited for the interest of
England. He seems generally to have received a good return, except in
Holland, where the democratic party remained strong. In other lands the
rising feeling against France was of no small importance in the coming
struggle.
Paul, the Russian tsar, was deeply offended by the capture of Malta, for he
had a romantic predilection for the order of St. John, of which he
constituted himself the protector. The eastward advance of the French
seemed to threaten the spread of republicanism to his dominions and the
revival of trouble in Poland. Encouraged by Nelson's victory, he incited the
Porte to declare war on France, sent ships to act with the British and
Portuguese squadrons in the Mediterranean, and formed a defensive
alliance with the Turks to which England acceded.[290] He tried in vain to
induce the courts of Berlin and Vienna to combine against France, and
appears to have made a secret treaty with Austria concerning the passage of
troops, for some 60,000 Russians were soon marching towards the Danube.
Page 438
[291]
Pitt eagerly took advantage of the tsar's disposition. Grenville promised
a subsidy if the tsar would enter on the war as a principal,[292] and on
November 16 bade Sir Charles Whitworth, the British ambassador at St.
Petersburg, propose a coalition between England, Russia, Austria, and
Prussia to support Naples, re-establish Austria in Italy, drive the French
from Holland, the Belgian Netherlands, Switzerland, and Savoy, and join
the Netherlands to Holland to form a strong barrier state.[293] Frederick
William III., who succeeded his father in 1797, would not be moved from
his neutrality. Russia was only waiting for the arrangement of a subsidy.
With Austria there were difficulties. The emperor, disgusted with the
greediness of France, was fully determined on war, but wanted a loan of
£2,000,000. As England had lost by former transactions with Austria, Pitt
would make no further promise until existing obligations had been fulfilled.
[294]
Besides, the imperial minister Thugut was anxious for delay; he hoped
that the directory would be crushed by its own difficulties, and in any case
was unwilling to move without the co-operation of Prussia, or before Russia
could enter on the campaign. He had formed a defensive alliance between
Austria and the Two Sicilies, or Naples, on May 19, but declared that
Austria would only support Naples if France was the aggressor, and would
give no help if Naples began the war.[295]
His plans were disconcerted by the action of Ferdinand IV. of Naples. After
the battle of the Nile the British fleet in the Mediterranean was broken up
and employed in different directions. Nelson himself sailed to Naples, was
received as its deliverer, and was ensnared by the charms of Emma, the wife
of Sir William Hamilton, the British minister. She was a woman of low
birth, and in her youth had entered on an immoral life. Though grown stout
she was still beautiful, and her considerable natural talents had been
improved by Charles Greville, under whose protection she had lived. He
passed her over to Hamilton, who married her in 1791. Queen Maria
Caroline made a favourite of her, and used her for political ends, for the
queen was anxious for British help against the French and the Neapolitan
republicans. Under court and female influences, Nelson, who had been
ordered to protect Naples, came to consider its fortunes as of the first
importance. The queen, far bolder and more energetic than her husband,
was bent on war. Mack, the Austrian strategist, took command of the army,
and by Nelson's advice Ferdinand declared war on France. Nelson assisted
Pitt eagerly took advantage of the tsar's disposition. Grenville promised
a subsidy if the tsar would enter on the war as a principal,[292] and on
November 16 bade Sir Charles Whitworth, the British ambassador at St.
Petersburg, propose a coalition between England, Russia, Austria, and
Prussia to support Naples, re-establish Austria in Italy, drive the French
from Holland, the Belgian Netherlands, Switzerland, and Savoy, and join
the Netherlands to Holland to form a strong barrier state.[293] Frederick
William III., who succeeded his father in 1797, would not be moved from
his neutrality. Russia was only waiting for the arrangement of a subsidy.
With Austria there were difficulties. The emperor, disgusted with the
greediness of France, was fully determined on war, but wanted a loan of
£2,000,000. As England had lost by former transactions with Austria, Pitt
would make no further promise until existing obligations had been fulfilled.
[294]
Besides, the imperial minister Thugut was anxious for delay; he hoped
that the directory would be crushed by its own difficulties, and in any case
was unwilling to move without the co-operation of Prussia, or before Russia
could enter on the campaign. He had formed a defensive alliance between
Austria and the Two Sicilies, or Naples, on May 19, but declared that
Austria would only support Naples if France was the aggressor, and would
give no help if Naples began the war.[295]
His plans were disconcerted by the action of Ferdinand IV. of Naples. After
the battle of the Nile the British fleet in the Mediterranean was broken up
and employed in different directions. Nelson himself sailed to Naples, was
received as its deliverer, and was ensnared by the charms of Emma, the wife
of Sir William Hamilton, the British minister. She was a woman of low
birth, and in her youth had entered on an immoral life. Though grown stout
she was still beautiful, and her considerable natural talents had been
improved by Charles Greville, under whose protection she had lived. He
passed her over to Hamilton, who married her in 1791. Queen Maria
Caroline made a favourite of her, and used her for political ends, for the
queen was anxious for British help against the French and the Neapolitan
republicans. Under court and female influences, Nelson, who had been
ordered to protect Naples, came to consider its fortunes as of the first
importance. The queen, far bolder and more energetic than her husband,
was bent on war. Mack, the Austrian strategist, took command of the army,
and by Nelson's advice Ferdinand declared war on France. Nelson assisted
Page 439
the operations by carrying troops to Leghorn. Ferdinand entered Rome in
triumph on November 29. His triumph was short-lived; the Neapolitans
were routed by the French, and Naples was threatened. On December 23 the
king and queen and their court took refuge on board Nelson's ship, the
Vanguard, and her companions, and Nelson conveyed them to Palermo and
remained with them there. The French occupied Naples and the
Parthenopean republic was established on the mainland of the Two Sicilies.
Among other operations in the Mediterranean a small British force took
Minorca from the Spaniards in November without the loss of a man, and
British and Portuguese ships blockaded Valetta and compelled the surrender
of Gozo. In order to avoid offending the tsar, or exciting the jealousy of the
Austrian or Neapolitan courts, England renounced all desire for conquest
either as regards Malta, where she proposed that the knights should be re-
established, or the Adriatic, where Turkish and Russian ships were attacking
the French in the former possessions of Venice.[296]
The ill-advised action of Ferdinand of Naples, for which
Nelson was largely responsible, caused some THE SECOND
COALITION.
embarrassment to the English government, and
Grenville anxiously assured Thugut that England was not responsible for it.
[297]
At the same time it hastened the formation of the second coalition. A
treaty of close alliance with Naples was signed by Russia on November 29,
and another by the Porte on December 23, to which Great Britain acceded
on January 2.[298] England further made a treaty with Russia on December
29 by which the tsar agreed to furnish 45,000 men to act against France in
co-operation with Prussia, and England promised a subsidy of £225,000 for
initial expenses and £75,000 a month afterwards. Thomas Grenville was
sent to Berlin to act with Count Panin in persuading Frederick William to
join the coalition. The king refused; the treaty with Russia was modified by
a mutual agreement that the Russian troops should be employed as seemed
most advantageous to both powers, and the English government suggested
that they should act with the Austrians in Switzerland.[299] Austria was soon
forced to abandon her temporising policy. A corps of 25,000 Russians was
encamped on the Danube. France demanded their expulsion from Austrian
territory, and that, as Thugut said, meant war.[300] On February 28 Jourdan
crossed the Rhine with 40,000 men. The second coalition of which England
was the soul was a direct result of the battle of the Nile.
triumph on November 29. His triumph was short-lived; the Neapolitans
were routed by the French, and Naples was threatened. On December 23 the
king and queen and their court took refuge on board Nelson's ship, the
Vanguard, and her companions, and Nelson conveyed them to Palermo and
remained with them there. The French occupied Naples and the
Parthenopean republic was established on the mainland of the Two Sicilies.
Among other operations in the Mediterranean a small British force took
Minorca from the Spaniards in November without the loss of a man, and
British and Portuguese ships blockaded Valetta and compelled the surrender
of Gozo. In order to avoid offending the tsar, or exciting the jealousy of the
Austrian or Neapolitan courts, England renounced all desire for conquest
either as regards Malta, where she proposed that the knights should be re-
established, or the Adriatic, where Turkish and Russian ships were attacking
the French in the former possessions of Venice.[296]
The ill-advised action of Ferdinand of Naples, for which
Nelson was largely responsible, caused some THE SECOND
COALITION.
embarrassment to the English government, and
Grenville anxiously assured Thugut that England was not responsible for it.
[297]
At the same time it hastened the formation of the second coalition. A
treaty of close alliance with Naples was signed by Russia on November 29,
and another by the Porte on December 23, to which Great Britain acceded
on January 2.[298] England further made a treaty with Russia on December
29 by which the tsar agreed to furnish 45,000 men to act against France in
co-operation with Prussia, and England promised a subsidy of £225,000 for
initial expenses and £75,000 a month afterwards. Thomas Grenville was
sent to Berlin to act with Count Panin in persuading Frederick William to
join the coalition. The king refused; the treaty with Russia was modified by
a mutual agreement that the Russian troops should be employed as seemed
most advantageous to both powers, and the English government suggested
that they should act with the Austrians in Switzerland.[299] Austria was soon
forced to abandon her temporising policy. A corps of 25,000 Russians was
encamped on the Danube. France demanded their expulsion from Austrian
territory, and that, as Thugut said, meant war.[300] On February 28 Jourdan
crossed the Rhine with 40,000 men. The second coalition of which England
was the soul was a direct result of the battle of the Nile.
Page 440
England was successful alike in arms and diplomacy. She had crushed a
long-threatened rebellion and had been unharmed by attempts at invasion.
Her fleet had vindicated her naval supremacy in the Mediterranean;
Bonaparte's great design against her commerce and power in the east had
utterly failed, and she had succeeded for the second time in forming a
coalition against the common enemy. Though she was burdened with
taxation and debt, and suffering from the evils of a prolonged war, her
commerce was increasing and sedition was virtually extinct. In one quarter
only is an almost insignificant failure to be recorded. The attempt to
conquer San Domingo with insufficient forces, in which the government
had persevered since 1793, was abandoned. Animated by republican
sentiments, the negroes raised a large army under a former slave, Toussaint
l'Ouverture. The small British force at Port-au-Prince could make no head
against them, and was withdrawn in 1798. France shortly afterwards
withdrew her forces, and Toussaint remained virtually master of the island.
England's failure entailed no real loss. She acknowledged the neutrality of
San Domingo, and Toussaint opened its ports to her commerce and
prevented France from using them for privateering purposes.
FOOTNOTES:
[281] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, i., 387-90.
[282] Gordon, Hist. of the Rebellion, pp. 166-67, 378-80; Lecky, Hist., viii., 103.
[283] Gordon, u.s., p. 140.
[284] Lecky, Hist., viii., 286.
[285] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, ii., 40-42.
[286] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, ii., 120-21.
[287] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, ii., 182.
[288] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution, i., 257-71.
[289] Rose, Life of Napoleon, i., 201.
[290] Grenville to Whitworth, Oct. 3 and 5, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
[291] Garden, Histoire des Traités, vi., 147.
[292] Grenville to Whitworth, Oct. 23, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
[293] Same to same, Nov. 16, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
long-threatened rebellion and had been unharmed by attempts at invasion.
Her fleet had vindicated her naval supremacy in the Mediterranean;
Bonaparte's great design against her commerce and power in the east had
utterly failed, and she had succeeded for the second time in forming a
coalition against the common enemy. Though she was burdened with
taxation and debt, and suffering from the evils of a prolonged war, her
commerce was increasing and sedition was virtually extinct. In one quarter
only is an almost insignificant failure to be recorded. The attempt to
conquer San Domingo with insufficient forces, in which the government
had persevered since 1793, was abandoned. Animated by republican
sentiments, the negroes raised a large army under a former slave, Toussaint
l'Ouverture. The small British force at Port-au-Prince could make no head
against them, and was withdrawn in 1798. France shortly afterwards
withdrew her forces, and Toussaint remained virtually master of the island.
England's failure entailed no real loss. She acknowledged the neutrality of
San Domingo, and Toussaint opened its ports to her commerce and
prevented France from using them for privateering purposes.
FOOTNOTES:
[281] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, i., 387-90.
[282] Gordon, Hist. of the Rebellion, pp. 166-67, 378-80; Lecky, Hist., viii., 103.
[283] Gordon, u.s., p. 140.
[284] Lecky, Hist., viii., 286.
[285] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, ii., 40-42.
[286] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, ii., 120-21.
[287] Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, ii., 182.
[288] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution, i., 257-71.
[289] Rose, Life of Napoleon, i., 201.
[290] Grenville to Whitworth, Oct. 3 and 5, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
[291] Garden, Histoire des Traités, vi., 147.
[292] Grenville to Whitworth, Oct. 23, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
[293] Same to same, Nov. 16, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
Page 441
[294] Eden to Grenville, Nov. 16 and 24, 1798, MS. Austria, R.O.
[295] Eden to Grenville, Nov. 8 and 10, 1798, MS. Austria, R.O.
[296] Grenville to Whitworth, Nov. 23, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
[297] Grenville to Eden, Dec. 22, 1798, and Jan. 25, 1799, MS. Austria, R.O.
[298] Garden, Histoire des Traités, vi., 147-51.
[299] Grenville to Whitworth, March 15, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.; Ann. Register,
xli. (1799), 211.
[300] Eden to Grenville, Jan. 11 and Feb. 7, 1799, MS. Austria, R.O.
[295] Eden to Grenville, Nov. 8 and 10, 1798, MS. Austria, R.O.
[296] Grenville to Whitworth, Nov. 23, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.
[297] Grenville to Eden, Dec. 22, 1798, and Jan. 25, 1799, MS. Austria, R.O.
[298] Garden, Histoire des Traités, vi., 147-51.
[299] Grenville to Whitworth, March 15, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.; Ann. Register,
xli. (1799), 211.
[300] Eden to Grenville, Jan. 11 and Feb. 7, 1799, MS. Austria, R.O.
Page 442
CHAPTER XX.
ISOLATION IN EUROPE AND THE IRISH UNION.
During the earlier part of the war of the second coalition in 1799 the allies
gained a series of victories. In Germany Jourdan was defeated by the
Archduke Charles in the country between the Lake of Constance and the
Danube, and the French withdrew across the Rhine. In Italy they were
repulsed by the Austrians, retreated across the Mincio and, on April 12, fell
back behind the Adda. Then a Russian army joined the Austrians, and
Suvorov, the captor of Ismail, took command of the allied forces. He
conquered Lombardy at the battle of Cassano on the 27th-29th. Moreau
retreated behind the Ticino, and called on Macdonald to bring his army
from Naples to help him. Suvorov's blows fell in quick succession; he
advanced into Piedmont, cut Moreau off from communication with
Masséna, who was operating in Switzerland, and invited Charles Emanuel,
who had been forced to abdicate his continental possessions, to return to
Turin. Everywhere the Italian people rose against the French. Suvorov
designed to crush Moreau and Macdonald separately, to cross the Alps, and
restore the French monarchy. He was thwarted by the Austrian court.
Thugut disapproved of the proposed restoration of the King of Sardinia, for
he was set on the aggrandisement of Austria at the expense of Piedmont.
The tsar aimed at the re-establishment of the old order in Europe, the
emperor at the increase of his own dominions. Suvorov, though indignant at
Austrian opposition, turned to the work immediately before him, and
inflicted a crushing defeat on Macdonald at the Trebbia on June 19.
Macdonald made a rapid retreat, and finally led his shattered army to
Genoa. A new French army was defeated by Suvorov at Novi on August 15,
its commander, Joubert, falling early in the battle.
The English government approved of the emperor's designs on Piedmont,
for under a strong power the country would be a barrier to French
aggression,[301] and as the difference of policy between Austria and Russia
hindered the progress of the war, devised a plan for bringing them into
accord as regards operations. Suvorov, after completing the conquest of
ISOLATION IN EUROPE AND THE IRISH UNION.
During the earlier part of the war of the second coalition in 1799 the allies
gained a series of victories. In Germany Jourdan was defeated by the
Archduke Charles in the country between the Lake of Constance and the
Danube, and the French withdrew across the Rhine. In Italy they were
repulsed by the Austrians, retreated across the Mincio and, on April 12, fell
back behind the Adda. Then a Russian army joined the Austrians, and
Suvorov, the captor of Ismail, took command of the allied forces. He
conquered Lombardy at the battle of Cassano on the 27th-29th. Moreau
retreated behind the Ticino, and called on Macdonald to bring his army
from Naples to help him. Suvorov's blows fell in quick succession; he
advanced into Piedmont, cut Moreau off from communication with
Masséna, who was operating in Switzerland, and invited Charles Emanuel,
who had been forced to abdicate his continental possessions, to return to
Turin. Everywhere the Italian people rose against the French. Suvorov
designed to crush Moreau and Macdonald separately, to cross the Alps, and
restore the French monarchy. He was thwarted by the Austrian court.
Thugut disapproved of the proposed restoration of the King of Sardinia, for
he was set on the aggrandisement of Austria at the expense of Piedmont.
The tsar aimed at the re-establishment of the old order in Europe, the
emperor at the increase of his own dominions. Suvorov, though indignant at
Austrian opposition, turned to the work immediately before him, and
inflicted a crushing defeat on Macdonald at the Trebbia on June 19.
Macdonald made a rapid retreat, and finally led his shattered army to
Genoa. A new French army was defeated by Suvorov at Novi on August 15,
its commander, Joubert, falling early in the battle.
The English government approved of the emperor's designs on Piedmont,
for under a strong power the country would be a barrier to French
aggression,[301] and as the difference of policy between Austria and Russia
hindered the progress of the war, devised a plan for bringing them into
accord as regards operations. Suvorov, after completing the conquest of
Page 443
Italy, was to enter Switzerland and prosecute his intended invasion of
France; the Austrians were to remain in occupation of Piedmont and enter
France by Savoy, while the archduke was to act on the Rhine where his
presence would forward a scheme for an invasion of Holland by England
and Russia. During the spring and summer the archduke had been
struggling with Masséna in Switzerland without making much progress,
though in August the French evacuated the Grisons country. Shortly before
he left for the upper Rhine he was joined by a new Russian army under
Korsakov. After his departure Masséna utterly defeated Korsakov and his
Austrian allies near Zürich on September 26. When, then, Suvorov had, in
spite of great hardships, led his army over the St. Gothard, he found his
whole plan of campaign overset and his position seriously endangered by
Korsakov's defeat. He abandoned the campaign, and at the head of only
25,000 men of the 70,000 sent by the tsar to the war, retired into Germany.
In the Mediterranean, Corfu, the other Venetian islands, and several
important posts were captured by the combined Russian and Turkish
squadrons. Valetta was closely besieged under Nelson's direction; Italy was
virtually lost to the French, though they still held Genoa.
England bore a part in the war both by sea and land. On
April 25 a powerful French fleet slipped out from Brest. NELSON AT
NAPLES.
All the southern coast of England was disturbed by the
fear of invasion. The French, however, sailed into the Mediterranean. The
fleet under St. Vincent was scattered on different services and each division
was far weaker than the French, who were expected at Naples, at Malta, and
at Alexandria. A crisis was impending at Naples. The upper and middle
classes were largely republican, the poor throughout the kingdom were
attached to the monarchy. In February, Cardinal Ruffo, as the king's vicar-
general, set on foot a counter-revolution. At the head of a horde of peasants
he quickly regained Calabria for the king, while a Neapolitan diplomatist,
Micheroux, with the help of some Russian and Turkish ships, won back
Apulia. On April 3 Troubridge captured Procida and Ischia from the
republicans, but on the arrival of the French fleet in the Mediterranean, was
summoned by Nelson to join him at Maritimo, and left only one British ship
off Naples under Captain Foote. On June 13, after Macdonald had
withdrawn his army, the bands of Ruffo and Micheroux entered Naples and
took cruel vengeance on the republicans. The castle of St. Elmo, held by a
France; the Austrians were to remain in occupation of Piedmont and enter
France by Savoy, while the archduke was to act on the Rhine where his
presence would forward a scheme for an invasion of Holland by England
and Russia. During the spring and summer the archduke had been
struggling with Masséna in Switzerland without making much progress,
though in August the French evacuated the Grisons country. Shortly before
he left for the upper Rhine he was joined by a new Russian army under
Korsakov. After his departure Masséna utterly defeated Korsakov and his
Austrian allies near Zürich on September 26. When, then, Suvorov had, in
spite of great hardships, led his army over the St. Gothard, he found his
whole plan of campaign overset and his position seriously endangered by
Korsakov's defeat. He abandoned the campaign, and at the head of only
25,000 men of the 70,000 sent by the tsar to the war, retired into Germany.
In the Mediterranean, Corfu, the other Venetian islands, and several
important posts were captured by the combined Russian and Turkish
squadrons. Valetta was closely besieged under Nelson's direction; Italy was
virtually lost to the French, though they still held Genoa.
England bore a part in the war both by sea and land. On
April 25 a powerful French fleet slipped out from Brest. NELSON AT
NAPLES.
All the southern coast of England was disturbed by the
fear of invasion. The French, however, sailed into the Mediterranean. The
fleet under St. Vincent was scattered on different services and each division
was far weaker than the French, who were expected at Naples, at Malta, and
at Alexandria. A crisis was impending at Naples. The upper and middle
classes were largely republican, the poor throughout the kingdom were
attached to the monarchy. In February, Cardinal Ruffo, as the king's vicar-
general, set on foot a counter-revolution. At the head of a horde of peasants
he quickly regained Calabria for the king, while a Neapolitan diplomatist,
Micheroux, with the help of some Russian and Turkish ships, won back
Apulia. On April 3 Troubridge captured Procida and Ischia from the
republicans, but on the arrival of the French fleet in the Mediterranean, was
summoned by Nelson to join him at Maritimo, and left only one British ship
off Naples under Captain Foote. On June 13, after Macdonald had
withdrawn his army, the bands of Ruffo and Micheroux entered Naples and
took cruel vengeance on the republicans. The castle of St. Elmo, held by a
Page 444
French garrison, and the castles Dell' Uovo and Nuovo by Neapolitan
republicans, were besieged by the royalists, by Foote, and by the Russian
and Turkish allies. Both sides expected the arrival of the French fleet, and
Ruffo was anxious to gain speedy possession of the forts. An armistice was
arranged, and on the 19th a capitulation of the forts Dell' Uovo and Nuovo
was agreed upon, was signed by Ruffo, Foote, and the Russian and Turkish
commanders, and was ratified by the French commandant of St. Elmo.
The capitulation provided that the rebels should surrender the two forts and
evacuate them unharmed as soon as transports should be ready to convey to
Toulon such of them as desired to depart. On the 21st Nelson, after an
interview with the king, sailed from Palermo for Naples. As soon as he
arrived, on the 24th, he signalled to annul the armistice, and sent word to
Ruffo that he disallowed the capitulation. The next day he sent Ruffo a
declaration that he should not allow the rebels to embark; they must
surrender to the king's mercy, and he bade Ruffo inform them of his
decision. Ruffo refused, and remonstrated in person with Nelson, who gave
him a written "opinion" that the capitulation could not be carried out
without the king's approbation. The cardinal then sent the rebels Nelson's
declaration. On the 26th Nelson promised him that he would not break the
armistice and, further, sent him word that he would not oppose the
embarkation of the rebels. Did not Ruffo, anxious for British help in case
the French and the rebels should renew hostilities, yield to Nelson's opinion
that the question of the capitulation should be reserved for the king? We
have no absolute proof that this was so, but Sir John Acton, Ferdinand's
minister, in a letter of August 1, says that the king pardoned Ruffo because
he yielded to Nelson's wise declarations.[302] After receiving a
communication from Ruffo, Micheroux informed the rebels, no doubt in
good faith, that Nelson had consented to the capitulation. The evacuation
was arranged, and the rebels embarked that evening in the belief that they
would be allowed to proceed to Toulon. Nelson prevented the transports
from leaving the harbour. The king disallowed the capitulation, and put to
death a large number of the rebels.
Such are the main outlines of this extremely complicated affair. It is certain
that Ruffo exceeded his authority in arranging the capitulation, and that
Nelson knew and carried out the king's wishes. He evidently acted with full
authority; he neither changed his opinion as regards the capitulation nor did
republicans, were besieged by the royalists, by Foote, and by the Russian
and Turkish allies. Both sides expected the arrival of the French fleet, and
Ruffo was anxious to gain speedy possession of the forts. An armistice was
arranged, and on the 19th a capitulation of the forts Dell' Uovo and Nuovo
was agreed upon, was signed by Ruffo, Foote, and the Russian and Turkish
commanders, and was ratified by the French commandant of St. Elmo.
The capitulation provided that the rebels should surrender the two forts and
evacuate them unharmed as soon as transports should be ready to convey to
Toulon such of them as desired to depart. On the 21st Nelson, after an
interview with the king, sailed from Palermo for Naples. As soon as he
arrived, on the 24th, he signalled to annul the armistice, and sent word to
Ruffo that he disallowed the capitulation. The next day he sent Ruffo a
declaration that he should not allow the rebels to embark; they must
surrender to the king's mercy, and he bade Ruffo inform them of his
decision. Ruffo refused, and remonstrated in person with Nelson, who gave
him a written "opinion" that the capitulation could not be carried out
without the king's approbation. The cardinal then sent the rebels Nelson's
declaration. On the 26th Nelson promised him that he would not break the
armistice and, further, sent him word that he would not oppose the
embarkation of the rebels. Did not Ruffo, anxious for British help in case
the French and the rebels should renew hostilities, yield to Nelson's opinion
that the question of the capitulation should be reserved for the king? We
have no absolute proof that this was so, but Sir John Acton, Ferdinand's
minister, in a letter of August 1, says that the king pardoned Ruffo because
he yielded to Nelson's wise declarations.[302] After receiving a
communication from Ruffo, Micheroux informed the rebels, no doubt in
good faith, that Nelson had consented to the capitulation. The evacuation
was arranged, and the rebels embarked that evening in the belief that they
would be allowed to proceed to Toulon. Nelson prevented the transports
from leaving the harbour. The king disallowed the capitulation, and put to
death a large number of the rebels.
Such are the main outlines of this extremely complicated affair. It is certain
that Ruffo exceeded his authority in arranging the capitulation, and that
Nelson knew and carried out the king's wishes. He evidently acted with full
authority; he neither changed his opinion as regards the capitulation nor did
Page 445
he deceive either Ruffo or the rebels. That the rebels were deceived is
certain, but for that Ruffo was responsible, though he may only have been
guilty of gross carelessness in not making Micheroux understand the
position of affairs. But Nelson's conduct was not creditable. The
capitulation was not less valid because Ruffo acted disobediently in
arranging it, and it was signed by a British captain. Nelson was justified in
suspending its execution until King Ferdinand's will was declared; but, as
the rebels could not then be restored to the position they held before it was
made, he was bound to use every effort to induce the king not to break it,
and to allow the rebels to proceed to Toulon. Unfortunately he had imbibed
the vengeful spirit of the Neapolitan court. Blinded by the blandishments of
his mistress and the flattery of the court, he forgot the conduct which
became a British admiral and the representative of his own sovereign, and
pandered to the cruel desires of the Bourbon king and queen for vengeance
on those who had revolted against their detestable government.[303]
With the fate of one Neapolitan rebel Nelson was immediately concerned.
Francesco Caracciolo, formerly commander of the royal fleet, had joined
the republicans, taken command of their vessels, and fired on his king's
frigate, the Minerva. He escaped from Naples on June 17, and so was not
included in the capitulation; he was arrested, and on Nelson's repeated
request was handed over to him by Ruffo on the 29th. Nelson immediately
ordered the captain of the Minerva and other royal officers to try him by
court-martial on board his own flagship, the Foudroyant. Caracciolo was
found guilty of treason, and sentenced to death with ignominy. Nelson
ordered that he should be hanged that same evening from the yard-arm of
the Minerva, which was accordingly done. He was forty-seven at the time
of his death. His treason was patent, and its penalty inevitable. Although
Nelson does not appear to have received any written commission from
Ferdinand, he evidently had a right to order the court-martial and to enforce
its sentence,[304] but the eagerness with which he acted and the indecent
haste of the execution are lamentable illustrations of his animosity. The
garrison of St. Elmo surrendered on terms, and the royal power was re-
established in Naples. The French fleet was still in the Mediterranean.
Large as it was, it did nothing of importance, save effecting a junction with
the fleet of Spain. The combined fleets reached Brest in September,
outstripping the pursuit of the British under Lord Keith, who succeeded St.
certain, but for that Ruffo was responsible, though he may only have been
guilty of gross carelessness in not making Micheroux understand the
position of affairs. But Nelson's conduct was not creditable. The
capitulation was not less valid because Ruffo acted disobediently in
arranging it, and it was signed by a British captain. Nelson was justified in
suspending its execution until King Ferdinand's will was declared; but, as
the rebels could not then be restored to the position they held before it was
made, he was bound to use every effort to induce the king not to break it,
and to allow the rebels to proceed to Toulon. Unfortunately he had imbibed
the vengeful spirit of the Neapolitan court. Blinded by the blandishments of
his mistress and the flattery of the court, he forgot the conduct which
became a British admiral and the representative of his own sovereign, and
pandered to the cruel desires of the Bourbon king and queen for vengeance
on those who had revolted against their detestable government.[303]
With the fate of one Neapolitan rebel Nelson was immediately concerned.
Francesco Caracciolo, formerly commander of the royal fleet, had joined
the republicans, taken command of their vessels, and fired on his king's
frigate, the Minerva. He escaped from Naples on June 17, and so was not
included in the capitulation; he was arrested, and on Nelson's repeated
request was handed over to him by Ruffo on the 29th. Nelson immediately
ordered the captain of the Minerva and other royal officers to try him by
court-martial on board his own flagship, the Foudroyant. Caracciolo was
found guilty of treason, and sentenced to death with ignominy. Nelson
ordered that he should be hanged that same evening from the yard-arm of
the Minerva, which was accordingly done. He was forty-seven at the time
of his death. His treason was patent, and its penalty inevitable. Although
Nelson does not appear to have received any written commission from
Ferdinand, he evidently had a right to order the court-martial and to enforce
its sentence,[304] but the eagerness with which he acted and the indecent
haste of the execution are lamentable illustrations of his animosity. The
garrison of St. Elmo surrendered on terms, and the royal power was re-
established in Naples. The French fleet was still in the Mediterranean.
Large as it was, it did nothing of importance, save effecting a junction with
the fleet of Spain. The combined fleets reached Brest in September,
outstripping the pursuit of the British under Lord Keith, who succeeded St.
Page 446
Vincent as commander-in-chief. In April, 1800, St. Vincent took command
of the channel fleet and instituted a strict blockade of Brest.
On June 22, 1799, Pitt made a convention with Russia
for a joint invasion of Holland. On the part of England EXPEDITION TO
the principal object was the capture of the Dutch fleet in THE HELDER.
the Texel and the destruction of the naval depôt, which would deprive
France of maritime aid from Holland, while both the allied powers hoped to
follow up the Austrian successes by threatening the French frontier. It was
expected that the Orange party would be strong enough to give the invaders
effectual help and that the Dutch would rise against the French. The tsar
promised 17,500 men, and England agreed to send 13,000, to pay the tsar
£88,000 for first expenses, and a subsidy of £44,000 a month, and to
provide transports and horses. On August 27 a British force of 10,000 men
under Sir Ralph Abercromby landed at the Helder, a point by no means
suited for an invasion, which was chosen on account of its proximity to the
Dutch fleet. Abercromby repulsed an attack of the Dutch and threw open
the Texel to the British ships, under Admiral Mitchell. The Dutch seamen,
who were attached to the house of Orange, forced their officers to hoist the
prince's flag, and the fleet, consisting of thirteen ships carrying from sixty-
four to forty-four guns and other smaller vessels, surrendered, and was
carried to Yarmouth. The arrival of the Russians was delayed, and the
republicans had time to make preparations for defence. Brune, a French
general, took command of the combined French and Dutch forces, and
failing in an attempt on the British position, established his quarters before
Alkmaar.
On September 12 the first division of the Russians arrived, and
reinforcements from England brought up the number of the combined army
to about 30,000 men. The Duke of York was ostensibly in command, but the
cabinet ordered that all operations should be directed by a standing council
of war. A general advance was attempted on the 18th-19th. It was not well
planned, and failed owing chiefly to the undisciplined impetuosity of the
Russians on the right wing. The British lost over 1,000 killed and wounded,
the Russians about 2,500, but the allies took some 3,000 prisoners, mostly
Dutch. Heavy rains set in; the republicans broke up the roads and laid the
country in front of the allies under water. The invaders, cooped up in a
sandy corner of land, were in a sorry plight. A fresh advance was attempted
of the channel fleet and instituted a strict blockade of Brest.
On June 22, 1799, Pitt made a convention with Russia
for a joint invasion of Holland. On the part of England EXPEDITION TO
the principal object was the capture of the Dutch fleet in THE HELDER.
the Texel and the destruction of the naval depôt, which would deprive
France of maritime aid from Holland, while both the allied powers hoped to
follow up the Austrian successes by threatening the French frontier. It was
expected that the Orange party would be strong enough to give the invaders
effectual help and that the Dutch would rise against the French. The tsar
promised 17,500 men, and England agreed to send 13,000, to pay the tsar
£88,000 for first expenses, and a subsidy of £44,000 a month, and to
provide transports and horses. On August 27 a British force of 10,000 men
under Sir Ralph Abercromby landed at the Helder, a point by no means
suited for an invasion, which was chosen on account of its proximity to the
Dutch fleet. Abercromby repulsed an attack of the Dutch and threw open
the Texel to the British ships, under Admiral Mitchell. The Dutch seamen,
who were attached to the house of Orange, forced their officers to hoist the
prince's flag, and the fleet, consisting of thirteen ships carrying from sixty-
four to forty-four guns and other smaller vessels, surrendered, and was
carried to Yarmouth. The arrival of the Russians was delayed, and the
republicans had time to make preparations for defence. Brune, a French
general, took command of the combined French and Dutch forces, and
failing in an attempt on the British position, established his quarters before
Alkmaar.
On September 12 the first division of the Russians arrived, and
reinforcements from England brought up the number of the combined army
to about 30,000 men. The Duke of York was ostensibly in command, but the
cabinet ordered that all operations should be directed by a standing council
of war. A general advance was attempted on the 18th-19th. It was not well
planned, and failed owing chiefly to the undisciplined impetuosity of the
Russians on the right wing. The British lost over 1,000 killed and wounded,
the Russians about 2,500, but the allies took some 3,000 prisoners, mostly
Dutch. Heavy rains set in; the republicans broke up the roads and laid the
country in front of the allies under water. The invaders, cooped up in a
sandy corner of land, were in a sorry plight. A fresh advance was attempted
Page 447
on October 2; there was some heavy fighting in which General, afterwards
Sir John, Moore and his brigade highly distinguished themselves, and
Moore was twice wounded. It was a drawn battle; and Brune fell back on
the formidable line of Beverwyk. The duke attacked him on the 6th, and
failed to drive him from his position. It became evident that the allies would
not succeed in forcing their way out of the small district they occupied, and
that the hopes entertained in England of assistance from the Dutch were
fallacious, for the people showed no sign of deserting the French alliance.
Accordingly, on the 18th, the duke capitulated; it was agreed that the allies
should re-embark unmolested and that England should restore 8,000 French
and Dutch prisoners. The British troops returned home and the Russians
were assigned winter-quarters in the Channel islands. Dearly as this ill-
planned expedition cost England, both in men and money, the country was
consoled for its failure by the acquisition of the Dutch fleet, which passed
into the king's service in virtue of a convention with the Prince of Orange.
About the same time came news of the surrender of the rich Dutch colony
of Surinam to Admiral Lord Hugh Seymour.
During the winter the coalition was broken up by the
defection of Russia. Paul was angered by the policy of PAUL DESERTS
THE COALITION.
Austria which, under Thugut's direction, was dictated by
anxiety for the acquisition of Piedmont; he was irritated by the support
Thugut received from the English government which, so far as the
continental war was concerned, based its hopes on Austrian success, and he
was disgusted by the failure of his arms. He considered that his troops were
sacrificed in Switzerland to Austrian selfishness, that they were not well
treated in the expedition to the Helder, and, which seems to some extent
true, that they were shabbily provided for in the Channel islands.[305] He
recalled his troops and withdrew from the coalition. His political attitude
exhibited "daily tergiversation," the result of palace intrigues.[306] The hope
of gaining Malta for himself and the knights still allured him, and on
December 31, he assumed the grandmastership of the order. He kept his
fleet in the Mediterranean to assist in the blockade of Valetta, in the hope of
making other acquisitions, and to support the King of Naples. Yet his
unsettled mind sometimes veered towards France; the "virtues of
Bonaparte" would suddenly become his chief topic of conversation and
"everything would be in suspense" as regards his policy.[307] Bonaparte had
Sir John, Moore and his brigade highly distinguished themselves, and
Moore was twice wounded. It was a drawn battle; and Brune fell back on
the formidable line of Beverwyk. The duke attacked him on the 6th, and
failed to drive him from his position. It became evident that the allies would
not succeed in forcing their way out of the small district they occupied, and
that the hopes entertained in England of assistance from the Dutch were
fallacious, for the people showed no sign of deserting the French alliance.
Accordingly, on the 18th, the duke capitulated; it was agreed that the allies
should re-embark unmolested and that England should restore 8,000 French
and Dutch prisoners. The British troops returned home and the Russians
were assigned winter-quarters in the Channel islands. Dearly as this ill-
planned expedition cost England, both in men and money, the country was
consoled for its failure by the acquisition of the Dutch fleet, which passed
into the king's service in virtue of a convention with the Prince of Orange.
About the same time came news of the surrender of the rich Dutch colony
of Surinam to Admiral Lord Hugh Seymour.
During the winter the coalition was broken up by the
defection of Russia. Paul was angered by the policy of PAUL DESERTS
THE COALITION.
Austria which, under Thugut's direction, was dictated by
anxiety for the acquisition of Piedmont; he was irritated by the support
Thugut received from the English government which, so far as the
continental war was concerned, based its hopes on Austrian success, and he
was disgusted by the failure of his arms. He considered that his troops were
sacrificed in Switzerland to Austrian selfishness, that they were not well
treated in the expedition to the Helder, and, which seems to some extent
true, that they were shabbily provided for in the Channel islands.[305] He
recalled his troops and withdrew from the coalition. His political attitude
exhibited "daily tergiversation," the result of palace intrigues.[306] The hope
of gaining Malta for himself and the knights still allured him, and on
December 31, he assumed the grandmastership of the order. He kept his
fleet in the Mediterranean to assist in the blockade of Valetta, in the hope of
making other acquisitions, and to support the King of Naples. Yet his
unsettled mind sometimes veered towards France; the "virtues of
Bonaparte" would suddenly become his chief topic of conversation and
"everything would be in suspense" as regards his policy.[307] Bonaparte had
Page 448
returned to France, and his return was to decide the issue of the war on the
continent, though that result could not be foreseen immediately. From the
newspapers sent him by Sidney Smith he learnt in Egypt the news of the
early successes of the Austrians and the distracted state of France. The
government was unpopular, the taxes were heavy, the revenues fell short of
the expenditure, commerce was destroyed, the royalists were in arms in the
north-west, and brigandage was rife. He left his army in the charge of
Kléber, embarked on August 23, evaded the British cruisers, and landed at
Fréjus on October 9. He joined a party which was plotting against the
directory. On November 9 and 10 (18th and 19th Brumaire) he overthrew
not only the directory, which was ready to fall, but the legislature also. A
provisional government was set up, and on December 13 a new constitution
was published. Bonaparte was declared first consul for ten years with
powers which, under a thin disguise, made him virtually master of France.
Kléber found his resources failing, no help came to him, for England was
supreme in the Mediterranean, and the Turks threatened to attack him. With
the assistance of Sidney Smith, who acted on his own responsibility, he
arranged a capitulation with the grand-vizier. The convention of El Arish,
signed on January 24, 1800, provided that the French should evacuate
Egypt and return home unmolested, and it contained no stipulation that they
should not serve again during the war. The English ministers, aware that
Kléber was in straits, had already ordered Keith not to agree to any terms
short of the surrender of the French troops as prisoners of war. Keith
informed Smith of this order, but his letter did not reach him until after the
convention was signed. On receiving it, Smith sent word to Kléber that his
government refused to sanction the convention. When the ministers heard
that Smith had assented to it, they generously resolved not to disavow the
act of a British officer, and ordered that the convention should be
recognised. By that time, however, the French had defeated the Turks at
Heliopolis and were determined to make further efforts to hold the country.
Bonaparte lost no time in setting about the pacification
of civil strife in France. In December, 1799, Pitt, BONAPARTE'S
LETTER.
untaught by experience, was planning an expedition to
co-operate with the royalists in La Vendée and Brittany, with the object of
reducing Brest, compelling the surrender of the French fleet, which was to
be held in the name of Louis XVIII. (the Count of Provence), and taking the
continent, though that result could not be foreseen immediately. From the
newspapers sent him by Sidney Smith he learnt in Egypt the news of the
early successes of the Austrians and the distracted state of France. The
government was unpopular, the taxes were heavy, the revenues fell short of
the expenditure, commerce was destroyed, the royalists were in arms in the
north-west, and brigandage was rife. He left his army in the charge of
Kléber, embarked on August 23, evaded the British cruisers, and landed at
Fréjus on October 9. He joined a party which was plotting against the
directory. On November 9 and 10 (18th and 19th Brumaire) he overthrew
not only the directory, which was ready to fall, but the legislature also. A
provisional government was set up, and on December 13 a new constitution
was published. Bonaparte was declared first consul for ten years with
powers which, under a thin disguise, made him virtually master of France.
Kléber found his resources failing, no help came to him, for England was
supreme in the Mediterranean, and the Turks threatened to attack him. With
the assistance of Sidney Smith, who acted on his own responsibility, he
arranged a capitulation with the grand-vizier. The convention of El Arish,
signed on January 24, 1800, provided that the French should evacuate
Egypt and return home unmolested, and it contained no stipulation that they
should not serve again during the war. The English ministers, aware that
Kléber was in straits, had already ordered Keith not to agree to any terms
short of the surrender of the French troops as prisoners of war. Keith
informed Smith of this order, but his letter did not reach him until after the
convention was signed. On receiving it, Smith sent word to Kléber that his
government refused to sanction the convention. When the ministers heard
that Smith had assented to it, they generously resolved not to disavow the
act of a British officer, and ordered that the convention should be
recognised. By that time, however, the French had defeated the Turks at
Heliopolis and were determined to make further efforts to hold the country.
Bonaparte lost no time in setting about the pacification
of civil strife in France. In December, 1799, Pitt, BONAPARTE'S
LETTER.
untaught by experience, was planning an expedition to
co-operate with the royalists in La Vendée and Brittany, with the object of
reducing Brest, compelling the surrender of the French fleet, which was to
be held in the name of Louis XVIII. (the Count of Provence), and taking the
Page 449
Spanish fleet as prize. Bonaparte's skilful policy pacified the disturbed
districts, and foiled the hopes of the royalist conspirators. Pitt was forced to
postpone his scheme and after a time abandoned it. While he was engaged
on it, Bonaparte sent a letter addressed to the king personally, in which he
declared his desire for peace. In later days he said that his object was
merely to increase his popularity; for the French were weary of war. In this
case he probably spoke the truth. Be this as it may, he certainly would not
have agreed to such terms as would have given to England and to Europe
the security for which England was fighting. His letter was answered by
Grenville, who said that the king could not enter into negotiations unless he
had a satisfactory assurance that France would abandon the system of
aggression, that while he did not prescribe the form of government she
should adopt, no assurance would be so satisfactory as the restoration of the
monarchy, and that her present government afforded no evidence either of a
change of system or of stability. George thought this letter "much too
strong," but suggested no alteration. Talleyrand, then French minister of
foreign affairs, wrote in favour of a negotiation between the two powers,
and was told by Grenville that if the king could see the security of his own
dominions and of Europe assured, he would gladly negotiate "in concert
with his allies". The position taken by the ministers was sound and
honourable, but the tone of their answer to Bonaparte was unwise, for it
played his game by uniting the French in a determination to resist foreign
dictation with respect to their domestic affairs.
An address to the crown on the French overtures was moved in the lords by
Grenville, and was carried by 92 votes to 6. In the commons it was
supported by George Canning, already one of the ablest speakers on the
government side, and by Pitt who, in one of his finest speeches, reviewed
the relations of France with other states from 1792 onwards, as proving that
the proposed negotiations would have been illusory; he urged that the
exhausted state of France held out hope of a permanent peace, and declared
that as a lover of peace he would not sacrifice it by grasping at a shadow.
The address was opposed by Fox, who returned to parliament for the
occasion. He effectively ridiculed Pitt's oft-repeated assurances that France
was exhausted; but his main contention, that if France as a republic had
been aggressive, so she had been when under Louis XIV., that she had not
acted worse than the allies of Great Britain, and that there was therefore no
districts, and foiled the hopes of the royalist conspirators. Pitt was forced to
postpone his scheme and after a time abandoned it. While he was engaged
on it, Bonaparte sent a letter addressed to the king personally, in which he
declared his desire for peace. In later days he said that his object was
merely to increase his popularity; for the French were weary of war. In this
case he probably spoke the truth. Be this as it may, he certainly would not
have agreed to such terms as would have given to England and to Europe
the security for which England was fighting. His letter was answered by
Grenville, who said that the king could not enter into negotiations unless he
had a satisfactory assurance that France would abandon the system of
aggression, that while he did not prescribe the form of government she
should adopt, no assurance would be so satisfactory as the restoration of the
monarchy, and that her present government afforded no evidence either of a
change of system or of stability. George thought this letter "much too
strong," but suggested no alteration. Talleyrand, then French minister of
foreign affairs, wrote in favour of a negotiation between the two powers,
and was told by Grenville that if the king could see the security of his own
dominions and of Europe assured, he would gladly negotiate "in concert
with his allies". The position taken by the ministers was sound and
honourable, but the tone of their answer to Bonaparte was unwise, for it
played his game by uniting the French in a determination to resist foreign
dictation with respect to their domestic affairs.
An address to the crown on the French overtures was moved in the lords by
Grenville, and was carried by 92 votes to 6. In the commons it was
supported by George Canning, already one of the ablest speakers on the
government side, and by Pitt who, in one of his finest speeches, reviewed
the relations of France with other states from 1792 onwards, as proving that
the proposed negotiations would have been illusory; he urged that the
exhausted state of France held out hope of a permanent peace, and declared
that as a lover of peace he would not sacrifice it by grasping at a shadow.
The address was opposed by Fox, who returned to parliament for the
occasion. He effectively ridiculed Pitt's oft-repeated assurances that France
was exhausted; but his main contention, that if France as a republic had
been aggressive, so she had been when under Louis XIV., that she had not
acted worse than the allies of Great Britain, and that there was therefore no
Page 450
reason to refuse to negotiate with her, seems academic and feeble. The
opposition mustered in full strength, but was defeated by 265 to 64. The
divisions prove that the position of the government was unimpaired in
parliament.
In the country generally the patriotic spirit aroused by the military
aggressions of France and the achievements of the British navy was strong,
and revolutionary principles were seldom publicly professed. Some abortive
projects of Irish conspirators in 1798 for co-operating with the
corresponding society led to the appointment of a committee of the
commons, which reported on the revolutionary societies in March, 1799.
Bills were passed for suppressing these societies and restricting debating
societies, and for compelling printers to obtain certificates and to affix their
names to all matter that they printed. In evident connexion with these
measures was the law against combinations of workmen enacted in this, and
amended in the next session, to which reference has already been made (p.
277); though probably political in intention, it had an oppressive effect on
the condition of the working classes. Only three trials for sedition took
place during the year, one of them of the printer and publisher, and another
of the author of the same libel, a pamphlet by Gilbert Wakefield in answer
to one on the government side. Wakefield, who had taken deacon's orders
and afterwards left the Church, was a distinguished scholar and a friend of
Fox. He was prosecuted by Scott, the attorney-general, and sentenced to
two years' imprisonment, and to find sureties for his future behaviour. The
severity of the sentence excited the indignation of the opposition, and
£5,000 was subscribed for him. In July Scott was appointed chief-justice of
the common pleas, and received a peerage as Lord Eldon.
The burdens of the country were increasing. In
December, 1798, Pitt announced that the supplies THE INCOME
TAX.
exceeded the ordinary revenue by £23,000,000. He
repeated the principle which he enunciated when proposing the triple
assessment, that loans should not exceed such amount as could be defrayed
within a limited time by temporary taxation. The triple assessment had
failed, though the deficiency had been supplied by voluntary contributions.
He proposed to substitute an income tax of 2s. in the pound on all incomes
of and above £200, and of graduated amounts between £60 and £200. The
produce, he calculated, would be at least £10,000,000 a year. The
opposition mustered in full strength, but was defeated by 265 to 64. The
divisions prove that the position of the government was unimpaired in
parliament.
In the country generally the patriotic spirit aroused by the military
aggressions of France and the achievements of the British navy was strong,
and revolutionary principles were seldom publicly professed. Some abortive
projects of Irish conspirators in 1798 for co-operating with the
corresponding society led to the appointment of a committee of the
commons, which reported on the revolutionary societies in March, 1799.
Bills were passed for suppressing these societies and restricting debating
societies, and for compelling printers to obtain certificates and to affix their
names to all matter that they printed. In evident connexion with these
measures was the law against combinations of workmen enacted in this, and
amended in the next session, to which reference has already been made (p.
277); though probably political in intention, it had an oppressive effect on
the condition of the working classes. Only three trials for sedition took
place during the year, one of them of the printer and publisher, and another
of the author of the same libel, a pamphlet by Gilbert Wakefield in answer
to one on the government side. Wakefield, who had taken deacon's orders
and afterwards left the Church, was a distinguished scholar and a friend of
Fox. He was prosecuted by Scott, the attorney-general, and sentenced to
two years' imprisonment, and to find sureties for his future behaviour. The
severity of the sentence excited the indignation of the opposition, and
£5,000 was subscribed for him. In July Scott was appointed chief-justice of
the common pleas, and received a peerage as Lord Eldon.
The burdens of the country were increasing. In
December, 1798, Pitt announced that the supplies THE INCOME
TAX.
exceeded the ordinary revenue by £23,000,000. He
repeated the principle which he enunciated when proposing the triple
assessment, that loans should not exceed such amount as could be defrayed
within a limited time by temporary taxation. The triple assessment had
failed, though the deficiency had been supplied by voluntary contributions.
He proposed to substitute an income tax of 2s. in the pound on all incomes
of and above £200, and of graduated amounts between £60 and £200. The
produce, he calculated, would be at least £10,000,000 a year. The
Page 451
opposition, led by Tierney, objected to the tax as inquisitorial, as a grievous
confiscation, and as unjust, in that it would fall equally on precarious and
on settled incomes, on the produce of industry and on the wealth of the idle.
It was carried in the lords without a division, and in the commons by a large
majority, and came into operation on April 5, 1799. During the year 1799
Pitt raised £15,000,000 by loan, including £3,000,000 for Ireland, charging
the income tax with the interest and redemption of £11,000,000. The loan
was raised in the 3 per cents; it created £175 debt for each £100 money, and
the rate was therefore 5¼ per cent. In his next budget, for 1800, Pitt
reported the supplies for the year at £39,500,000. The produce of the
income tax for the first year was disappointing, and for the coming year he
reckoned it only at £7,000,000. In return for a renewal of its charter the
bank of England granted a loan of £3,000,000, without interest, for six
years, and Pitt further borrowed £20,500,000, including £2,000,000 for
Ireland. The income tax was charged with £13,500,000 of the British loan,
and additions were made to the taxes on tea and spirits. Public credit was
good and commerce and manufactures rapidly increasing, and Pitt obtained
the loan at an average rate of not quite 4¾ per cent.
But while commerce was flourishing the poor were suffering terribly from
scarcity. The spring and summer of 1799 were cold and wet, and the harvest
was wretched. During the twelve months which succeeded September 1,
1799, the average price of wheat rose to 106s. a quarter. Parliament held
several debates on the scarcity. Whitbread for the second time brought in a
bill for the regulation of the wages of agricultural labourers; Pitt opposed it
on sound economic grounds and it was again rejected. During the spring of
1800 parliament made some proposals for the husbanding of wheat and for
bounties on importation, but, as we shall see later, the scarcity grew more
grievous. The distress of the poor and the burden of taxation strengthened
the desire for peace, and a large meeting of London citizens petitioned
parliament for negotiations with France. In May the king was shot at in
Drury Lane theatre. The incident had no political significance; his assailant,
Hadfield, a discharged soldier, was insane and was sent to Bedlam.
At the beginning of 1800 Pitt's hopes were mainly founded on his scheme
of co-operation with the French royalists, which was rendered abortive by
Bonaparte's measures of pacification, and on the arms of Austria. Thugut
knew that from Bonaparte the emperor could not expect to gain better terms
confiscation, and as unjust, in that it would fall equally on precarious and
on settled incomes, on the produce of industry and on the wealth of the idle.
It was carried in the lords without a division, and in the commons by a large
majority, and came into operation on April 5, 1799. During the year 1799
Pitt raised £15,000,000 by loan, including £3,000,000 for Ireland, charging
the income tax with the interest and redemption of £11,000,000. The loan
was raised in the 3 per cents; it created £175 debt for each £100 money, and
the rate was therefore 5¼ per cent. In his next budget, for 1800, Pitt
reported the supplies for the year at £39,500,000. The produce of the
income tax for the first year was disappointing, and for the coming year he
reckoned it only at £7,000,000. In return for a renewal of its charter the
bank of England granted a loan of £3,000,000, without interest, for six
years, and Pitt further borrowed £20,500,000, including £2,000,000 for
Ireland. The income tax was charged with £13,500,000 of the British loan,
and additions were made to the taxes on tea and spirits. Public credit was
good and commerce and manufactures rapidly increasing, and Pitt obtained
the loan at an average rate of not quite 4¾ per cent.
But while commerce was flourishing the poor were suffering terribly from
scarcity. The spring and summer of 1799 were cold and wet, and the harvest
was wretched. During the twelve months which succeeded September 1,
1799, the average price of wheat rose to 106s. a quarter. Parliament held
several debates on the scarcity. Whitbread for the second time brought in a
bill for the regulation of the wages of agricultural labourers; Pitt opposed it
on sound economic grounds and it was again rejected. During the spring of
1800 parliament made some proposals for the husbanding of wheat and for
bounties on importation, but, as we shall see later, the scarcity grew more
grievous. The distress of the poor and the burden of taxation strengthened
the desire for peace, and a large meeting of London citizens petitioned
parliament for negotiations with France. In May the king was shot at in
Drury Lane theatre. The incident had no political significance; his assailant,
Hadfield, a discharged soldier, was insane and was sent to Bedlam.
At the beginning of 1800 Pitt's hopes were mainly founded on his scheme
of co-operation with the French royalists, which was rendered abortive by
Bonaparte's measures of pacification, and on the arms of Austria. Thugut
knew that from Bonaparte the emperor could not expect to gain better terms
Page 452
than those of the treaty of Campo Formio, and held that the best chance of
forwarding Austrian interests lay in prosecuting the war in alliance with
England. Austria, however, could not move without English money. The
English government promised a loan of £2,000,000 and made subsidiary
treaties with the Elector of Bavaria, the Duke of Würtemberg, and the
Elector of Mainz for contingents to serve with the Austrian armies. In April
the Austrians under Melas defeated the French in the mountain passes to the
west of Genoa, shut up the left wing of their army within the lines of
Genoa, and forced the right wing under Suchet across the Var. Their
advance was stayed by Masséna's defence of Genoa. His troops suffered
terribly from famine; they were shut in on land by the Austrians and
bombarded from the sea by British ships. Meanwhile Bonaparte was
preparing to attack the Austrians in northern Italy as soon as their chief
army in the Black Forest country under Kray was effectually held in check
by the French army of the Rhine, so as to enable the French to use the Swiss
passes. If Masséna could detain the Austrians before Genoa until Bonaparte
descended into Italy, they might then be taken in the rear. A promise had
been made that a British force would co-operate with the Austrians and
excite the royalists of southern France to insurrection. If such a force had
landed on the rear of the French, Suchet's corps must have been destroyed,
Genoa would probably have fallen, and the campaign might have had a
different event. But the ministers failed to see the supreme importance of
supporting the Austrians. They hesitated, and withdrew troops which should
have been sent to Minorca to form an army to co-operate with Melas, in
order to employ them in Portugal. There, however, they were not wanted,
for Portugal was not attacked. The great opportunity was lost. Sir Ralph
Abercromby with 5,000 men sailed from Minorca for Genoa on June 22,
but then it was too late.
In April Moreau defeated Kray in a series of
engagements and forced him to retire to Ulm. Bonaparte, BATTLE OF
MARENGO.
who had formed "an army of reserve" at Dijon, crossed
the Great St. Bernard in May with 41,000 men, reached Aosta on the 22nd,
and entered Milan on June 2. On the 4th Masséna capitulated, and led his
half-starved force out of Genoa with the honours of war. It had done its
work by keeping the Austrians before the city. The successes of Moreau
secured Switzerland and enabled Bonaparte to summon other French
forwarding Austrian interests lay in prosecuting the war in alliance with
England. Austria, however, could not move without English money. The
English government promised a loan of £2,000,000 and made subsidiary
treaties with the Elector of Bavaria, the Duke of Würtemberg, and the
Elector of Mainz for contingents to serve with the Austrian armies. In April
the Austrians under Melas defeated the French in the mountain passes to the
west of Genoa, shut up the left wing of their army within the lines of
Genoa, and forced the right wing under Suchet across the Var. Their
advance was stayed by Masséna's defence of Genoa. His troops suffered
terribly from famine; they were shut in on land by the Austrians and
bombarded from the sea by British ships. Meanwhile Bonaparte was
preparing to attack the Austrians in northern Italy as soon as their chief
army in the Black Forest country under Kray was effectually held in check
by the French army of the Rhine, so as to enable the French to use the Swiss
passes. If Masséna could detain the Austrians before Genoa until Bonaparte
descended into Italy, they might then be taken in the rear. A promise had
been made that a British force would co-operate with the Austrians and
excite the royalists of southern France to insurrection. If such a force had
landed on the rear of the French, Suchet's corps must have been destroyed,
Genoa would probably have fallen, and the campaign might have had a
different event. But the ministers failed to see the supreme importance of
supporting the Austrians. They hesitated, and withdrew troops which should
have been sent to Minorca to form an army to co-operate with Melas, in
order to employ them in Portugal. There, however, they were not wanted,
for Portugal was not attacked. The great opportunity was lost. Sir Ralph
Abercromby with 5,000 men sailed from Minorca for Genoa on June 22,
but then it was too late.
In April Moreau defeated Kray in a series of
engagements and forced him to retire to Ulm. Bonaparte, BATTLE OF
MARENGO.
who had formed "an army of reserve" at Dijon, crossed
the Great St. Bernard in May with 41,000 men, reached Aosta on the 22nd,
and entered Milan on June 2. On the 4th Masséna capitulated, and led his
half-starved force out of Genoa with the honours of war. It had done its
work by keeping the Austrians before the city. The successes of Moreau
secured Switzerland and enabled Bonaparte to summon other French
Page 453
divisions, partly composed of detachments from Moreau's army, to enter
Italy by the passes of the Simplon and the St. Gothard. Their appearance
upset the plans which Melas was making for defence. He met Bonaparte at
Marengo on the 14th, and after a hard-fought battle was totally defeated. On
the 16th he signed a convention at Alessandria, which left the French
masters of the country as far as the Oglio. Hostilities in Germany were
suspended on July 9. Bonaparte returned to Paris in triumph after an
absence of less than two months. On June 20, before the news of Marengo
reached Vienna, Minto signed a convention with Austria which guaranteed
the loan to the emperor, and stipulated that neither power should make
peace without the consent of the other. Pitt's hopes were defeated; for the
time Austria was completely paralysed. The opposition reproached the
government with the failure of its plans. The country, it was urged, desired
peace; another defeat would reduce Austria to impotence, and France,
disengaged from all continental war, would direct her whole strength
against England. Parliament remained steadfast in its support of the
government.
Bonaparte, anxious to detach Austria from her alliance with England,
offered peace to the emperor, who sent an envoy to Paris to find out what
terms he proposed. It was a dangerous move, for the English ministers
might have interpreted the mission as a negotiation for a separate peace,
contrary to the convention of June 20; and Thugut feared that England
might take offence and leave Austria to Bonaparte's mercy. The emperor's
envoy was in fact persuaded by Talleyrand to sign articles of peace,
generally on the basis of the treaty of Campo Formio. The emperor
disavowed his unauthorised action. Austria's interests would be best served
by a general peace, arranged at a European congress, at which Great Britain
should be represented. This was in accordance with the views of the British
government, and on August 9 Minto informed the emperor that his court
desired to take part in negotiations for a general peace. The emperor
proposed a congress at Lunéville in which England should be invited to
take part. Bonaparte's design of disuniting Austria from England and
treating separately with the emperor was foiled; he could not reject the
emperor's proposal, for France was eager for peace. Pitt and Grenville
believed that negotiations were certain, and Thomas Grenville was chosen
to attend the congress.
Italy by the passes of the Simplon and the St. Gothard. Their appearance
upset the plans which Melas was making for defence. He met Bonaparte at
Marengo on the 14th, and after a hard-fought battle was totally defeated. On
the 16th he signed a convention at Alessandria, which left the French
masters of the country as far as the Oglio. Hostilities in Germany were
suspended on July 9. Bonaparte returned to Paris in triumph after an
absence of less than two months. On June 20, before the news of Marengo
reached Vienna, Minto signed a convention with Austria which guaranteed
the loan to the emperor, and stipulated that neither power should make
peace without the consent of the other. Pitt's hopes were defeated; for the
time Austria was completely paralysed. The opposition reproached the
government with the failure of its plans. The country, it was urged, desired
peace; another defeat would reduce Austria to impotence, and France,
disengaged from all continental war, would direct her whole strength
against England. Parliament remained steadfast in its support of the
government.
Bonaparte, anxious to detach Austria from her alliance with England,
offered peace to the emperor, who sent an envoy to Paris to find out what
terms he proposed. It was a dangerous move, for the English ministers
might have interpreted the mission as a negotiation for a separate peace,
contrary to the convention of June 20; and Thugut feared that England
might take offence and leave Austria to Bonaparte's mercy. The emperor's
envoy was in fact persuaded by Talleyrand to sign articles of peace,
generally on the basis of the treaty of Campo Formio. The emperor
disavowed his unauthorised action. Austria's interests would be best served
by a general peace, arranged at a European congress, at which Great Britain
should be represented. This was in accordance with the views of the British
government, and on August 9 Minto informed the emperor that his court
desired to take part in negotiations for a general peace. The emperor
proposed a congress at Lunéville in which England should be invited to
take part. Bonaparte's design of disuniting Austria from England and
treating separately with the emperor was foiled; he could not reject the
emperor's proposal, for France was eager for peace. Pitt and Grenville
believed that negotiations were certain, and Thomas Grenville was chosen
to attend the congress.
Page 454
But Bonaparte's diplomatic resources were not exhausted. He declared that
if the continental armistice with Austria was to be prolonged, it must be
supplemented by a naval armistice with Great Britain, and in September he
employed an agent named Otto to negotiate this armistice and to propose a
separate peace between France and England. Bonaparte's project would
have enabled France to revictual Malta and to send supplies and
reinforcements to her army in Egypt, and would thus have robbed England
of the most powerful means of enforcing her demands in the proposed
congress. The king was for rejecting the project absolutely. The cabinet was
divided: Dundas and some others were for making a separate peace; Pitt
and Grenville were determined to maintain the alliance with Austria, to
insist that all negotiations should be for a general peace, and to refuse to
throw away the advantages which England derived from her naval
supremacy, but, as a speedy termination of the armistice would have been
fatal to Austria, they hoped to modify Bonaparte's demands. Pitt, of course,
had his way, and the government, after sending Bonaparte a counter-project
which he refused, finally rejected his proposal. Bonaparte was enraged and
stormed against England's usurpation of the lordship of the sea. Determined
to isolate her, he pressed the emperor's ministers to negotiate separately.
They foresaw that they might be forced to yield, but so long as they were
not assured of advantageous terms, decided to remain united to England; for
they were unwilling to stand alone, to lose the money of England, or to risk
a possible alliance between England and Prussia.
While the proposed naval armistice was still in debate,
the blockade of Valetta came to an end. England's AUSTRIAN
POWER
supremacy in the Mediterranean prevented France from CRUSHED.
relieving the garrison. The only two ships which
remained to France of the fleet defeated in Abukir bay were captured, one
of them by Nelson himself. The blockade was kept up until September 15,
when the place was surrendered after a siege of two years, and Malta passed
into the possession of Great Britain. About the same time the Dutch island
of Curaçao put itself under the king's protection. Earlier in the year Goree
was surrendered to a British squadron. Elsewhere British ships were less
profitably employed. Some attacks on the Breton coast did little damage to
the enemy, and brought no material advantage to England. The government
employed the troops which should have been sent in the spring to the
if the continental armistice with Austria was to be prolonged, it must be
supplemented by a naval armistice with Great Britain, and in September he
employed an agent named Otto to negotiate this armistice and to propose a
separate peace between France and England. Bonaparte's project would
have enabled France to revictual Malta and to send supplies and
reinforcements to her army in Egypt, and would thus have robbed England
of the most powerful means of enforcing her demands in the proposed
congress. The king was for rejecting the project absolutely. The cabinet was
divided: Dundas and some others were for making a separate peace; Pitt
and Grenville were determined to maintain the alliance with Austria, to
insist that all negotiations should be for a general peace, and to refuse to
throw away the advantages which England derived from her naval
supremacy, but, as a speedy termination of the armistice would have been
fatal to Austria, they hoped to modify Bonaparte's demands. Pitt, of course,
had his way, and the government, after sending Bonaparte a counter-project
which he refused, finally rejected his proposal. Bonaparte was enraged and
stormed against England's usurpation of the lordship of the sea. Determined
to isolate her, he pressed the emperor's ministers to negotiate separately.
They foresaw that they might be forced to yield, but so long as they were
not assured of advantageous terms, decided to remain united to England; for
they were unwilling to stand alone, to lose the money of England, or to risk
a possible alliance between England and Prussia.
While the proposed naval armistice was still in debate,
the blockade of Valetta came to an end. England's AUSTRIAN
POWER
supremacy in the Mediterranean prevented France from CRUSHED.
relieving the garrison. The only two ships which
remained to France of the fleet defeated in Abukir bay were captured, one
of them by Nelson himself. The blockade was kept up until September 15,
when the place was surrendered after a siege of two years, and Malta passed
into the possession of Great Britain. About the same time the Dutch island
of Curaçao put itself under the king's protection. Earlier in the year Goree
was surrendered to a British squadron. Elsewhere British ships were less
profitably employed. Some attacks on the Breton coast did little damage to
the enemy, and brought no material advantage to England. The government
employed the troops which should have been sent in the spring to the
Page 455
support of the Austrians in desultory expeditions. In August a considerable
force under Sir James Pulteney was sent against Ferrol. After landing his
men Pulteney found that the place was too strong to be taken by a coup-de-
main, and abandoned the enterprise. An equally abortive attempt was made
on Cadiz in October by a force of 22,000 men under Abercromby, then
commanding at Minorca, and by the Mediterranean fleet under Keith. The
plague was raging in the town, and Keith could not guarantee that, if the
troops were landed, the weather might not cut them off from
communication with the fleet, and possibly hinder re-embarkation.
Abercromby therefore refused to land his troops, and decided to sail off to
Gibraltar. He received orders to attack the French in Egypt in co-operation
with the grand-vizier. The troops landed in Abukir bay on February 8 and 9,
1801, with results which must be deferred to our next volume.
The armistice in Germany ended on November 28. A strong Austrian army
under the archduke John, a general of no experience, held the line of the
Inn. The archduke adopted the offensive, crossed the river, attacked the
French under Moreau at Hohenlinden on December 3, and was totally
defeated, losing ninety-seven guns and 15,000 men, or more, killed,
wounded, or prisoners. The Austrians were utterly crushed; the French
crossed the Inn and the Salzach without meeting serious opposition. The
archduke Charles again took command of the defeated army, and on the
25th signed an armistice at Steyer. Meanwhile Cobenzl, the imperial
ambassador, was haggling over terms of peace with Joseph Bonaparte at
Lunéville; he refused to negotiate officially without the participation of
England, and at last proposed that if a treaty was made, it should not be
announced until after March 10 when the Anglo-Austrian alliance would
lapse. The battle of Hohenlinden brought the alliance to a premature end.
The emperor informed the British court that he was no longer able to
maintain the alliance, and gave Cobenzl authority to sign preliminaries
independently of Great Britain. The splendid achievement of Macdonald,
who led the "second army of reserve" from the Grisons across the Splügen,
and the subsequent success of the French under Brune, who forced the
passage of the Mincio and crossed the Adige, enabled Bonaparte to dictate
his own terms to Austria. By the treaty of Lunéville, signed on February 9,
1801, Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine were ceded to France, and the
line of the Adige was made the Austrian boundary in Italy; the grand-duchy
force under Sir James Pulteney was sent against Ferrol. After landing his
men Pulteney found that the place was too strong to be taken by a coup-de-
main, and abandoned the enterprise. An equally abortive attempt was made
on Cadiz in October by a force of 22,000 men under Abercromby, then
commanding at Minorca, and by the Mediterranean fleet under Keith. The
plague was raging in the town, and Keith could not guarantee that, if the
troops were landed, the weather might not cut them off from
communication with the fleet, and possibly hinder re-embarkation.
Abercromby therefore refused to land his troops, and decided to sail off to
Gibraltar. He received orders to attack the French in Egypt in co-operation
with the grand-vizier. The troops landed in Abukir bay on February 8 and 9,
1801, with results which must be deferred to our next volume.
The armistice in Germany ended on November 28. A strong Austrian army
under the archduke John, a general of no experience, held the line of the
Inn. The archduke adopted the offensive, crossed the river, attacked the
French under Moreau at Hohenlinden on December 3, and was totally
defeated, losing ninety-seven guns and 15,000 men, or more, killed,
wounded, or prisoners. The Austrians were utterly crushed; the French
crossed the Inn and the Salzach without meeting serious opposition. The
archduke Charles again took command of the defeated army, and on the
25th signed an armistice at Steyer. Meanwhile Cobenzl, the imperial
ambassador, was haggling over terms of peace with Joseph Bonaparte at
Lunéville; he refused to negotiate officially without the participation of
England, and at last proposed that if a treaty was made, it should not be
announced until after March 10 when the Anglo-Austrian alliance would
lapse. The battle of Hohenlinden brought the alliance to a premature end.
The emperor informed the British court that he was no longer able to
maintain the alliance, and gave Cobenzl authority to sign preliminaries
independently of Great Britain. The splendid achievement of Macdonald,
who led the "second army of reserve" from the Grisons across the Splügen,
and the subsequent success of the French under Brune, who forced the
passage of the Mincio and crossed the Adige, enabled Bonaparte to dictate
his own terms to Austria. By the treaty of Lunéville, signed on February 9,
1801, Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine were ceded to France, and the
line of the Adige was made the Austrian boundary in Italy; the grand-duchy
Page 456
of Tuscany was to be transferred to the house of Parma, and Modena
annexed to the Cisalpine republic, and the independence of the Batavian,
Helvetian, Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics was acknowledged by Austria;
they remained practically under French domination.
In addition to the loss of her ally, new dangers threatened England in the
later part of the year. They arose from the animosity of the tsar. He was
angered by England's alliance with Austria, and by the certainty that his
hostile attitude would prevent her from handing over Malta to him; for
though the government would have ceded the island to him as grand-master
of the knights, if he had continued to co-operate with England, it was not
bound to do so by treaty, and would not cede it to a sovereign who was fast
becoming an open enemy. Paul was greatly enraged, and on February 1,
1800, wrote to Vorontsov, his minister in England, desiring that Whitworth
(created Lord Whitworth in March) should be recalled, as he did not want
"liars as ministers at his court".[308] He refused a passport to Whitworth's
messenger in March, and behaved, Whitworth wrote, in the way which
showed that he was "literally not in his senses".[309] At last, apparently on
April 1, he demanded Whitworth's recall.[310] After long delay Whitworth
obtained a passport and returned to England, leaving the embassy to a
chargé d'affaires, who was peremptorily dismissed by Paul, and left Russia
with the embassy in June. Bonaparte was quick to take advantage of Paul's
anger against England. After some overtures to him, begun as early as
March,[311] he proposed in July to restore to him 6,000, and, later, a larger
number of Russian prisoners taken in Holland and Switzerland, and
suggested ceding to him Malta, which was then hard pressed by the British
fleet. Paul was delighted, and made arrangements for garrisoning Valetta;
but the place was surrendered to Great Britain, and the British government
would not part with it.
Paul had already laid his hand on the weapon forged by
his mother Catherine in 1780, an armed neutrality of the THE ARMED
NEUTRALITY.
Baltic powers. The war put many difficulties in the way
of neutral commerce. England's maritime supremacy gave the trade of
Europe into her hands. For her own purposes she encouraged neutral trade
with herself to the great profit of those who engaged in it, but she placed
rigorous restrictions on the trade of neutrals with her enemy. France, in a
annexed to the Cisalpine republic, and the independence of the Batavian,
Helvetian, Cisalpine, and Ligurian republics was acknowledged by Austria;
they remained practically under French domination.
In addition to the loss of her ally, new dangers threatened England in the
later part of the year. They arose from the animosity of the tsar. He was
angered by England's alliance with Austria, and by the certainty that his
hostile attitude would prevent her from handing over Malta to him; for
though the government would have ceded the island to him as grand-master
of the knights, if he had continued to co-operate with England, it was not
bound to do so by treaty, and would not cede it to a sovereign who was fast
becoming an open enemy. Paul was greatly enraged, and on February 1,
1800, wrote to Vorontsov, his minister in England, desiring that Whitworth
(created Lord Whitworth in March) should be recalled, as he did not want
"liars as ministers at his court".[308] He refused a passport to Whitworth's
messenger in March, and behaved, Whitworth wrote, in the way which
showed that he was "literally not in his senses".[309] At last, apparently on
April 1, he demanded Whitworth's recall.[310] After long delay Whitworth
obtained a passport and returned to England, leaving the embassy to a
chargé d'affaires, who was peremptorily dismissed by Paul, and left Russia
with the embassy in June. Bonaparte was quick to take advantage of Paul's
anger against England. After some overtures to him, begun as early as
March,[311] he proposed in July to restore to him 6,000, and, later, a larger
number of Russian prisoners taken in Holland and Switzerland, and
suggested ceding to him Malta, which was then hard pressed by the British
fleet. Paul was delighted, and made arrangements for garrisoning Valetta;
but the place was surrendered to Great Britain, and the British government
would not part with it.
Paul had already laid his hand on the weapon forged by
his mother Catherine in 1780, an armed neutrality of the THE ARMED
NEUTRALITY.
Baltic powers. The war put many difficulties in the way
of neutral commerce. England's maritime supremacy gave the trade of
Europe into her hands. For her own purposes she encouraged neutral trade
with herself to the great profit of those who engaged in it, but she placed
rigorous restrictions on the trade of neutrals with her enemy. France, in a
Page 457
more lawless fashion, had attempted to destroy neutral trade with England,
but had only succeeded in driving the ships of neutral states from her own
ports.[312] England could enforce her system in every sea. She refused to
allow that an enemy's goods were covered by a neutral flag, and insisted
that naval stores were contraband of war, and that no trade should be carried
on with a port of which she declared a blockade. In 1798 Sweden and
Denmark adopted the plan of sending their merchant ships under convoy to
exempt them from search. Paul saw his opportunity in the annoyance which
the British system caused to neutral states, and in May and June, 1800,
invited Sweden and Denmark to resist it. In July a Danish frigate, the Freya,
with a convoy was stopped by British ships in the Channel; her captain
refused to allow the ships under his convoy to be searched, and after a short
resistance the Freya was captured and taken into the Downs. The
government despatched Whitworth to Copenhagen to remonstrate on this
act of war on the part of Denmark, and enforced his representations by
sending a squadron into the Sound.
Christian VII. gave way, and promised to send no more convoys until the
question was decided by treaty. He complained to Russia, and Paul in
November laid an embargo on all British ships, imprisoned the crews of
those in his ports, and seized British merchandise. He further invited
Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia to form an alliance for the protection of
their flags on the basis of insisting that the neutral flag should cover an
enemy's goods, not being contraband of war, that contraband should not
include naval stores, and that if a declaration of blockade was to be
respected, the blockade must be effectual, and that ships convoyed by a
man-of-war belonging to their sovereign should be exempt from search by a
belligerent on a declaration by the captain of the convoying ship that they
were not carrying contraband goods. This move was highly gratifying to
Bonaparte, for it struck at England's naval and commercial ascendency, and
a treaty which he concluded with the United States in September contained
provisions of a like kind. Frederick William III. of Prussia, seeing that
Austria was at its last gasp, was anxious to please him, for he hoped to gain
some advantage from him in Germany, and specially coveted the possession
of Hanover. He complained that a Prussian ship, laden with timber and
bound for Amsterdam, had been seized by a British cruiser and taken into
Cuxhaven, a port belonging to the state of Hamburg, and he ordered his
but had only succeeded in driving the ships of neutral states from her own
ports.[312] England could enforce her system in every sea. She refused to
allow that an enemy's goods were covered by a neutral flag, and insisted
that naval stores were contraband of war, and that no trade should be carried
on with a port of which she declared a blockade. In 1798 Sweden and
Denmark adopted the plan of sending their merchant ships under convoy to
exempt them from search. Paul saw his opportunity in the annoyance which
the British system caused to neutral states, and in May and June, 1800,
invited Sweden and Denmark to resist it. In July a Danish frigate, the Freya,
with a convoy was stopped by British ships in the Channel; her captain
refused to allow the ships under his convoy to be searched, and after a short
resistance the Freya was captured and taken into the Downs. The
government despatched Whitworth to Copenhagen to remonstrate on this
act of war on the part of Denmark, and enforced his representations by
sending a squadron into the Sound.
Christian VII. gave way, and promised to send no more convoys until the
question was decided by treaty. He complained to Russia, and Paul in
November laid an embargo on all British ships, imprisoned the crews of
those in his ports, and seized British merchandise. He further invited
Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia to form an alliance for the protection of
their flags on the basis of insisting that the neutral flag should cover an
enemy's goods, not being contraband of war, that contraband should not
include naval stores, and that if a declaration of blockade was to be
respected, the blockade must be effectual, and that ships convoyed by a
man-of-war belonging to their sovereign should be exempt from search by a
belligerent on a declaration by the captain of the convoying ship that they
were not carrying contraband goods. This move was highly gratifying to
Bonaparte, for it struck at England's naval and commercial ascendency, and
a treaty which he concluded with the United States in September contained
provisions of a like kind. Frederick William III. of Prussia, seeing that
Austria was at its last gasp, was anxious to please him, for he hoped to gain
some advantage from him in Germany, and specially coveted the possession
of Hanover. He complained that a Prussian ship, laden with timber and
bound for Amsterdam, had been seized by a British cruiser and taken into
Cuxhaven, a port belonging to the state of Hamburg, and he ordered his
Page 458
troops to occupy Cuxhaven, a measure which threatened George's electoral
dominions. That would not in itself have concerned England, but Cuxhaven
was at the mouth of the Elbe, the principal route by which British
commerce was carried on with central Europe. In the existing state of
affairs it was not advisable to give the Prussian king a cause of grievance.
The government, therefore, directed the restoration of the ship in the hope
of pacifying him, but he nevertheless persisted in the occupation of the port.
On December 16 the maritime confederacy was signed by Russia, Sweden,
and Denmark, and on the 18th by Prussia.
dominions. That would not in itself have concerned England, but Cuxhaven
was at the mouth of the Elbe, the principal route by which British
commerce was carried on with central Europe. In the existing state of
affairs it was not advisable to give the Prussian king a cause of grievance.
The government, therefore, directed the restoration of the ship in the hope
of pacifying him, but he nevertheless persisted in the occupation of the port.
On December 16 the maritime confederacy was signed by Russia, Sweden,
and Denmark, and on the 18th by Prussia.
Page 459
In January, 1801, Paul sent an ambassador to Paris to
arrange a treaty of alliance. Bonaparte's hopes seemed ENGLAND TO BE
likely to be more than fulfilled. An attempt made on his HUMBLED.
life on December 24, which many Frenchmen absurdly believed to have
been abetted by the English government, gave him the opportunity of
crushing his domestic foes. England, the object of his passionate hatred,
was bereft of her Austrian ally; he was pressing Spain to invade Portugal
unless she would close her ports against English ships; the northern powers
were striking at England's maritime lordship; her navy would be deprived of
stores, and her people of foreign wheat. An alliance with Russia would
enable France to become dominant in central Europe, to overthrow the
British supremacy in the Mediterranean, and to preserve her hold on Egypt.
Soon every state would shut its ports against British ships, and England's
sea-power would be overthrown by the power of France on land. Paul held
out yet greater hopes; he would undertake a joint invasion of India and
drive the British from the east. Though his wild schemes did not meet with
Bonaparte's approval, Paul set an army in motion for the conquest of India.
Yet neither the government nor the people of England was dismayed by the
isolation of their country nor the number of their foes. Nor had they cause.
Bonaparte, great general as he was, could not understand the nature of
England's strength, and was indeed profoundly ignorant of all that
concerned maritime power and commerce. The British navy was in
admirable condition, both as regards material and men; it was blockading
the Dutch in the Texel, and the ships of France and Spain in every port in
which they lay from Toulon to Flushing, and the thunder of its guns was
soon to be heard in the north. In India Lord Wellesley had not only crushed
resistance and added a vast territory to the company's possessions, but was
establishing the British rule on a firm basis, and there, too, British ships
would have to be reckoned with. On January 14 the government placed an
embargo on the ships of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. Orders were sent
for the capture of the Danish colonies in the West Indies, and a fleet was
prepared to sail for the Baltic under Sir Hyde Parker, and with Nelson as
second in command.
Yet, though undismayed by her foes, England was sorely dismayed by the
sufferings of her poor. Peace was very needful for her. Wealth indeed was
rapidly increasing; her foreign trade which in 1792 was £44,500,000 in
arrange a treaty of alliance. Bonaparte's hopes seemed ENGLAND TO BE
likely to be more than fulfilled. An attempt made on his HUMBLED.
life on December 24, which many Frenchmen absurdly believed to have
been abetted by the English government, gave him the opportunity of
crushing his domestic foes. England, the object of his passionate hatred,
was bereft of her Austrian ally; he was pressing Spain to invade Portugal
unless she would close her ports against English ships; the northern powers
were striking at England's maritime lordship; her navy would be deprived of
stores, and her people of foreign wheat. An alliance with Russia would
enable France to become dominant in central Europe, to overthrow the
British supremacy in the Mediterranean, and to preserve her hold on Egypt.
Soon every state would shut its ports against British ships, and England's
sea-power would be overthrown by the power of France on land. Paul held
out yet greater hopes; he would undertake a joint invasion of India and
drive the British from the east. Though his wild schemes did not meet with
Bonaparte's approval, Paul set an army in motion for the conquest of India.
Yet neither the government nor the people of England was dismayed by the
isolation of their country nor the number of their foes. Nor had they cause.
Bonaparte, great general as he was, could not understand the nature of
England's strength, and was indeed profoundly ignorant of all that
concerned maritime power and commerce. The British navy was in
admirable condition, both as regards material and men; it was blockading
the Dutch in the Texel, and the ships of France and Spain in every port in
which they lay from Toulon to Flushing, and the thunder of its guns was
soon to be heard in the north. In India Lord Wellesley had not only crushed
resistance and added a vast territory to the company's possessions, but was
establishing the British rule on a firm basis, and there, too, British ships
would have to be reckoned with. On January 14 the government placed an
embargo on the ships of Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. Orders were sent
for the capture of the Danish colonies in the West Indies, and a fleet was
prepared to sail for the Baltic under Sir Hyde Parker, and with Nelson as
second in command.
Yet, though undismayed by her foes, England was sorely dismayed by the
sufferings of her poor. Peace was very needful for her. Wealth indeed was
rapidly increasing; her foreign trade which in 1792 was £44,500,000 in
Page 460
value had risen to over £73,750,000. But the poor lacked bread. The
increase in the manufacturing population caused an increased demand for
food, and England depended on supplies of cereals from abroad. The war
restricted the importation of corn and sent up its price. The hopes fixed on
the harvest of 1800 were disappointed; the stock of the previous year was
exhausted, and wheat rose to the famine price of 120s. a quarter. Bread riots
were raised in various places, and were in some cases due to a belief,
existing even among persons of education, that the high price of corn was
largely caused by the dealers. Some dealers were prosecuted under the old
statutes against "forestalling and regrating," and when one named Rusby,
charged with buying oats at 41s. a quarter and selling them again in the
same market at 44s., was found guilty, Lord Kenyon congratulated the jury
on the benefit which their verdict conferred on the country. On appeal his
law was questioned and the proceedings dropped. The future looked even
darker than the present, for the Russian embargo cut off a main source of
supply. The desire for peace was general. Pitt, whose health was giving
way, was full of anxiety, for the scarcity seemed likely to embarrass the
government in its efforts to maintain the honour of England, and might even
compel the country to assent to a peace alike disadvantageous and
fallacious. "The question of peace or war," he wrote in October, "is not in
itself so formidable as that of the scarcity with which it is combined".
He determined on an early meeting of parliament, believing that some relief
might be afforded by legislation, and that, at the least, it would quiet the
public mind and check the rise of disaffection. Besides measures for the
encouragement of home agriculture, which would necessarily operate
slowly, he planned others to meet the immediate crisis, for though as a
disciple of Adam Smith he disliked interference with the regular course of
trade, he considered that the situation of the country rendered some
regulation necessary. Grenville differed from him. He held closely to the
maxims of political economy, and though he did not oppose him in the
cabinet, he urged on Pitt in private that all interference with the process by
which supply and demand counteracted each other must be harmful. Pitt
held to his own opinion. Parliament met on November 11. The king's
speech invited it to consider means by which agriculture might be extended,
and, for the present, the best means of stimulating the importation of grain
and promoting frugality in using it, and checked the foolish and
increase in the manufacturing population caused an increased demand for
food, and England depended on supplies of cereals from abroad. The war
restricted the importation of corn and sent up its price. The hopes fixed on
the harvest of 1800 were disappointed; the stock of the previous year was
exhausted, and wheat rose to the famine price of 120s. a quarter. Bread riots
were raised in various places, and were in some cases due to a belief,
existing even among persons of education, that the high price of corn was
largely caused by the dealers. Some dealers were prosecuted under the old
statutes against "forestalling and regrating," and when one named Rusby,
charged with buying oats at 41s. a quarter and selling them again in the
same market at 44s., was found guilty, Lord Kenyon congratulated the jury
on the benefit which their verdict conferred on the country. On appeal his
law was questioned and the proceedings dropped. The future looked even
darker than the present, for the Russian embargo cut off a main source of
supply. The desire for peace was general. Pitt, whose health was giving
way, was full of anxiety, for the scarcity seemed likely to embarrass the
government in its efforts to maintain the honour of England, and might even
compel the country to assent to a peace alike disadvantageous and
fallacious. "The question of peace or war," he wrote in October, "is not in
itself so formidable as that of the scarcity with which it is combined".
He determined on an early meeting of parliament, believing that some relief
might be afforded by legislation, and that, at the least, it would quiet the
public mind and check the rise of disaffection. Besides measures for the
encouragement of home agriculture, which would necessarily operate
slowly, he planned others to meet the immediate crisis, for though as a
disciple of Adam Smith he disliked interference with the regular course of
trade, he considered that the situation of the country rendered some
regulation necessary. Grenville differed from him. He held closely to the
maxims of political economy, and though he did not oppose him in the
cabinet, he urged on Pitt in private that all interference with the process by
which supply and demand counteracted each other must be harmful. Pitt
held to his own opinion. Parliament met on November 11. The king's
speech invited it to consider means by which agriculture might be extended,
and, for the present, the best means of stimulating the importation of grain
and promoting frugality in using it, and checked the foolish and
Page 461
mischievous outcry against the dealers by pointing out that the ordinary
practices of buying and selling were necessary in the existing state of
society. Acting on the reports of committees, parliament granted bounties
on the importation of corn and rice, and prohibited the use of corn in
distillery and the manufacture of starch, the exportation of provisions, the
making of bread solely from fine flour, and the sale of bread within twenty-
four hours of its baking. The opposition reproached the government, and
especially Pitt, with having caused the scarcity by the rejection of
Bonaparte's proposals for peace; but motions for an inquiry into the state of
the nation, for immediate negotiations with France, and for the dismissal of
the ministers received scarcely any support. It was not from parliament that
Pitt's ministry was to receive its death-blow.
Almost as soon as the Irish rebellion was quelled, the
project of a legislative union with Great Britain was IRISH UNION
DESIRABLE.
publicly discussed. Such a union existed from 1654 to
the restoration in 1660. At the time of the union with Scotland, in 1703 and
1707, the Irish parliament proposed a union, and its wish was disregarded.
Since then various writers on politics had recommended it, chiefly as a
means of giving Ireland freedom of trade. The improvement in the material
condition of the country which began in the fourth decade of the century
strengthened the spirit of nationality, the Irish interest became dominant in
politics, religious animosity decreased, and during the American war
Ireland, instead of looking to a union as a means of attaining prosperity,
found herself in a position to demand the concessions she desired. The
abolition of restrictions on her trade in 1779-80 removed the chief motive
which had impelled Scotland towards union; the grant of legislative
independence fostered the national pride. The constitution of 1782 left
Ireland connected with Great Britain only by the unity of the executive in
both countries. The Irish parliament might have expressed disapproval of a
war or alliance entered on by Great Britain and might have refused
supplies; it might have imposed excessive duties on English goods, might
have refused a commercial compact with Great Britain, and did so in 1785;
it might have taken a different course from the British parliament on a
constitutional question, and did so on the regency question in 1789. The
empire was weakened by lack of union. English statesmen, and above all
Pitt, saw that the tie, precarious in quiet times, might break under some
practices of buying and selling were necessary in the existing state of
society. Acting on the reports of committees, parliament granted bounties
on the importation of corn and rice, and prohibited the use of corn in
distillery and the manufacture of starch, the exportation of provisions, the
making of bread solely from fine flour, and the sale of bread within twenty-
four hours of its baking. The opposition reproached the government, and
especially Pitt, with having caused the scarcity by the rejection of
Bonaparte's proposals for peace; but motions for an inquiry into the state of
the nation, for immediate negotiations with France, and for the dismissal of
the ministers received scarcely any support. It was not from parliament that
Pitt's ministry was to receive its death-blow.
Almost as soon as the Irish rebellion was quelled, the
project of a legislative union with Great Britain was IRISH UNION
DESIRABLE.
publicly discussed. Such a union existed from 1654 to
the restoration in 1660. At the time of the union with Scotland, in 1703 and
1707, the Irish parliament proposed a union, and its wish was disregarded.
Since then various writers on politics had recommended it, chiefly as a
means of giving Ireland freedom of trade. The improvement in the material
condition of the country which began in the fourth decade of the century
strengthened the spirit of nationality, the Irish interest became dominant in
politics, religious animosity decreased, and during the American war
Ireland, instead of looking to a union as a means of attaining prosperity,
found herself in a position to demand the concessions she desired. The
abolition of restrictions on her trade in 1779-80 removed the chief motive
which had impelled Scotland towards union; the grant of legislative
independence fostered the national pride. The constitution of 1782 left
Ireland connected with Great Britain only by the unity of the executive in
both countries. The Irish parliament might have expressed disapproval of a
war or alliance entered on by Great Britain and might have refused
supplies; it might have imposed excessive duties on English goods, might
have refused a commercial compact with Great Britain, and did so in 1785;
it might have taken a different course from the British parliament on a
constitutional question, and did so on the regency question in 1789. The
empire was weakened by lack of union. English statesmen, and above all
Pitt, saw that the tie, precarious in quiet times, might break under some
Page 462
stress, and desired to strengthen it by an incorporate union, and the king
heartily agreed with them.
For Ireland a union afforded the only chance of tranquillity, for catholic
emancipation could not safely be granted without it. Since the extension of
the suffrage to Roman catholics in 1793, emancipation unaccompanied by
union would have placed the government of the country in the hands of a
popish democracy; for the catholics outnumbered the protestants by three to
one, and the act of 1793 established little short of manhood suffrage. A
catholic parliament would have made Ireland no place for protestants, and
would have provoked a civil war, in which, unlike the late rebellion,
England would probably have had almost the whole catholic population
arrayed against her. With a united parliament the catholics might enjoy
equal privileges with their protestant neighbours, and would be powerless to
oppress them. The war with France revealed the dangers of the existing
system; the rebellion left the two religious parties at deadly feud; the
protestants feared catholic vengeance, the catholics held the protestant
ascendency in deeper hatred since the rise of Orangeism and the barbarities
of '98. The time seemed ripe for the fulfilment of Pitt's long-cherished hope
of union. He desired to do the catholics justice and intended that the union
should provide for emancipation, a provision for their priesthood, to be
accompanied by an increase of the regium donum, the endowment granted
by William III. for the support of the Irish presbyterian ministers, and the
commutation of tithe; and this comprehensive scheme was warmly
approved by Cornwallis. But the principal men of the government party in
Ireland were strongly opposed to the admission of catholics into the united
parliament, and in October, 1798, Clare convinced Pitt that the proposal
would wreck the chances of union. Pitt therefore dissociated emancipation
from union, adopted a scheme of union on a protestant basis, and left the
settlement of the just claims of the catholics, which was necessary to the
successful working of a union, to be effected later.
The intended union was announced and advocated in a
pamphlet by Cooke, the Irish under-secretary. The CATHOLIC
protestants generally were hostile to the scheme, some SUPPORT.
from feelings of national pride, others from dislike to the threatened
overthrow of the political ascendency of their party. Catholic support might
be gained if there was reason to expect that union would be followed by
heartily agreed with them.
For Ireland a union afforded the only chance of tranquillity, for catholic
emancipation could not safely be granted without it. Since the extension of
the suffrage to Roman catholics in 1793, emancipation unaccompanied by
union would have placed the government of the country in the hands of a
popish democracy; for the catholics outnumbered the protestants by three to
one, and the act of 1793 established little short of manhood suffrage. A
catholic parliament would have made Ireland no place for protestants, and
would have provoked a civil war, in which, unlike the late rebellion,
England would probably have had almost the whole catholic population
arrayed against her. With a united parliament the catholics might enjoy
equal privileges with their protestant neighbours, and would be powerless to
oppress them. The war with France revealed the dangers of the existing
system; the rebellion left the two religious parties at deadly feud; the
protestants feared catholic vengeance, the catholics held the protestant
ascendency in deeper hatred since the rise of Orangeism and the barbarities
of '98. The time seemed ripe for the fulfilment of Pitt's long-cherished hope
of union. He desired to do the catholics justice and intended that the union
should provide for emancipation, a provision for their priesthood, to be
accompanied by an increase of the regium donum, the endowment granted
by William III. for the support of the Irish presbyterian ministers, and the
commutation of tithe; and this comprehensive scheme was warmly
approved by Cornwallis. But the principal men of the government party in
Ireland were strongly opposed to the admission of catholics into the united
parliament, and in October, 1798, Clare convinced Pitt that the proposal
would wreck the chances of union. Pitt therefore dissociated emancipation
from union, adopted a scheme of union on a protestant basis, and left the
settlement of the just claims of the catholics, which was necessary to the
successful working of a union, to be effected later.
The intended union was announced and advocated in a
pamphlet by Cooke, the Irish under-secretary. The CATHOLIC
protestants generally were hostile to the scheme, some SUPPORT.
from feelings of national pride, others from dislike to the threatened
overthrow of the political ascendency of their party. Catholic support might
be gained if there was reason to expect that union would be followed by
Page 463
emancipation, a provision for the clergy, which would entail a royal power
of veto over episcopal appointments, and the commutation of tithe. Dublin
was strongly against a measure which would injure its position as a capital;
and the lawyers, who would also lose by it, were formidable opponents. In
preparation for the coming struggle the government informed the catholic
bishops that, though emancipation could not be included in the measure,
they were anxious to make provision for their clergy; a few anti-unionist
officials resigned or were dismissed, and the demands of some of the
government party, who, as usual, clamoured to be rewarded beforehand,
appeared to have been satisfied. The king's speech at the opening of the
Irish parliament on January 22, 1799, though not mentioning union,
recommended some effectual means of strengthening the connexion. The
address was carried in the lords by 52 votes to 17. In the commons it was
moved by Lord Castlereagh, the chief secretary, and was strongly opposed
by Plunket, Ponsonby, and others. After a debate which lasted from 4 p.m. to
1 p.m. the next day, the government had a majority of only one, and in a
subsequent division was in a minority of 5. On the 31st Pitt, in an eloquent
speech, moved resolutions for a union in the British house of commons.
Sheridan, Grey, and Burke's friend, Laurence, fought hard against them, but
were in a minority which varied from 45 to 15. In the lords they were
agreed to without a division, and in April both houses adopted an address in
favour of union.
The failure of the government in the Irish parliament was hailed with
delight and rioting in Dublin. The prospects of the union soon began to
brighten. The cabinet made it clear that the measure would not be
abandoned. As it seemed likely that the protestants would offer the catholics
emancipation in order to induce them to combine against union, Cornwallis
was authorised to declare that the government would resist to the utmost
any concession to the catholics so long as a separate parliament existed. No
definite promise was made to the catholics, but their hopes were excited. In
the autumn, Castlereagh, who came over for the purpose, represented to the
cabinet the importance of gaining their support; he was told to inform
Cornwallis that the cabinet was favourable to emancipation, and that
without giving the catholics "any direct assurance," he might safely solicit
their support. This he did with general success; and the catholic bishops and
many of their clergy, allured by the prospect of a provision from
of veto over episcopal appointments, and the commutation of tithe. Dublin
was strongly against a measure which would injure its position as a capital;
and the lawyers, who would also lose by it, were formidable opponents. In
preparation for the coming struggle the government informed the catholic
bishops that, though emancipation could not be included in the measure,
they were anxious to make provision for their clergy; a few anti-unionist
officials resigned or were dismissed, and the demands of some of the
government party, who, as usual, clamoured to be rewarded beforehand,
appeared to have been satisfied. The king's speech at the opening of the
Irish parliament on January 22, 1799, though not mentioning union,
recommended some effectual means of strengthening the connexion. The
address was carried in the lords by 52 votes to 17. In the commons it was
moved by Lord Castlereagh, the chief secretary, and was strongly opposed
by Plunket, Ponsonby, and others. After a debate which lasted from 4 p.m. to
1 p.m. the next day, the government had a majority of only one, and in a
subsequent division was in a minority of 5. On the 31st Pitt, in an eloquent
speech, moved resolutions for a union in the British house of commons.
Sheridan, Grey, and Burke's friend, Laurence, fought hard against them, but
were in a minority which varied from 45 to 15. In the lords they were
agreed to without a division, and in April both houses adopted an address in
favour of union.
The failure of the government in the Irish parliament was hailed with
delight and rioting in Dublin. The prospects of the union soon began to
brighten. The cabinet made it clear that the measure would not be
abandoned. As it seemed likely that the protestants would offer the catholics
emancipation in order to induce them to combine against union, Cornwallis
was authorised to declare that the government would resist to the utmost
any concession to the catholics so long as a separate parliament existed. No
definite promise was made to the catholics, but their hopes were excited. In
the autumn, Castlereagh, who came over for the purpose, represented to the
cabinet the importance of gaining their support; he was told to inform
Cornwallis that the cabinet was favourable to emancipation, and that
without giving the catholics "any direct assurance," he might safely solicit
their support. This he did with general success; and the catholic bishops and
many of their clergy, allured by the prospect of a provision from
Page 464
government, were active on the unionist side. The unionist party was further
strengthened by the state of the country. Many districts were infested by
bands of men, survivals of the rebel armies, who murdered, robbed, and
intimidated their neighbours, and mutilated cattle. A fresh outbreak of
rebellion seemed likely in the spring; the large British force already in
Ireland was augmented, and an act was passed giving the lord-lieutenant
power to authorise the capital or other punishment of those convicted by
court-martial of rebellion or attacks on the king's subjects. The opinion that
Ireland needed a new system of government gained ground. Yet the feeling
against union remained overwhelmingly general, specially among the
protestants.
A majority in parliament had to be gained by the
ministers. The county members, who were independent, A MAJORITY
for the most part were, and remained, anti-unionists. The SECURED.
preponderance of power lay with the 236 members for the 118 boroughs, of
which only eight were free from all patronage. Nearly all the remainder
belonged to borough-owners and were regarded as their personal property.
A large number of them would be disfranchised by a union. Not to
compensate the owners would have been contrary to the general moral
standard of the age when uninfluenced by party feelings, and would have
made union impossible. As Pitt in his reform bill of 1785 proposed to buy
up the patronage of the English close boroughs, so the government
determined to compensate those Irish borough-owners whose boroughs
were to lose both members. The price of each borough was eventually fixed
at £15,000, the market value, and as eighty-four were disfranchised, the
sum paid for them was £1,260,000. This was not bribery; it was an open
transaction, and the money was paid alike to opponents and supporters of
the union. The services of great men were secured by peerages and other
dignities. During and at the end of the struggle twenty new Irish peerages
were created, sixteen peers were promoted, and five received English
peerages. Most of these grants were mere bribes, and so too were the many
places and pensions which helped to swell the unionist party in parliament.
Some money, though the amount must have been small, was probably also
spent in bribery. The government would not risk a general election; the
union was to be carried by the existing parliament. Gradually sixty-three
vacancies were created in the commons, some by death, some by
strengthened by the state of the country. Many districts were infested by
bands of men, survivals of the rebel armies, who murdered, robbed, and
intimidated their neighbours, and mutilated cattle. A fresh outbreak of
rebellion seemed likely in the spring; the large British force already in
Ireland was augmented, and an act was passed giving the lord-lieutenant
power to authorise the capital or other punishment of those convicted by
court-martial of rebellion or attacks on the king's subjects. The opinion that
Ireland needed a new system of government gained ground. Yet the feeling
against union remained overwhelmingly general, specially among the
protestants.
A majority in parliament had to be gained by the
ministers. The county members, who were independent, A MAJORITY
for the most part were, and remained, anti-unionists. The SECURED.
preponderance of power lay with the 236 members for the 118 boroughs, of
which only eight were free from all patronage. Nearly all the remainder
belonged to borough-owners and were regarded as their personal property.
A large number of them would be disfranchised by a union. Not to
compensate the owners would have been contrary to the general moral
standard of the age when uninfluenced by party feelings, and would have
made union impossible. As Pitt in his reform bill of 1785 proposed to buy
up the patronage of the English close boroughs, so the government
determined to compensate those Irish borough-owners whose boroughs
were to lose both members. The price of each borough was eventually fixed
at £15,000, the market value, and as eighty-four were disfranchised, the
sum paid for them was £1,260,000. This was not bribery; it was an open
transaction, and the money was paid alike to opponents and supporters of
the union. The services of great men were secured by peerages and other
dignities. During and at the end of the struggle twenty new Irish peerages
were created, sixteen peers were promoted, and five received English
peerages. Most of these grants were mere bribes, and so too were the many
places and pensions which helped to swell the unionist party in parliament.
Some money, though the amount must have been small, was probably also
spent in bribery. The government would not risk a general election; the
union was to be carried by the existing parliament. Gradually sixty-three
vacancies were created in the commons, some by death, some by
Page 465
acceptance of office, most of them doubtless by the resignation of members
who would not follow their patrons by becoming unionists, and others,
probably, through the purchase of seats by the government from sitting
members. The vacancies were eventually filled by supporters of the union.
While, then, the extent of the corruption practised by the government has
been exaggerated, the union was undoubtedly carried by corrupt means.
Nevertheless, Pitt did not corrupt the Irish parliament; it was corrupt
already: he merely continued the immemorial methods of dealing with it on
a larger scale than before. Nobles and gentry chose to sell themselves, and,
in order to rid Ireland of a source of trouble and danger, and Great Britain
of a cause of weakness, he paid them their price. Cornwallis murmured at
having to negotiate and job with "the most corrupt people under heaven";
but he did his share of the work. Castlereagh, personally not less
honourable, who had much of it to do, did it without compunction, for it
was, he said, "to buy out and secure to the crown for ever the fee-simple of
Irish corruption, which has so long enfeebled the powers of the government
and endangered the connection". It was essential to the welfare both of
Great Britain and Ireland that the union should be effected, and that it
should be effected without delay; and it could not have been effected by any
other means than those which Pitt adopted. It was better by giving these
greedy politicians their price to put an end to a system maintained by
perpetual corruption, worked in the interests of an ascendant minority,
distrusted by the mass of the people, incapable of affording the country the
blessings of domestic peace, and dangerous to the security of the empire.
The Irish parliament began its last session on January 15, 1800, and the
address was hotly debated. Grattan, who had not appeared there since 1797,
spoke with extraordinary eloquence in support of an amendment on the side
of legislative independence. Though the vacant seats were not nearly all
filled up, the amendment was rejected by 138 votes to 96. The anti-
unionists were furious; they raised a fund of £100,000, paid or promised,
for the purpose of out-buying the ministers, bought some seats, and paid
and offered bribes. The catholics, the yeomanry, and the Orangemen were
urged to combine to withstand the union. Some rioting took place in Dublin,
but there was no serious outbreak; for the Orange grand lodge kept the
society quiet, and the mass of the people, except when excited by agitation,
regarded the question with indifference. A fierce struggle ensued in
who would not follow their patrons by becoming unionists, and others,
probably, through the purchase of seats by the government from sitting
members. The vacancies were eventually filled by supporters of the union.
While, then, the extent of the corruption practised by the government has
been exaggerated, the union was undoubtedly carried by corrupt means.
Nevertheless, Pitt did not corrupt the Irish parliament; it was corrupt
already: he merely continued the immemorial methods of dealing with it on
a larger scale than before. Nobles and gentry chose to sell themselves, and,
in order to rid Ireland of a source of trouble and danger, and Great Britain
of a cause of weakness, he paid them their price. Cornwallis murmured at
having to negotiate and job with "the most corrupt people under heaven";
but he did his share of the work. Castlereagh, personally not less
honourable, who had much of it to do, did it without compunction, for it
was, he said, "to buy out and secure to the crown for ever the fee-simple of
Irish corruption, which has so long enfeebled the powers of the government
and endangered the connection". It was essential to the welfare both of
Great Britain and Ireland that the union should be effected, and that it
should be effected without delay; and it could not have been effected by any
other means than those which Pitt adopted. It was better by giving these
greedy politicians their price to put an end to a system maintained by
perpetual corruption, worked in the interests of an ascendant minority,
distrusted by the mass of the people, incapable of affording the country the
blessings of domestic peace, and dangerous to the security of the empire.
The Irish parliament began its last session on January 15, 1800, and the
address was hotly debated. Grattan, who had not appeared there since 1797,
spoke with extraordinary eloquence in support of an amendment on the side
of legislative independence. Though the vacant seats were not nearly all
filled up, the amendment was rejected by 138 votes to 96. The anti-
unionists were furious; they raised a fund of £100,000, paid or promised,
for the purpose of out-buying the ministers, bought some seats, and paid
and offered bribes. The catholics, the yeomanry, and the Orangemen were
urged to combine to withstand the union. Some rioting took place in Dublin,
but there was no serious outbreak; for the Orange grand lodge kept the
society quiet, and the mass of the people, except when excited by agitation,
regarded the question with indifference. A fierce struggle ensued in
Page 466
parliament, and it was not until March 28 that the articles of union were
carried and sent to England. They were debated at some length in both
houses of the English parliament, but were carried by large majorities. They
were next presented in the Irish parliament in the form of a bill. It was
vehemently opposed. In the debate on the commitment, on May 26, Grattan
delivered an oration against it, splendid in diction and inflammatory in tone,
and was answered by Castlereagh who spoke, as indeed he spoke
throughout these debates, with conspicuous dignity and moderation. The
majority for committing the bill was 118 to 73. It was then passed by the
English parliament and received the royal assent on August 1. A new great
seal and a new royal standard were made for the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and on January 1, 1801, the king's new title was
proclaimed, from which the words "King of France," retained since the time
of Edward III., were omitted.
By the act of union Ireland was to be represented in the united parliament,
in the upper house by four spiritual lords sitting in rotation and twenty-eight
temporal lords elected for life by the Irish peerage, and in the lower by 100
members.[313] The right of the crown to create fresh Irish peerages was
restricted. The established Church of Ireland was declared one with the
Church of England, and the preservation of the united Church of England
and Ireland was to be "an essential and fundamental part of the union".
Commercial interests were mainly settled in accordance with the proposals
of 1785, and some Irish manufactures were temporarily protected from
suffering by British competition. The debts of the two countries were to be
kept separate for twenty years, or until they should be to each other in the
same proportion as the respective contributions of the two countries; and
until their amalgamation the annual contribution of Great Britain towards
the expenditure of the United Kingdom was fixed at fifteen parts and of
Ireland at two parts. The first session of the united parliament was opened
on January 22, 1801, the members for Great Britain being the same as those
of the previous parliament.
The Irish catholics could have prevented the union. They
made it possible, some by giving active help, others by THE CATHOLIC
QUESTION.
maintaining neutrality; and though no definite promise
had been made to them, they were led to expect that union would be
followed by emancipation, a provision for their clergy, and the commutation
carried and sent to England. They were debated at some length in both
houses of the English parliament, but were carried by large majorities. They
were next presented in the Irish parliament in the form of a bill. It was
vehemently opposed. In the debate on the commitment, on May 26, Grattan
delivered an oration against it, splendid in diction and inflammatory in tone,
and was answered by Castlereagh who spoke, as indeed he spoke
throughout these debates, with conspicuous dignity and moderation. The
majority for committing the bill was 118 to 73. It was then passed by the
English parliament and received the royal assent on August 1. A new great
seal and a new royal standard were made for the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and on January 1, 1801, the king's new title was
proclaimed, from which the words "King of France," retained since the time
of Edward III., were omitted.
By the act of union Ireland was to be represented in the united parliament,
in the upper house by four spiritual lords sitting in rotation and twenty-eight
temporal lords elected for life by the Irish peerage, and in the lower by 100
members.[313] The right of the crown to create fresh Irish peerages was
restricted. The established Church of Ireland was declared one with the
Church of England, and the preservation of the united Church of England
and Ireland was to be "an essential and fundamental part of the union".
Commercial interests were mainly settled in accordance with the proposals
of 1785, and some Irish manufactures were temporarily protected from
suffering by British competition. The debts of the two countries were to be
kept separate for twenty years, or until they should be to each other in the
same proportion as the respective contributions of the two countries; and
until their amalgamation the annual contribution of Great Britain towards
the expenditure of the United Kingdom was fixed at fifteen parts and of
Ireland at two parts. The first session of the united parliament was opened
on January 22, 1801, the members for Great Britain being the same as those
of the previous parliament.
The Irish catholics could have prevented the union. They
made it possible, some by giving active help, others by THE CATHOLIC
QUESTION.
maintaining neutrality; and though no definite promise
had been made to them, they were led to expect that union would be
followed by emancipation, a provision for their clergy, and the commutation
Page 467
of tithe. Pitt recognised this, and further held that his work would be
incomplete without these healing measures, which would give "full effect to
the great object of the union—that of tranquillising Ireland and attaching it
to this country". Accordingly, in September, 1800, as soon as the union was
effected, he called a meeting of the cabinet to consider these questions. He
said nothing to the king on the subject, thinking, doubtless, that it would be
less difficult to gain his consent if a complete plan was presented to him as
the policy adopted by the cabinet. The risk was great, for in 1795 George,
as we have seen, held that to consent to emancipation would be a breach of
his coronation oath, and so lately as the autumn of 1799 he told Dundas that
he hoped the government was "not pledged to anything in favour of the
Roman catholics". Loughborough, the chancellor, saw an opportunity for
ingratiating himself by betraying the prime minister. When he received
Pitt's letter summoning him to the cabinet meeting on the catholic question,
he was with the king at Weymouth, where George often resided in the
summer since his recovery in 1789. He showed the king Pitt's letter, excited
him against emancipation, and furnished him with arguments. Lord
Auckland, the postmaster-general, who was allied with the chief Irish anti-
catholics, was his cousin, and, probably at Auckland's suggestion, the
Archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh wrote to the king to strengthen him
against emancipation. When the cabinet met, Loughborough agreed to the
commutation of tithe, but objected to any further concession, and the matter
was adjourned.
Pitt again brought it before the cabinet in January, 1801. The king's feelings
were then generally known, and the Duke of Portland and Lords
Westmorland and Liverpool more or less decidedly joined Loughborough in
opposing emancipation. On the 28th George attacked Dundas on the subject
at a levee: "I shall," he said, "reckon any man my personal enemy who
proposes such a measure". He requested Addington, the speaker, to
remonstrate with Pitt. On the 31st Pitt wrote him a long letter setting forth
the general grounds of his desire for emancipation, by the substitution of a
political oath for the sacramental test, and for a provision for the catholic
clergy, adding that if the king refused his consent, he must resign office.
George, after taking counsel with Addington, replied that he was bound by
his coronation oath to refuse his consent, and proposed that both he and Pitt
should say no more on the subject. In answer Pitt wrote on February 3 that
incomplete without these healing measures, which would give "full effect to
the great object of the union—that of tranquillising Ireland and attaching it
to this country". Accordingly, in September, 1800, as soon as the union was
effected, he called a meeting of the cabinet to consider these questions. He
said nothing to the king on the subject, thinking, doubtless, that it would be
less difficult to gain his consent if a complete plan was presented to him as
the policy adopted by the cabinet. The risk was great, for in 1795 George,
as we have seen, held that to consent to emancipation would be a breach of
his coronation oath, and so lately as the autumn of 1799 he told Dundas that
he hoped the government was "not pledged to anything in favour of the
Roman catholics". Loughborough, the chancellor, saw an opportunity for
ingratiating himself by betraying the prime minister. When he received
Pitt's letter summoning him to the cabinet meeting on the catholic question,
he was with the king at Weymouth, where George often resided in the
summer since his recovery in 1789. He showed the king Pitt's letter, excited
him against emancipation, and furnished him with arguments. Lord
Auckland, the postmaster-general, who was allied with the chief Irish anti-
catholics, was his cousin, and, probably at Auckland's suggestion, the
Archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh wrote to the king to strengthen him
against emancipation. When the cabinet met, Loughborough agreed to the
commutation of tithe, but objected to any further concession, and the matter
was adjourned.
Pitt again brought it before the cabinet in January, 1801. The king's feelings
were then generally known, and the Duke of Portland and Lords
Westmorland and Liverpool more or less decidedly joined Loughborough in
opposing emancipation. On the 28th George attacked Dundas on the subject
at a levee: "I shall," he said, "reckon any man my personal enemy who
proposes such a measure". He requested Addington, the speaker, to
remonstrate with Pitt. On the 31st Pitt wrote him a long letter setting forth
the general grounds of his desire for emancipation, by the substitution of a
political oath for the sacramental test, and for a provision for the catholic
clergy, adding that if the king refused his consent, he must resign office.
George, after taking counsel with Addington, replied that he was bound by
his coronation oath to refuse his consent, and proposed that both he and Pitt
should say no more on the subject. In answer Pitt wrote on February 3 that
Page 468
he must resign office as soon as a new ministry could be formed. George,
who was incapable of appreciating his splendid services, and showed later
that he must often have chafed under his control, invited Addington, a dull
man after his own heart, to form a ministry. He consented, and on the 5th
the king accepted Pitt's resignation. Dundas, Grenville, Spencer, and
Windham decided to go out with Pitt, so did Canning and others who held
minor offices, and Cornwallis and Castlereagh also retired. Pitt promised
his help to Addington, whose father had physicked the Pitt family, and
persuaded some of his followers to join the new ministry. As it was to be an
anti-catholic ministry, his conduct has been held to prove that he was
paving his way to a return to office, and that the change, so far as he was
concerned, was, to use Fox's expression, "a juggle". It should be
remembered that the country was engaged in a deadly conflict, and that its
safety was always Pitt's first consideration. Emancipation was hopeless. He
had felt bound in honour to break up a strong ministry because he could not
carry it, and it was his duty to do what he could to strengthen the new
ministry so long as it did not prove incapable of guiding the country in
critical times.
In this, as in every part of these transactions, his conduct
was honourable and straightforward. He would not PITT'S
continue in office when thwarted by the king on a IMPENDING RESIGNATION.
question of great importance, nor would he consent to
disappoint hopes which he had encouraged and by which he had benefited.
That he was influenced by any other motive, such as that his continuance in
office would hinder peace, is a vain imagining. He has been blamed by an
eminent historian for not having persevered in his attempt to overcome the
king's determination, which on other occasions had yielded to pressure.[314]
On none of these occasions had George's religious convictions been
concerned. Some experience of the power exercised by religious prejudice
in strengthening the resistance which a naturally obstinate person can make
to reason, persuasion, and the force of circumstances, leads me to believe
that Pitt was right in accepting the king's decision as final and in not
engaging in a struggle which might, especially at that time, have had
disastrous consequences. Short of such a struggle he did insist on his policy
in the only way open to him; he resigned. Where he was to blame, and he
acknowledged it, was in keeping his intentions secret from the king.
who was incapable of appreciating his splendid services, and showed later
that he must often have chafed under his control, invited Addington, a dull
man after his own heart, to form a ministry. He consented, and on the 5th
the king accepted Pitt's resignation. Dundas, Grenville, Spencer, and
Windham decided to go out with Pitt, so did Canning and others who held
minor offices, and Cornwallis and Castlereagh also retired. Pitt promised
his help to Addington, whose father had physicked the Pitt family, and
persuaded some of his followers to join the new ministry. As it was to be an
anti-catholic ministry, his conduct has been held to prove that he was
paving his way to a return to office, and that the change, so far as he was
concerned, was, to use Fox's expression, "a juggle". It should be
remembered that the country was engaged in a deadly conflict, and that its
safety was always Pitt's first consideration. Emancipation was hopeless. He
had felt bound in honour to break up a strong ministry because he could not
carry it, and it was his duty to do what he could to strengthen the new
ministry so long as it did not prove incapable of guiding the country in
critical times.
In this, as in every part of these transactions, his conduct
was honourable and straightforward. He would not PITT'S
continue in office when thwarted by the king on a IMPENDING RESIGNATION.
question of great importance, nor would he consent to
disappoint hopes which he had encouraged and by which he had benefited.
That he was influenced by any other motive, such as that his continuance in
office would hinder peace, is a vain imagining. He has been blamed by an
eminent historian for not having persevered in his attempt to overcome the
king's determination, which on other occasions had yielded to pressure.[314]
On none of these occasions had George's religious convictions been
concerned. Some experience of the power exercised by religious prejudice
in strengthening the resistance which a naturally obstinate person can make
to reason, persuasion, and the force of circumstances, leads me to believe
that Pitt was right in accepting the king's decision as final and in not
engaging in a struggle which might, especially at that time, have had
disastrous consequences. Short of such a struggle he did insist on his policy
in the only way open to him; he resigned. Where he was to blame, and he
acknowledged it, was in keeping his intentions secret from the king.
Page 469
Whether if he had communicated them to the king at an early date, he
would have gradually won George over to his policy, it is impossible to say;
he certainly went the wrong way to work in disregarding the right of the
crown to be consulted on the policy which the prime minister hopes to carry
out.
The impending resignations were announced in parliament, and Sir John
Mitford, the attorney-general, was chosen speaker in place of Addington,
but the completion of the ministerial arrangements was delayed, and Pitt
remained de facto prime minister. To prevent public inconvenience he
brought forward his budget on the 18th. He announced a loan of
£25,500,000 for Great Britain and £1,500,000 for Ireland, afterwards
increased by another £1,000,000, which the commercial prosperity of the
country, though then in the ninth year of the war, had enabled him to
negotiate, at the rate of about 5¼ per cent., and he proposed fourteen new
taxes to defray the interest. The budget was well received. The delay in the
change of ministry was prolonged by the king's illness. He had been much
excited and distressed by the late events, and on the 20th again became
insane. The Prince of Wales approached Pitt on the subject of a regency, and
Pitt told him that, if the necessity should arise, he should propose the
restrictions of 1789. By March 6 the king's condition was materially
improved and the question became of no further importance. George bade
Willis, his doctor, tell Pitt that he was quite well, adding, "but what has he
not to answer for who is the cause of my having been ill at all?" Pitt was
much distressed. Would an assurance, he asked Willis, that he would not
again trouble the king on the catholic question "be material to his health?"
"Certainly," Willis replied, "and to his life also."[315] Pitt bade him give the
king the assurance. George was much comforted. Pitt's surrender has been
blamed in strong terms.[316] It cannot be defended completely. The question
was of deep importance to Ireland, and he treated it as a personal matter. It
is, however, unfair to represent his conduct as an attempt to resume office.
His followers constantly urged him to invite Addington to retire, for they
justly regarded him as incompetent, and when they heard of Pitt's message
to the king, they expected that their wish would be fulfilled. But Addington
had received his appointment, and was not likely to resign it willingly, and
Pitt, as Canning complained, would not make any "forward movement
towards the king". Nothing was to be got from him except that, if the king
would have gradually won George over to his policy, it is impossible to say;
he certainly went the wrong way to work in disregarding the right of the
crown to be consulted on the policy which the prime minister hopes to carry
out.
The impending resignations were announced in parliament, and Sir John
Mitford, the attorney-general, was chosen speaker in place of Addington,
but the completion of the ministerial arrangements was delayed, and Pitt
remained de facto prime minister. To prevent public inconvenience he
brought forward his budget on the 18th. He announced a loan of
£25,500,000 for Great Britain and £1,500,000 for Ireland, afterwards
increased by another £1,000,000, which the commercial prosperity of the
country, though then in the ninth year of the war, had enabled him to
negotiate, at the rate of about 5¼ per cent., and he proposed fourteen new
taxes to defray the interest. The budget was well received. The delay in the
change of ministry was prolonged by the king's illness. He had been much
excited and distressed by the late events, and on the 20th again became
insane. The Prince of Wales approached Pitt on the subject of a regency, and
Pitt told him that, if the necessity should arise, he should propose the
restrictions of 1789. By March 6 the king's condition was materially
improved and the question became of no further importance. George bade
Willis, his doctor, tell Pitt that he was quite well, adding, "but what has he
not to answer for who is the cause of my having been ill at all?" Pitt was
much distressed. Would an assurance, he asked Willis, that he would not
again trouble the king on the catholic question "be material to his health?"
"Certainly," Willis replied, "and to his life also."[315] Pitt bade him give the
king the assurance. George was much comforted. Pitt's surrender has been
blamed in strong terms.[316] It cannot be defended completely. The question
was of deep importance to Ireland, and he treated it as a personal matter. It
is, however, unfair to represent his conduct as an attempt to resume office.
His followers constantly urged him to invite Addington to retire, for they
justly regarded him as incompetent, and when they heard of Pitt's message
to the king, they expected that their wish would be fulfilled. But Addington
had received his appointment, and was not likely to resign it willingly, and
Pitt, as Canning complained, would not make any "forward movement
towards the king". Nothing was to be got from him except that, if the king
Page 470
and Addington earnestly wished him to continue, he was ready to discuss
matters. On the strength of this, Dundas and others went to Addington, who
rejected their proposal that he should offer to make way for Pitt, and Pitt
himself told them that their action was improper.
Pitt would willingly have continued in office. He loved
power, and he knew that England needed him and the PITT RESIGNS
strong ministry of which he was the head and soul, but OFFICE.
he was not a man to barter principle for office. His message to the king is
intelligible, as a prime minister of our own time has pointed out, without so
mean an interpretation.[317] He recognised that while the king lived catholic
emancipation could not be gained save at too high a price. George was
sixty-two, and his life was thought to be precarious; no one could foresee
that he would outlive Pitt, who was twenty years younger. An attempt to
force the question on him would have again brought on insanity, and would
perhaps have killed him. Pitt was deeply moved by the king's words, and
yielded to feelings of pity and personal affection for the sovereign he had
served for seventeen years. On March 14 he gave back the seal of the
exchequer into the king's hands. Once again then, and not for the last time,
did George defeat the policy of his ministers and drive them from office. In
this case the blame chiefly rests on the traitor Loughborough, who, for his
own purposes, happily to be foiled, interfered between the king and Pitt and
excited the king's religious prejudices. But George's conduct at this crisis
cannot be viewed wholly apart from his earlier attempts at personal rule, for
it proves that he was unable to understand that his ministers were
responsible for his political acts. His refusal to assent to emancipation
deprived Ireland of the happy results which Pitt expected, and brought
much trouble on the country. As regards its effect on the empire at large, it
is enough to say that it took the helm of state out of the hands of Pitt.
FOOTNOTES:
[301] Grenville to Whitworth, Nov. 1, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[302] Acton to Nelson, Aug. 1, 1799, Nelson and the Neapolitan Jacobins, p.
325.
[303] The latest discussions on this affair are in Captain Mahan's Life of Nelson,
2nd edition, 1899; Engl. Hist. Rev., April, 1898, July, 1899, October, 1900;
matters. On the strength of this, Dundas and others went to Addington, who
rejected their proposal that he should offer to make way for Pitt, and Pitt
himself told them that their action was improper.
Pitt would willingly have continued in office. He loved
power, and he knew that England needed him and the PITT RESIGNS
strong ministry of which he was the head and soul, but OFFICE.
he was not a man to barter principle for office. His message to the king is
intelligible, as a prime minister of our own time has pointed out, without so
mean an interpretation.[317] He recognised that while the king lived catholic
emancipation could not be gained save at too high a price. George was
sixty-two, and his life was thought to be precarious; no one could foresee
that he would outlive Pitt, who was twenty years younger. An attempt to
force the question on him would have again brought on insanity, and would
perhaps have killed him. Pitt was deeply moved by the king's words, and
yielded to feelings of pity and personal affection for the sovereign he had
served for seventeen years. On March 14 he gave back the seal of the
exchequer into the king's hands. Once again then, and not for the last time,
did George defeat the policy of his ministers and drive them from office. In
this case the blame chiefly rests on the traitor Loughborough, who, for his
own purposes, happily to be foiled, interfered between the king and Pitt and
excited the king's religious prejudices. But George's conduct at this crisis
cannot be viewed wholly apart from his earlier attempts at personal rule, for
it proves that he was unable to understand that his ministers were
responsible for his political acts. His refusal to assent to emancipation
deprived Ireland of the happy results which Pitt expected, and brought
much trouble on the country. As regards its effect on the empire at large, it
is enough to say that it took the helm of state out of the hands of Pitt.
FOOTNOTES:
[301] Grenville to Whitworth, Nov. 1, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[302] Acton to Nelson, Aug. 1, 1799, Nelson and the Neapolitan Jacobins, p.
325.
[303] The latest discussions on this affair are in Captain Mahan's Life of Nelson,
2nd edition, 1899; Engl. Hist. Rev., April, 1898, July, 1899, October, 1900;
Page 471
Athenæum, July 8 and Aug. 5, 1899; Mr. Gutteridge's Nelson and the Neapolitan
Jacobins (Navy Records Soc.), 1903, containing documents, with the Diario
Napol. and the Compendio di Micheroux from the Archivio Storico per le
province Napol., xxiv. (1899), pt. iv.; Marchese Maresca's Il Cavaliere
Micheroux, 1895; Madame Giglioni's Naples in 1799, 1903, and two articles by
Dr. Hueffer in the Revue Historique, Sept.-Dec, 1903, and Jan.-April, 1904, to
which I am indebted.
[304] Mahan, Life of Nelson, i., 439.
[305] Whitworth to Grenville, Nov. 1 and 13, and Dalrymple to Huskisson, Dec.
31, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[306] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 5 and 24, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[307] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 13, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[308] Martens, Recueil des Traités conclus par la Russie, xi., 5-7.
[309] Whitworth to Grenville, March 18, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.
[310] Same to same, April 2, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.
[311] Whitworth to Grenville, March 6, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.
[312] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution, ii., 17, 18.
[313] In 1801 the population of Great Britain was about 10,500,000, and of
Ireland about 4,500,000; in 1901 the population of Great Britain was
36,999,946, and of Ireland 4,458,775.
[314] Lecky, History, viii., 512.
[315] Lord Colchester, Diary, i., 255-61. Malmesbury (Diaries, iv., 31-32) says
that Pitt wrote a contrite letter to the king, which seems a mistake (see Stanhope,
Life, iii., 303-4).
[316] Lecky, Hist., viii., 523. Pitt has been admirably defended by Lord
Rosebery (Pitt, pp. 226-28).
[317] Lord Rosebery, u.s.
Jacobins (Navy Records Soc.), 1903, containing documents, with the Diario
Napol. and the Compendio di Micheroux from the Archivio Storico per le
province Napol., xxiv. (1899), pt. iv.; Marchese Maresca's Il Cavaliere
Micheroux, 1895; Madame Giglioni's Naples in 1799, 1903, and two articles by
Dr. Hueffer in the Revue Historique, Sept.-Dec, 1903, and Jan.-April, 1904, to
which I am indebted.
[304] Mahan, Life of Nelson, i., 439.
[305] Whitworth to Grenville, Nov. 1 and 13, and Dalrymple to Huskisson, Dec.
31, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[306] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 5 and 24, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[307] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 13, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.
[308] Martens, Recueil des Traités conclus par la Russie, xi., 5-7.
[309] Whitworth to Grenville, March 18, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.
[310] Same to same, April 2, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.
[311] Whitworth to Grenville, March 6, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.
[312] Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution, ii., 17, 18.
[313] In 1801 the population of Great Britain was about 10,500,000, and of
Ireland about 4,500,000; in 1901 the population of Great Britain was
36,999,946, and of Ireland 4,458,775.
[314] Lecky, History, viii., 512.
[315] Lord Colchester, Diary, i., 255-61. Malmesbury (Diaries, iv., 31-32) says
that Pitt wrote a contrite letter to the king, which seems a mistake (see Stanhope,
Life, iii., 303-4).
[316] Lecky, Hist., viii., 523. Pitt has been admirably defended by Lord
Rosebery (Pitt, pp. 226-28).
[317] Lord Rosebery, u.s.
Page 472
APPENDICES.
I. ON AUTHORITIES.
II. ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.
III. THE GRENVILLES.
I. ON AUTHORITIES.
II. ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.
III. THE GRENVILLES.
Page 473
APPENDIX I.
ON AUTHORITIES.
For the sake of convenience an attempt is made to classify the authorities
used in writing this volume under different heads; the plan adopted is
unscientific, and books noted under one head belong partly to others, but it
has, perhaps, the one merit of clearness. The editions quoted here are those
which have been used.
(1) General histories of England for the period 1760-1801:—Lecky, History
of England in the 18th Century, 8 vols., 1879-90, from which much help
has been obtained. It is a work to which every historian of the period must
be deeply indebted, and though faults may be found with its plan, it holds a
high place among our histories for learning, moderation, and philosophical
treatment. The history of England is carried down to the outbreak of the war
in 1793, that of Ireland to the Union. Adolphus, History of England from
the Accession of George III., 8 vols., 1840-45, a laborious and impartial
record of events, viewed from a conservative standpoint. Massey, History
of England, 4 vols., 1855-63, ends 1803, chiefly treating of home affairs;
neither animated nor philosophic, written from a liberal point of view,
unduly severe to the king, but deriving some value from the author's legal
and parliamentary experience. Lord Stanhope, History, 7 vols., edit. 1853,
vols. iv.-vii., ends 1783, trustworthy, dull, and whiggish. To these must be
added Sir T. E. May (Lord Farnborough), Constitutional History of England
from 1760 to 1860, 3 vols., 5th edit., 1875.
(2) The chief manuscript sources consulted:—The great collection of the
Duke of Newcastle's Papers in Add. MSS., British Museum, extremely
important down to 1767, specially with reference to ministerial intrigues,
the old whig methods of government, the negotiations with France in 1761-
62, and the growth of the cabinet system. The Pitt Papers, a mass of letters
addressed to Pitt (Earl of Chatham) and William Pitt, and some to Lady
Chatham, together with various political memoranda. These papers have
been sorted into different bundles, to which the numbers given in my
ON AUTHORITIES.
For the sake of convenience an attempt is made to classify the authorities
used in writing this volume under different heads; the plan adopted is
unscientific, and books noted under one head belong partly to others, but it
has, perhaps, the one merit of clearness. The editions quoted here are those
which have been used.
(1) General histories of England for the period 1760-1801:—Lecky, History
of England in the 18th Century, 8 vols., 1879-90, from which much help
has been obtained. It is a work to which every historian of the period must
be deeply indebted, and though faults may be found with its plan, it holds a
high place among our histories for learning, moderation, and philosophical
treatment. The history of England is carried down to the outbreak of the war
in 1793, that of Ireland to the Union. Adolphus, History of England from
the Accession of George III., 8 vols., 1840-45, a laborious and impartial
record of events, viewed from a conservative standpoint. Massey, History
of England, 4 vols., 1855-63, ends 1803, chiefly treating of home affairs;
neither animated nor philosophic, written from a liberal point of view,
unduly severe to the king, but deriving some value from the author's legal
and parliamentary experience. Lord Stanhope, History, 7 vols., edit. 1853,
vols. iv.-vii., ends 1783, trustworthy, dull, and whiggish. To these must be
added Sir T. E. May (Lord Farnborough), Constitutional History of England
from 1760 to 1860, 3 vols., 5th edit., 1875.
(2) The chief manuscript sources consulted:—The great collection of the
Duke of Newcastle's Papers in Add. MSS., British Museum, extremely
important down to 1767, specially with reference to ministerial intrigues,
the old whig methods of government, the negotiations with France in 1761-
62, and the growth of the cabinet system. The Pitt Papers, a mass of letters
addressed to Pitt (Earl of Chatham) and William Pitt, and some to Lady
Chatham, together with various political memoranda. These papers have
been sorted into different bundles, to which the numbers given in my
Page 474
footnotes refer, and a manuscript index of them has been made by Mrs.
Lomas of the Record Office, where they are at present deposited by their
owner. They have been used in the preparation of the Chatham
Correspondence, and by Lord Stanhope, but the field is large and may be
gleaned with profit. Foreign Office Correspondence (despatches of
ambassadors, etc.). With respect to these, the kind and efficient help given
me by Mr. Hubert Hall, of the Record Office, is gratefully acknowledged.
(3) Akin to these sources are various publications of the Historical
Manuscripts Commission. Among these special reference should be made
to the Reports on Mr. Fortescue's Dropmore MSS., 3 vols., containing the
papers of Lord Grenville, of the highest interest and importance, specially
from 1793; the Duke of Rutland's Belvoir MSS., 3 vols., with inter alia the
fourth Duke of Rutland's correspondence while lord-lieutenant of Ireland,
1784-87; the Charlemont MSS., also essential for Irish history; Lord
Dartmouth's MSS., vol. 2, American Papers to 1776, and Mrs. Stopford-
Sackville's MSS., and Sir E. Strachey's MSS., both throwing much light on
the conduct of the war with America.
(4) Of pre-eminent importance is the Parliamentary History, xv.-xxxv., and
its complement, Sir Henry Cavendish's Debates of the House of Commons
during the parliament of 1768, 2 vols., edit. by Wright, 1841, begins May,
1768, and ends March, 1771. It is much to be wished that the remainder of
these valuable reports should be published from the manuscript in the
British Museum. Dodsley's Annual Register has historical chapters written
by Burke, perhaps to 1778, and chapters in many later volumes probably
written under his supervision; they are of course generally excellent. The
volumes for the later years of our period contain many useful state papers.
Burke's speeches, pamphlets, and letters, of which the edition used here is
his Works and Correspondence, 8 vols., 1852. For his life see Prior, Life of
Burke, 2 vols., 5th edit. (Bohn's Lib.), 1854, Mr. J. Morley, Burke, a
historical study, 1867, and Burke (Engl. Men of Letters Series), 1879.
(5) Political and other memoirs and printed
correspondence:—H. Walpole (Lord Orford), Letters, MEMOIRS AND
edited by Cunningham, 9 vols., 1880, the letters in vols. CORRESPONDEN
CE.
i. and ii. are of earlier dates than 1760. A more complete
edition, in 16 vols., by Mrs. P. Toynbee, is in course of publication by the
Lomas of the Record Office, where they are at present deposited by their
owner. They have been used in the preparation of the Chatham
Correspondence, and by Lord Stanhope, but the field is large and may be
gleaned with profit. Foreign Office Correspondence (despatches of
ambassadors, etc.). With respect to these, the kind and efficient help given
me by Mr. Hubert Hall, of the Record Office, is gratefully acknowledged.
(3) Akin to these sources are various publications of the Historical
Manuscripts Commission. Among these special reference should be made
to the Reports on Mr. Fortescue's Dropmore MSS., 3 vols., containing the
papers of Lord Grenville, of the highest interest and importance, specially
from 1793; the Duke of Rutland's Belvoir MSS., 3 vols., with inter alia the
fourth Duke of Rutland's correspondence while lord-lieutenant of Ireland,
1784-87; the Charlemont MSS., also essential for Irish history; Lord
Dartmouth's MSS., vol. 2, American Papers to 1776, and Mrs. Stopford-
Sackville's MSS., and Sir E. Strachey's MSS., both throwing much light on
the conduct of the war with America.
(4) Of pre-eminent importance is the Parliamentary History, xv.-xxxv., and
its complement, Sir Henry Cavendish's Debates of the House of Commons
during the parliament of 1768, 2 vols., edit. by Wright, 1841, begins May,
1768, and ends March, 1771. It is much to be wished that the remainder of
these valuable reports should be published from the manuscript in the
British Museum. Dodsley's Annual Register has historical chapters written
by Burke, perhaps to 1778, and chapters in many later volumes probably
written under his supervision; they are of course generally excellent. The
volumes for the later years of our period contain many useful state papers.
Burke's speeches, pamphlets, and letters, of which the edition used here is
his Works and Correspondence, 8 vols., 1852. For his life see Prior, Life of
Burke, 2 vols., 5th edit. (Bohn's Lib.), 1854, Mr. J. Morley, Burke, a
historical study, 1867, and Burke (Engl. Men of Letters Series), 1879.
(5) Political and other memoirs and printed
correspondence:—H. Walpole (Lord Orford), Letters, MEMOIRS AND
edited by Cunningham, 9 vols., 1880, the letters in vols. CORRESPONDEN
CE.
i. and ii. are of earlier dates than 1760. A more complete
edition, in 16 vols., by Mrs. P. Toynbee, is in course of publication by the
Page 475
Clarendon Press. Walpole's Memoirs of the Reign of George III., 1760-72,
edited by Mr. Russell Barker, 4 vols., 1894, and his Journals of the Reign,
1771-83, edited by Doran, 2 vols., 1859. These works are of considerable
historical value, but Walpole was not a politician; he was a whig for
personal reasons rather than from conviction, and his sentiments were
largely determined by filial prejudice and the interests of his friends; his
views are generally superficial, and his judgments of persons biassed,
sometimes contradictory, and often unjust. Dodington (Lord Melcombe),
Diary, edited by Wyndham, 1785, ending with 1761. Harris, Life of Lord
Hardwicke, 3 vols., 1847, useful to 1764, and with an account of the
circumstances preceding C. Yorke's death in 1770, written by his brother.
Bisset, Memoirs of Sir Andrew Mitchell, 2 vols., 1850. Mitchell was
ambassador at Berlin in 1760 and later. The Memoirs are based on his
correspondence (Add. MSS. British Museum and elsewhere), and throw
light on the causes of Frederick's angry feelings towards the British
government, and the negotiations for peace in 1762. The Grenville Papers,
edited by W. J. Smith, 4 vols., 1852, consisting principally of the
correspondence of Richard, Earl Temple, and his brother George, first lord
of the treasury, 1763-65, together with George Grenville's diary of
"memorable transactions" during his administration, which gives a full
account of the relations between the king and his first minister. The Papers
are of primary importance for the first eleven years of the reign. [Almon,]
History of the Late Minority, 1765, a clever account of the politics of the
parliamentary opposition from 1761, attributed to Lord Temple, and written
in his interest. Correspondence of John, fourth Duke of Bedford, 3 vols.,
1846, well edited by Lord John (Earl) Russell, the last part of vol. ii. and
vol. iii. cover from 1760 to 1770. The correspondence and extracts from the
duke's diary afford a striking picture of the whig system of government by
"connexion"; they have much on the negotiations for the Peace of Paris, the
ministerial crises of 1763 and 1765, and the discord between the whigs
which was fatal to their chance of effectually resisting the king's policy. The
work is a necessary complement to the Grenville papers. A Narrative of the
Changes of Ministry, 1765-1767, told by the Duke of Newcastle, edited by
Miss M. Bateson for the Royal Hist. Soc. (Camden Series), 1898, from the
Newcastle Papers (see sec. 2), giving an interesting account of the king's
efforts to supply the place of the Grenville ministry, the difficulties both on
the king's side and that of Pitt which kept Pitt out of office, the duke's
edited by Mr. Russell Barker, 4 vols., 1894, and his Journals of the Reign,
1771-83, edited by Doran, 2 vols., 1859. These works are of considerable
historical value, but Walpole was not a politician; he was a whig for
personal reasons rather than from conviction, and his sentiments were
largely determined by filial prejudice and the interests of his friends; his
views are generally superficial, and his judgments of persons biassed,
sometimes contradictory, and often unjust. Dodington (Lord Melcombe),
Diary, edited by Wyndham, 1785, ending with 1761. Harris, Life of Lord
Hardwicke, 3 vols., 1847, useful to 1764, and with an account of the
circumstances preceding C. Yorke's death in 1770, written by his brother.
Bisset, Memoirs of Sir Andrew Mitchell, 2 vols., 1850. Mitchell was
ambassador at Berlin in 1760 and later. The Memoirs are based on his
correspondence (Add. MSS. British Museum and elsewhere), and throw
light on the causes of Frederick's angry feelings towards the British
government, and the negotiations for peace in 1762. The Grenville Papers,
edited by W. J. Smith, 4 vols., 1852, consisting principally of the
correspondence of Richard, Earl Temple, and his brother George, first lord
of the treasury, 1763-65, together with George Grenville's diary of
"memorable transactions" during his administration, which gives a full
account of the relations between the king and his first minister. The Papers
are of primary importance for the first eleven years of the reign. [Almon,]
History of the Late Minority, 1765, a clever account of the politics of the
parliamentary opposition from 1761, attributed to Lord Temple, and written
in his interest. Correspondence of John, fourth Duke of Bedford, 3 vols.,
1846, well edited by Lord John (Earl) Russell, the last part of vol. ii. and
vol. iii. cover from 1760 to 1770. The correspondence and extracts from the
duke's diary afford a striking picture of the whig system of government by
"connexion"; they have much on the negotiations for the Peace of Paris, the
ministerial crises of 1763 and 1765, and the discord between the whigs
which was fatal to their chance of effectually resisting the king's policy. The
work is a necessary complement to the Grenville papers. A Narrative of the
Changes of Ministry, 1765-1767, told by the Duke of Newcastle, edited by
Miss M. Bateson for the Royal Hist. Soc. (Camden Series), 1898, from the
Newcastle Papers (see sec. 2), giving an interesting account of the king's
efforts to supply the place of the Grenville ministry, the difficulties both on
the king's side and that of Pitt which kept Pitt out of office, the duke's
Page 476
discomfiture when the king put Pitt in power in July, 1766, and his attempt
in 1767 to arrange a coalition between Grafton and the Rockingham party.
The lack of any sufficient biography of Chatham renders The Chatham
Correspondence, 4 vols., 1840 (see sec. 2, Pitt Papers), well edited by
Taylor and Captain Pringle, of peculiar importance; vols. ii.-iv. contain
letters both from and to Chatham, which illustrate the whole of his career
during our period. Pitt's political position and conduct, 1761-65, and
specially his relations with Bute, are the subject of an interesting study,
William Pitt und Graf Bute, by Dr. A. von Ruville, Berlin, 1895. William
Pitt, Earl of Chatham (Heroes of the Nation Series), by Mr. W. D. Green,
M.P., 1901, is good from 1760, so far as its limits allow. Earl of Albemarle,
Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham, 2 vols., 1852, an ill-arranged book,
has letters of value, exhibits the policy of the Rockingham whigs, their
differences with Pitt (Chatham), and their efforts for reform. Autobiography
and Political Correspondence of the Duke of Grafton, 1898, edited by Sir
William Anson, with an excellent introduction and useful footnotes, gives
valuable notices of the first Rockingham ministry, the weakness of the
administration formed under Chatham, the collapse of all ministerial vigour
during his illness and when Grafton was nominally at the head of affairs,
and the views of the whigs with regard to the constitution. The
Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, 1768-83, 2 vols., 1867,
edited by W. B. Donne, with copious notes and comments, shows the king's
system of personal rule through his ministers in full working, the position
held by North under it, and his unavailing attempts to resign office when
forced to carry out a policy he disapproved, together with much that
concerns the conduct of the war. Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Life of the Earl
of Shelburne (Marquis of Lansdowne), 3 vols., 1875-76, based on papers at
Lansdowne House and elsewhere, represents Shelburne's political conduct
in as favourable a light as possible; the parts relating to the quarrel between
Shelburne and H. Fox in vol. i., the negotiations in Paris in 1782 and 1783,
and the quarrel with C. J. Fox, are perhaps specially useful, but the whole
work down to 1784 is necessary and authoritative.
Lord Stanhope, Life of Pitt, 4 vols., 2nd edit., 1862, founded on
unpublished papers (see sec. 2, Pitt Papers); a good biography and a
standard and indispensable work. With this should be read Lord Rosebery,
Pitt (Twelve English Statesmen Series), 1891, an admirable appreciation of
in 1767 to arrange a coalition between Grafton and the Rockingham party.
The lack of any sufficient biography of Chatham renders The Chatham
Correspondence, 4 vols., 1840 (see sec. 2, Pitt Papers), well edited by
Taylor and Captain Pringle, of peculiar importance; vols. ii.-iv. contain
letters both from and to Chatham, which illustrate the whole of his career
during our period. Pitt's political position and conduct, 1761-65, and
specially his relations with Bute, are the subject of an interesting study,
William Pitt und Graf Bute, by Dr. A. von Ruville, Berlin, 1895. William
Pitt, Earl of Chatham (Heroes of the Nation Series), by Mr. W. D. Green,
M.P., 1901, is good from 1760, so far as its limits allow. Earl of Albemarle,
Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham, 2 vols., 1852, an ill-arranged book,
has letters of value, exhibits the policy of the Rockingham whigs, their
differences with Pitt (Chatham), and their efforts for reform. Autobiography
and Political Correspondence of the Duke of Grafton, 1898, edited by Sir
William Anson, with an excellent introduction and useful footnotes, gives
valuable notices of the first Rockingham ministry, the weakness of the
administration formed under Chatham, the collapse of all ministerial vigour
during his illness and when Grafton was nominally at the head of affairs,
and the views of the whigs with regard to the constitution. The
Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, 1768-83, 2 vols., 1867,
edited by W. B. Donne, with copious notes and comments, shows the king's
system of personal rule through his ministers in full working, the position
held by North under it, and his unavailing attempts to resign office when
forced to carry out a policy he disapproved, together with much that
concerns the conduct of the war. Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Life of the Earl
of Shelburne (Marquis of Lansdowne), 3 vols., 1875-76, based on papers at
Lansdowne House and elsewhere, represents Shelburne's political conduct
in as favourable a light as possible; the parts relating to the quarrel between
Shelburne and H. Fox in vol. i., the negotiations in Paris in 1782 and 1783,
and the quarrel with C. J. Fox, are perhaps specially useful, but the whole
work down to 1784 is necessary and authoritative.
Lord Stanhope, Life of Pitt, 4 vols., 2nd edit., 1862, founded on
unpublished papers (see sec. 2, Pitt Papers); a good biography and a
standard and indispensable work. With this should be read Lord Rosebery,
Pitt (Twelve English Statesmen Series), 1891, an admirable appreciation of
Page 477
Pitt's work and character. Lord John (Earl) Russell, Memorials and
Correspondence of C. J. Fox, 4 vols., 1853, has many letters of importance,
but is otiosely edited, and Life of C. J. Fox, 3 vols., 1859-67, more
concerned with politics, which it treats from a strongly whig standpoint,
than with biography. Sir G. O. Trevelyan, Early History of C. J. Fox, 1880,
written on the whig side, ends with 1774. Court and Cabinets of George
III., edited by the Duke of Buckingham, 4 vols., 1853-55 (vol. i. begins at
1782, and 1801 is reached early in vol. iii.), contains the correspondence of
the brothers Lord Temple (later Marquis of Buckingham), Thomas, and W.
W. Grenville (later Lord Grenville); the letters of the last named are of
much value; they are supplemented by the Dropmore MSS. (see sec. 2).
Diaries and Correspondence of the First Earl of Malmesbury, 4 vols., 1844,
edited by the third earl, chiefly concerned with the foreign relations of
Great Britain; his despatches, letters, and journal while minister at St.
Petersburg, 1770-80, at the Hague, 1784-88, at Berlin, 1793, and during his
mission to Paris in 1796, and to Lille in 1797, are of first-rate importance.
In vol. ii. are reports of two conferences with the Prince of Wales on the
subject of his debts in 1785. Malmesbury (Sir James Harris) was one of the
Portland whigs, joined in their secession, and was much trusted by Pitt.
Correspondence of Marquis Cornwallis, 3 vols., 1859, well edited by C.
Ross, has several letters relating to the war with America, an account of his
interview with Frederick of Prussia in 1785, many despatches and letters
written by him as governor-general of India, 1786-92, and a large mass of
correspondence during his vice-royalty of Ireland, 1798-1801. Journal and
Correspondence of Lord Auckland, 4 vols., 1861-62, edited feebly by Lord
Auckland, Bishop of Bath and Wells. Auckland (Eden) was a personal
friend of Pitt until 1801. His letters while ambassador at Paris, 1785-87;
correspondence relating to the regency question, 1788; his letters from the
Hague, 1792-93; some on the course of the war, and those referring to the
recall of Fitzwilliam and to the catholic question in 1801, are to be noted.
He was chief secretary for Ireland in 1780, and was closely allied with
Beresford and the protestant ascendency party. Political Memoranda of the
Duke of Leeds, edited by Mr. O. Browning for the Camden Soc., 1884,
specially valuable for its account of the whig scheme for a coalition in
1792. Also edited by Mr. Browning, Despatches of Earl Gower, 1885.
Gower was ambassador at Paris, 1790-92. Lady Minto, Life of Sir Gilbert
Elliot, afterwards Lord Minto, to 1806, 3 vols., 1874; vol. i. contains
Correspondence of C. J. Fox, 4 vols., 1853, has many letters of importance,
but is otiosely edited, and Life of C. J. Fox, 3 vols., 1859-67, more
concerned with politics, which it treats from a strongly whig standpoint,
than with biography. Sir G. O. Trevelyan, Early History of C. J. Fox, 1880,
written on the whig side, ends with 1774. Court and Cabinets of George
III., edited by the Duke of Buckingham, 4 vols., 1853-55 (vol. i. begins at
1782, and 1801 is reached early in vol. iii.), contains the correspondence of
the brothers Lord Temple (later Marquis of Buckingham), Thomas, and W.
W. Grenville (later Lord Grenville); the letters of the last named are of
much value; they are supplemented by the Dropmore MSS. (see sec. 2).
Diaries and Correspondence of the First Earl of Malmesbury, 4 vols., 1844,
edited by the third earl, chiefly concerned with the foreign relations of
Great Britain; his despatches, letters, and journal while minister at St.
Petersburg, 1770-80, at the Hague, 1784-88, at Berlin, 1793, and during his
mission to Paris in 1796, and to Lille in 1797, are of first-rate importance.
In vol. ii. are reports of two conferences with the Prince of Wales on the
subject of his debts in 1785. Malmesbury (Sir James Harris) was one of the
Portland whigs, joined in their secession, and was much trusted by Pitt.
Correspondence of Marquis Cornwallis, 3 vols., 1859, well edited by C.
Ross, has several letters relating to the war with America, an account of his
interview with Frederick of Prussia in 1785, many despatches and letters
written by him as governor-general of India, 1786-92, and a large mass of
correspondence during his vice-royalty of Ireland, 1798-1801. Journal and
Correspondence of Lord Auckland, 4 vols., 1861-62, edited feebly by Lord
Auckland, Bishop of Bath and Wells. Auckland (Eden) was a personal
friend of Pitt until 1801. His letters while ambassador at Paris, 1785-87;
correspondence relating to the regency question, 1788; his letters from the
Hague, 1792-93; some on the course of the war, and those referring to the
recall of Fitzwilliam and to the catholic question in 1801, are to be noted.
He was chief secretary for Ireland in 1780, and was closely allied with
Beresford and the protestant ascendency party. Political Memoranda of the
Duke of Leeds, edited by Mr. O. Browning for the Camden Soc., 1884,
specially valuable for its account of the whig scheme for a coalition in
1792. Also edited by Mr. Browning, Despatches of Earl Gower, 1885.
Gower was ambassador at Paris, 1790-92. Lady Minto, Life of Sir Gilbert
Elliot, afterwards Lord Minto, to 1806, 3 vols., 1874; vol. i. contains
Page 478
information as to the illness of the king and the regency question; vol. ii. as
to the secession of the Portland whigs; Elliot, whose sister married Lord
Auckland, and whose wife was a sister of Lady Malmesbury, was one of the
party. His letters, while he was employed on a diplomatic mission at Toulon
during the siege, as viceroy of Corsica, at Naples, and as minister at Vienna,
1799-1801, are worthy of attention. Sir N. W. Wraxall, Historical and
Posthumous Memoirs, 1772-84, 5 vols., 1884, carefully edited by Mr. H. B.
Wheatley, diffuse and amusing. Wraxall's inaccuracies, or worse, have been
exaggerated, and his work, which goes to 1789, together with some later
"reminiscences," is of value, specially as regards its portraiture of public
men of a secondary rank. Wraxall was a follower of North until 1783, and
afterwards, until he resigned his seat in 1794, generally supported Pitt.
Diaries and Correspondence of George Rose, 2 vols., 1860, edited by L. V.
Harcourt. Rose was secretary to the treasury during the whole of Pitt's first
administration, and was intimate with him. Vol. i. contains, among other
matters, an account of Pitt's resignation; vol. ii. has some reminiscences
which the king communicated to Rose in 1804. The Diary and
Correspondence of Abbot, Lord Colchester, edited by his son, 3 vols., 1861,
vol. i. and Pellew, Life of Lord Sidmouth (Addington), 3 vols., 1847, vol. i.
should be consulted for the circumstances of Pitt's retirement. Lord
Holland, Memoirs of the Whig Party, 2 vols., 1852, edited by his son, Lord
Holland. As the writer was the nephew of Fox, who was much attached to
him, and by 1800 was himself a prominent member of the party, these
papers have great authority; many of them refer to events and persons
belonging to our period. Along with much else which does not concern
political history, the Life of William Wilberforce, by his sons, 5 vols., 1838,
contains some interesting notices of public affairs before 1801, along with a
record of Wilberforce's efforts in and out of parliament for the abolition of
the slave trade. See also Private Papers of W. Wilberforce, 1897, with a
character of Pitt by Wilberforce.
(6) Miscellaneous books, pamphlets, etc. On public finance, see Hamilton,
Inquiry concerning ... the National Debt, 1813; Newmarch, On the Loans
Raised by Mr. Pitt, 1793-1801, a highly valuable and interesting treatise;
Parliamentary Report, Accounts, xxxiii., 1858, on the national debt, and S.
Dowell, History of Taxation in England, 4 vols., 1884. On the commercial
treaty with France of 1786, see Count de Butenval, Précis du Traité de
to the secession of the Portland whigs; Elliot, whose sister married Lord
Auckland, and whose wife was a sister of Lady Malmesbury, was one of the
party. His letters, while he was employed on a diplomatic mission at Toulon
during the siege, as viceroy of Corsica, at Naples, and as minister at Vienna,
1799-1801, are worthy of attention. Sir N. W. Wraxall, Historical and
Posthumous Memoirs, 1772-84, 5 vols., 1884, carefully edited by Mr. H. B.
Wheatley, diffuse and amusing. Wraxall's inaccuracies, or worse, have been
exaggerated, and his work, which goes to 1789, together with some later
"reminiscences," is of value, specially as regards its portraiture of public
men of a secondary rank. Wraxall was a follower of North until 1783, and
afterwards, until he resigned his seat in 1794, generally supported Pitt.
Diaries and Correspondence of George Rose, 2 vols., 1860, edited by L. V.
Harcourt. Rose was secretary to the treasury during the whole of Pitt's first
administration, and was intimate with him. Vol. i. contains, among other
matters, an account of Pitt's resignation; vol. ii. has some reminiscences
which the king communicated to Rose in 1804. The Diary and
Correspondence of Abbot, Lord Colchester, edited by his son, 3 vols., 1861,
vol. i. and Pellew, Life of Lord Sidmouth (Addington), 3 vols., 1847, vol. i.
should be consulted for the circumstances of Pitt's retirement. Lord
Holland, Memoirs of the Whig Party, 2 vols., 1852, edited by his son, Lord
Holland. As the writer was the nephew of Fox, who was much attached to
him, and by 1800 was himself a prominent member of the party, these
papers have great authority; many of them refer to events and persons
belonging to our period. Along with much else which does not concern
political history, the Life of William Wilberforce, by his sons, 5 vols., 1838,
contains some interesting notices of public affairs before 1801, along with a
record of Wilberforce's efforts in and out of parliament for the abolition of
the slave trade. See also Private Papers of W. Wilberforce, 1897, with a
character of Pitt by Wilberforce.
(6) Miscellaneous books, pamphlets, etc. On public finance, see Hamilton,
Inquiry concerning ... the National Debt, 1813; Newmarch, On the Loans
Raised by Mr. Pitt, 1793-1801, a highly valuable and interesting treatise;
Parliamentary Report, Accounts, xxxiii., 1858, on the national debt, and S.
Dowell, History of Taxation in England, 4 vols., 1884. On the commercial
treaty with France of 1786, see Count de Butenval, Précis du Traité de
Page 479
Commerce, 1786, Paris, 1869, and Auckland Corr. as above. Some of the
articles by Sir G. C. Lewis, Administrations of Great Britain, 1783-1830,
edited by Sir E. Head, 1864, are founded on Memoirs, etc., noted in sec. 5,
and are excellent commentaries on them. The private life of the king is
written by Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., 3 vols., 2nd
edit., 1867, in itself scarcely to be reckoned as of historical value, but
giving copious references to authorities. Life at the court is vividly
described in Madame D'Arblay's (Miss Burney's) Diary, 7 vols., 1854; a
new edition by Mr. Austin Dobson is in course of publication. The Diary
should be read with an allowance for the writer's dislike of her work at
court, which Macaulay does not perhaps sufficiently consider in his essay.
His other essays relating to this period should be read, but the views of
history which they present must not be accepted in all cases. Bishop
Douglas, Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man, 1761; Case of the Troops
Serving in Germany, 1781; Mauduit, Occasional Thoughts on the Present
German War, 1761, and other pamphlets. Many of the Caricatures of
Gillray, Rowlandson, and others are valuable as historical documents. In
default of the originals, see Wright, England under the House of Hanover,
2 vols., 3rd edit., 1852, republished in one vol. as Caricature History of the
Georges [1867?].
(7) Of books on the American revolutionary war the best
general history of a popular kind is by Mr. Fiske, ON THE
American Revolution, 2 vols., 1891; it is written with AMERICANREBELLION.
moderation and a desire for impartiality. Gordon,
History of the Rise of the Independence of the United States, 4 vols., 1788,
with many documents. G. Bancroft, History of the United States, centenary
edition, 1879, vols. iii.-vi. containing the history of the revolution, display
wonderful industry, but are disfigured by violent partisanship. Narrative
and Critical History of America, edited by J. Winsor, vol. vi., 1888, has
some good papers by various writers. Cambridge Modern History, vol. vii.,
The United States, 1903. Tyler, Literary History of the American
Revolution, 2 vols., 1879, illustrates the course of American sentiment
during the period. Sir G. O. Trevelyan, The American Revolution, pts. i.
and ii., 3 vols., in progress, written on the whig side: the views taken in the
present book as to the causes and character of the dispute, and as to some
other points are different from those advanced by this distinguished author.
articles by Sir G. C. Lewis, Administrations of Great Britain, 1783-1830,
edited by Sir E. Head, 1864, are founded on Memoirs, etc., noted in sec. 5,
and are excellent commentaries on them. The private life of the king is
written by Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., 3 vols., 2nd
edit., 1867, in itself scarcely to be reckoned as of historical value, but
giving copious references to authorities. Life at the court is vividly
described in Madame D'Arblay's (Miss Burney's) Diary, 7 vols., 1854; a
new edition by Mr. Austin Dobson is in course of publication. The Diary
should be read with an allowance for the writer's dislike of her work at
court, which Macaulay does not perhaps sufficiently consider in his essay.
His other essays relating to this period should be read, but the views of
history which they present must not be accepted in all cases. Bishop
Douglas, Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man, 1761; Case of the Troops
Serving in Germany, 1781; Mauduit, Occasional Thoughts on the Present
German War, 1761, and other pamphlets. Many of the Caricatures of
Gillray, Rowlandson, and others are valuable as historical documents. In
default of the originals, see Wright, England under the House of Hanover,
2 vols., 3rd edit., 1852, republished in one vol. as Caricature History of the
Georges [1867?].
(7) Of books on the American revolutionary war the best
general history of a popular kind is by Mr. Fiske, ON THE
American Revolution, 2 vols., 1891; it is written with AMERICANREBELLION.
moderation and a desire for impartiality. Gordon,
History of the Rise of the Independence of the United States, 4 vols., 1788,
with many documents. G. Bancroft, History of the United States, centenary
edition, 1879, vols. iii.-vi. containing the history of the revolution, display
wonderful industry, but are disfigured by violent partisanship. Narrative
and Critical History of America, edited by J. Winsor, vol. vi., 1888, has
some good papers by various writers. Cambridge Modern History, vol. vii.,
The United States, 1903. Tyler, Literary History of the American
Revolution, 2 vols., 1879, illustrates the course of American sentiment
during the period. Sir G. O. Trevelyan, The American Revolution, pts. i.
and ii., 3 vols., in progress, written on the whig side: the views taken in the
present book as to the causes and character of the dispute, and as to some
other points are different from those advanced by this distinguished author.
Page 480
For the loyalists, L. Sabine, American Loyalists, Boston, 1847, revised edit.,
Biographies, etc., 2 vols., 1864, and Mr. Flick, Loyalism in New York
(Columbia University Studies, xiv.). The best purely military history of the
war is by Stedman, History of the American War, 2 vols., 4to, 1794; he
served under Howe, Clinton, and Cornwallis, and his book is a standard
authority. Tarleton, Campaigns of 1780, 1781 in the Southern Provinces,
1787. Other books consulted are Washington's Writings and Life, by Sparks,
12 vols., Boston, 1833-39; Franklin, Works, edit. Bigelow, 10 vols., N.Y.,
1887-88; Tudor, Life of Otis, Boston, 1823; Diary and Letters of Thomas
Hutchinson, edited by P. Hutchinson, 2 vols., 1883, 1886; Frothingham,
Siege of Boston, 1849, a careful piece of work, though written in a
remarkably vainglorious tone; Mr. Codman, Arnold's Expedition to Quebec,
New York, 1902, an excellent and interesting monograph; Kingsford,
History of Canada, vol. v., 1892, also deals with the expedition. Johnston,
Campaign of 1776 (Long Island Hist. Soc.), 1878, a good narrative well
furnished with documentary proofs, and by the same, The Yorktown
Campaign, New York, 1881. Judge Jones, History of New York during the
War, 2 vols., New York, 1879-80, edited by Mr. De Lancy, a book of special
interest, for Jones was a loyalist; it is written with vigour, and censures the
misdeeds on both sides alike. For Burgoyne's expedition—Sir J. Burgoyne,
State of the Expedition from Canada, 1779, with his defence before the
house of commons; Fonblanque, Episodes from the Life of Burgoyne, 1876,
and Lieut. Hadden, Journal and Orderly-books, 1886. For Howe's conduct
of the war—Examination of Joseph Galloway before the House of
Commons, 1779; [Galloway,] Letters to a Nobleman, 1779, Galloway, a
Philadelphian lawyer of large property, joined the British in 1776; Sir W.
Howe, Narrative before a committee of the house of commons, April 29,
1779, with Observations on Letters to a Nobleman, 1780; Detail and
Conduct of the War, including the celebrated Fugitive Pieces, 1780. Mr.
M'Crady in his History of South Carolina: i. Under Royal Government,
New York, 1899, an able book, shows how the desire for independence
gained ground in the provinces; vols. ii. and iii. In the Revolution, 1902,
contain a careful but tedious narrative, which seems to err in exalting the
partisan commanders, Marion and Sumter, at the expense of Greene. The
Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, 2 vols., 1888, edited with minute care by
the late Mr. B. F. Stevens, and containing all the official letters, orders, and
the like of the campaigns in the Carolinas; this elaborate work is essential
Biographies, etc., 2 vols., 1864, and Mr. Flick, Loyalism in New York
(Columbia University Studies, xiv.). The best purely military history of the
war is by Stedman, History of the American War, 2 vols., 4to, 1794; he
served under Howe, Clinton, and Cornwallis, and his book is a standard
authority. Tarleton, Campaigns of 1780, 1781 in the Southern Provinces,
1787. Other books consulted are Washington's Writings and Life, by Sparks,
12 vols., Boston, 1833-39; Franklin, Works, edit. Bigelow, 10 vols., N.Y.,
1887-88; Tudor, Life of Otis, Boston, 1823; Diary and Letters of Thomas
Hutchinson, edited by P. Hutchinson, 2 vols., 1883, 1886; Frothingham,
Siege of Boston, 1849, a careful piece of work, though written in a
remarkably vainglorious tone; Mr. Codman, Arnold's Expedition to Quebec,
New York, 1902, an excellent and interesting monograph; Kingsford,
History of Canada, vol. v., 1892, also deals with the expedition. Johnston,
Campaign of 1776 (Long Island Hist. Soc.), 1878, a good narrative well
furnished with documentary proofs, and by the same, The Yorktown
Campaign, New York, 1881. Judge Jones, History of New York during the
War, 2 vols., New York, 1879-80, edited by Mr. De Lancy, a book of special
interest, for Jones was a loyalist; it is written with vigour, and censures the
misdeeds on both sides alike. For Burgoyne's expedition—Sir J. Burgoyne,
State of the Expedition from Canada, 1779, with his defence before the
house of commons; Fonblanque, Episodes from the Life of Burgoyne, 1876,
and Lieut. Hadden, Journal and Orderly-books, 1886. For Howe's conduct
of the war—Examination of Joseph Galloway before the House of
Commons, 1779; [Galloway,] Letters to a Nobleman, 1779, Galloway, a
Philadelphian lawyer of large property, joined the British in 1776; Sir W.
Howe, Narrative before a committee of the house of commons, April 29,
1779, with Observations on Letters to a Nobleman, 1780; Detail and
Conduct of the War, including the celebrated Fugitive Pieces, 1780. Mr.
M'Crady in his History of South Carolina: i. Under Royal Government,
New York, 1899, an able book, shows how the desire for independence
gained ground in the provinces; vols. ii. and iii. In the Revolution, 1902,
contain a careful but tedious narrative, which seems to err in exalting the
partisan commanders, Marion and Sumter, at the expense of Greene. The
Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy, 2 vols., 1888, edited with minute care by
the late Mr. B. F. Stevens, and containing all the official letters, orders, and
the like of the campaigns in the Carolinas; this elaborate work is essential
Page 481
for forming a judgment on the controversy between the two generals. Other
authorities more or less bearing on the quarrel with the colonies and the
subsequent war are noted in other sections.
(8) On military matters generally:—Colonel the Hon. Sir Edward Cust,
Annals of the Wars of the Eighteenth Century, iii.-v., 3rd edit., 1862; the
Hon. J. W. Fortescue, A History of the British Army, 3 vols., 1899-1902, in
progress, an important work to which this volume is indebted, though the
view with regard to Clinton and Cornwallis taken by Mr. Fortescue is
widely different from that adopted here; M. Chuquet, La jeunesse de
Napoleon, Toulon, 1897, and Guerres de la Révolution, 11 vols., in
progress, an important work, vol. x. Valenciennes, vol. xi. Hondschoote; Sir
H. Bunbury, Narratives of the Great War with France, 1854, begins with
the campaign in Holland of 1799; Drinkwater, History of the Siege of
Gibraltar, Dublin, 1793; C. J. Fox, Napoleon Bonaparte and the Siege of
Toulon, Washington, U.S.A., 1902; Dr. Holland Rose, Life of Napoleon I.,
2 vols., 1902, and some other works.
(9) For naval history:—Captain Mahan, Influence of Sea
Power upon History, 1889, Influence of Sea Power on ON NAVAL
the French Revolution, 2 vols., 4th edit., 1892, and Life HISTORY.
of Nelson, 2 vols., 1897, books to which all students of the history of the
eighteenth century are deeply indebted. James, Naval History of Great
Britain, 6 vols., edit. 1837; vols. i.-iii. include from 1793 to 1801, a famous
work which is still of high authority on naval engagements and tactics, the
size and classes of ships, the number and character of their guns, etc., but it
neither explains nor criticises strategy. Brenton, Naval History of Great
Britain, 1783-1822, 5 vols., 1823, uncritical and inaccurate, though as the
work of a naval officer in active service, who had a part in some of the
events it describes, it has a certain importance. Sir W. L. Clowes, The Royal
Navy, vol. iv., 1899. T. Keppel, Life of Viscount Keppel, 2 vols., 1842.
Mundy, Life of Rodney, 2 vols., 1830. Mr. D. Hannay, Rodney (English
Men of Action Series), 1891, an admirable little book, and his edition of the
Letters of Sir S. (Viscount) Hood (Navy Records Soc.), 1895, exhibiting the
determining effect of naval failure on the part of England on the last phase
of the war with America. Barrow, Life of Earl Howe, 1838. Mr. J. K.
Laughton, Nelson (English Men of Action Series), 1895, by an
acknowledged master of English naval history, and his articles in the Dict.
authorities more or less bearing on the quarrel with the colonies and the
subsequent war are noted in other sections.
(8) On military matters generally:—Colonel the Hon. Sir Edward Cust,
Annals of the Wars of the Eighteenth Century, iii.-v., 3rd edit., 1862; the
Hon. J. W. Fortescue, A History of the British Army, 3 vols., 1899-1902, in
progress, an important work to which this volume is indebted, though the
view with regard to Clinton and Cornwallis taken by Mr. Fortescue is
widely different from that adopted here; M. Chuquet, La jeunesse de
Napoleon, Toulon, 1897, and Guerres de la Révolution, 11 vols., in
progress, an important work, vol. x. Valenciennes, vol. xi. Hondschoote; Sir
H. Bunbury, Narratives of the Great War with France, 1854, begins with
the campaign in Holland of 1799; Drinkwater, History of the Siege of
Gibraltar, Dublin, 1793; C. J. Fox, Napoleon Bonaparte and the Siege of
Toulon, Washington, U.S.A., 1902; Dr. Holland Rose, Life of Napoleon I.,
2 vols., 1902, and some other works.
(9) For naval history:—Captain Mahan, Influence of Sea
Power upon History, 1889, Influence of Sea Power on ON NAVAL
the French Revolution, 2 vols., 4th edit., 1892, and Life HISTORY.
of Nelson, 2 vols., 1897, books to which all students of the history of the
eighteenth century are deeply indebted. James, Naval History of Great
Britain, 6 vols., edit. 1837; vols. i.-iii. include from 1793 to 1801, a famous
work which is still of high authority on naval engagements and tactics, the
size and classes of ships, the number and character of their guns, etc., but it
neither explains nor criticises strategy. Brenton, Naval History of Great
Britain, 1783-1822, 5 vols., 1823, uncritical and inaccurate, though as the
work of a naval officer in active service, who had a part in some of the
events it describes, it has a certain importance. Sir W. L. Clowes, The Royal
Navy, vol. iv., 1899. T. Keppel, Life of Viscount Keppel, 2 vols., 1842.
Mundy, Life of Rodney, 2 vols., 1830. Mr. D. Hannay, Rodney (English
Men of Action Series), 1891, an admirable little book, and his edition of the
Letters of Sir S. (Viscount) Hood (Navy Records Soc.), 1895, exhibiting the
determining effect of naval failure on the part of England on the last phase
of the war with America. Barrow, Life of Earl Howe, 1838. Mr. J. K.
Laughton, Nelson (English Men of Action Series), 1895, by an
acknowledged master of English naval history, and his articles in the Dict.
Page 482
of National Biography on the sea-captains of the period. Logs of the Great
Sea Fights, 1794-1805 (Navy Records Soc.), vol. i., 1899, in progress, well
edited by Rear-Admiral T. Sturges Jackson, a delightful book of first-rate
value. References to the latest contributions to the subject of Nelson at
Naples are given in the text. Chevalier, Histoire de la Marine Française
pendant la Guerre de l'Indépendence Americaine, 1877, Histoire, etc., sous
la première République, 1886, most valuable works; a third vol., Hist., etc.,
sous le Consulat. M. le Capitaine Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, 2
vols., 1901, a phase of the great war told with all the care and lucidity
which distinguish the best French historical work.
(10) For European politics during the French revolution the best books are
by Heinrich von Sybel, used here in the French translation, Histoire de
l'Europe pendant la Révolution Française, 6 vols., 1869-88, and by M.
Albert Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, 6 vols., 1903, in
progress; vol. vi. covers 1800-5, a work distinguished alike by learning,
insight, and literary quality; the great collection of G. F. von Martens,
Recueil des Traités depuis 1761, vols. i.-vi., 1817-29; Comte de Garden,
Histoire des Traités, vols. iv.-vi., 1848-87, and F. de Martens, Recueil des
Traités conclus par la Russie, vols. ix., x. (Angleterre), 1892.
(11) In Irish history Lecky has generally been followed, supplemented by
Plowden, History of Ireland to the Union, 2 vols., 1809; H. Grattan, Life of
Grattan, 5 vols., 1839; Correspondence between Pitt and the Duke of
Rutland, 1781-87, edit. 1890. Earl Fitzwilliam, First and Second Letters to
the Earl of Carlisle, 1795; Tone, Life of T. W. Tone, 2 vols., 1826; Madden,
United Irishmen, 2 vols., 2nd edit., 1858; Gordon, History of the Rebellion,
2nd edit., 1803, a trustworthy and graphic narrative by a protestant
clergyman of co. Wexford; Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount
Castlereagh (Lord Londonderry), 12 vols., 1848-85, vols. ii.-iv.; Ingram,
History of the Irish Union, 1887, though failing in its hopeless attempt to
prove that the union was not effected by corrupt means, a book well worth
reading; Cornwallis Correspondence and some other books already noted.
(12) For Indian matters:—Mill and Wilson, History of British India, 10
vols., 1858, vols. iii.-vi., a standard work; Sir J. F. Stephen, Story of
Nuncomar, 2 vols., 1885; Mr. G. Forrest, Selections from State Papers,
India, 1772-85, 3 vols., 1890, documents of first-rate importance, well
Sea Fights, 1794-1805 (Navy Records Soc.), vol. i., 1899, in progress, well
edited by Rear-Admiral T. Sturges Jackson, a delightful book of first-rate
value. References to the latest contributions to the subject of Nelson at
Naples are given in the text. Chevalier, Histoire de la Marine Française
pendant la Guerre de l'Indépendence Americaine, 1877, Histoire, etc., sous
la première République, 1886, most valuable works; a third vol., Hist., etc.,
sous le Consulat. M. le Capitaine Desbrière, Projets de Débarquement, 2
vols., 1901, a phase of the great war told with all the care and lucidity
which distinguish the best French historical work.
(10) For European politics during the French revolution the best books are
by Heinrich von Sybel, used here in the French translation, Histoire de
l'Europe pendant la Révolution Française, 6 vols., 1869-88, and by M.
Albert Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution Française, 6 vols., 1903, in
progress; vol. vi. covers 1800-5, a work distinguished alike by learning,
insight, and literary quality; the great collection of G. F. von Martens,
Recueil des Traités depuis 1761, vols. i.-vi., 1817-29; Comte de Garden,
Histoire des Traités, vols. iv.-vi., 1848-87, and F. de Martens, Recueil des
Traités conclus par la Russie, vols. ix., x. (Angleterre), 1892.
(11) In Irish history Lecky has generally been followed, supplemented by
Plowden, History of Ireland to the Union, 2 vols., 1809; H. Grattan, Life of
Grattan, 5 vols., 1839; Correspondence between Pitt and the Duke of
Rutland, 1781-87, edit. 1890. Earl Fitzwilliam, First and Second Letters to
the Earl of Carlisle, 1795; Tone, Life of T. W. Tone, 2 vols., 1826; Madden,
United Irishmen, 2 vols., 2nd edit., 1858; Gordon, History of the Rebellion,
2nd edit., 1803, a trustworthy and graphic narrative by a protestant
clergyman of co. Wexford; Memoirs and Correspondence of Viscount
Castlereagh (Lord Londonderry), 12 vols., 1848-85, vols. ii.-iv.; Ingram,
History of the Irish Union, 1887, though failing in its hopeless attempt to
prove that the union was not effected by corrupt means, a book well worth
reading; Cornwallis Correspondence and some other books already noted.
(12) For Indian matters:—Mill and Wilson, History of British India, 10
vols., 1858, vols. iii.-vi., a standard work; Sir J. F. Stephen, Story of
Nuncomar, 2 vols., 1885; Mr. G. Forrest, Selections from State Papers,
India, 1772-85, 3 vols., 1890, documents of first-rate importance, well
Page 483
edited, with good introduction, which, perhaps, attempts too complete a
defence of Hastings; Sir A. Lyall, Warren Hastings (English Men of Action
Series), 1902, a thoroughly sound and well-considered biography; Mr. S. J.
Owen, Selections from the Despatches of Marquess Wellesley, 1877, with
the Cornwallis Correspondence already noted.
(13) For the social and economic history in chap, xiii., a
general account will be found in Lecky, History, vol. v., ON ECONOMIC
an admirable and delightful piece of work; Social PROGRESS.
England, vol. v., 1896, edited by Traill, papers of various merit by various
authors; a new edition with well-chosen illustrations is now (1904)
published; and chapters at the end of vols. vii. and ix. of the Pictorial
History of England, edited by Craik and Macfarlane, 1841, 1843. Manners
and customs are described by Mr. Sydney, England and the English in the
Eighteenth Century, 2 vols., 1891, and by Mr. Ashton, whose Old Times,
1885, is almost wholly composed of newspaper cuttings and caricatures,
and is, therefore, so far as it goes, a contemporary authority. Notices of the
gambling and frivolity of a portion of the upper class, some not before
printed, are given in Sir G. Trevelyan's Early Life of C. J. Fox (see above).
An independent study should include the chronicle in the Annual Register,
Walpole's Letters, Jesse, George Selwyn and his Contemporaries, 4 vols.,
1843, and Selwyn's Letters, edited by Mr. Roscoe and Miss Clergue, 1899;
Smollett, Humphrey Clinker, written in 1770; Anstey, New Bath Guide,
"poetical epistles describing life at Bath" in 1766; Miss Burney, Evelina, in
1778, and many other books. A good introduction to the literary history of
the period is given by Mr. G. Saintsbury, Short History of English
Literature, 1898. Though the late Sir Leslie Stephen in his English Thought
in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols., 2nd edit., 1881, deals chiefly with the
earlier part of the century, he has much of the highest value, specially in
chaps. x. and xi., on writers of this period; see also his articles on them in
the Dict. of National Biography. Church history is carefully treated by
Abbey and Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth Century, ed.
1887. For the administration of the criminal law—Major Griffith,
Chronicles of Newgate, 2 vols., 1884. For prisons—John Howard, The State
of the Prisons, 4th edit., 1792. For the police arrangements of London—
Colquhoun, Treatise on the Police, 1795.
defence of Hastings; Sir A. Lyall, Warren Hastings (English Men of Action
Series), 1902, a thoroughly sound and well-considered biography; Mr. S. J.
Owen, Selections from the Despatches of Marquess Wellesley, 1877, with
the Cornwallis Correspondence already noted.
(13) For the social and economic history in chap, xiii., a
general account will be found in Lecky, History, vol. v., ON ECONOMIC
an admirable and delightful piece of work; Social PROGRESS.
England, vol. v., 1896, edited by Traill, papers of various merit by various
authors; a new edition with well-chosen illustrations is now (1904)
published; and chapters at the end of vols. vii. and ix. of the Pictorial
History of England, edited by Craik and Macfarlane, 1841, 1843. Manners
and customs are described by Mr. Sydney, England and the English in the
Eighteenth Century, 2 vols., 1891, and by Mr. Ashton, whose Old Times,
1885, is almost wholly composed of newspaper cuttings and caricatures,
and is, therefore, so far as it goes, a contemporary authority. Notices of the
gambling and frivolity of a portion of the upper class, some not before
printed, are given in Sir G. Trevelyan's Early Life of C. J. Fox (see above).
An independent study should include the chronicle in the Annual Register,
Walpole's Letters, Jesse, George Selwyn and his Contemporaries, 4 vols.,
1843, and Selwyn's Letters, edited by Mr. Roscoe and Miss Clergue, 1899;
Smollett, Humphrey Clinker, written in 1770; Anstey, New Bath Guide,
"poetical epistles describing life at Bath" in 1766; Miss Burney, Evelina, in
1778, and many other books. A good introduction to the literary history of
the period is given by Mr. G. Saintsbury, Short History of English
Literature, 1898. Though the late Sir Leslie Stephen in his English Thought
in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols., 2nd edit., 1881, deals chiefly with the
earlier part of the century, he has much of the highest value, specially in
chaps. x. and xi., on writers of this period; see also his articles on them in
the Dict. of National Biography. Church history is carefully treated by
Abbey and Overton, The English Church in the Eighteenth Century, ed.
1887. For the administration of the criminal law—Major Griffith,
Chronicles of Newgate, 2 vols., 1884. For prisons—John Howard, The State
of the Prisons, 4th edit., 1792. For the police arrangements of London—
Colquhoun, Treatise on the Police, 1795.
Page 484
On economic and industrial history the latest and best authority is Dr.
Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times,
pts. i. and ii., 2 vols., 1903. Other books used are Craik, in Pictorial
History as above, republished in his History of British Commerce, 1844;
Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, 4 vols., 1805; McCulloch, edition of
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1863; Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and
Wages, 2 vols., 1884, and his Industrial and Commercial History of
England, lectures, 2 vols., 1898, and Warner, Landmarks in English
Industrial History, 1899, a useful and well-arranged little book. For the
cotton manufacture—Sir E. Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture,
1836. With reference to agriculture and the poor—A. Young, Six Weeks'
Tour in the Southern Counties, 1769, and Tour through the North, 4 vols.,
1770, present the condition of agriculture at the time, with lists of wages
and the expenses of the labouring class; Rev. J. Howlett, pamphlets on the
Influence of Enclosures, 1786, and the Causes of the Increase of the Poor,
1786; Mr. R. E. Prothero, Pioneers and Progress of English Farming,
1888, an excellent account; Sir G. A. Nicholls, History of the English Poor
Law, 2 vols., 1898, and Mr. and Mrs. S. Webb, History of Trades Unionism,
1902.
*** Dr. A. von Ruville's important and masterly work, William Pitt, Graf von
Chatham, 3 vols., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1905, appeared while this book was
in the press.
Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times,
pts. i. and ii., 2 vols., 1903. Other books used are Craik, in Pictorial
History as above, republished in his History of British Commerce, 1844;
Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, 4 vols., 1805; McCulloch, edition of
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1863; Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and
Wages, 2 vols., 1884, and his Industrial and Commercial History of
England, lectures, 2 vols., 1898, and Warner, Landmarks in English
Industrial History, 1899, a useful and well-arranged little book. For the
cotton manufacture—Sir E. Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture,
1836. With reference to agriculture and the poor—A. Young, Six Weeks'
Tour in the Southern Counties, 1769, and Tour through the North, 4 vols.,
1770, present the condition of agriculture at the time, with lists of wages
and the expenses of the labouring class; Rev. J. Howlett, pamphlets on the
Influence of Enclosures, 1786, and the Causes of the Increase of the Poor,
1786; Mr. R. E. Prothero, Pioneers and Progress of English Farming,
1888, an excellent account; Sir G. A. Nicholls, History of the English Poor
Law, 2 vols., 1898, and Mr. and Mrs. S. Webb, History of Trades Unionism,
1902.
*** Dr. A. von Ruville's important and masterly work, William Pitt, Graf von
Chatham, 3 vols., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1905, appeared while this book was
in the press.
Page 485
APPENDIX II.
ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.[318]
1. NEWCASTLE, as in November, 1760.
First ld. treasury D. of Newcastle.
s. dept. Pitt.
E. of Egremont. succ. Oct., 1761.
{
Secs. of state
n. dept. E. of Holdernesse.
E. of Bute, succ. March, 1761.
Ld. president Ld. Granville.
Ld. keeper
Ld. chan., 1761 } Ld. Henley.
Ld. privy seal E. Temple.
D. of Bedford, succ. Nov., 1761.
Ld. chamberlain D. of Devonshire, in cabinet.
Groom of the stole E. of Bute, in cabinet.
E. of Huntingdon, succ. Oct., 1761.
Board of trade E. of Halifax, in cabinet.
Ld. Sandys, succ. March, 1761, not in cabt.
Ch. exchequer H. B. Legge.
Ld. Barrington, succ. March, 1761.
Admiralty Ld. Anson.
Ordnance Visct. Ligonier.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland D. of Bedford.
E. of Halifax, succ. 1761.
Unofficial Ld. Hardwicke, in cabinet.
Unofficial Ld. Mansfield, C. J., in cabinet.
Secretary at war[319] Visct. Barrington.
C. Townshend, succ. 1761.
ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.[318]
1. NEWCASTLE, as in November, 1760.
First ld. treasury D. of Newcastle.
s. dept. Pitt.
E. of Egremont. succ. Oct., 1761.
{
Secs. of state
n. dept. E. of Holdernesse.
E. of Bute, succ. March, 1761.
Ld. president Ld. Granville.
Ld. keeper
Ld. chan., 1761 } Ld. Henley.
Ld. privy seal E. Temple.
D. of Bedford, succ. Nov., 1761.
Ld. chamberlain D. of Devonshire, in cabinet.
Groom of the stole E. of Bute, in cabinet.
E. of Huntingdon, succ. Oct., 1761.
Board of trade E. of Halifax, in cabinet.
Ld. Sandys, succ. March, 1761, not in cabt.
Ch. exchequer H. B. Legge.
Ld. Barrington, succ. March, 1761.
Admiralty Ld. Anson.
Ordnance Visct. Ligonier.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland D. of Bedford.
E. of Halifax, succ. 1761.
Unofficial Ld. Hardwicke, in cabinet.
Unofficial Ld. Mansfield, C. J., in cabinet.
Secretary at war[319] Visct. Barrington.
C. Townshend, succ. 1761.
Page 486
2. BUTE, May, 1762.
First ld. treasury E. of Bute.
s. dept. E. of Egremont.
{
Secs. of state n. dept. G. Grenville.
E. of Halifax, succ. Oct., 1762.
Ld. president Ld. Granville.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Henley.
Ld. privy seal D. of Bedford.
Ch. exchequer Sir F. Dashwood.
Admiralty E. of Halifax.
G. Grenville, succ. Oct., 1762.
Ordnance Visct. Ligonier.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Halifax.
Secretary at war C. Townshend.
W. Ellis, succ. Dec., 1762.
3. GRENVILLE, May, 1763.
First ld. treas. and ch. exchequer G. Grenville.
s. dept. E. of Egremont.
Secs. of state { E. of Halifax, succ. Sept., 1763.
n. dept. E. of Sandwich, succ. Sept., 1763.
Ld. president Ld. Granville.
D. of Bedford, succ. Sept., 1763.
Ld. chancellor E. of Northington (before Henley).
Ld. privy seal D. of Marlborough.
Admiralty Ld. Egmont.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Northumberland.
Visct. Weymouth, succ. 1765.
Secretary at war W. Ellis.
4. ROCKINGHAM, July, 1765.
First ld. treasury E. of Bute.
s. dept. E. of Egremont.
{
Secs. of state n. dept. G. Grenville.
E. of Halifax, succ. Oct., 1762.
Ld. president Ld. Granville.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Henley.
Ld. privy seal D. of Bedford.
Ch. exchequer Sir F. Dashwood.
Admiralty E. of Halifax.
G. Grenville, succ. Oct., 1762.
Ordnance Visct. Ligonier.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Halifax.
Secretary at war C. Townshend.
W. Ellis, succ. Dec., 1762.
3. GRENVILLE, May, 1763.
First ld. treas. and ch. exchequer G. Grenville.
s. dept. E. of Egremont.
Secs. of state { E. of Halifax, succ. Sept., 1763.
n. dept. E. of Sandwich, succ. Sept., 1763.
Ld. president Ld. Granville.
D. of Bedford, succ. Sept., 1763.
Ld. chancellor E. of Northington (before Henley).
Ld. privy seal D. of Marlborough.
Admiralty Ld. Egmont.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Northumberland.
Visct. Weymouth, succ. 1765.
Secretary at war W. Ellis.
4. ROCKINGHAM, July, 1765.
Page 487
First ld. treasury M. of Rockingham.
s. dept. H. S. Conway.
D. of Richmond, succ. May, 1766.
{
Secs. of state
n. dept. D. of Grafton.
H. S. Conway, succ. May, 1766.
Ld. president E. of Winchelsea.
Ld. chancellor E. of Northington.
Ld. privy seal D. of Newcastle.
Ch. exchequer W. Dowdeswell.
Admiralty Ld. Egmont.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland M. of Hertford.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
5. CHATHAM, August, 1766.
First ld. treasury D. of Grafton.
s. dept. E. of Shelburne.
{
Secs. of state
n. dept. H. S. Conway.
Ld. president E. of Northington.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Camden.
Ld. privy seal E. of Chatham.
Ch. exchequer C. Townshend.
Ld. North, succ. Sept., 1767.
Admiralty Sir C. Saunders.
Sir E. Hawke, succ. Dec, 1766.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Bristol.
Visct. Townshend, succ. Oct., 1767.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
6. GRAFTON, December, 1767.
First ld. treasury D. of Grafton.
s. dept. H. S. Conway.
D. of Richmond, succ. May, 1766.
{
Secs. of state
n. dept. D. of Grafton.
H. S. Conway, succ. May, 1766.
Ld. president E. of Winchelsea.
Ld. chancellor E. of Northington.
Ld. privy seal D. of Newcastle.
Ch. exchequer W. Dowdeswell.
Admiralty Ld. Egmont.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland M. of Hertford.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
5. CHATHAM, August, 1766.
First ld. treasury D. of Grafton.
s. dept. E. of Shelburne.
{
Secs. of state
n. dept. H. S. Conway.
Ld. president E. of Northington.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Camden.
Ld. privy seal E. of Chatham.
Ch. exchequer C. Townshend.
Ld. North, succ. Sept., 1767.
Admiralty Sir C. Saunders.
Sir E. Hawke, succ. Dec, 1766.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Bristol.
Visct. Townshend, succ. Oct., 1767.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
6. GRAFTON, December, 1767.
First ld. treasury D. of Grafton.
Page 488
s. dept. E. of Shelburne.
Visct. Weymouth, succ. Oct., 1768.
Secs. of
state { n. dept. Visct. Weymouth.
E. of Rochford, succ. Oct., 1768.
colonies E. of Hillsborough, apptd. Jan., 1768.
Ld. president E. Gower.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Camden.
C. Yorke, received great seal, Jan. 17, d. 20th,
1770.
Ld. privy seal E. of Chatham.
E. of Bristol, succ. Oct., 1768.
Ch. exchequer Ld. North.
Admiralty Sir E. Hawke.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Unofficial H. S. Conway, in cabinet.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland Visct. Townshend.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
7. NORTH, January, 1770.
First ld. treas. and ch.
Ld. North.
exchequer
Secs. of state s. dept. Visct. Weymouth.
E. of Rochford, succ. Dec., 1770.
Visct. Weymouth, succ. Nov., 1775.
E. of Hillsborough, succ. Nov., 1779.
n. dept. E. of Rochford.
E. of Sandwich, succ. Dec., 1770.
E. of Halifax, succ. Jan., 1771.
E. of Suffolk, succ. June, 1771.
Visct. Stormont, succ. Oct., 1779.
colonies E. of Hillsborough.
E. of Dartmouth, succ. Aug., 1772.
Ld. G. Germain, succ. Nov., 1775.
Visct. Weymouth, succ. Oct., 1768.
Secs. of
state { n. dept. Visct. Weymouth.
E. of Rochford, succ. Oct., 1768.
colonies E. of Hillsborough, apptd. Jan., 1768.
Ld. president E. Gower.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Camden.
C. Yorke, received great seal, Jan. 17, d. 20th,
1770.
Ld. privy seal E. of Chatham.
E. of Bristol, succ. Oct., 1768.
Ch. exchequer Ld. North.
Admiralty Sir E. Hawke.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Unofficial H. S. Conway, in cabinet.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland Visct. Townshend.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
7. NORTH, January, 1770.
First ld. treas. and ch.
Ld. North.
exchequer
Secs. of state s. dept. Visct. Weymouth.
E. of Rochford, succ. Dec., 1770.
Visct. Weymouth, succ. Nov., 1775.
E. of Hillsborough, succ. Nov., 1779.
n. dept. E. of Rochford.
E. of Sandwich, succ. Dec., 1770.
E. of Halifax, succ. Jan., 1771.
E. of Suffolk, succ. June, 1771.
Visct. Stormont, succ. Oct., 1779.
colonies E. of Hillsborough.
E. of Dartmouth, succ. Aug., 1772.
Ld. G. Germain, succ. Nov., 1775.
Page 489
W. Ellis, succ. March, 1782.
Ld. president E. Gower.
E. Bathurst (bef. Apsley), succ. Nov.,
1779.
Ld. chancellor Great seal in commission.
Ld. Apsley, 1771.
Ld. Thurlow, succ. June, 1778.
Ld. privy seal E. of Halifax.
E. of Suffolk, succ. Jan., 1771.
D. of Grafton, succ. June, 1771.
E. of Dartmouth, succ. Nov., 1775.
Admiralty Sir E. Hawke.
E. of Sandwich, succ. Jan., 1771.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Visct. Townshend, succ. Oct., 1772.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland Visct. Townshend.
E. Harcourt, succ. 1772.
E. of Buckinghamshire, succ. 1777.
E. of Carlisle, succ. 1780.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
C. Jenkinson, succ. Dec., 1778.
8. ROCKINGHAM, March, 1782.
First ld. treasury M. of Rockingham.
home E. of Shelburne.
{
Secs. of state
foreign C. J. Fox.
Ch. exchequer Ld. J. Cavendish.
Ld. president Ld. Camden.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Thurlow.
Ld. privy seal D. of Grafton.
Admiralty Visct. Keppel.
Ordnance D. of Richmond.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland D. of Portland.
Ld. president E. Gower.
E. Bathurst (bef. Apsley), succ. Nov.,
1779.
Ld. chancellor Great seal in commission.
Ld. Apsley, 1771.
Ld. Thurlow, succ. June, 1778.
Ld. privy seal E. of Halifax.
E. of Suffolk, succ. Jan., 1771.
D. of Grafton, succ. June, 1771.
E. of Dartmouth, succ. Nov., 1775.
Admiralty Sir E. Hawke.
E. of Sandwich, succ. Jan., 1771.
Ordnance M. of Granby.
Visct. Townshend, succ. Oct., 1772.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland Visct. Townshend.
E. Harcourt, succ. 1772.
E. of Buckinghamshire, succ. 1777.
E. of Carlisle, succ. 1780.
Secretary at war Visct. Barrington.
C. Jenkinson, succ. Dec., 1778.
8. ROCKINGHAM, March, 1782.
First ld. treasury M. of Rockingham.
home E. of Shelburne.
{
Secs. of state
foreign C. J. Fox.
Ch. exchequer Ld. J. Cavendish.
Ld. president Ld. Camden.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Thurlow.
Ld. privy seal D. of Grafton.
Admiralty Visct. Keppel.
Ordnance D. of Richmond.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland D. of Portland.
Page 490
Secretary at war T. Townshend.
9. SHELBURNE, July, 1782.
First ld. treasury E. of Shelburne.
home T. Townshend.
Secs. of state { foreign Ld. Grantham.
Ld. president Ld. Camden.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Thurlow.
Ld. privy seal D. of Grafton.
Ch. exchequer W. Pitt.
Admiralty Visct. Keppel.
Ordnance D. of Richmond.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. Temple.
Secretary at war Sir G. Yonge.
10. COALITION, NORTH and FOX, April, 1783.
First ld. treasury D. of Portland.
home Ld. North.
Secs. of state { foreign C. J. Fox.
Ld. president Visct. Stormont.
Ld. chancellor Great seal in commission.
Ld. privy seal E. of Carlisle.
Ch. exchequer Ld. J. Cavendish.
Admiralty Visct. Keppel.
Ordnance Visct. Townshend.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Northington.
Secretary at war R. Fitzpatrick.
11. PITT, December, 1783.
First ld. treas. and ch.
W. Pitt
exchequer
9. SHELBURNE, July, 1782.
First ld. treasury E. of Shelburne.
home T. Townshend.
Secs. of state { foreign Ld. Grantham.
Ld. president Ld. Camden.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Thurlow.
Ld. privy seal D. of Grafton.
Ch. exchequer W. Pitt.
Admiralty Visct. Keppel.
Ordnance D. of Richmond.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. Temple.
Secretary at war Sir G. Yonge.
10. COALITION, NORTH and FOX, April, 1783.
First ld. treasury D. of Portland.
home Ld. North.
Secs. of state { foreign C. J. Fox.
Ld. president Visct. Stormont.
Ld. chancellor Great seal in commission.
Ld. privy seal E. of Carlisle.
Ch. exchequer Ld. J. Cavendish.
Admiralty Visct. Keppel.
Ordnance Visct. Townshend.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland E. of Northington.
Secretary at war R. Fitzpatrick.
11. PITT, December, 1783.
First ld. treas. and ch.
W. Pitt
exchequer
Page 491
home E. Temple, sole sec. for one day.
Lord Sydney (before T. Townshend).
W. W. Grenville, succ. June, 1789.
H. Dundas, succ. June, 1791.
Secs. of state D. of Portland, succ. July, 1794.
foreign M. of Carmarthen (1789 D. of Leeds).
Ld. Grenville (before W. W. Grenville), succ.
June, 1791.
war H. Dundas, apptd. July, 1794.
Ld. president E. Gower.
Ld. Camden, succ. Dec, 1784.
E. Fitzwilliam, succ. July, 1794.
E. of Mansfield (before Stormont), succ. Dec.,
1794.
E. of Chatham, succ. Dec, 1796.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Thurlow.
Ld. Loughborough, succ. Jan., 1793.
Ld. privy seal D. of Rutland.
E. Gower (1786 M. of Stafford), succ.. Nov.,
1784.
E. Spencer, succ. July, 1794.
E. of Chatham, succ. Dec., 1794.
E. of Westmorland, succ. Feb., 1798.
Admiralty Visct. Howe.
E. of Chatham, succ. July, 1788.
E. Spencer, succ. Dec, 1794.
Ordnance E. of Richmond.
M. Cornwallis, succ.. Feb., 1795.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland D. of Rutland.
M. of Buckingham (before E. Temple), succ.
1787.
E. of Westmorland, succ. 1790.
E. Fitzwilliam, succ. 1794.
E. Camden, succ. 1795.
Lord Sydney (before T. Townshend).
W. W. Grenville, succ. June, 1789.
H. Dundas, succ. June, 1791.
Secs. of state D. of Portland, succ. July, 1794.
foreign M. of Carmarthen (1789 D. of Leeds).
Ld. Grenville (before W. W. Grenville), succ.
June, 1791.
war H. Dundas, apptd. July, 1794.
Ld. president E. Gower.
Ld. Camden, succ. Dec, 1784.
E. Fitzwilliam, succ. July, 1794.
E. of Mansfield (before Stormont), succ. Dec.,
1794.
E. of Chatham, succ. Dec, 1796.
Ld. chancellor Ld. Thurlow.
Ld. Loughborough, succ. Jan., 1793.
Ld. privy seal D. of Rutland.
E. Gower (1786 M. of Stafford), succ.. Nov.,
1784.
E. Spencer, succ. July, 1794.
E. of Chatham, succ. Dec., 1794.
E. of Westmorland, succ. Feb., 1798.
Admiralty Visct. Howe.
E. of Chatham, succ. July, 1788.
E. Spencer, succ. Dec, 1794.
Ordnance E. of Richmond.
M. Cornwallis, succ.. Feb., 1795.
Ld.-lieut. Ireland D. of Rutland.
M. of Buckingham (before E. Temple), succ.
1787.
E. of Westmorland, succ. 1790.
E. Fitzwilliam, succ. 1794.
E. Camden, succ. 1795.
Page 492
M. Cornwallis, succ. 1798.
Secretary at war Sir G. Yonge, not in cabinet.
W. Windham, succ. July, 1794, in cabinet.
FOOTNOTES:
[318] In preparing these lists I have derived much help from the Book of
Dignities, edited by Mr. Ockerby, 1890, though my lists do not always agree
with it. The division of the spheres of the secs. of state into n. and s. depts. was
merely a matter of convenience, and I am not sure that my attempt to present the
changes of depts. is accurate in every case.
[319] Not a cabinet office.
Secretary at war Sir G. Yonge, not in cabinet.
W. Windham, succ. July, 1794, in cabinet.
FOOTNOTES:
[318] In preparing these lists I have derived much help from the Book of
Dignities, edited by Mr. Ockerby, 1890, though my lists do not always agree
with it. The division of the spheres of the secs. of state into n. and s. depts. was
merely a matter of convenience, and I am not sure that my attempt to present the
changes of depts. is accurate in every case.
[319] Not a cabinet office.
Page 493
APPENDIX III.
THE GRENVILLES.
Hester
Richard
Temple,
Grenville
succ.
of
= Visctess.
Wotton,
Cobham, cr.
Bucks,
Ctess.
ob. 1727.
Temple.
Richard
Grenville- William
Hester cr.
Temple,[320] George [321]
ob. James ob. Pitt, E. of
Ctess. =
E. Temple, 1770. 1783 Chatham,
Chatham.
o.s.v.p., ob. 1778.
1779.
William
George, E. Wyndham,
Temple,[322] [324]
cr. James, cr. John, E. of William
[323] Baron Chatham, Pitt, ob.
cr. M. of Thomas, Baron
Buckingham, o.s.p., 1846. Grenville, Glastonbury, o.s.p., cael.,
1784, ob. 1790, o.s.p., 1825. 1835. 1806.
1813. o.s.p.,
1834.
/\
FOOTNOTES:
THE GRENVILLES.
Hester
Richard
Temple,
Grenville
succ.
of
= Visctess.
Wotton,
Cobham, cr.
Bucks,
Ctess.
ob. 1727.
Temple.
Richard
Grenville- William
Hester cr.
Temple,[320] George [321]
ob. James ob. Pitt, E. of
Ctess. =
E. Temple, 1770. 1783 Chatham,
Chatham.
o.s.v.p., ob. 1778.
1779.
William
George, E. Wyndham,
Temple,[322] [324]
cr. James, cr. John, E. of William
[323] Baron Chatham, Pitt, ob.
cr. M. of Thomas, Baron
Buckingham, o.s.p., 1846. Grenville, Glastonbury, o.s.p., cael.,
1784, ob. 1790, o.s.p., 1825. 1835. 1806.
1813. o.s.p.,
1834.
/\
FOOTNOTES:
Page 494
[320] In 1760 ld. privy seal; resigned, 1761.
[321] In 1760 treas. of navy; sec. of state, 1762; first ld. of treas. and ch. of
exch., 1763-65.
[322] Ld.-lieut. of Ireland, 1782; one day sec. of state, 1783; ld.-lieut. of Ireland,
1787.
[323] Minister plen. at Paris, 1782; ambassador at Vienna, 1793; book-collector.
[324] Chief sec. for Ireland, 1782; paymaster-general, 1783; speaker, 1789; sec.
of state, home, 1789; sec. of state, foreign, 1791; first ld. of treas., 1806.
[321] In 1760 treas. of navy; sec. of state, 1762; first ld. of treas. and ch. of
exch., 1763-65.
[322] Ld.-lieut. of Ireland, 1782; one day sec. of state, 1783; ld.-lieut. of Ireland,
1787.
[323] Minister plen. at Paris, 1782; ambassador at Vienna, 1793; book-collector.
[324] Chief sec. for Ireland, 1782; paymaster-general, 1783; speaker, 1789; sec.
of state, home, 1789; sec. of state, foreign, 1791; first ld. of treas., 1806.
Page 495
INDEX.
Abercromby, Sir Ralph, 377, 389;
commander-in-chief in Ireland, 405, 406, 430, 436, 439.
Abington, Mrs., 258.
Abukir bay, 417, 439. See Nile, battle of the.
Academy, Royal, 262.
A'Court, General, 52.
Acre, siege of, 418, 419.
Acton, Sir John, 427.
Adam, William, advocate, 358.
Adam, Robert, architect, 262.
Adams, John, 132, 134.
Adams, Samuel, 60, 109, 124-126, 132, 142, 147.
Addington, Henry (afterwards Viscount Sidmouth), 187;
speaker, 315, 452, 453;
first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 454.
Agricultural revolution, 273-278.
Aiguillon, Duc d', 114, 115.
Aitken, James, "John the Painter," 170.
Albany (U.S.A.), 172, 173, 176, 178-180.
Abercromby, Sir Ralph, 377, 389;
commander-in-chief in Ireland, 405, 406, 430, 436, 439.
Abington, Mrs., 258.
Abukir bay, 417, 439. See Nile, battle of the.
Academy, Royal, 262.
A'Court, General, 52.
Acre, siege of, 418, 419.
Acton, Sir John, 427.
Adam, William, advocate, 358.
Adam, Robert, architect, 262.
Adams, John, 132, 134.
Adams, Samuel, 60, 109, 124-126, 132, 142, 147.
Addington, Henry (afterwards Viscount Sidmouth), 187;
speaker, 315, 452, 453;
first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 454.
Agricultural revolution, 273-278.
Aiguillon, Duc d', 114, 115.
Aitken, James, "John the Painter," 170.
Albany (U.S.A.), 172, 173, 176, 178-180.
Page 496
Albemarle, Earl of (Keppel), general, 37.
Alessandria, convention signed at, 437.
Alexandria taken by the French, 416.
Alien act, 341, 403.
Alkmaar, 430.
Allen, Ethan, 144, 151.
Almon, John, 116, 324.
Alvinzi, Austrian general, 382, 390.
Ambleteuse, 401.
Amboy (U.S.A.), 169.
American colonies, proposed taxation of, 54, 57;
trade advantages of, 55;
contraband trade of, 56;
stamp duty imposed upon, 59, 60;
troubles in, 61;
claim exemption from taxation, 62, 63;
the Townshend duties in, 83, 84;
penal laws against Massachusetts, 128;
quartering bill in, 129;
first continental congress, 132;
outbreak of war in, 139;
second congress, the "United Colonies," 146;
declaration of Independence, 158.
American War of Independence, 139-169, 172-188, 191, 193-198, 214-216,
218-226, 238-244.
Amherst, Sir Jeffrey (later baron), 58, 89, 186.
Alessandria, convention signed at, 437.
Alexandria taken by the French, 416.
Alien act, 341, 403.
Alkmaar, 430.
Allen, Ethan, 144, 151.
Almon, John, 116, 324.
Alvinzi, Austrian general, 382, 390.
Ambleteuse, 401.
Amboy (U.S.A.), 169.
American colonies, proposed taxation of, 54, 57;
trade advantages of, 55;
contraband trade of, 56;
stamp duty imposed upon, 59, 60;
troubles in, 61;
claim exemption from taxation, 62, 63;
the Townshend duties in, 83, 84;
penal laws against Massachusetts, 128;
quartering bill in, 129;
first continental congress, 132;
outbreak of war in, 139;
second congress, the "United Colonies," 146;
declaration of Independence, 158.
American War of Independence, 139-169, 172-188, 191, 193-198, 214-216,
218-226, 238-244.
Amherst, Sir Jeffrey (later baron), 58, 89, 186.
Page 497
Amsterdam, 209;
pensionary of, 210.
Andover, parliamentary election for, 19.
André, Major, 215, 216.
Anson, George, Lord Anson, admiral, first lord of the admiralty, 8, 16, 29,
35.
Anti-jacobin, the, 399.
Antwerp, conference at, 349.
Arbuthnot, Marriot, admiral, 219.
Architecture, state of, 261.
Arcola, battle of, 390.
Arcot, capture of, 196, 237;
nawáb of, 232.
Arden, Pepper, master of the rolls, 306.
Arklow (Ireland), battle of, 411.
Arkwright, Richard, 271, 272.
Armagh, Archbishop of (William Stuart), 45.
Armed Neutrality, leagues of, 208-210, 441, 442.
Armistead, Mrs., 309.
Arnold, Benedict, 144, 151, 152, 156, 166, 178;
treachery of, 215, 216, 221-223, 225.
Artois, Comte d', 376, 377.
pensionary of, 210.
Andover, parliamentary election for, 19.
André, Major, 215, 216.
Anson, George, Lord Anson, admiral, first lord of the admiralty, 8, 16, 29,
35.
Anti-jacobin, the, 399.
Antwerp, conference at, 349.
Arbuthnot, Marriot, admiral, 219.
Architecture, state of, 261.
Arcola, battle of, 390.
Arcot, capture of, 196, 237;
nawáb of, 232.
Arden, Pepper, master of the rolls, 306.
Arklow (Ireland), battle of, 411.
Arkwright, Richard, 271, 272.
Armagh, Archbishop of (William Stuart), 45.
Armed Neutrality, leagues of, 208-210, 441, 442.
Armistead, Mrs., 309.
Arnold, Benedict, 144, 151, 152, 156, 166, 178;
treachery of, 215, 216, 221-223, 225.
Artois, Comte d', 376, 377.
Page 498
Asaf-ud-Daulá, nawáb wazír of Oudh, 249.
Atholl, Duke of (Stewart Murray), 63.
Auckland, Earl of. See Eden, William.
Augsburg, proposed congress at, 23.
Austen, Jane, 260.
Austria. See Francis II.; Joseph II.; Leopold II.
Austria, makes war for Silesia, 17, 23, 24, 36;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
aggressive policy under Joseph II., 297-298;
war with Turks, 325-326;
agreement with Prussia against revolution in France, 334;
war with France, 334, 337;
joins the first coalition, 340;
aims of, 351, 361;
renews hostilities, 374;
losses in Italy, 380;
peace with France, 390, 397;
joins second coalition, 423;
deserts it, 440.
Austrian Netherlands, plan of exchange 297, 349, 351;
revolt of, 325, 326;
French party in, 331;
French invasion of, 336, 337;
occupation of, 342;
French evacuate, 349;
French conquest of, 360-363;
surrender of proposed, 383;
emperor surrenders, 397;
Belgium ceded to France, 440.
Atholl, Duke of (Stewart Murray), 63.
Auckland, Earl of. See Eden, William.
Augsburg, proposed congress at, 23.
Austen, Jane, 260.
Austria. See Francis II.; Joseph II.; Leopold II.
Austria, makes war for Silesia, 17, 23, 24, 36;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
aggressive policy under Joseph II., 297-298;
war with Turks, 325-326;
agreement with Prussia against revolution in France, 334;
war with France, 334, 337;
joins the first coalition, 340;
aims of, 351, 361;
renews hostilities, 374;
losses in Italy, 380;
peace with France, 390, 397;
joins second coalition, 423;
deserts it, 440.
Austrian Netherlands, plan of exchange 297, 349, 351;
revolt of, 325, 326;
French party in, 331;
French invasion of, 336, 337;
occupation of, 342;
French evacuate, 349;
French conquest of, 360-363;
surrender of proposed, 383;
emperor surrenders, 397;
Belgium ceded to France, 440.
Page 499
Bacon, John, sculptor, 263.
Bahama islands, 217, 243.
Bakewell, Robert, grazier, 275.
Ballinamuck, battle of, 414.
Baltimore (U.S.A.), 168, 225.
Bank of England, suspension of cash payments, 387, 388;
grants a loan, 435.
Banks, Sir Joseph, 263.
Barbadoes, 199, 227.
Barras, Comte de, 224.
Barré, Isaac, colonel, 52, 59, 107, 117, 130, 139, 238, 240, 253.
Barri, Madame du, 114.
Barrier treaty (1713), 297.
Barrington, Samuel, admiral, 195, 202.
Barrington, Viscount (Barrington), 20, 35;
secretary at war, 68, 96, 153.
Basle, treaty between Prussia and France signed at, 374.
Bass, George, 264.
Bastia, captured by British, 363.
Bastille, fall of the, 316.
Bath, Earl of (Pulteney), 16.
Bahama islands, 217, 243.
Bakewell, Robert, grazier, 275.
Ballinamuck, battle of, 414.
Baltimore (U.S.A.), 168, 225.
Bank of England, suspension of cash payments, 387, 388;
grants a loan, 435.
Banks, Sir Joseph, 263.
Barbadoes, 199, 227.
Barras, Comte de, 224.
Barré, Isaac, colonel, 52, 59, 107, 117, 130, 139, 238, 240, 253.
Barri, Madame du, 114.
Barrier treaty (1713), 297.
Barrington, Samuel, admiral, 195, 202.
Barrington, Viscount (Barrington), 20, 35;
secretary at war, 68, 96, 153.
Basle, treaty between Prussia and France signed at, 374.
Bass, George, 264.
Bastia, captured by British, 363.
Bastille, fall of the, 316.
Bath, Earl of (Pulteney), 16.
Page 500
Bathurst, Earl (previously Lord Apsley); lord chancellor, 115;
lord president of council, 203.
Bavaria, Elector of, subsidiary treaty between Great Britain and, 436.
See Austrian Netherlands for plan of exchange.
Baxár, battle of, 78.
Beaufoy, Henry, M.P., 295.
Beaumarchais, dramatist, 182.
Beckford, William, alderman, 32, 76, 100, 107, 110, 111;
death of, 116, 260.
Bedford, Duke of (Russell), 8, 26, 31;
privy seal, 32-34;
ambassador at Paris, 38, 44, 46-48;
lord president of the council, 49, 52, 65-67, 89, 100, 274, 359.
Belgium. See Austrian Netherlands.
Belle Ile, capture of, 15, 23, 24, 26, 40.
Bennington, battle at, 177.
Beresford, John, 369, 370.
Bergues, 353.
Bernard, Sir Francis, governor of Massachusetts, 82, 88;
recalled, 91.
Bewick, John, 263.
Bewick, Thomas, 263.
Bill of Rights Society, 104.
lord president of council, 203.
Bavaria, Elector of, subsidiary treaty between Great Britain and, 436.
See Austrian Netherlands for plan of exchange.
Baxár, battle of, 78.
Beaufoy, Henry, M.P., 295.
Beaumarchais, dramatist, 182.
Beckford, William, alderman, 32, 76, 100, 107, 110, 111;
death of, 116, 260.
Bedford, Duke of (Russell), 8, 26, 31;
privy seal, 32-34;
ambassador at Paris, 38, 44, 46-48;
lord president of the council, 49, 52, 65-67, 89, 100, 274, 359.
Belgium. See Austrian Netherlands.
Belle Ile, capture of, 15, 23, 24, 26, 40.
Bennington, battle at, 177.
Beresford, John, 369, 370.
Bergues, 353.
Bernard, Sir Francis, governor of Massachusetts, 82, 88;
recalled, 91.
Bewick, John, 263.
Bewick, Thomas, 263.
Bill of Rights Society, 104.
Page 501
Birmingham riots. See Riots.
Black, Joseph, 263.
Blackstock, battle at, 221.
Blackstone, Sir William, his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 6, 261.
Blake, William, artist poet, 260.
Blanca, Florida (corr. Florida Blanca), 210, 319, 320.
Bligh, Captain, 263.
Bloomsbury gang, 87.
Bloomsbury Square. See London.
Bolingbroke, Viscount (St. John), his Idea of a Patriot King, 6.
Bompard, Admiral, 415.
Bonaparte, Joseph, 439.
Bonaparte, Napoleon, 375;
first Italian expedition, 380-383, 390, 397, 401, 402, 414;
his Egyptian campaign, 415-417;
his Syrian campaign, 418-420, 424, 431;
first consul, 432;
negotiates with England for peace, 433, 436;
second Italian expedition, 437;
offers peace to the emperor, 437, 438;
proposes naval armistice with Great Britain, 440;
makes a treaty with the United States, 442;
schemes against England, 443, 445.
Bonhomme Richard, the, 197.
Boscawen, Admiral, 15.
Black, Joseph, 263.
Blackstock, battle at, 221.
Blackstone, Sir William, his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 6, 261.
Blake, William, artist poet, 260.
Blanca, Florida (corr. Florida Blanca), 210, 319, 320.
Bligh, Captain, 263.
Bloomsbury gang, 87.
Bloomsbury Square. See London.
Bolingbroke, Viscount (St. John), his Idea of a Patriot King, 6.
Bompard, Admiral, 415.
Bonaparte, Joseph, 439.
Bonaparte, Napoleon, 375;
first Italian expedition, 380-383, 390, 397, 401, 402, 414;
his Egyptian campaign, 415-417;
his Syrian campaign, 418-420, 424, 431;
first consul, 432;
negotiates with England for peace, 433, 436;
second Italian expedition, 437;
offers peace to the emperor, 437, 438;
proposes naval armistice with Great Britain, 440;
makes a treaty with the United States, 442;
schemes against England, 443, 445.
Bonhomme Richard, the, 197.
Boscawen, Admiral, 15.
Page 502
Boston, opposition to stamp act, 60, 61;
massacre, 109, 124, 125;
riot, 126-128;
port bill, 129;
harbour closed, 132, 138;
siege of, 139, 142;
evacuation of, 155, 157, 161, 179, 194, 198.
Bouillé, Marquis de, 227.
Bounties, 273, 274;
corn, 404;
on importation of wheat, 435, 444, 445.
Bouquet, Colonel, 58.
Boydell, John, 263.
Braddock, General, 146.
Brandywine, battle of the, 174.
Brant, Joseph, Mohawk chief, 178.
Braxfield, Robert, Lord Braxfield (Macqueen), 357.
Breeds hill (U.S.A.), 148.
Bremen, 362.
Brest, 193, 197, 217, 226, 386, 390, 432.
Briand, Bishop, 152.
Bridgewater, Duke of (Egerton), 271.
Bridport, Viscount (Alexander Hood), admiral, 376, 387, 390.
Brindley, James, 271.
massacre, 109, 124, 125;
riot, 126-128;
port bill, 129;
harbour closed, 132, 138;
siege of, 139, 142;
evacuation of, 155, 157, 161, 179, 194, 198.
Bouillé, Marquis de, 227.
Bounties, 273, 274;
corn, 404;
on importation of wheat, 435, 444, 445.
Bouquet, Colonel, 58.
Boydell, John, 263.
Braddock, General, 146.
Brandywine, battle of the, 174.
Brant, Joseph, Mohawk chief, 178.
Braxfield, Robert, Lord Braxfield (Macqueen), 357.
Breeds hill (U.S.A.), 148.
Bremen, 362.
Brest, 193, 197, 217, 226, 386, 390, 432.
Briand, Bishop, 152.
Bridgewater, Duke of (Egerton), 271.
Bridport, Viscount (Alexander Hood), admiral, 376, 387, 390.
Brindley, James, 271.
Page 503
Bristol, Burke returned as member for, 136;
rejected, 212;
corporation of, 186;
petition from, 138.
Bristol, Earl of (George William Hervey), ambassador at Madrid, 27-29, 32.
Bristol, Earl of (Frederick Augustus Hervey), Bishop of Derry, 289.
Broglie, Marshal de, 14.
Brooklyn (Long Island), battle of, 164, 169.
Bruce, James, 264.
Brueys, Admiral, 416, 417.
Brückenmühle, battle of, 36.
Brune, French general, 430, 440.
Brunswick (Canada), 167, 169.
Brunswick, Charles, Duke of, 154.
Brunswick, Charles William Ferdinand, Prince and Duke of, 300, 336, 351,
354, 360.
Brunswick, Ferdinand, Prince of, 14, 36.
Brussels, 360;
French occupation of, 361.
Buccarelli, governor of Buenos Ayres, 113, 114.
Buckingham House. See London.
Buckingham, Marquis of. See Temple, Earl.
rejected, 212;
corporation of, 186;
petition from, 138.
Bristol, Earl of (George William Hervey), ambassador at Madrid, 27-29, 32.
Bristol, Earl of (Frederick Augustus Hervey), Bishop of Derry, 289.
Broglie, Marshal de, 14.
Brooklyn (Long Island), battle of, 164, 169.
Bruce, James, 264.
Brueys, Admiral, 416, 417.
Brückenmühle, battle of, 36.
Brune, French general, 430, 440.
Brunswick (Canada), 167, 169.
Brunswick, Charles, Duke of, 154.
Brunswick, Charles William Ferdinand, Prince and Duke of, 300, 336, 351,
354, 360.
Brunswick, Ferdinand, Prince of, 14, 36.
Brussels, 360;
French occupation of, 361.
Buccarelli, governor of Buenos Ayres, 113, 114.
Buckingham House. See London.
Buckingham, Marquis of. See Temple, Earl.
Page 504
Buckinghamshire, Earl of (Hobart), Viceroy of Ireland, 202.
Buckinghamshire, Lady, 257.
Buenos Ayres, expedition against, 38.
Bunbury, Sir Charles, 257, 260.
Bunker hill, battle of, 148-150, 152, 155, 185.
Burgoyne, Sir John, general, 37, 122, 145, 147, 155, 156, 166, 172-181,
183, 186, 191.
Burke, Edmund, speech on American colonies, 70, 89, 99;
opposed to parliamentary reform, 105;
Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents, by, 106, 107, 110,
116-121, 127-130, 136, 137, 139, 145, 160, 169, 170, 188,
192, 200-202;
economical reform, 203, 204, 212, 213, 217, 226;
paymaster of forces, 229, 240, 246, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 265,
266, 268;
opposes Pitt's India bill, 286, 288, 302-304, 314, 322, 327;
Reflections on the French Revolution, by, 329;
quarrel with Fox, 330;
Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs, by, 330, 333, 339-342;
on war with France, 347;
retires from parliament, 366;
urges relief of catholic disabilities, 367;
Letter on a Regicide Peace, by, 382, 385;
death of, 396.
Burkersdorf, battle of, 36.
Burney, Fanny (Madame d'Arblay), 260.
Burns, Robert, 260.
Bushy Run, Indians defeated at, 58.
Buckinghamshire, Lady, 257.
Buenos Ayres, expedition against, 38.
Bunbury, Sir Charles, 257, 260.
Bunker hill, battle of, 148-150, 152, 155, 185.
Burgoyne, Sir John, general, 37, 122, 145, 147, 155, 156, 166, 172-181,
183, 186, 191.
Burke, Edmund, speech on American colonies, 70, 89, 99;
opposed to parliamentary reform, 105;
Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents, by, 106, 107, 110,
116-121, 127-130, 136, 137, 139, 145, 160, 169, 170, 188,
192, 200-202;
economical reform, 203, 204, 212, 213, 217, 226;
paymaster of forces, 229, 240, 246, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 265,
266, 268;
opposes Pitt's India bill, 286, 288, 302-304, 314, 322, 327;
Reflections on the French Revolution, by, 329;
quarrel with Fox, 330;
Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs, by, 330, 333, 339-342;
on war with France, 347;
retires from parliament, 366;
urges relief of catholic disabilities, 367;
Letter on a Regicide Peace, by, 382, 385;
death of, 396.
Burkersdorf, battle of, 36.
Burney, Fanny (Madame d'Arblay), 260.
Burns, Robert, 260.
Bushy Run, Indians defeated at, 58.
Page 505
Bussy, Comte de, 24-27.
Bute, Earl of (Stuart), 5;
enters cabinet, 8, 11, 12;
acts with Pitt, 15;
his insincerity, 17;
his peace policy, 17;
his power secured, 19-20;
secretary of state, 20-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34;
first lord of the treasury, 35, 42, 43;
retires from office, 44, 45;
king's private adviser, 45-49, 51-52, 65, 66;
ceases to be, 67, 112, 187.
Butler, John, colonel, 178, 194.
Byron, Commodore, 263.
Cabinet, changes in the character of the, 7-9;
system, 7-9, 33, 229;
George III.'s first, how composed, 8;
councils, reports and notices of, 8, 12, 28-30, 35, 60, 70, 76, 90, 206,
229, 238, 246, 310, 312, 369, 383, 452;
sovereign ceases to preside over council, 12.
Cadiz, 199, 211, 388, 390, 395, 439.
Cæsar's camp, capture of, 350, 351.
Caldiero, 390.
Calonne, French minister, 331.
Cambrai, 360.
Cambridge (U.S.A.), 143, 148, 151.
Camden, 219;
Bute, Earl of (Stuart), 5;
enters cabinet, 8, 11, 12;
acts with Pitt, 15;
his insincerity, 17;
his peace policy, 17;
his power secured, 19-20;
secretary of state, 20-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34;
first lord of the treasury, 35, 42, 43;
retires from office, 44, 45;
king's private adviser, 45-49, 51-52, 65, 66;
ceases to be, 67, 112, 187.
Butler, John, colonel, 178, 194.
Byron, Commodore, 263.
Cabinet, changes in the character of the, 7-9;
system, 7-9, 33, 229;
George III.'s first, how composed, 8;
councils, reports and notices of, 8, 12, 28-30, 35, 60, 70, 76, 90, 206,
229, 238, 246, 310, 312, 369, 383, 452;
sovereign ceases to preside over council, 12.
Cadiz, 199, 211, 388, 390, 395, 439.
Cæsar's camp, capture of, 350, 351.
Caldiero, 390.
Calonne, French minister, 331.
Cambrai, 360.
Cambridge (U.S.A.), 143, 148, 151.
Camden, 219;
Page 506
battle of, 220, 223.
Camden, Charles, first Earl (Pratt), chief justice of the common pleas, 47;
created Baron Camden, 68, 71;
chancellor, 74, 76, 90, 100, 101;
dismissed from office, 102, 116;
lord president of the council, 229, 287, 324.
Camden, John Jeffries, second Earl, 370, 385, 412.
Campbell, Colonel, 195.
Camperdown, battle of, 398.
Campo Formio, treaty of, 397, 436, 437.
Canada, conquest of, 1, 2, 23, 26, 40, 57;
Quebec act, 129-131, 133, 146;
congress orders an invasion of, 151, 152, 155, 166, 172, 176;
France renounces all claim on, 183;
Franklin proposes the cession of, to the Americans, 239-240;
Pitt's Canada bill, 329-330.
Canals, 271.
Canning, George, 372, 396;
under secretary for foreign affairs, 399, 433, 452, 454.
Canterbury, Archbishops of, John Moore, 451;
Thomas Seeker, 60.
Cape Breton, 23, 24, 26, 40, 129.
Cape de Verde islands, 237.
Cape Fear, 157.
Cape St. Vincent, battle of, 388, 389.
Camden, Charles, first Earl (Pratt), chief justice of the common pleas, 47;
created Baron Camden, 68, 71;
chancellor, 74, 76, 90, 100, 101;
dismissed from office, 102, 116;
lord president of the council, 229, 287, 324.
Camden, John Jeffries, second Earl, 370, 385, 412.
Campbell, Colonel, 195.
Camperdown, battle of, 398.
Campo Formio, treaty of, 397, 436, 437.
Canada, conquest of, 1, 2, 23, 26, 40, 57;
Quebec act, 129-131, 133, 146;
congress orders an invasion of, 151, 152, 155, 166, 172, 176;
France renounces all claim on, 183;
Franklin proposes the cession of, to the Americans, 239-240;
Pitt's Canada bill, 329-330.
Canals, 271.
Canning, George, 372, 396;
under secretary for foreign affairs, 399, 433, 452, 454.
Canterbury, Archbishops of, John Moore, 451;
Thomas Seeker, 60.
Cape Breton, 23, 24, 26, 40, 129.
Cape de Verde islands, 237.
Cape Fear, 157.
Cape St. Vincent, battle of, 388, 389.
Page 507
Caracciolo, Francesco, 429.
Carhampton, Earl of. See Luttrell, Henry Lawes.
Carleton, Sir Guy, 130, 151, 152, 155, 156, 166-168;
resigns office, 173;
at New York, 228, 242.
Carlisle, Earl of (Howard), 202;
viceroy of Ireland, 232, 233, 243, 245, 340.
Carlton house. See London.
Carmarthen, Earl of (Osborne), afterwards Duke of Leeds, foreign
secretary, 251, 297, 298, 300, 321, 325;
resigns office, 328, 333.
Carnot, organiser of victories, 353, 354, 396.
Caroline of Brunswick. See Wales, Princess of.
Caroline of Denmark, queen, sister of George III., 119.
Carronades, 233.
Carron ironworks, 270.
Cassano, battle of, 425.
Cassel, 14;
surrender of, 36.
Carteret, Philip, R.N., 263.
Cartwright, Edmund, 273.
Castlebar, the race of, 413.
Carhampton, Earl of. See Luttrell, Henry Lawes.
Carleton, Sir Guy, 130, 151, 152, 155, 156, 166-168;
resigns office, 173;
at New York, 228, 242.
Carlisle, Earl of (Howard), 202;
viceroy of Ireland, 232, 233, 243, 245, 340.
Carlton house. See London.
Carmarthen, Earl of (Osborne), afterwards Duke of Leeds, foreign
secretary, 251, 297, 298, 300, 321, 325;
resigns office, 328, 333.
Carnot, organiser of victories, 353, 354, 396.
Caroline of Brunswick. See Wales, Princess of.
Caroline of Denmark, queen, sister of George III., 119.
Carronades, 233.
Carron ironworks, 270.
Cassano, battle of, 425.
Cassel, 14;
surrender of, 36.
Carteret, Philip, R.N., 263.
Cartwright, Edmund, 273.
Castlebar, the race of, 413.
Page 508
Castlereagh, Viscount (Stewart), secretary of state for Ireland, 447, 449,
450, 452.
Catherine II., Empress of Russia, 36;
alliance with Frederick of Prussia, 74, 75, 114, 208, 209, 296, 297,
299, 324-328, 331, 338, 349, 351, 374;
death of, 384, 390, 441.
Cavendish, Lord John, chancellor of the exchequer, 229, 240, 246, 263.
Cawdor, Lord (Campbell), 387.
Ceylon, Dutch settlements in, taken by the English, 378.
Chait Singh (rájá of Benares), 248, 249.
Chambers, Sir William, 262.
Chamblée (Canada), 151.
Charlemont, Earl of (Caulfield), 94, 202, 232, 289.
Charles, Archduke, 382, 425, 426, 439.
Charles Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, 349, 354, 425.
Charles VII., King of Denmark, 441.
Charles III., King of Spain, 24-25, 114.
Charleston (U.S.A.), 148, 149, 157, 198, 219, 221, 223.
Charlotte, Princess, 373.
Charlotte Sophia, queen of George III., 22, 313.
Charlotte (U.S.A.), 220.
Chatham, first Earl of. See Pitt, William, the elder.
450, 452.
Catherine II., Empress of Russia, 36;
alliance with Frederick of Prussia, 74, 75, 114, 208, 209, 296, 297,
299, 324-328, 331, 338, 349, 351, 374;
death of, 384, 390, 441.
Cavendish, Lord John, chancellor of the exchequer, 229, 240, 246, 263.
Cawdor, Lord (Campbell), 387.
Ceylon, Dutch settlements in, taken by the English, 378.
Chait Singh (rájá of Benares), 248, 249.
Chambers, Sir William, 262.
Chamblée (Canada), 151.
Charlemont, Earl of (Caulfield), 94, 202, 232, 289.
Charles, Archduke, 382, 425, 426, 439.
Charles Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, 349, 354, 425.
Charles VII., King of Denmark, 441.
Charles III., King of Spain, 24-25, 114.
Charleston (U.S.A.), 148, 149, 157, 198, 219, 221, 223.
Charlotte, Princess, 373.
Charlotte Sophia, queen of George III., 22, 313.
Charlotte (U.S.A.), 220.
Chatham, first Earl of. See Pitt, William, the elder.
Page 509
Chatham, second Earl of. See Pitt, John.
Chatterton, Thomas, 259.
Chauvelin, French ambassador to England, 324, 336, 337, 339, 340-343.
Chesterfield, Earl of (Stanhope, Philip Dormer), 94, 261.
Choiseul, Duc de, 23-29, 74, 112, 114, 192.
Chouans, the, 376.
Christian, Admiral, 377.
Churchill, Charles, satirist, 43.
Cider tax, 43;
repealed, 72.
Civil list settled, 13;
arrears of, 80, 99, 108, 171, 231, 284;
Burke's proposed reform of, 204, 213;
curtailment of the expenditure of, 238.
Clairfait, Austrian general, 361, 375.
Clare, Earl of. See Fitzgibbon, John.
Clarkson, Thomas, philanthropist, 295.
Clerk of Eldin, naval tactician, 235.
Clinton, Sir Henry, 145, 149, 157, 164, 168, 174, 175, 178-181, 193-195,
197-198, 215, 216, 218-226, 228.
Clive, Robert, Baron Clive, 1;
returns to England, 76;
succeeded in India by Vansittart, 77;
made governor of Bengal, 78;
Chatterton, Thomas, 259.
Chauvelin, French ambassador to England, 324, 336, 337, 339, 340-343.
Chesterfield, Earl of (Stanhope, Philip Dormer), 94, 261.
Choiseul, Duc de, 23-29, 74, 112, 114, 192.
Chouans, the, 376.
Christian, Admiral, 377.
Churchill, Charles, satirist, 43.
Cider tax, 43;
repealed, 72.
Civil list settled, 13;
arrears of, 80, 99, 108, 171, 231, 284;
Burke's proposed reform of, 204, 213;
curtailment of the expenditure of, 238.
Clairfait, Austrian general, 361, 375.
Clare, Earl of. See Fitzgibbon, John.
Clarkson, Thomas, philanthropist, 295.
Clerk of Eldin, naval tactician, 235.
Clinton, Sir Henry, 145, 149, 157, 164, 168, 174, 175, 178-181, 193-195,
197-198, 215, 216, 218-226, 228.
Clive, Robert, Baron Clive, 1;
returns to England, 76;
succeeded in India by Vansittart, 77;
made governor of Bengal, 78;
Page 510
returns to England, 79;
parliamentary inquiry held into the conduct of, 122;
death of, 123, 248.
Clubs. See London.
Coalition ministry, the, 244-246, 249-250;
dismissed, 251.
Coalitions against France, the first, 349, 351, 363;
the second, 420, 421, 423.
Cobenzl, imperial ambassador, 439, 440.
Coblentz, 331.
Coburg, Duke of, 350, 351, 353, 354, 360, 361.
Colberg, surrender of, 14.
Coleridge, Samuel T., 260.
Collier, Sir George, admiral, 197, 198.
Collingwood, Captain, R.N., 388, 389.
Colman, George (the younger), 258.
Colonial policy of Great Britain, 54-63, 69, 70-72, 84, 88-91, 109-110, 121-
128.
Colooney, Vereker defeated by French at, 414.
Commutation tax, 284.
Conciliation bills, 138, 139, 145, 146.
Concord (U.S.A.), 140, 144, 145.
parliamentary inquiry held into the conduct of, 122;
death of, 123, 248.
Clubs. See London.
Coalition ministry, the, 244-246, 249-250;
dismissed, 251.
Coalitions against France, the first, 349, 351, 363;
the second, 420, 421, 423.
Cobenzl, imperial ambassador, 439, 440.
Coblentz, 331.
Coburg, Duke of, 350, 351, 353, 354, 360, 361.
Colberg, surrender of, 14.
Coleridge, Samuel T., 260.
Collier, Sir George, admiral, 197, 198.
Collingwood, Captain, R.N., 388, 389.
Colman, George (the younger), 258.
Colonial policy of Great Britain, 54-63, 69, 70-72, 84, 88-91, 109-110, 121-
128.
Colooney, Vereker defeated by French at, 414.
Commutation tax, 284.
Conciliation bills, 138, 139, 145, 146.
Concord (U.S.A.), 140, 144, 145.
Page 511
Condé, Prince of, 316, 350, 354.
Connecticut (U.S.A.), 61, 134, 143, 144, 167, 197, 225.
Constantinople, 327, 328, 418.
Constitutional Information, Society for, 335, 338.
Conway, Henry Seymour, 52, 59;
secretary of state, 68, 69, 73, 75, 80, 82;
resigns office, 87, 102, 103, 112, 225;
commander-in-chief, 229.
Cook, Captain, 263.
Cooke, Edward, Irish under-secretary, 446.
Coote, Sir Eyre, 237, 238.
Copenhagen Fields, meeting in. See London.
Córdova, Don Luis de, Spanish admiral, 211, 388.
Cornwall, Charles Wolfran, speaker, 213;
death of, 313.
Cornwallis, Lord, general, 157, 167, 168, 174, 175, 198, 219-226, 249;
his mission to Frederick II., 299;
governor-general of India, 305;
created marquis, 305, 328;
master-general of ordnance, 366;
lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 412-414, 419, 446, 447, 449, 452.
Corsica, 74;
French annexation of, 98, 112;
English conquest of, 363, 375;
loss of, 382.
Cort of Gosport, 270.
Connecticut (U.S.A.), 61, 134, 143, 144, 167, 197, 225.
Constantinople, 327, 328, 418.
Constitutional Information, Society for, 335, 338.
Conway, Henry Seymour, 52, 59;
secretary of state, 68, 69, 73, 75, 80, 82;
resigns office, 87, 102, 103, 112, 225;
commander-in-chief, 229.
Cook, Captain, 263.
Cooke, Edward, Irish under-secretary, 446.
Coote, Sir Eyre, 237, 238.
Copenhagen Fields, meeting in. See London.
Córdova, Don Luis de, Spanish admiral, 211, 388.
Cornwall, Charles Wolfran, speaker, 213;
death of, 313.
Cornwallis, Lord, general, 157, 167, 168, 174, 175, 198, 219-226, 249;
his mission to Frederick II., 299;
governor-general of India, 305;
created marquis, 305, 328;
master-general of ordnance, 366;
lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 412-414, 419, 446, 447, 449, 452.
Corsica, 74;
French annexation of, 98, 112;
English conquest of, 363, 375;
loss of, 382.
Cort of Gosport, 270.
Page 512
Cowpens, battle at the, 221.
Cowper, William, 259, 265.
Crabbe, George, 259.
Crewe, Mrs., 283.
Crillon, Duc de, 236.
Crimea, conquest of, 327.
Criminal law, administration of the. See England.
Crompton, Samuel, inventor, 271.
Crosby, Brass, lord-mayor of London, 118.
Crown Point (Canada), fort, 144, 146, 166, 176.
Cuddalore, battle of, 237, 238.
Cumberland, William, Duke of (uncle of George III.), 4;
head of section of whigs, 34, 40;
helps the king to form a ministry, 65, 67;
Cowper, William, 259, 265.
Crabbe, George, 259.
Crewe, Mrs., 283.
Crillon, Duc de, 236.
Crimea, conquest of, 327.
Criminal law, administration of the. See England.
Crompton, Samuel, inventor, 271.
Crosby, Brass, lord-mayor of London, 118.
Crown Point (Canada), fort, 144, 146, 166, 176.
Cuddalore, battle of, 237, 238.
Cumberland, William, Duke of (uncle of George III.), 4;
head of section of whigs, 34, 40;
helps the king to form a ministry, 65, 67;
Page 513
sudden death of, 69, 257.
Cumberland, Henry Frederick, Duke of (brother of George III.), 119.
Cumberland, Richard, dramatist, 258.
Curaçao, under British protection, 439.
Curtis, Captain, R.N., 236.
Customs duties, Pitt's bill for consolidation of the, 294, 295.
For Colonial see American Colonies.
Cuxhaven occupied by Prussians, 442.
D'Aché, French commodore, 2.
Darby, Admiral, 211, 217.
Dashwood, Sir Francis (afterwards Lord Despencer), chancellor of the
exchequer, 35, 43;
retires from office, 45, 50.
Darlington, Countess of, 145.
Dartmouth, Earl of (William Legge), secretary for colonies, 124, 128, 136-
138, 145, 153, 156, 157;
privy seal, 159, 265.
Daulat Ráo Sindhia (Maráthá lord), 419.
Dauphin, the. See Louis XVII.
Dawson, Nancy (afterwards Lady Maynard), 86.
Deane, Silas, 170, 181.
Debates, publication of. See Parliament.
Cumberland, Henry Frederick, Duke of (brother of George III.), 119.
Cumberland, Richard, dramatist, 258.
Curaçao, under British protection, 439.
Curtis, Captain, R.N., 236.
Customs duties, Pitt's bill for consolidation of the, 294, 295.
For Colonial see American Colonies.
Cuxhaven occupied by Prussians, 442.
D'Aché, French commodore, 2.
Darby, Admiral, 211, 217.
Dashwood, Sir Francis (afterwards Lord Despencer), chancellor of the
exchequer, 35, 43;
retires from office, 45, 50.
Darlington, Countess of, 145.
Dartmouth, Earl of (William Legge), secretary for colonies, 124, 128, 136-
138, 145, 153, 156, 157;
privy seal, 159, 265.
Daulat Ráo Sindhia (Maráthá lord), 419.
Dauphin, the. See Louis XVII.
Dawson, Nancy (afterwards Lady Maynard), 86.
Deane, Silas, 170, 181.
Debates, publication of. See Parliament.
Page 514
Debating societies, bill for restricting, 434.
Declaratory act, American, 71, 72, 160.
Declaration of independence, American, 158, 182.
Denmark, proposed defensive alliance with, 75;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
quarrel with England, 441;
joins the maritime confederacy, 442.
Derby race, the first, 257.
Devonshire, Duke of (Cavendish), 8, 20, 29, 31, 34, 35, 40, 48.
Devonshire, Duchess of, Georgiana, 283.
Diamond (Ireland), battle at, 385.
Dickinson, John, The Farmer's Letters by, 85.
Dixon, Wexford rebel, 412.
Djezzar, pasha of Syria, 418.
Dogger Bank, battle off the, 212.
Dolben, Sir Samuel, 296.
Dominica, 14, 24, 40, 195;
battle off (Battle of the Saints), 235, 243, 377.
Donegal, Lord (Chichester), 92.
Dorchester heights (near Boston), 148, 154.
Douglas, Dr. John, Bishop of Salisbury, his Seasonable Hints, 16.
Douglas, Sir Charles, captain of fleet, 234, 235.
Declaratory act, American, 71, 72, 160.
Declaration of independence, American, 158, 182.
Denmark, proposed defensive alliance with, 75;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
quarrel with England, 441;
joins the maritime confederacy, 442.
Derby race, the first, 257.
Devonshire, Duke of (Cavendish), 8, 20, 29, 31, 34, 35, 40, 48.
Devonshire, Duchess of, Georgiana, 283.
Diamond (Ireland), battle at, 385.
Dickinson, John, The Farmer's Letters by, 85.
Dixon, Wexford rebel, 412.
Djezzar, pasha of Syria, 418.
Dogger Bank, battle off the, 212.
Dolben, Sir Samuel, 296.
Dominica, 14, 24, 40, 195;
battle off (Battle of the Saints), 235, 243, 377.
Donegal, Lord (Chichester), 92.
Dorchester heights (near Boston), 148, 154.
Douglas, Dr. John, Bishop of Salisbury, his Seasonable Hints, 16.
Douglas, Sir Charles, captain of fleet, 234, 235.
Page 515
Dowdeswell, William, chancellor of the exchequer, 68, 99, 107, 108, 116,
117, 128.
Draper, Sir William, general, 38.
Dublin, 370, 407, 409, 447.
Duddingston, lieutenant, 125.
Duels and Duelling. See England.
Dugommier, 355.
Dumouriez, 334, 337, 349.
Duncan, Admiral, 390, 393, 394, 398;
created Viscount Duncan of Camperdown, 398, 399, 400.
Dundas, Henry (first Viscount Melville), 247;
India Bill introduced by, 249-250;
treasurer of navy, 251, 284, 286, 303-306, 309;
secretary of state, 366, 367, 377, 438, 451, 452, 454.
Dundas, Sir David, general, 362.
Dunkirk, 74, 243, 351;
siege of, 353, 401.
Dunmore, Earl of (Murray), 156.
Dunning, John (afterwards Baron Ashburton), 102, 139, 169, 170, 204, 229,
238.
Dutch. See Holland and United Provinces.
Dutens, Louis, 251.
East India Company. See India.
117, 128.
Draper, Sir William, general, 38.
Dublin, 370, 407, 409, 447.
Duddingston, lieutenant, 125.
Duels and Duelling. See England.
Dugommier, 355.
Dumouriez, 334, 337, 349.
Duncan, Admiral, 390, 393, 394, 398;
created Viscount Duncan of Camperdown, 398, 399, 400.
Dundas, Henry (first Viscount Melville), 247;
India Bill introduced by, 249-250;
treasurer of navy, 251, 284, 286, 303-306, 309;
secretary of state, 366, 367, 377, 438, 451, 452, 454.
Dundas, Sir David, general, 362.
Dunkirk, 74, 243, 351;
siege of, 353, 401.
Dunmore, Earl of (Murray), 156.
Dunning, John (afterwards Baron Ashburton), 102, 139, 169, 170, 204, 229,
238.
Dutch. See Holland and United Provinces.
Dutens, Louis, 251.
East India Company. See India.
Page 516
Economical reform, 203, 231;
petitions for, from towns, 204.
Economic progress. See England.
Eden, William (afterwards Earl of Auckland), 233, 293;
created Lord Auckland, 350;
postmaster-general, 451.
Edgcumbe, Lord (Edgcumbe), treasurer of the household, 75.
Edgeworth, Maria, 260.
Effingham, Earl of (Howard), 159.
Egmont, Lord (Perceval), first lord of the admiralty, 54, 68.
Egremont, Earl of (Wyndham), secretary of state, 32, 46;
death of, 47, 257.
El Arish, captured, 418;
convention of, 432.
Eldon, Lord. See Scott, John.
Elections, general. See Parliament.
Elections, Grenville's act. See Parliament.
Eliott, George Augustus, general, 196, 211;
created Baron Heathfield, 236, 341.
Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, 33.
Elliot, Sir Gilbert (afterwards Lord Minto), 341, 437.
Ellis, Welbore (afterwards Baron Mendip), treasurer of navy, 192;
secretary of state, 228.
petitions for, from towns, 204.
Economic progress. See England.
Eden, William (afterwards Earl of Auckland), 233, 293;
created Lord Auckland, 350;
postmaster-general, 451.
Edgcumbe, Lord (Edgcumbe), treasurer of the household, 75.
Edgeworth, Maria, 260.
Effingham, Earl of (Howard), 159.
Egmont, Lord (Perceval), first lord of the admiralty, 54, 68.
Egremont, Earl of (Wyndham), secretary of state, 32, 46;
death of, 47, 257.
El Arish, captured, 418;
convention of, 432.
Eldon, Lord. See Scott, John.
Elections, general. See Parliament.
Elections, Grenville's act. See Parliament.
Eliott, George Augustus, general, 196, 211;
created Baron Heathfield, 236, 341.
Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, 33.
Elliot, Sir Gilbert (afterwards Lord Minto), 341, 437.
Ellis, Welbore (afterwards Baron Mendip), treasurer of navy, 192;
secretary of state, 228.
Page 517
Emmet, Thomas, 368.
Emperor, the. See Francis II., Joseph II. and Leopold II.
Enclosures and enclosure acts. See England.
England:—
Criminal law, administration of the, 265-266.
Duels and duelling, 50, 204, 257, 403-404.
Economic progress, 269-279, 281.
Enclosures and enclosure acts, 274-276.
Machinery and steam and water power, 270-273.
Manufactures, 200, 207;
glass, 202;
woollen, 202;
iron, 269;
cotton, 269, 272, 273;
silk, 276.
Mercantile system, 269.
Social progress, 255-268.
Trade of, 268, 269, 270, 443.
Erskine, Thomas (afterwards Lord Erskine), 306, 324, 335, 358.
Essay on Woman, 50.
Estaing, Count d', 193, 195, 198, 199.
Eutaw springs, battle at, 223.
Ewart, Joseph, British ambassador at Berlin, 298, 299.
Factories, employment of children in, 278.
Falkland islands, Spain and the, 112-114.
Falmouth, Earl (Boscawen), 135.
Emperor, the. See Francis II., Joseph II. and Leopold II.
Enclosures and enclosure acts. See England.
England:—
Criminal law, administration of the, 265-266.
Duels and duelling, 50, 204, 257, 403-404.
Economic progress, 269-279, 281.
Enclosures and enclosure acts, 274-276.
Machinery and steam and water power, 270-273.
Manufactures, 200, 207;
glass, 202;
woollen, 202;
iron, 269;
cotton, 269, 272, 273;
silk, 276.
Mercantile system, 269.
Social progress, 255-268.
Trade of, 268, 269, 270, 443.
Erskine, Thomas (afterwards Lord Erskine), 306, 324, 335, 358.
Essay on Woman, 50.
Estaing, Count d', 193, 195, 198, 199.
Eutaw springs, battle at, 223.
Ewart, Joseph, British ambassador at Berlin, 298, 299.
Factories, employment of children in, 278.
Falkland islands, Spain and the, 112-114.
Falmouth, Earl (Boscawen), 135.
Page 518
Falmouth (Portland, Me.), 135, 154.
Family compact (Bourbon), 25, 28, 33, 74, 112, 320, 321.
Farren, Elizabeth (afterwards Countess of Derby), 288.
Feathers petition, the, 118, 119.
Ferdinand IV., King of Naples, 380, 382, 422, 423, 426-429, 431.
Ferguson, Major, 220.
Ferrol attacked, 439.
Fitzgerald, Lady Edward (Pamela), 386.
Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, 386, 406, 407.
Fitzgibbon, John (afterwards Earl of Clare), 369-371, 406, 446.
Fitzherbert, Mrs., 308.
Fitzwilliam, Earl (Wentworth-Fitzwilliam), 340;
president of council, 366;
lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 368, 369;
recalled, 370, 372, 385.
Flaxman, John, 263.
Fleurus, battle of, 361.
Flinders, Matthew, discoverer, 264.
Flood, Henry, 94, 289, 232.
Floridas, 41, 195, 196;
reduced, 197, 211;
ceded to Spain, 243.
Family compact (Bourbon), 25, 28, 33, 74, 112, 320, 321.
Farren, Elizabeth (afterwards Countess of Derby), 288.
Feathers petition, the, 118, 119.
Ferdinand IV., King of Naples, 380, 382, 422, 423, 426-429, 431.
Ferguson, Major, 220.
Ferrol attacked, 439.
Fitzgerald, Lady Edward (Pamela), 386.
Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, 386, 406, 407.
Fitzgibbon, John (afterwards Earl of Clare), 369-371, 406, 446.
Fitzherbert, Mrs., 308.
Fitzwilliam, Earl (Wentworth-Fitzwilliam), 340;
president of council, 366;
lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 368, 369;
recalled, 370, 372, 385.
Flaxman, John, 263.
Fleurus, battle of, 361.
Flinders, Matthew, discoverer, 264.
Flood, Henry, 94, 289, 232.
Floridas, 41, 195, 196;
reduced, 197, 211;
ceded to Spain, 243.
Page 519
Foley, Sir Thomas, captain, R.N., 417.
Fontainebleau, treaty of, 299, 338.
Foote, Samuel, dramatist, 258, 427.
Fort Edward, surrender of, 176-178.
Fort George, 177, 178.
Fort Lee, surrender of, 167.
Fort Pitt, 58.
Fort Royal (Martinique), 218, 226, 234.
Fort St. James (Africa), 243.
Fort Stanwix, 176, 178.
Fort Washington, surrender of, 167.
Fort Western (Augusta, Me.), 151.
Fox, Charles James (son of Henry Fox, Baron Holland), 95, 118, 120;
resigns office and re-enters the ministry, 121;
dismissed from office, 127, 160, 162, 169, 170, 186, 190, 191, 202,
204, 212-214, 226, 228;
foreign secretary, 229, 230, 232, 233, 238, 239;
resigns seals, 240, 243;
forms a coalition with North, 244, 245;
secretary of state, 246;
India bills, 249, 254, 256-258, 280-284;
opposes Pitt's India bill, 286, 288, 290, 291, 293-296, 302, 303, 306-
314;
views on the French revolution, 317, 318, 322, 323;
libel bill, 324, 327-330, 332, 333, 335-337, 340, 341, 343, 344, 347,
356;
desires peace, 357, 358-359, 373, 374, 378-380, 384, 388, 392, 399;
Fontainebleau, treaty of, 299, 338.
Foote, Samuel, dramatist, 258, 427.
Fort Edward, surrender of, 176-178.
Fort George, 177, 178.
Fort Lee, surrender of, 167.
Fort Pitt, 58.
Fort Royal (Martinique), 218, 226, 234.
Fort St. James (Africa), 243.
Fort Stanwix, 176, 178.
Fort Washington, surrender of, 167.
Fort Western (Augusta, Me.), 151.
Fox, Charles James (son of Henry Fox, Baron Holland), 95, 118, 120;
resigns office and re-enters the ministry, 121;
dismissed from office, 127, 160, 162, 169, 170, 186, 190, 191, 202,
204, 212-214, 226, 228;
foreign secretary, 229, 230, 232, 233, 238, 239;
resigns seals, 240, 243;
forms a coalition with North, 244, 245;
secretary of state, 246;
India bills, 249, 254, 256-258, 280-284;
opposes Pitt's India bill, 286, 288, 290, 291, 293-296, 302, 303, 306-
314;
views on the French revolution, 317, 318, 322, 323;
libel bill, 324, 327-330, 332, 333, 335-337, 340, 341, 343, 344, 347,
356;
desires peace, 357, 358-359, 373, 374, 378-380, 384, 388, 392, 399;
Page 520
opposes Pitt's budget, 400;
removed from privy council, 402, 403, 404, 433, 434.
Fox, Henry (afterwards Lord Holland), 21, 35, 39-40, 43;
created Baron Holland, 44, 49, 67, 95.
"Fox's Martyrs," 254.
Fox, Stephen, 256.
France, loss of her colonies and maritime power, 1-2;
anxious for peace, 23;
negotiations with, 23-27;
alliance with Spain, 25-33;
peace with, signed, 40, 41;
Bourbon schemes of aggrandisement, 74;
annexes Corsica, 98;
navy of, 112;
refuses to help Spain against England, 114;
alliance with Americans, 181-183, 187, 191;
philosophic movement in, 182;
war between England and, 193, 195, 211, 217-220, 227-236;
accepts the propositions of Russia with regard to neutrals, 208;
schemes of conquests, 211, 236;
peace between England and, 242, 243;
commercial and navigation treaties with, 257, 293, 294;
attempts upon Holland by, 295-301;
war declared with Francis II., 324;
treaty of commerce with, 1786, 341;
war declared with England and Holland, 342;
first coalition against, 349;
treaty between the United Provinces and, 363;
treaty with Grand Duke of Tuscany, 363;
treaty with Spain, 363;
second coalition against, 420.
See French Revolution.
France, revolutionary army of, 350, 353.
removed from privy council, 402, 403, 404, 433, 434.
Fox, Henry (afterwards Lord Holland), 21, 35, 39-40, 43;
created Baron Holland, 44, 49, 67, 95.
"Fox's Martyrs," 254.
Fox, Stephen, 256.
France, loss of her colonies and maritime power, 1-2;
anxious for peace, 23;
negotiations with, 23-27;
alliance with Spain, 25-33;
peace with, signed, 40, 41;
Bourbon schemes of aggrandisement, 74;
annexes Corsica, 98;
navy of, 112;
refuses to help Spain against England, 114;
alliance with Americans, 181-183, 187, 191;
philosophic movement in, 182;
war between England and, 193, 195, 211, 217-220, 227-236;
accepts the propositions of Russia with regard to neutrals, 208;
schemes of conquests, 211, 236;
peace between England and, 242, 243;
commercial and navigation treaties with, 257, 293, 294;
attempts upon Holland by, 295-301;
war declared with Francis II., 324;
treaty of commerce with, 1786, 341;
war declared with England and Holland, 342;
first coalition against, 349;
treaty between the United Provinces and, 363;
treaty with Grand Duke of Tuscany, 363;
treaty with Spain, 363;
second coalition against, 420.
See French Revolution.
France, revolutionary army of, 350, 353.
Page 521
Francis, Philip, 99, 100, 247, 286, 302.
Francis II. of Austria, 334, 336, 337, 349, 390, 397.
Frankfort, capture of, 337.
Franklin, Benjamin, 59, 125-127, 136, 138, 145, 155, 156, 182, 228, 239,
240, 242, 243.
Frederick the Great, of Prussia, his
alliance with England, 2;
his Silesian war, 13-14;
subsidy to, 2, 17, 23, 26, 27, 33;
British subsidy refused, 34;
offended, 40-42;
declines Chatham's proposal for a defensive alliance, 75, 154, 160;
America seeks help from, 182, 208;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208-209, 298;
death of, 299.
Frederick William II. of Prussia, 299, 300, 325-328, 331, 334, 338-339,
351, 354, 360, 361, 363, 374.
Frederick William III. of Prussia, 421, 423, 436, 437, 440, 442.
Freeman's Farm, battle of, 178.
French Revolution, 315;
meeting of states-general at Versailles, 316;
national assembly, 316;
bread riots in Paris, 317;
views of Burke on the, 318, 329;
flight of Louis XVI., 330;
the new constitution accepted, 331;
insurrection in Paris, 336;
king and queen imprisoned, 336;
allied armies enter France, 337;
revolutionary societies, 338, 339;
Francis II. of Austria, 334, 336, 337, 349, 390, 397.
Frankfort, capture of, 337.
Franklin, Benjamin, 59, 125-127, 136, 138, 145, 155, 156, 182, 228, 239,
240, 242, 243.
Frederick the Great, of Prussia, his
alliance with England, 2;
his Silesian war, 13-14;
subsidy to, 2, 17, 23, 26, 27, 33;
British subsidy refused, 34;
offended, 40-42;
declines Chatham's proposal for a defensive alliance, 75, 154, 160;
America seeks help from, 182, 208;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208-209, 298;
death of, 299.
Frederick William II. of Prussia, 299, 300, 325-328, 331, 334, 338-339,
351, 354, 360, 361, 363, 374.
Frederick William III. of Prussia, 421, 423, 436, 437, 440, 442.
Freeman's Farm, battle of, 178.
French Revolution, 315;
meeting of states-general at Versailles, 316;
national assembly, 316;
bread riots in Paris, 317;
views of Burke on the, 318, 329;
flight of Louis XVI., 330;
the new constitution accepted, 331;
insurrection in Paris, 336;
king and queen imprisoned, 336;
allied armies enter France, 337;
revolutionary societies, 338, 339;
Page 522
execution of Louis XVI., 342;
war declared against England, 342, 343;
fighting in the Netherlands, 349-351;
surrender of Toulon, 352;
second committee of public safety, 353;
the Vendeans appeal to England for help, 354;
siege and evacuation of Toulon, 355;
siege of Landrecies, 360;
capitulation, 361;
fall of Robespierre, 372;
new constitution adopted, 375;
expedition to Quiberon, 376;
war in the West Indies, 377;
campaign in Italy, 380;
German campaign, 382;
campaign in Spain, 388-390;
preliminaries for peace, 396-398;
projected invasion of England, 401;
army of England, 402;
Egyptian campaign, 415-417;
Syrian campaign, 418, 419;
occupation of Naples, 422;
war of the second coalition, 425;
conquest of Italy by Suvorov, 425;
invasion of Holland, 429, 430;
overthrow of the directory, 432;
consulate, 432;
Italian campaign, 436, 437;
proposed armistice with Great Britain,
438, 439;
treaty of Lunéville, 440.
Freya, Danish ship, case of the, 441.
Freytag, Marshal, 353.
Friends of the People, Society of the, 324, 335, 357.
war declared against England, 342, 343;
fighting in the Netherlands, 349-351;
surrender of Toulon, 352;
second committee of public safety, 353;
the Vendeans appeal to England for help, 354;
siege and evacuation of Toulon, 355;
siege of Landrecies, 360;
capitulation, 361;
fall of Robespierre, 372;
new constitution adopted, 375;
expedition to Quiberon, 376;
war in the West Indies, 377;
campaign in Italy, 380;
German campaign, 382;
campaign in Spain, 388-390;
preliminaries for peace, 396-398;
projected invasion of England, 401;
army of England, 402;
Egyptian campaign, 415-417;
Syrian campaign, 418, 419;
occupation of Naples, 422;
war of the second coalition, 425;
conquest of Italy by Suvorov, 425;
invasion of Holland, 429, 430;
overthrow of the directory, 432;
consulate, 432;
Italian campaign, 436, 437;
proposed armistice with Great Britain,
438, 439;
treaty of Lunéville, 440.
Freya, Danish ship, case of the, 441.
Freytag, Marshal, 353.
Friends of the People, Society of the, 324, 335, 357.
Page 523
Frost, John, 357.
Fuentes, Comte de, 25, 28.
Fürstenbund, the, 298-300.
Gage, Thomas, general, 61, 88, 127;
appointed governor of Massachusetts, 129, 131, 132, 137, 140, 143,
145, 147, 148, 150-154, 184.
Gainsborough, Thomas, 262.
Galitzin, Prince, Russian ambassador in London, 34.
Gambia ceded to England, 243.
Gambling, 256, 257.
Garrick, David, 258.
Gaspee, ship, case of the, 125.
Gates, Horatio, general, 177-179, 219-221.
Geisberg, Austrians defeated at, 354.
Genlis, Madame de, 386.
Genoa, siege of, 436;
capitulation of, 437.
George I., 6, 145.
George II., 1, 6.
George III., his accession, 1;
his education and character, 3-5;
his political system, 6, 7, 9, 10;
Fuentes, Comte de, 25, 28.
Fürstenbund, the, 298-300.
Gage, Thomas, general, 61, 88, 127;
appointed governor of Massachusetts, 129, 131, 132, 137, 140, 143,
145, 147, 148, 150-154, 184.
Gainsborough, Thomas, 262.
Galitzin, Prince, Russian ambassador in London, 34.
Gambia ceded to England, 243.
Gambling, 256, 257.
Garrick, David, 258.
Gaspee, ship, case of the, 125.
Gates, Horatio, general, 177-179, 219-221.
Geisberg, Austrians defeated at, 354.
Genlis, Madame de, 386.
Genoa, siege of, 436;
capitulation of, 437.
George I., 6, 145.
George II., 1, 6.
George III., his accession, 1;
his education and character, 3-5;
his political system, 6, 7, 9, 10;
Page 524
his scheme of attack on the whigs, 11;
first speech to parliament, 12;
civil list, 13;
love affair, 21;
marriage and coronation of, 22;
anger against Pitt, 29;
his success against the whigs, 35;
dissatisfied with Bute, 45;
attack of mental disorder, 64;
desires to make provision for a regency, 65;
opposes his ministers, 71;
disappointed by Chatham's illness, 85;
growth of personal power, 87;
his policy triumphant, 103;
contest with the city of London, 110, 111;
signs of mental excitement, 112;
family troubles, 119;
political predominance, 123;
his American policy, 131-135;
hires foreign troops, 154;
refuses to call Chatham to office, 188-189;
takes measures to suppress the Gordon riots, 206-207;
end of personal government, 229;
refuses to call Portland to office, 240;
hostile to the coalition ministry, 245-246;
unconstitutional move in the case of Fox's India bills, 250-251;
creates new peers, 253;
attempt on his life, 307;
insane, 309, 310, 453;
recovers, 314, 454;
his feelings towards the emancipation
of the Irish catholics, 451-452, 453.
Georgetown, 221.
Georgia, 132, 134, 150, 195, 198, 215.
first speech to parliament, 12;
civil list, 13;
love affair, 21;
marriage and coronation of, 22;
anger against Pitt, 29;
his success against the whigs, 35;
dissatisfied with Bute, 45;
attack of mental disorder, 64;
desires to make provision for a regency, 65;
opposes his ministers, 71;
disappointed by Chatham's illness, 85;
growth of personal power, 87;
his policy triumphant, 103;
contest with the city of London, 110, 111;
signs of mental excitement, 112;
family troubles, 119;
political predominance, 123;
his American policy, 131-135;
hires foreign troops, 154;
refuses to call Chatham to office, 188-189;
takes measures to suppress the Gordon riots, 206-207;
end of personal government, 229;
refuses to call Portland to office, 240;
hostile to the coalition ministry, 245-246;
unconstitutional move in the case of Fox's India bills, 250-251;
creates new peers, 253;
attempt on his life, 307;
insane, 309, 310, 453;
recovers, 314, 454;
his feelings towards the emancipation
of the Irish catholics, 451-452, 453.
Georgetown, 221.
Georgia, 132, 134, 150, 195, 198, 215.
Page 525
Germain, Lord George. See Sackville, Lord George.
German troops employed in America, 154, 159, 176, 177, 186.
Germantown, battle of, 174.
Germany, Emperor of. See Francis II., Joseph II. and Leopold II.
Gibbon, Edward, 261.
Gibraltar, 154, 160, 196, 198, 199, 210, 217, 236, 241, 243.
Gilbert's act, 277, 278.
Gillray, James, 257, 399.
Girondists, 334, 350.
Girtin, Thomas, painter, 262.
Glasgow, petition from, 138.
Gloucester (U.S.A.), 224;
surrender at, 225.
Gloucester, William Henry, Duke of (brother of the king), 119.
Glynn, Serjeant, 97, 104, 135.
Goddard, Colonel, 237.
Godoy, Emmanuel, "Prince of the Peace," 363.
Goldsmith, Oliver, 258-260, 262.
Gordon, Lord George, 205, 207.
Gordon riots. See Riots.
Goree (Africa), 2, 23, 24, 26, 41;
German troops employed in America, 154, 159, 176, 177, 186.
Germantown, battle of, 174.
Germany, Emperor of. See Francis II., Joseph II. and Leopold II.
Gibbon, Edward, 261.
Gibraltar, 154, 160, 196, 198, 199, 210, 217, 236, 241, 243.
Gilbert's act, 277, 278.
Gillray, James, 257, 399.
Girondists, 334, 350.
Girtin, Thomas, painter, 262.
Glasgow, petition from, 138.
Gloucester (U.S.A.), 224;
surrender at, 225.
Gloucester, William Henry, Duke of (brother of the king), 119.
Glynn, Serjeant, 97, 104, 135.
Goddard, Colonel, 237.
Godoy, Emmanuel, "Prince of the Peace," 363.
Goldsmith, Oliver, 258-260, 262.
Gordon, Lord George, 205, 207.
Gordon riots. See Riots.
Goree (Africa), 2, 23, 24, 26, 41;
Page 526
ceded to France, 243;
surrendered to the English, 439.
Gorey (Ireland), captured, 410.
Gower, second Earl (Leveson-Gower), afterwards Marquis of Stafford,
president of the council, 87;
resigns, 202, 229, 245, 251;
privy seal, 287, 366.
Gower, Lord, 336, 337.
Gozo, surrender of, 422.
Grafton, Duke of (Fitzroy), 42, 47;
secretary of state, 68, 69;
resigns office, 73;
first lord of the treasury, 74, 80, 85, 86, 89, 90, 95;
resigns office, 102;
privy seal, 115;
resigns, 159, 160, 203;
again lord privy seal, 229, 244, 257, 274.
Granard (Ireland), rebellion in, 414.
Granby, Marquis of (Manners), 14, 36, 53;
commander-in-chief, 74, 90;
resigns, 102, 116.
Grantham, Lord (Robinson), secretary of state, 240.
Granville, Lord (Carteret), 8, 29, 30, 49.
Grasse, Count de, 217, 218, 223, 224, 226, 227, 234, 235.
Grattan, Henry, 201, 202, 232, 233, 290, 291, 315, 368, 369, 449, 450.
Graves, Samuel, admiral, 151, 153.
surrendered to the English, 439.
Gorey (Ireland), captured, 410.
Gower, second Earl (Leveson-Gower), afterwards Marquis of Stafford,
president of the council, 87;
resigns, 202, 229, 245, 251;
privy seal, 287, 366.
Gower, Lord, 336, 337.
Gozo, surrender of, 422.
Grafton, Duke of (Fitzroy), 42, 47;
secretary of state, 68, 69;
resigns office, 73;
first lord of the treasury, 74, 80, 85, 86, 89, 90, 95;
resigns office, 102;
privy seal, 115;
resigns, 159, 160, 203;
again lord privy seal, 229, 244, 257, 274.
Granard (Ireland), rebellion in, 414.
Granby, Marquis of (Manners), 14, 36, 53;
commander-in-chief, 74, 90;
resigns, 102, 116.
Grantham, Lord (Robinson), secretary of state, 240.
Granville, Lord (Carteret), 8, 29, 30, 49.
Grasse, Count de, 217, 218, 223, 224, 226, 227, 234, 235.
Grattan, Henry, 201, 202, 232, 233, 290, 291, 315, 368, 369, 449, 450.
Graves, Samuel, admiral, 151, 153.
Page 527
Graves, Thomas, admiral (afterwards Lord Graves), 218, 224, 226.
Gray, Thomas, 259.
Greene, Nathaniel, American general, 221-223.
Grenada, conquest of, 37, 195, 197, 243, 377.
Grenville, George, 9, 20, 21, 32, 34;
secretary of state, 35, 38;
the "gentle shepherd," 43, 44;
prime minister, 45, 46, 48-50, 53, 54;
proposes to tax the American colonies, 54, 57-59;
stamp act, 59, 60, 63-65;
dismissed from office, 67, 83, 96, 99, 100, 107;
elections act, 108, 109;
death of, 115, 116.
Grenville, Thomas, 239, 423.
Grenville, William Wyndham (afterwards Lord Grenville), 250, 252, 313;
home secretary, 315;
created Baron Grenville, secretary of state, 322, 327, 328, 334, 336,
338-340, 342, 343, 349, 352, 356, 359, 366, 373, 374, 379,
394, 396-398, 421, 423, 433, 438, 444, 452.
Greville, Charles, 422.
Grey, Sir Charles, general (afterwards first earl), 363, 364.
Grey, Charles (afterwards second Earl Grey), 294, 308, 341, 357, 372-374;
motion for parliamentary reform, 399, 447.
Grimaldi, Marquis, 25, 28, 29, 74, 112-114.
Guadaloupe, 2, 23, 24, 26, 40;
surrendered to the English, 363;
reconquered by the French, 364;
reconquered by the English, 377.
Gray, Thomas, 259.
Greene, Nathaniel, American general, 221-223.
Grenada, conquest of, 37, 195, 197, 243, 377.
Grenville, George, 9, 20, 21, 32, 34;
secretary of state, 35, 38;
the "gentle shepherd," 43, 44;
prime minister, 45, 46, 48-50, 53, 54;
proposes to tax the American colonies, 54, 57-59;
stamp act, 59, 60, 63-65;
dismissed from office, 67, 83, 96, 99, 100, 107;
elections act, 108, 109;
death of, 115, 116.
Grenville, Thomas, 239, 423.
Grenville, William Wyndham (afterwards Lord Grenville), 250, 252, 313;
home secretary, 315;
created Baron Grenville, secretary of state, 322, 327, 328, 334, 336,
338-340, 342, 343, 349, 352, 356, 359, 366, 373, 374, 379,
394, 396-398, 421, 423, 433, 438, 444, 452.
Greville, Charles, 422.
Grey, Sir Charles, general (afterwards first earl), 363, 364.
Grey, Charles (afterwards second Earl Grey), 294, 308, 341, 357, 372-374;
motion for parliamentary reform, 399, 447.
Grimaldi, Marquis, 25, 28, 29, 74, 112-114.
Guadaloupe, 2, 23, 24, 26, 40;
surrendered to the English, 363;
reconquered by the French, 364;
reconquered by the English, 377.
Page 528
Guichen, Comte de, 199, 200.
Guilford (U.S.A.), battle at, 222.
Gustavus III., King of Sweden, 115;
war with Russia and Denmark, 325, 326;
allied with émigrés, 330.
Haarlem Heights (U.S.A.), 165, 167.
Habeas corpus, suspension of, 169, 358, 385, 403;
motion for repeal of, 372.
Hadfield, king's assailant, 435.
Haidar Alí, ruler of Mysore, 80, 196, 236, 237;
death of, 238, 241.
Halifax, Earl of (Dunk), 8;
first lord of admiralty, 35;
secretary of state, 40, 46, 47, 65, 98, 115;
death of, 115.
Halifax (Nova Scotia), 155, 164.
Hamilton, Lady, 422.
Hamilton, Sir William, 422.
Hancock, John, president of congress, 88, 147.
Hanover, 14, 18, 245, 298, 442.
Harcourt, Simon, Earl of, Viceroy of Ireland, 200.
Hardwicke, Earl of (Yorke), 8, 12, 20, 29, 34, 39, 48, 102, 264.
Hardy, French general, 414, 415.
Guilford (U.S.A.), battle at, 222.
Gustavus III., King of Sweden, 115;
war with Russia and Denmark, 325, 326;
allied with émigrés, 330.
Haarlem Heights (U.S.A.), 165, 167.
Habeas corpus, suspension of, 169, 358, 385, 403;
motion for repeal of, 372.
Hadfield, king's assailant, 435.
Haidar Alí, ruler of Mysore, 80, 196, 236, 237;
death of, 238, 241.
Halifax, Earl of (Dunk), 8;
first lord of admiralty, 35;
secretary of state, 40, 46, 47, 65, 98, 115;
death of, 115.
Halifax (Nova Scotia), 155, 164.
Hamilton, Lady, 422.
Hamilton, Sir William, 422.
Hancock, John, president of congress, 88, 147.
Hanover, 14, 18, 245, 298, 442.
Harcourt, Simon, Earl of, Viceroy of Ireland, 200.
Hardwicke, Earl of (Yorke), 8, 12, 20, 29, 34, 39, 48, 102, 264.
Hardy, French general, 414, 415.
Page 529
Hardy, shoemaker, 358.
Hardy, Sir Charles, admiral, 196.
Hargreaves, James, 271, 272.
Harris, George, general (afterwards Lord Harris), 420.
Harris, Sir James (afterwards Earl of Malmesbury), 113, 298, 300, 301, 307,
360, 373, 383, 396, 397.
Hartley, David, M.P., 160.
Harvey, Bagenal, 409, 410-412.
Harvey, Sir H., admiral, 389.
Hastings, Warren, governor-general of British India, 122, 236, 237;
recalled, 247, 248, 249;
resigns governor-generalship, 302;
charges against, 303;
trial of, 304, 305, 322, 323.
Havana, British capture of, 36, 37, 40-41.
Hawke, Sir Edward, admiral (afterwards Lord Hawke), 15, 75, 113, 115.
Hawkesbury, Lord. See Jenkinson, Charles.
Heliopolis, defeat of Turks at, 432.
Henley, Lord (afterwards Earl of Northington), lord keeper, 8;
lord chancellor, 35, 46, 68;
resigns office, 73;
president of the council, 74, 76, 87.
Henry, Patrick, American, 61, 133, 142, 146.
Henry, Prince (brother of Frederick of Prussia), 14.
Hardy, Sir Charles, admiral, 196.
Hargreaves, James, 271, 272.
Harris, George, general (afterwards Lord Harris), 420.
Harris, Sir James (afterwards Earl of Malmesbury), 113, 298, 300, 301, 307,
360, 373, 383, 396, 397.
Hartley, David, M.P., 160.
Harvey, Bagenal, 409, 410-412.
Harvey, Sir H., admiral, 389.
Hastings, Warren, governor-general of British India, 122, 236, 237;
recalled, 247, 248, 249;
resigns governor-generalship, 302;
charges against, 303;
trial of, 304, 305, 322, 323.
Havana, British capture of, 36, 37, 40-41.
Hawke, Sir Edward, admiral (afterwards Lord Hawke), 15, 75, 113, 115.
Hawkesbury, Lord. See Jenkinson, Charles.
Heliopolis, defeat of Turks at, 432.
Henley, Lord (afterwards Earl of Northington), lord keeper, 8;
lord chancellor, 35, 46, 68;
resigns office, 73;
president of the council, 74, 76, 87.
Henry, Patrick, American, 61, 133, 142, 146.
Henry, Prince (brother of Frederick of Prussia), 14.
Page 530
Hermione, Spanish ship captured, 38;
frigate, mutiny on board the, 391.
Herschel, Sir William, astronomer royal, 263.
Hertford, Earl of (Seymour), 52.
Hervilly, Comte d', 376.
Hesse Cassel, landgrave of, 154, 300.
Hexham riots. See Riots.
Hillsborough, Earl of (Hill), president of board of trade, 49;
secretary of state, 87, 88-91, 124, 203.
Hillsborough (U.S.A.), 222.
Hobskirk hill, battle of, 223.
Hoche, French general, 354, 376, 377, 386, 398.
Hohenlinden, battle of, 439, 440.
Holdernesse, Lord (D'Arcy), secretary of state, 8, 20.
Holland, Baron. See Fox, Henry.
Holland, province of, treaties with, 209;
French party in, 297-299;
invaded by Prussians, 300;
invaded by French, 362;
English and Russian expedition to, 429-431.
See United Provinces.
Home, John, dramatist, 258.
Hondschoote, battle of, 353.
frigate, mutiny on board the, 391.
Herschel, Sir William, astronomer royal, 263.
Hertford, Earl of (Seymour), 52.
Hervilly, Comte d', 376.
Hesse Cassel, landgrave of, 154, 300.
Hexham riots. See Riots.
Hillsborough, Earl of (Hill), president of board of trade, 49;
secretary of state, 87, 88-91, 124, 203.
Hillsborough (U.S.A.), 222.
Hobskirk hill, battle of, 223.
Hoche, French general, 354, 376, 377, 386, 398.
Hohenlinden, battle of, 439, 440.
Holdernesse, Lord (D'Arcy), secretary of state, 8, 20.
Holland, Baron. See Fox, Henry.
Holland, province of, treaties with, 209;
French party in, 297-299;
invaded by Prussians, 300;
invaded by French, 362;
English and Russian expedition to, 429-431.
See United Provinces.
Home, John, dramatist, 258.
Hondschoote, battle of, 353.
Page 531
Honduras, 41;
English expelled from, 196;
English settle in, 318.
Hood, Alexander. See Bridport, Viscount.
Hood, Sir Samuel (afterwards Viscount Hood), 218, 224, 226, 227, 235,
238, 283-284, 306, 352, 355, 356, 363, 375.
Hood, Samuel, 417.
Hoppner, John, 262.
Horne, John. See Tooke, Horne.
Horton, Mrs. (becomes Duchess of Cumberland), 119.
Hotham, Sir William, admiral, 375, 376, 381.
Houchard, French general, 353.
Howard, John, philanthropist, 267.
Howe, Richard, Earl, admiral, 138, 145, 163, 164;
"Black Dick," 194, 236;
first lord of the admiralty, 251;
retires, 306, 352, 364-366, 392, 400.
Howe, Sir William, general (afterwards Viscount Howe), 145, 149, 150,
153-155, 163-169, 172-176, 179, 181, 184-185.
Hubertsburg, peace of, 42.
Hughes, Sir Edward, admiral, 237, 238.
Humbert, French general, 413-415.
Hume, David, historian, 261.
English expelled from, 196;
English settle in, 318.
Hood, Alexander. See Bridport, Viscount.
Hood, Sir Samuel (afterwards Viscount Hood), 218, 224, 226, 227, 235,
238, 283-284, 306, 352, 355, 356, 363, 375.
Hood, Samuel, 417.
Hoppner, John, 262.
Horne, John. See Tooke, Horne.
Horton, Mrs. (becomes Duchess of Cumberland), 119.
Hotham, Sir William, admiral, 375, 376, 381.
Houchard, French general, 353.
Howard, John, philanthropist, 267.
Howe, Richard, Earl, admiral, 138, 145, 163, 164;
"Black Dick," 194, 236;
first lord of the admiralty, 251;
retires, 306, 352, 364-366, 392, 400.
Howe, Sir William, general (afterwards Viscount Howe), 145, 149, 150,
153-155, 163-169, 172-176, 179, 181, 184-185.
Hubertsburg, peace of, 42.
Hughes, Sir Edward, admiral, 237, 238.
Humbert, French general, 413-415.
Hume, David, historian, 261.
Page 532
Hunt, captain, R.N., 113.
Hunter, John, 263.
Huntingdon, Selina, Countess of, 264, 265.
Hutchinson, general, 413.
Hutchinson, Thomas (governor of Massachusetts), 91, 109, 124;
letters by, 125-126;
recalled, 129.
Hutton, James, 263.
Impey, Sir Elijah, 304.
Income tax, first imposed by W. Pitt, 434, 435.
India and East India Company, 2, 14;
position of the East India Company, 76;
Nawáb of Bengal deposed by the council, 77;
revolt and reconquest of Bengal, 77;
Mír Kásim made Nawáb of Bengal, 77;
battle of Baxár, 78;
heavy debts of the East India Company, 78-79, 81;
revolt in Mysore, 80;
famine in Bengal, 81;
North's regulating act, 121, 122;
Warren Hastings appointed governor-general, 122;
Clive virtually acquitted, 122;
act authorising the East India Company to export its surplus stock of
tea to America, 126;
Pondicherry taken, 196;
Haidar makes war on the English, 196;
Maráthá war, 236-238;
Tipú Sahib succeeds Haidar Alí, 238;
peace made, 238;
Hunter, John, 263.
Huntingdon, Selina, Countess of, 264, 265.
Hutchinson, general, 413.
Hutchinson, Thomas (governor of Massachusetts), 91, 109, 124;
letters by, 125-126;
recalled, 129.
Hutton, James, 263.
Impey, Sir Elijah, 304.
Income tax, first imposed by W. Pitt, 434, 435.
India and East India Company, 2, 14;
position of the East India Company, 76;
Nawáb of Bengal deposed by the council, 77;
revolt and reconquest of Bengal, 77;
Mír Kásim made Nawáb of Bengal, 77;
battle of Baxár, 78;
heavy debts of the East India Company, 78-79, 81;
revolt in Mysore, 80;
famine in Bengal, 81;
North's regulating act, 121, 122;
Warren Hastings appointed governor-general, 122;
Clive virtually acquitted, 122;
act authorising the East India Company to export its surplus stock of
tea to America, 126;
Pondicherry taken, 196;
Haidar makes war on the English, 196;
Maráthá war, 236-238;
Tipú Sahib succeeds Haidar Alí, 238;
peace made, 238;
Page 533
charter of the East India Company renewed, 247;
Hastings recalled, 247;
work of Hastings, 248, 249;
Dundas's India bill, 249;
Fox's India bills, 249-251;
Pitt's India bill, 252, 286;
Warren Hastings resigns office, 302;
Cornwallis appointed governor-general, 305;
Tipú attacks the Rájá of Travancore, 305;
Pitt's declaratory act, 306;
revival of French influence, 419;
fall of Seringapatam and death of Tipú, 420;
Lord Wellesley in, 443.
Indians, North American, invade colonies, 57-58;
employment of, in war, 140, 144, 176-178, 186;
border warfare with, 194.
Industrial revolution, 269-273, 277-279.
Ireland, condition of, in 1760, 91-94;
absentee tax proposed, 200;
linen manufacture, 201;
restrictions on trade, 201;
volunteers, 202;
trade opened, 202;
legislative independence conceded, 232, 233;
agitation for parliamentary reform, 288, 289;
Pitt's trade propositions, 289, 291;
question of the regency, 315;
political condition in 1795, 367;
United Irishmen Society founded, 367;
catholics enfranchised, 368;
Fitzwilliam, lord-lieutenant, 369;
recalled, 370;
Camden, lord-lieutenant, 370;
complete relief rejected, 370;
Hastings recalled, 247;
work of Hastings, 248, 249;
Dundas's India bill, 249;
Fox's India bills, 249-251;
Pitt's India bill, 252, 286;
Warren Hastings resigns office, 302;
Cornwallis appointed governor-general, 305;
Tipú attacks the Rájá of Travancore, 305;
Pitt's declaratory act, 306;
revival of French influence, 419;
fall of Seringapatam and death of Tipú, 420;
Lord Wellesley in, 443.
Indians, North American, invade colonies, 57-58;
employment of, in war, 140, 144, 176-178, 186;
border warfare with, 194.
Industrial revolution, 269-273, 277-279.
Ireland, condition of, in 1760, 91-94;
absentee tax proposed, 200;
linen manufacture, 201;
restrictions on trade, 201;
volunteers, 202;
trade opened, 202;
legislative independence conceded, 232, 233;
agitation for parliamentary reform, 288, 289;
Pitt's trade propositions, 289, 291;
question of the regency, 315;
political condition in 1795, 367;
United Irishmen Society founded, 367;
catholics enfranchised, 368;
Fitzwilliam, lord-lieutenant, 369;
recalled, 370;
Camden, lord-lieutenant, 370;
complete relief rejected, 370;
Page 534
Maynooth college founded, 385;
religious riots, 385;
Orange Society founded, 385;
attempted French invasion, 386;
intended invasion by Dutch fleet, 397-398;
condition of, in 1798, 404, 405;
conspiracy in Ulster, 405-407;
methods of enforcing disarmament, 407-408;
rebellions in Kildare and Carlow, 408;
in Wexford, 409;
defeat of rebels at Arklow, 411;
surrender of Wexford, 412;
Humbert's invasion, 413;
other attempts on, 414;
union proposed, 445, 446;
catholic support, 446, 447;
extent of corruption, 448, 449;
act of union, 450;
catholic emancipation refused, 451, 452.
Irnham, Lord (Luttrell) afterwards Earl Carhampton, 119.
Ismail captured, 327.
Jaffa captured, 418, 419.
Jamaica, 181, 227, 234, 235.
Jassy, peace made between Russia and Turkey at, 328.
Jay, John, American minister, 378.
Jemappes, Austrians defeated at, 337.
Jenkinson, Charles (afterwards Lord Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool),
president of board of trade, secretary at war, 202, 281, 323, 328, 396,
452.
religious riots, 385;
Orange Society founded, 385;
attempted French invasion, 386;
intended invasion by Dutch fleet, 397-398;
condition of, in 1798, 404, 405;
conspiracy in Ulster, 405-407;
methods of enforcing disarmament, 407-408;
rebellions in Kildare and Carlow, 408;
in Wexford, 409;
defeat of rebels at Arklow, 411;
surrender of Wexford, 412;
Humbert's invasion, 413;
other attempts on, 414;
union proposed, 445, 446;
catholic support, 446, 447;
extent of corruption, 448, 449;
act of union, 450;
catholic emancipation refused, 451, 452.
Irnham, Lord (Luttrell) afterwards Earl Carhampton, 119.
Ismail captured, 327.
Jaffa captured, 418, 419.
Jamaica, 181, 227, 234, 235.
Jassy, peace made between Russia and Turkey at, 328.
Jay, John, American minister, 378.
Jemappes, Austrians defeated at, 337.
Jenkinson, Charles (afterwards Lord Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool),
president of board of trade, secretary at war, 202, 281, 323, 328, 396,
452.
Page 535
Jenner, Dr. Edward, 263.
Jersey, attacked by French, 196, 211.
Jervis, Sir John, admiral (afterwards Earl of St. Vincent), 363, 364, 381,
382, 388-390, 395, 400, 416, 426, 429.
John, Archduke of Austria, 439.
Johnson, Dr., 38, 255, 261, 262.
Johnson, Sir John, 178, 194.
Johnston, general, 410.
Jones, Paul, 197, 209.
Jordan, Mrs., actress, 258.
Joseph II. of Austria, 296-298;
declares war against the Turks, 325;
death of, 325.
Joubert, French general, 390, 425.
Jourdan, French general, 353, 361, 375, 382, 423, 425.
June, battle of "the glorious first" of, 364, 366.
Junius, letters of, 99-101, 112, 116, 247.
Kalb, Baron de, 182.
Keith, Lord, admiral (George Keith Elphinstone), 429, 432, 439.
Kemble, John, 258.
Kempenfeldt, admiral, 227.
Jersey, attacked by French, 196, 211.
Jervis, Sir John, admiral (afterwards Earl of St. Vincent), 363, 364, 381,
382, 388-390, 395, 400, 416, 426, 429.
John, Archduke of Austria, 439.
Johnson, Dr., 38, 255, 261, 262.
Johnson, Sir John, 178, 194.
Johnston, general, 410.
Jones, Paul, 197, 209.
Jordan, Mrs., actress, 258.
Joseph II. of Austria, 296-298;
declares war against the Turks, 325;
death of, 325.
Joubert, French general, 390, 425.
Jourdan, French general, 353, 361, 375, 382, 423, 425.
June, battle of "the glorious first" of, 364, 366.
Junius, letters of, 99-101, 112, 116, 247.
Kalb, Baron de, 182.
Keith, Lord, admiral (George Keith Elphinstone), 429, 432, 439.
Kemble, John, 258.
Kempenfeldt, admiral, 227.
Page 536
Kenyon, Lloyd, Lord Kenyon, chief justice, 257, 371, 444.
Keppel, Augustus, admiral (afterwards Viscount Keppel), 192, 193, 212,
213;
first lord of the admiralty, 229, 240;
resigns, 245.
Killala, French at, 413-415.
"King's friends," 10, 68, 107, 110, 172, 281.
Kirkwall, 284.
Kléber, French general, 432.
Korsakov, Russian general, 426.
Kosciusko, Thaddeus, 182.
Kray, Austrian general, 436.
Kutchuk Kainardji, treaty of, 296.
Lafayette, Marquis de, 182, 223, 225, 316.
Lake, General, 406, 411, 414.
Land tax, 83, 113, 162;
commutation of, 403.
Landrecies, capitulation of, 360.
Lángara, Don Juan de, Spanish admiral, 199, 352.
Langrishe, Sir Hercules, Burke's letter to, 367.
Lansdowne, Marquis of. See Shelburne, Lord.
Keppel, Augustus, admiral (afterwards Viscount Keppel), 192, 193, 212,
213;
first lord of the admiralty, 229, 240;
resigns, 245.
Killala, French at, 413-415.
"King's friends," 10, 68, 107, 110, 172, 281.
Kirkwall, 284.
Kléber, French general, 432.
Korsakov, Russian general, 426.
Kosciusko, Thaddeus, 182.
Kray, Austrian general, 436.
Kutchuk Kainardji, treaty of, 296.
Lafayette, Marquis de, 182, 223, 225, 316.
Lake, General, 406, 411, 414.
Land tax, 83, 113, 162;
commutation of, 403.
Landrecies, capitulation of, 360.
Lángara, Don Juan de, Spanish admiral, 199, 352.
Langrishe, Sir Hercules, Burke's letter to, 367.
Lansdowne, Marquis of. See Shelburne, Lord.
Page 537
Lauderdale, Earl of (Maitland), 359.
Laurence, French, 447.
Laurens, Henry, American envoy, 210.
La Vendée, 351, 354, 432.
Lawrence, Thomas, painter, 262.
Lee, Charles, American general, 167, 168.
Lee, Henry, American general, 221, 223.
Lee, William, American envoy, 210.
Leeds, Duke of. See Carmarthen, Earl of.
Legge, Henry Bilson, chancellor of exchequer, 8, 20.
Leinster, Duke of (Fitzgerald), 202, 386.
Lennox, Lady Sarah, 21, 121.
Leoben, preliminaries of peace signed at, 390, 397.
Leopold II. of Austria, 325, 326, 330, 331;
death of, 334, 343.
Le Quesnoy, 351, 353, 354.
Leslie, General, 220, 221.
L'Estrange, Colonel, 409, 410.
Lewis, "Monk," 260.
Lexington, skirmish at, 140, 141, 143-146.
Libel, law of, 115;
Laurence, French, 447.
Laurens, Henry, American envoy, 210.
La Vendée, 351, 354, 432.
Lawrence, Thomas, painter, 262.
Lee, Charles, American general, 167, 168.
Lee, Henry, American general, 221, 223.
Lee, William, American envoy, 210.
Leeds, Duke of. See Carmarthen, Earl of.
Legge, Henry Bilson, chancellor of exchequer, 8, 20.
Leinster, Duke of (Fitzgerald), 202, 386.
Lennox, Lady Sarah, 21, 121.
Leoben, preliminaries of peace signed at, 390, 397.
Leopold II. of Austria, 325, 326, 330, 331;
death of, 334, 343.
Le Quesnoy, 351, 353, 354.
Leslie, General, 220, 221.
L'Estrange, Colonel, 409, 410.
Lewis, "Monk," 260.
Lexington, skirmish at, 140, 141, 143-146.
Libel, law of, 115;
Page 538
Fox's bill, 324.
Liberty of the press. See Press, liberty of the.
Ligonier, Viscount (afterwards Earl), 8, 30.
Lille, negotiations at, 396, 397, 400.
Lincoln, American general, 195, 198.
Linen manufacture in Ireland. See Ireland.
Lippe-Bückeburg, Count of, general, 37, 145.
Liverpool, Earl of. See Jenkinson, Charles.
Liverpool, petition from, 138.
Loano, battle of, 376.
London:—
Bloomsbury Square, 66.
Buckingham House, 54.
Carlton House, 11, 307, 309.
Clubs: at Wildman's, 43;
at Cocoa-Tree Tavern, 110;
White's, 253;
Brooks's, 253, 256.
Copenhagen Fields, meeting in, 378.
Correspondence Society, 335.
Petitions from citizens of, 138, 158, 159, 186, 193, 435.
St. George's Fields: riots, 96;
meeting in, 378.
Spitalfields riots, 66.
Westminster election, 283, 284, 322;
representation of, 286.
Long Island (N.Y.), 164, 165, 185, 187.
Liberty of the press. See Press, liberty of the.
Ligonier, Viscount (afterwards Earl), 8, 30.
Lille, negotiations at, 396, 397, 400.
Lincoln, American general, 195, 198.
Linen manufacture in Ireland. See Ireland.
Lippe-Bückeburg, Count of, general, 37, 145.
Liverpool, Earl of. See Jenkinson, Charles.
Liverpool, petition from, 138.
Loano, battle of, 376.
London:—
Bloomsbury Square, 66.
Buckingham House, 54.
Carlton House, 11, 307, 309.
Clubs: at Wildman's, 43;
at Cocoa-Tree Tavern, 110;
White's, 253;
Brooks's, 253, 256.
Copenhagen Fields, meeting in, 378.
Correspondence Society, 335.
Petitions from citizens of, 138, 158, 159, 186, 193, 435.
St. George's Fields: riots, 96;
meeting in, 378.
Spitalfields riots, 66.
Westminster election, 283, 284, 322;
representation of, 286.
Long Island (N.Y.), 164, 165, 185, 187.
Page 539
Long Island (S.C.), 157.
Longwy, captured, 337.
Loughborough, Earl. See Wedderburn, Alexander.
Louis XIV., 433.
Louis XV., 114.
Louis XVI., 181, 316, 320, 321, 324.
Louis XVII., 352, 363.
Louis XVIII. See Provence, Count of.
L'Ouverture, Toussaint, 424.
Lowther, M.P., 160.
Lowther, Sir James (afterwards Earl of Lonsdale), 87, 213, 256.
Loyalists (American), 134, 135, 329;
treatment of, 242.
Lucas, Charles, Irish politician, 94.
Lucknow, 249.
Ludgershall, borough of, 94.
Lunéville, congress at, 438, 439;
treaty of, 440.
Luttrell, Henry Lawes (second Earl Carhampton), colonel, 97, 100, 112,
119, 405.
Luttrell, M.P., 160.
Longwy, captured, 337.
Loughborough, Earl. See Wedderburn, Alexander.
Louis XIV., 433.
Louis XV., 114.
Louis XVI., 181, 316, 320, 321, 324.
Louis XVII., 352, 363.
Louis XVIII. See Provence, Count of.
L'Ouverture, Toussaint, 424.
Lowther, M.P., 160.
Lowther, Sir James (afterwards Earl of Lonsdale), 87, 213, 256.
Loyalists (American), 134, 135, 329;
treatment of, 242.
Lucas, Charles, Irish politician, 94.
Lucknow, 249.
Ludgershall, borough of, 94.
Lunéville, congress at, 438, 439;
treaty of, 440.
Luttrell, Henry Lawes (second Earl Carhampton), colonel, 97, 100, 112,
119, 405.
Luttrell, M.P., 160.
Page 540
Luxemburg, 351.
Lyons, siege of, 355, 356.
Lyttelton, Lord, 67.
Macartney, George, Lord, 395.
Macaulay, Zachary, 324.
Macdonald, French general, 425, 427, 440.
Machinery and steam and water power. See England.
Mack (Austrian general), 360, 422.
Mackenzie, James Stuart (brother of the Earl of Bute), 67.
Mackintosh, Sir James, his Vindiciæ Gallicæ, 329.
Macklin, Charles, actor, 258.
Maclean, Colonel, 152.
Madras, 196, 237, 238;
council of, 247.
Mahé (India), 196.
Mainz, Elector of, 436.
Mainz, surrender of, 337, 349, 350, 354;
siege of, 375.
Malmesbury, Earl of (Harris). See Harris, Sir James.
Malta, 415;
surrendered by the Knights of St. John, 416, 421, 423, 431, 438;
Lyons, siege of, 355, 356.
Lyttelton, Lord, 67.
Macartney, George, Lord, 395.
Macaulay, Zachary, 324.
Macdonald, French general, 425, 427, 440.
Machinery and steam and water power. See England.
Mack (Austrian general), 360, 422.
Mackenzie, James Stuart (brother of the Earl of Bute), 67.
Mackintosh, Sir James, his Vindiciæ Gallicæ, 329.
Macklin, Charles, actor, 258.
Maclean, Colonel, 152.
Madras, 196, 237, 238;
council of, 247.
Mahé (India), 196.
Mainz, Elector of, 436.
Mainz, surrender of, 337, 349, 350, 354;
siege of, 375.
Malmesbury, Earl of (Harris). See Harris, Sir James.
Malta, 415;
surrendered by the Knights of St. John, 416, 421, 423, 431, 438;
Page 541
becomes a British possession, 439, 441.
Malvalli, battle of, 420.
Mamelukes, defeat of, 416.
Manhattan island. See New York.
Manila, 38, 40, 41, 74, 112.
Mansfield, first Earl of (Murray), 8, 29;
lord chief justice, 96, 100-101;
speaker of the house of lords, 103, 116, 131, 205-207, 306, 324.
Mansfield, second Earl of. See Stormont, Lord.
Mantua, siege of, 381, 382;
surrender of, 390.
Manufactures, 200, 207;
silk, 66, 95, 276;
glass, 202;
woollen, 202;
iron, 269;
cotton, 269, 272, 273;
linen (in Ireland), 290.
Maráthá wars, 236, 237, 247-248, 305.
March, Earl of (Douglas), afterwards Duke of Queensberry, 256.
Marengo, battle of, 437.
Maria Caroline, Queen of Naples, 422, 428.
Maria Theresa, empress-queen, 24, 296.
Marie Antoinette, queen of Louis XVI., 330, 334.
Malvalli, battle of, 420.
Mamelukes, defeat of, 416.
Manhattan island. See New York.
Manila, 38, 40, 41, 74, 112.
Mansfield, first Earl of (Murray), 8, 29;
lord chief justice, 96, 100-101;
speaker of the house of lords, 103, 116, 131, 205-207, 306, 324.
Mansfield, second Earl of. See Stormont, Lord.
Mantua, siege of, 381, 382;
surrender of, 390.
Manufactures, 200, 207;
silk, 66, 95, 276;
glass, 202;
woollen, 202;
iron, 269;
cotton, 269, 272, 273;
linen (in Ireland), 290.
Maráthá wars, 236, 237, 247-248, 305.
March, Earl of (Douglas), afterwards Duke of Queensberry, 256.
Marengo, battle of, 437.
Maria Caroline, Queen of Naples, 422, 428.
Maria Theresa, empress-queen, 24, 296.
Marie Antoinette, queen of Louis XVI., 330, 334.
Page 542
Maroons, insurrection of, in Jamaica, 377.
Marseilles, 352.
Martin, Joseph, governor of N. Carolina, 157.
Martin, Samuel, secretary to the treasury, 50.
Martinique, 36;
captured by the British, 37;
restored, 40-41, 195, 218, 227, 363.
Massachusetts, 84, 88-91;
bill for regulating the government of, 128, 129, 132, 133, 137, 138;
provincial congress, meeting of, 140-142;
in arms, 143, 144, 198.
Masséna, French general, 390, 425, 426, 436, 437.
Masham, Lord (Masham), 256.
Mauduit, Israel, his Considerations on the German War, 18.
Maxwell, Colonel, at Vellinghausen, 14.
Maynooth College, foundation of. See Ireland.
McCrae, Jane, murder of, 177.
McDonald, merchant skipper, 320, 321.
Medows, General, 305.
Melas, Austrian general, 436, 437.
Menin, Dutch defeated at, 353.
Mercantile system. See England.
Marseilles, 352.
Martin, Joseph, governor of N. Carolina, 157.
Martin, Samuel, secretary to the treasury, 50.
Martinique, 36;
captured by the British, 37;
restored, 40-41, 195, 218, 227, 363.
Massachusetts, 84, 88-91;
bill for regulating the government of, 128, 129, 132, 133, 137, 138;
provincial congress, meeting of, 140-142;
in arms, 143, 144, 198.
Masséna, French general, 390, 425, 426, 436, 437.
Masham, Lord (Masham), 256.
Mauduit, Israel, his Considerations on the German War, 18.
Maxwell, Colonel, at Vellinghausen, 14.
Maynooth College, foundation of. See Ireland.
McCrae, Jane, murder of, 177.
McDonald, merchant skipper, 320, 321.
Medows, General, 305.
Melas, Austrian general, 436, 437.
Menin, Dutch defeated at, 353.
Mercantile system. See England.
Page 543
Methuen treaty, 257.
Micheroux, il cavaliere, 427, 428.
Middlebrook (U.S.A.), 173.
Middlesex elections, 95-99, 100, 101, 103, 107, 110, 135.
Militia, English, 2, 161, 162;
Irish, 368.
Miller, printer, 117, 118.
Micheroux, il cavaliere, 427, 428.
Middlebrook (U.S.A.), 173.
Middlesex elections, 95-99, 100, 101, 103, 107, 110, 135.
Militia, English, 2, 161, 162;
Irish, 368.
Miller, printer, 117, 118.
Page 544
Milner, Isaac (Dean of Carlisle), 265.
Ministries, Newcastle's, 8-35;
Bute's, 35-45;
Grenville's, 45-67;
accession of the Bedford party to office, 49-67;
Rockingham's, 67-73;
Chatham's, 73-89;
Grafton's, 89-102;
North's, 102-229;
Rockingham's, 229-240;
Shelburne's, 240-244;
Coalition, 245-251;
Pitt's, 251-455.
Minorca, 23, 24, 26, 154, 160, 181, 196, 198, 211, 227, 243;
British capture of, 422;
British troops recalled from, 436.
Minto, Earl of. See Elliot, Sir Gilbert.
Miquelon island, 40;
ceded to France, 243;
British capture of, 356.
Mír Jafar, 78.
Mír Kásim, 77.
Mitchell, Sir Andrew, admiral, 430.
Mitford, John Freeman (afterwards Lord Redesdale), 323;
speaker, 453.
Modena, Duke of, 380.
Mohawk valley, 176.
Ministries, Newcastle's, 8-35;
Bute's, 35-45;
Grenville's, 45-67;
accession of the Bedford party to office, 49-67;
Rockingham's, 67-73;
Chatham's, 73-89;
Grafton's, 89-102;
North's, 102-229;
Rockingham's, 229-240;
Shelburne's, 240-244;
Coalition, 245-251;
Pitt's, 251-455.
Minorca, 23, 24, 26, 154, 160, 181, 196, 198, 211, 227, 243;
British capture of, 422;
British troops recalled from, 436.
Minto, Earl of. See Elliot, Sir Gilbert.
Miquelon island, 40;
ceded to France, 243;
British capture of, 356.
Mír Jafar, 78.
Mír Kásim, 77.
Mitchell, Sir Andrew, admiral, 430.
Mitford, John Freeman (afterwards Lord Redesdale), 323;
speaker, 453.
Modena, Duke of, 380.
Mohawk valley, 176.
Page 545
Moira, Earl of. See Rawdon, Lord.
Möllendorf, Prussian general, 360-362.
Monmouth (U.S.A.), battle at, 193.
Monongahela, battle of, 146.
Monro, Major Hector, 78.
Montagu, John, admiral, 364, 366.
Montenotte, Austrians defeated at, 380.
Montgomery, Richard, American general, 151, 152.
Montreal, 2;
surrender of, 151.
Montserrat (W.I.), 243.
Moore, Sir John, 430.
Moreau, 325, 382, 436, 437, 439.
More, Hannah, 265.
Morgan, Daniel, American general, 221.
Morland, George, 262.
Mornington, Lord (Wellesley, R. C.), governor-general of India, 420;
created Marquis Wellesley, 420;
in India, 443.
Morristown (U.S.A.), 169.
Mosquito coast, 318.
Möllendorf, Prussian general, 360-362.
Monmouth (U.S.A.), battle at, 193.
Monongahela, battle of, 146.
Monro, Major Hector, 78.
Montagu, John, admiral, 364, 366.
Montenotte, Austrians defeated at, 380.
Montgomery, Richard, American general, 151, 152.
Montreal, 2;
surrender of, 151.
Montserrat (W.I.), 243.
Moore, Sir John, 430.
Moreau, 325, 382, 436, 437, 439.
More, Hannah, 265.
Morgan, Daniel, American general, 221.
Morland, George, 262.
Mornington, Lord (Wellesley, R. C.), governor-general of India, 420;
created Marquis Wellesley, 420;
in India, 443.
Morristown (U.S.A.), 169.
Mosquito coast, 318.
Page 546
Moultrie, William, American general, 157.
Mountjoy, Lord (Gardiner), 410.
Mount Tabor, defeat of Turks at, 419.
Mouscron, battle at, 361.
Moutray, captain, R.N., 211.
Mowat, lieutenant, 154.
Muir, Thomas, 358.
Mulgrave, Lord (Phipps), general, 355.
Murphy, Father John, 409.
Murray, Lindley, 165.
Musgrave, Colonel, 174.
Mutiny act, 253, 254;
extended to America, 60.
Mutiny. See Navy, mutinies in the.
Mysore, conquest of, 420.
Nanda-Kumár (Nuncomar), execution of, 248, 304.
Naples, King of. See Ferdinand IV.
Naples, 349, 381, 421-423;
revolution in, 422;
jacobins of, and Nelson, 427-429.
Nassau. See Bahama islands.
Mountjoy, Lord (Gardiner), 410.
Mount Tabor, defeat of Turks at, 419.
Mouscron, battle at, 361.
Moutray, captain, R.N., 211.
Mowat, lieutenant, 154.
Muir, Thomas, 358.
Mulgrave, Lord (Phipps), general, 355.
Murphy, Father John, 409.
Murray, Lindley, 165.
Musgrave, Colonel, 174.
Mutiny act, 253, 254;
extended to America, 60.
Mutiny. See Navy, mutinies in the.
Mysore, conquest of, 420.
Nanda-Kumár (Nuncomar), execution of, 248, 304.
Naples, King of. See Ferdinand IV.
Naples, 349, 381, 421-423;
revolution in, 422;
jacobins of, and Nelson, 427-429.
Nassau. See Bahama islands.
Page 547
National debt, the, in 1755, 18;
in 1760, 18;
in 1764, 53, 58, 136;
in 1796, 384;
in 1778, 200;
in 1780, 203;
in 1784, 280;
in 1785, 284;
sinking fund, 291-293;
in 1793, 347;
in 1794, 347.
Navigation acts, 55, 269.
Navy, British, state of in 1760, 2;
in 1761, 18, 29;
in 1764, 53;
in 1770, 113;
in 1771, 114;
in 1172, 115;
in 1774, 137;
in 1775, 161;
in 1776, 162, 163;
in 1777, 170, 171;
in 1778, 192, 193, 195;
in 1782, 233, 235;
in 1792, 332;
in 1793, 351, 352;
changes in material and tactics, 199, 233-235;
manning of, 113, 114, 163, 170, 171, 192, 234, 332;
mutinies in the, 193, 390, 391-395.
Necker, 316.
Needham, Francis Jack (Earl of Kilmorey), general, 411.
Neerwinden, battle of, 349.
in 1760, 18;
in 1764, 53, 58, 136;
in 1796, 384;
in 1778, 200;
in 1780, 203;
in 1784, 280;
in 1785, 284;
sinking fund, 291-293;
in 1793, 347;
in 1794, 347.
Navigation acts, 55, 269.
Navy, British, state of in 1760, 2;
in 1761, 18, 29;
in 1764, 53;
in 1770, 113;
in 1771, 114;
in 1172, 115;
in 1774, 137;
in 1775, 161;
in 1776, 162, 163;
in 1777, 170, 171;
in 1778, 192, 193, 195;
in 1782, 233, 235;
in 1792, 332;
in 1793, 351, 352;
changes in material and tactics, 199, 233-235;
manning of, 113, 114, 163, 170, 171, 192, 234, 332;
mutinies in the, 193, 390, 391-395.
Necker, 316.
Needham, Francis Jack (Earl of Kilmorey), general, 411.
Neerwinden, battle of, 349.
Page 548
Negapatam, 237, 243.
Nelson, Horatio (Viscount), 355, 363, 375, 381, 388, 389, 395;
battle of the Nile, 416, 417;
created Baron Nelson, 417, 418-422;
at Naples, 422, 423, 426-429, 438, 443.
Nevis (W. I.), taken by French, 227;
restored to England, 243.
Newcastle, Duke of (Pelham), first lord of treasury, 8, 10, 11;
jealous of Pitt, 15;
his fear of him, 17;
his power diminished, 16, 19;
becomes Bute's tool, 20, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32;
driven from office, 34, 35, 39, 42, 47, 48;
privy seal, 68, 69, 264.
New England, colonies, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 146, 147, 172,
193.
Newfoundland (St. John), taken by French and retaken, 37, 129, 130, 144.
Newfoundland, fishery, 24-27, 40, 41, 139, 241, 243.
Newport (U.S.A.), 168, 194, 219, 224.
New Ross (Ireland), battle of, 410, 411.
New South Wales, colony of, 267.
Newtownbarry, 409, 410.
New York, meeting of congress of colonies at, 61, 131, 134, 136, 138, 150,
153, 155, 158;
occupation of by Howe, 165, 167, 169;
Clinton in command, 174, 175, 179, 181, 193, 197, 198, 200, 215, 218,
219, 223-225, 228, 242.
Nelson, Horatio (Viscount), 355, 363, 375, 381, 388, 389, 395;
battle of the Nile, 416, 417;
created Baron Nelson, 417, 418-422;
at Naples, 422, 423, 426-429, 438, 443.
Nevis (W. I.), taken by French, 227;
restored to England, 243.
Newcastle, Duke of (Pelham), first lord of treasury, 8, 10, 11;
jealous of Pitt, 15;
his fear of him, 17;
his power diminished, 16, 19;
becomes Bute's tool, 20, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32;
driven from office, 34, 35, 39, 42, 47, 48;
privy seal, 68, 69, 264.
New England, colonies, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 146, 147, 172,
193.
Newfoundland (St. John), taken by French and retaken, 37, 129, 130, 144.
Newfoundland, fishery, 24-27, 40, 41, 139, 241, 243.
Newport (U.S.A.), 168, 194, 219, 224.
New Ross (Ireland), battle of, 410, 411.
New South Wales, colony of, 267.
Newtownbarry, 409, 410.
New York, meeting of congress of colonies at, 61, 131, 134, 136, 138, 150,
153, 155, 158;
occupation of by Howe, 165, 167, 169;
Clinton in command, 174, 175, 179, 181, 193, 197, 198, 200, 215, 218,
219, 223-225, 228, 242.
Page 549
Nice annexed to France, 337.
Nicholson, Margaret, 307.
Nile, battle of the (Abukir bay), 416, 417.
Nimeguen, 362.
Nizám of Oudh, 419, 420.
Nollekens, Joseph, 263.
Nootka sound (Vancouver), affair of, 319.
Nore, mutiny at the, 393, 394.
Norfolk, Duke of (Howard), 402.
Norfolk (U.S.A.), 156.
North Briton, No. 45 of the, 46, 47, 50, 52.
Northesk, Earl of (Carnegie), captain, R.N., 394.
North, Frederick, Lord (afterwards Earl of Guilford), 83;
chancellor of exchequer, 86, 90, 100;
first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 102, 103, 106-113,
115, 118, 119;
policy towards India, 121, 122, 127;
towards America, 128, 135, 136, 138, 139, 145;
conciliation bill, 146, 153, 159, 160;
prohibitory bill, 162, 163, 169, 170;
desires to resign, 188-191;
Irish policy, 200-202, 210, 212, 226, 227;
resigns office, 228, 243;
forms a coalition with Fox, 244;
secretary of state, 245-247;
leaves office, 251, 252, 254, 280, 288, 289, 291, 295.
Nicholson, Margaret, 307.
Nile, battle of the (Abukir bay), 416, 417.
Nimeguen, 362.
Nizám of Oudh, 419, 420.
Nollekens, Joseph, 263.
Nootka sound (Vancouver), affair of, 319.
Nore, mutiny at the, 393, 394.
Norfolk, Duke of (Howard), 402.
Norfolk (U.S.A.), 156.
North Briton, No. 45 of the, 46, 47, 50, 52.
Northesk, Earl of (Carnegie), captain, R.N., 394.
North, Frederick, Lord (afterwards Earl of Guilford), 83;
chancellor of exchequer, 86, 90, 100;
first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 102, 103, 106-113,
115, 118, 119;
policy towards India, 121, 122, 127;
towards America, 128, 135, 136, 138, 139, 145;
conciliation bill, 146, 153, 159, 160;
prohibitory bill, 162, 163, 169, 170;
desires to resign, 188-191;
Irish policy, 200-202, 210, 212, 226, 227;
resigns office, 228, 243;
forms a coalition with Fox, 244;
secretary of state, 245-247;
leaves office, 251, 252, 254, 280, 288, 289, 291, 295.
Page 550
Northington, Earl of. See Henley, Lord.
Norton, Sir Fletcher, speaker, 172, 213.
Nova Scotia, 129, 198.
Novi, battle of, 425.
Oakboys, 92.
Ochakov, 325-328.
O'Coighly, priest, 406.
O'Connor, Arthur, 386, 406.
O'Hara, general, 222, 355.
Oliver, Richard, alderman, 117, 118, 160.
Oliver, Thomas, 125, 126.
Omichand (Hindu merchant), 122.
Onslow, George, colonel, 117.
Orange, Prince of. See William V., Prince of Orange.
Orange, Princess of, 298-300.
Orange Society. See Ireland.
Orleans, Duke of, 386.
Orvilliers, Comte d', 193.
Ostend, 401, 402.
Oswald, Richard, British envoy, 239.
Norton, Sir Fletcher, speaker, 172, 213.
Nova Scotia, 129, 198.
Novi, battle of, 425.
Oakboys, 92.
Ochakov, 325-328.
O'Coighly, priest, 406.
O'Connor, Arthur, 386, 406.
O'Hara, general, 222, 355.
Oliver, Richard, alderman, 117, 118, 160.
Oliver, Thomas, 125, 126.
Omichand (Hindu merchant), 122.
Onslow, George, colonel, 117.
Orange, Prince of. See William V., Prince of Orange.
Orange, Princess of, 298-300.
Orange Society. See Ireland.
Orleans, Duke of, 386.
Orvilliers, Comte d', 193.
Ostend, 401, 402.
Oswald, Richard, British envoy, 239.
Page 551
Oswego, 172, 177.
Otis, James, 56.
Otto, French agent, 438.
Paine, Thomas, his Common Sense, 156;
his Rights of Man, 329, 335.
Paley, William, 261.
Palliser, Sir Hugh, 193.
Palmer, Samuel, dissenting preacher, 358.
Pampeluna, siege of, 363.
Panin, Count, Russian minister, 208, 423.
Paoli, Corsican general, 98, 363.
Parker, Richard, mutineer, 393, 394.
Parker, Sir Hyde, admiral, 212, 443.
Parker, Sir Peter, admiral, 157, 168.
Parma, Duke of, 380.
Paris, peace of, 42, 46, 74, 130;
in 1789, 316-317;
Malmesbury's mission to, 383;
articles of peace signed by the Austrian envoy at, 437;
Russian ambassador sent to arrange treaty of alliance at, 442.
Parliament, general elections of 1761, 16, 19, 20;
of 1768, 94;
of 1774, 135, 136;
Otis, James, 56.
Otto, French agent, 438.
Paine, Thomas, his Common Sense, 156;
his Rights of Man, 329, 335.
Paley, William, 261.
Palliser, Sir Hugh, 193.
Palmer, Samuel, dissenting preacher, 358.
Pampeluna, siege of, 363.
Panin, Count, Russian minister, 208, 423.
Paoli, Corsican general, 98, 363.
Parker, Richard, mutineer, 393, 394.
Parker, Sir Hyde, admiral, 212, 443.
Parker, Sir Peter, admiral, 157, 168.
Parma, Duke of, 380.
Paris, peace of, 42, 46, 74, 130;
in 1789, 316-317;
Malmesbury's mission to, 383;
articles of peace signed by the Austrian envoy at, 437;
Russian ambassador sent to arrange treaty of alliance at, 442.
Parliament, general elections of 1761, 16, 19, 20;
of 1768, 94;
of 1774, 135, 136;
Page 552
of 1781, 212, 213;
of 1784, 280;
of 1790, 322;
Grenville's election act, 108, 109, 135;
house of lords, changes in the character of the, 281, 282;
privileges of members of, 47, 50, 51, 53, 72, 117, 118;
publication of debates, 117, 118.
Parliamentary reform, demands for, 104;
Chatham's plan of, 105;
agreement concerning, 244;
Pitt's motions for, 231-232, 246, 287, 288;
Flood's motion for, 318;
Grey's motion for, 399.
Patná, seized by the English, 77.
Paul, Tsar of Russia, 384, 421, 423, 425, 426, 429;
anger against England, 431, 440;
forms an armed neutrality, 441-443.
Pearson, Captain, R.N., 197.
Penn, Richard, 158.
Pennsylvania, mutiny of troops in, 214.
Percy, Lord (afterwards Duke of Northumberland), 141.
Percy, Thomas, Bishop of Dromore, 259.
Peter III., Tsar of Russia, 33, 36.
Phélypeaux, Colonel, 418.
Philadelphia, continental congress at, 132-134, 138, 146, 147, 156, 157,
167;
congress removes from, 168, 174, 179, 188;
taken by Howe, 173, 174, 175, 179, 180;
of 1784, 280;
of 1790, 322;
Grenville's election act, 108, 109, 135;
house of lords, changes in the character of the, 281, 282;
privileges of members of, 47, 50, 51, 53, 72, 117, 118;
publication of debates, 117, 118.
Parliamentary reform, demands for, 104;
Chatham's plan of, 105;
agreement concerning, 244;
Pitt's motions for, 231-232, 246, 287, 288;
Flood's motion for, 318;
Grey's motion for, 399.
Patná, seized by the English, 77.
Paul, Tsar of Russia, 384, 421, 423, 425, 426, 429;
anger against England, 431, 440;
forms an armed neutrality, 441-443.
Pearson, Captain, R.N., 197.
Penn, Richard, 158.
Pennsylvania, mutiny of troops in, 214.
Percy, Lord (afterwards Duke of Northumberland), 141.
Percy, Thomas, Bishop of Dromore, 259.
Peter III., Tsar of Russia, 33, 36.
Phélypeaux, Colonel, 418.
Philadelphia, continental congress at, 132-134, 138, 146, 147, 156, 157,
167;
congress removes from, 168, 174, 179, 188;
taken by Howe, 173, 174, 175, 179, 180;
Page 553
evacuated, 193, 225.
Philippine Islands, British conquest of, 38;
restored to Spain, 40.
Phillip, Captain, R.N., 267.
Pichegru, 375.
Pierson, Major, 211.
Pigot, George, Lord, governor of Madras, 247.
Pigot, Hugh, admiral, 149, 238.
Pigot, Hugh, captain, R.N., 139.
Pilnitz, declaration of, 331.
Pitcairn, Major, 140.
Pitt, John (second Earl Chatham), 159;
first lord of the admiralty, 306;
privy seal, 366.
Pitt, Thomas (nephew of first Earl of Chatham), 245.
Pitt, William, the elder, afterwards Earl of Chatham, his influence before
1760, 1;
secretary of state, 8;
his political character, 10;
his war policy, 11;
acts with Bute, 15-16;
against government by connexion, 16, 31;
cabal against, 20-21;
his part in negotiations of 1761, 23-27;
demands war with Spain, 28;
resignation, 30-32;
pension and wife's peerage, 32;
Philippine Islands, British conquest of, 38;
restored to Spain, 40.
Phillip, Captain, R.N., 267.
Pichegru, 375.
Pierson, Major, 211.
Pigot, George, Lord, governor of Madras, 247.
Pigot, Hugh, admiral, 149, 238.
Pigot, Hugh, captain, R.N., 139.
Pilnitz, declaration of, 331.
Pitcairn, Major, 140.
Pitt, John (second Earl Chatham), 159;
first lord of the admiralty, 306;
privy seal, 366.
Pitt, Thomas (nephew of first Earl of Chatham), 245.
Pitt, William, the elder, afterwards Earl of Chatham, his influence before
1760, 1;
secretary of state, 8;
his political character, 10;
his war policy, 11;
acts with Bute, 15-16;
against government by connexion, 16, 31;
cabal against, 20-21;
his part in negotiations of 1761, 23-27;
demands war with Spain, 28;
resignation, 30-32;
pension and wife's peerage, 32;
Page 554
his schemes of conquest, 36;
on the Peace of Paris, 42-44;
king's negotiations with, 48, 53, 56, 59, 65, 66;
refuses to take office, 67-69;
speaks against enforcing stamp act, 69, 70;
part in repeal of stamp act, 71;
prime minister, 73;
created Earl of Chatham, 73;
quarrels with Temple, 74;
foreign policy, 74;
proposes defensive alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and Russia,
75;
his long illness, 76, 85;
policy as regards India, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85;
resigns office, 89;
allied with the opposition, 100-102, 104;
scheme for parliamentary reform, 105, 106-111, 128;
opposes the quartering bill, 129-131, 136;
conciliation bill, 138, 160, 170, 184-187;
king refuses to send for, 188-189;
death of, 190.
Pitt, William, the younger, 9;
member for Appleby, 213;
joins the opposition, 214, 228, 229;
on parliamentary reform, 231;
chancellor of exchequer, 240, 241, 243-246;
first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 251, 252;
India Bills, 252-254, 261, 265, 268, 269, 277, 280-283, 286, 287;
his finance, 284, 285;
his bill for parliamentary reform, 287, 288;
his Irish trade proposals, 290, 291;
sinking fund, 292, 293;
commercial treaty with France, 293, 294;
bill for consolidation of customs and excise, 294-295;
his attitude towards the slave trade, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302-315;
his views on the French Revolution, 317, 318, 321-325, 327, 328;
on the Peace of Paris, 42-44;
king's negotiations with, 48, 53, 56, 59, 65, 66;
refuses to take office, 67-69;
speaks against enforcing stamp act, 69, 70;
part in repeal of stamp act, 71;
prime minister, 73;
created Earl of Chatham, 73;
quarrels with Temple, 74;
foreign policy, 74;
proposes defensive alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and Russia,
75;
his long illness, 76, 85;
policy as regards India, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85;
resigns office, 89;
allied with the opposition, 100-102, 104;
scheme for parliamentary reform, 105, 106-111, 128;
opposes the quartering bill, 129-131, 136;
conciliation bill, 138, 160, 170, 184-187;
king refuses to send for, 188-189;
death of, 190.
Pitt, William, the younger, 9;
member for Appleby, 213;
joins the opposition, 214, 228, 229;
on parliamentary reform, 231;
chancellor of exchequer, 240, 241, 243-246;
first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 251, 252;
India Bills, 252-254, 261, 265, 268, 269, 277, 280-283, 286, 287;
his finance, 284, 285;
his bill for parliamentary reform, 287, 288;
his Irish trade proposals, 290, 291;
sinking fund, 292, 293;
commercial treaty with France, 293, 294;
bill for consolidation of customs and excise, 294-295;
his attitude towards the slave trade, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302-315;
his views on the French Revolution, 317, 318, 321-325, 327, 328;
Page 555
Canada Bill, 329-336, 338, 339;
warden of the Cinque Ports, 340;
as war minister, 345-352;
his loans, 348, 354, 357-359, 362, 366-367, 369, 370-372;
disagreement with Grenville, 373-374, 376, 378, 379;
budgets, 380, 384, 385, 400, 403, 434, 435;
desires peace, 382, 383, 387, 388, 392, 395-397, 399, 401, 403, 433;
duel with Tierney, 404;
preparations for a union with Ireland, 412, 413, 420, 421, 436-438,
444;
desires Irish union, 445-447, 449;
and favours catholic emancipation, 369, 452;
will resign, 452;
budget of 1801, 453, 454;
resignation, 455.
Pius VI., Pope, 420.
Plunket, William Conyngham, Lord, 447.
Plymouth, 196.
Pocock, Admiral, 37.
Point Judith (U.S.A.), 194.
Point Levi (Canada), 152.
Poland, partition of, 115, 296, 338, 349, 351, 363;
invaded by Russia, 338;
insurrection in, 361.
Police system, 267.
Political trials, 357, 358, 434.
Pondicherry, 1, 14;
taken by English, 196, 356;
warden of the Cinque Ports, 340;
as war minister, 345-352;
his loans, 348, 354, 357-359, 362, 366-367, 369, 370-372;
disagreement with Grenville, 373-374, 376, 378, 379;
budgets, 380, 384, 385, 400, 403, 434, 435;
desires peace, 382, 383, 387, 388, 392, 395-397, 399, 401, 403, 433;
duel with Tierney, 404;
preparations for a union with Ireland, 412, 413, 420, 421, 436-438,
444;
desires Irish union, 445-447, 449;
and favours catholic emancipation, 369, 452;
will resign, 452;
budget of 1801, 453, 454;
resignation, 455.
Pius VI., Pope, 420.
Plunket, William Conyngham, Lord, 447.
Plymouth, 196.
Pocock, Admiral, 37.
Point Judith (U.S.A.), 194.
Point Levi (Canada), 152.
Poland, partition of, 115, 296, 338, 349, 351, 363;
invaded by Russia, 338;
insurrection in, 361.
Police system, 267.
Political trials, 357, 358, 434.
Pondicherry, 1, 14;
taken by English, 196, 356;
Page 556
French fleet at, 237.
Ponsonby, John, 368, 447.
Penthièvre, 377.
Pontiac, 58.
Poor law, 273, 277, 278.
Popham, Major, 237.
Port Egmont, 113, 114.
Portland, Duke of (Cavendish-Bentinck), 75, 87, 232, 233, 240;
first lord of treasury, 245, 333, 334, 340;
home secretary, 366, 368-371, 452.
Porto Novo, battle of, 237.
Porto Praya, naval action at, 237.
Portsmouth, 170, 192.
Portugal: ally of England, 33, 40, 257, 349, 381, 397, 442.
Pownall, Thomas, 89.
Pratt. See Camden, Lord.
Press, liberty of the, 116-118, 324.
Preston, Captain, 109.
Pretender, the Old, 1.
Pretender, the Young, 1.
Prevost, Augustine, general, 195, 198.
Ponsonby, John, 368, 447.
Penthièvre, 377.
Pontiac, 58.
Poor law, 273, 277, 278.
Popham, Major, 237.
Port Egmont, 113, 114.
Portland, Duke of (Cavendish-Bentinck), 75, 87, 232, 233, 240;
first lord of treasury, 245, 333, 334, 340;
home secretary, 366, 368-371, 452.
Porto Novo, battle of, 237.
Porto Praya, naval action at, 237.
Portsmouth, 170, 192.
Portugal: ally of England, 33, 40, 257, 349, 381, 397, 442.
Pownall, Thomas, 89.
Pratt. See Camden, Lord.
Press, liberty of the, 116-118, 324.
Preston, Captain, 109.
Pretender, the Old, 1.
Pretender, the Young, 1.
Prevost, Augustine, general, 195, 198.
Page 557
Price, Richard, 291, 292.
Priestley, Joseph, 263, 331, 332.
Prime Minister, title and functions of, 9, 64, 85-86, 90, 103, 189, 229, 230,
244, 281, 332.
Printers, the House of Commons and the, 117, 118.
Prisons, 267.
Provence, Count of (Louis XVIII.), 352, 432.
Providence. See Bahama Islands.
Prussia, 75, 115, 300;
declares war against France, 336;
peace with France, 374.
Public Advertiser, newspaper, 99.
Puerto-rico, 389.
Puisaye, Comte de, 376, 377.
Pulaski, Count, 182.
Pulteney, Sir James, general, 439.
Putnam, Israel, American general, 164.
Pyramids, battle of the, 416.
Quebec act, 129, 145, 146, 151, 166;
siege of, 152, 155, 205, 329.
Quiberon bay, 376.
Priestley, Joseph, 263, 331, 332.
Prime Minister, title and functions of, 9, 64, 85-86, 90, 103, 189, 229, 230,
244, 281, 332.
Printers, the House of Commons and the, 117, 118.
Prisons, 267.
Provence, Count of (Louis XVIII.), 352, 432.
Providence. See Bahama Islands.
Prussia, 75, 115, 300;
declares war against France, 336;
peace with France, 374.
Public Advertiser, newspaper, 99.
Puerto-rico, 389.
Puisaye, Comte de, 376, 377.
Pulaski, Count, 182.
Pulteney, Sir James, general, 439.
Putnam, Israel, American general, 164.
Pyramids, battle of the, 416.
Quebec act, 129, 145, 146, 151, 166;
siege of, 152, 155, 205, 329.
Quiberon bay, 376.
Page 558
Queensberry, Duke of. See March, Earl of.
Radcliffe, Ann, 260.
Raeburn, Henry, 262.
Raikes, Robert, 265.
Rawdon, Lord (Hastings), later Earl of Moira and Marquis of Hastings, 219,
220, 223, 354, 361, 376, 406.
Reeve, Clara, 260.
Regency bill, 64, 65;
later question of the, 309-314, 453.
Regulating act, North's, 121, 122, 273.
Regulators' war, 124.
Reichenbach, congress at, 326.
Religion and Church of England, 264.
Revolutionary society, 335;
bill for suppressing, 434.
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 262, 407.
Rhode Island, 61, 125, 139, 143, 153, 168, 194, 198, 219, 224.
Richmond, Duke of (Lennox), secretary of state, 73, 145, 160, 190, 203,
204, 229, 240;
resigns office, 243;
master-general of ordnance, 251, 257, 291, 359;
resigns ordnance, 366.
Ridgway, bookseller, 357.
Radcliffe, Ann, 260.
Raeburn, Henry, 262.
Raikes, Robert, 265.
Rawdon, Lord (Hastings), later Earl of Moira and Marquis of Hastings, 219,
220, 223, 354, 361, 376, 406.
Reeve, Clara, 260.
Regency bill, 64, 65;
later question of the, 309-314, 453.
Regulating act, North's, 121, 122, 273.
Regulators' war, 124.
Reichenbach, congress at, 326.
Religion and Church of England, 264.
Revolutionary society, 335;
bill for suppressing, 434.
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 262, 407.
Rhode Island, 61, 125, 139, 143, 153, 168, 194, 198, 219, 224.
Richmond, Duke of (Lennox), secretary of state, 73, 145, 160, 190, 203,
204, 229, 240;
resigns office, 243;
master-general of ordnance, 251, 257, 291, 359;
resigns ordnance, 366.
Ridgway, bookseller, 357.
Page 559
Rigby, Richard, 27, 107.
Riots:—
American, 61, 89, 126.
Birmingham, 331-332.
Bread, 75, 378, 444.
Carlisle and other towns, 339.
Coal-heavers and others, 95.
Dublin, 447, 450.
Gordon, 205-207.
Hexham, 18.
St. George's Fields, 96.
Silk-weavers, 66, 95.
Wilkes, 96, 97.
Duty of soldiers in, 207.
Robertson, William, historian, 261.
Robespierre, fall of, 372.
Rochambeau, Comte de, 218, 219, 224.
Roche, Philip, 411, 412.
Rochford, Earl of (Nassau), secretary of state, 89, 90, 115;
resigns, 159.
Rockingham, Marquis of (Watson-Wentworth), 40, 42, 48;
first ministry, 67-72;
resigns office, 73, 74, 85, 86, 102, 106, 107, 110, 118, 128, 158, 160,
169, 187, 191, 212;
second ministry, 228, 229, 232, 233;
death of, 240, 257, 274.
Rodney, afterwards Sir George and Lord Rodney, admiral, 37, 198, 200,
212, 216, 219, 226, 227, 234, 235;
created baron, 238, 239, 365.
Riots:—
American, 61, 89, 126.
Birmingham, 331-332.
Bread, 75, 378, 444.
Carlisle and other towns, 339.
Coal-heavers and others, 95.
Dublin, 447, 450.
Gordon, 205-207.
Hexham, 18.
St. George's Fields, 96.
Silk-weavers, 66, 95.
Wilkes, 96, 97.
Duty of soldiers in, 207.
Robertson, William, historian, 261.
Robespierre, fall of, 372.
Rochambeau, Comte de, 218, 219, 224.
Roche, Philip, 411, 412.
Rochford, Earl of (Nassau), secretary of state, 89, 90, 115;
resigns, 159.
Rockingham, Marquis of (Watson-Wentworth), 40, 42, 48;
first ministry, 67-72;
resigns office, 73, 74, 85, 86, 102, 106, 107, 110, 118, 128, 158, 160,
169, 187, 191, 212;
second ministry, 228, 229, 232, 233;
death of, 240, 257, 274.
Rodney, afterwards Sir George and Lord Rodney, admiral, 37, 198, 200,
212, 216, 219, 226, 227, 234, 235;
created baron, 238, 239, 365.
Page 560
Rohillás (Afghan tribe), 248.
Rolle, John, M.P., 308.
Rollo, Lord (Rollo), takes Dominica, 14.
Roman Catholics: relief from disabilities of, 205, 323;
grant of franchise to Irish, 367, 368;
question of emancipation of in Ireland, 369-371, 385, 446, 447, 451,
453-455.
Romney, George, 262.
Rousseau, 315.
Roussillon invaded, 350.
Rowan, Archibald Hamilton, 368.
Roxbury (U.S.A.), 143.
Royal marriage act, 119, 120, 308.
Ruffo, Cardinal, 426-429.
Rusby (corn dealer), 444.
Russia, Empress of. See Catherine II.
Russia in seven years' war, 33;
commercial treaty with, 72;
Chatham's policy towards, 75, 326;
Russian policy, 115;
Pitt's policy towards, 326;
treaty of alliance with Great Britain, 423;
withdrawal of, from the second coalition, 431.
Russia, Tsar of. See Paul and Peter III.
Rolle, John, M.P., 308.
Rollo, Lord (Rollo), takes Dominica, 14.
Roman Catholics: relief from disabilities of, 205, 323;
grant of franchise to Irish, 367, 368;
question of emancipation of in Ireland, 369-371, 385, 446, 447, 451,
453-455.
Romney, George, 262.
Rousseau, 315.
Roussillon invaded, 350.
Rowan, Archibald Hamilton, 368.
Roxbury (U.S.A.), 143.
Royal marriage act, 119, 120, 308.
Ruffo, Cardinal, 426-429.
Rusby (corn dealer), 444.
Russia, Empress of. See Catherine II.
Russia in seven years' war, 33;
commercial treaty with, 72;
Chatham's policy towards, 75, 326;
Russian policy, 115;
Pitt's policy towards, 326;
treaty of alliance with Great Britain, 423;
withdrawal of, from the second coalition, 431.
Russia, Tsar of. See Paul and Peter III.
Page 561
Russian armament, the, 327-328.
Rutland, Duke of (Manners), viceroy of Ireland, 287, 289, 290;
lord steward, 244;
privy seal, 251.
Ryder, Dudley, afterwards Lord Harrowby, 404.
Sackville, Lord George, 15, 22, 83, 87;
takes name Germain, 159;
secretary of state, 159, 166, 173, 176, 179, 180, 184, 185, 191, 202,
210, 225-227;
created Viscount Sackville, 228.
St. Eustatius, island of, 216;
surrender, 217-218;
retaken by French, 227.
St. George's Fields. See London.
St. Kitts, island of, captured by French, 227;
ceded to Great Britain, 243.
St. Leger, Colonel, 176, 177.
St. Lucia, island of, 24;
conquest of, 37, 40, 195, 218;
restored to France, 242;
surrender of, 363, 377.
St. Marcouf, islands of, 402.
St. Philips. See Minorca.
St. Pierre, island of, 27, 40;
ceded to France, 243;
taken by English, 356.
Rutland, Duke of (Manners), viceroy of Ireland, 287, 289, 290;
lord steward, 244;
privy seal, 251.
Ryder, Dudley, afterwards Lord Harrowby, 404.
Sackville, Lord George, 15, 22, 83, 87;
takes name Germain, 159;
secretary of state, 159, 166, 173, 176, 179, 180, 184, 185, 191, 202,
210, 225-227;
created Viscount Sackville, 228.
St. Eustatius, island of, 216;
surrender, 217-218;
retaken by French, 227.
St. George's Fields. See London.
St. Kitts, island of, captured by French, 227;
ceded to Great Britain, 243.
St. Leger, Colonel, 176, 177.
St. Lucia, island of, 24;
conquest of, 37, 40, 195, 218;
restored to France, 242;
surrender of, 363, 377.
St. Marcouf, islands of, 402.
St. Philips. See Minorca.
St. Pierre, island of, 27, 40;
ceded to France, 243;
taken by English, 356.
Page 562
St. Valentine's Day, battle of. See Cape St. Vincent, battle of.
St. Vincent, Earl of. See Jervis, Sir John.
St. Vincent, island of, conquest of, 37, 40;
captured by French, 195, 197, 198;
ceded to Great Britain, 243;
insurrection in, 377.
Salbái, treaty of, 237, 238.
Salem, seat of government transferred from Boston to, 128, 140.
San Domingo, island of, 200, 234;
massacre at, 323, 364, 424.
Sandwich, Earl of (Montagu), secretary of state, 49, 50, 65, 100, 115;
first lord of the admiralty, 131, 161, 191-193, 212.
Sandy Hook (N.Y.), 174, 193, 224.
Santa Cruz, attack on, 395.
Saratoga, convention of, 178, 179.
Sardinia, King of. See Charles Emmanuel.
Saumarez, Captain, 388.
Saumur, 351.
Saunders, Sir Charles, first lord of the admiralty, 74, 75, 98.
Savannah, capture of, 195, 198.
Savary, French captain, 413, 415.
Savile, Sir George, 203, 205, 206.
St. Vincent, Earl of. See Jervis, Sir John.
St. Vincent, island of, conquest of, 37, 40;
captured by French, 195, 197, 198;
ceded to Great Britain, 243;
insurrection in, 377.
Salbái, treaty of, 237, 238.
Salem, seat of government transferred from Boston to, 128, 140.
San Domingo, island of, 200, 234;
massacre at, 323, 364, 424.
Sandwich, Earl of (Montagu), secretary of state, 49, 50, 65, 100, 115;
first lord of the admiralty, 131, 161, 191-193, 212.
Sandy Hook (N.Y.), 174, 193, 224.
Santa Cruz, attack on, 395.
Saratoga, convention of, 178, 179.
Sardinia, King of. See Charles Emmanuel.
Saumarez, Captain, 388.
Saumur, 351.
Saunders, Sir Charles, first lord of the admiralty, 74, 75, 98.
Savannah, capture of, 195, 198.
Savary, French captain, 413, 415.
Savile, Sir George, 203, 205, 206.
Page 563
Savoy, annexed by the French, 337.
Sawbridge, John, 107, 160.
Scheldt, opening of the, 297, 342-344.
Schuyler, Philip, American general, 176, 177, 180.
Schweidnitz, capture of, 14.
Scott, John (afterwards Earl of Eldon), solicitor-general, 206, 371;
chief justice of common pleas, 434;
created baron, 434.
Scott, John (afterwards Scott-Waring), major, 303.
Secker, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 60.
Secretaries of state, division of departments of, 10, 87, 229, 336.
Seditious meetings bill, 379, 380.
Selim III. (Turkish sultan), 418.
Selwyn, George, 94, 256.
Senegal, 23, 24, 26;
seized by the French, 197;
ceded to France, 243.
Seringapatam, siege of, 305;
taken, 420.
Seymour, Lord Hugh, admiral, 431.
Sháh Alam, Mughal emperor, 78.
Sharp, Granville, philanthropist, 295.
Sawbridge, John, 107, 160.
Scheldt, opening of the, 297, 342-344.
Schuyler, Philip, American general, 176, 177, 180.
Schweidnitz, capture of, 14.
Scott, John (afterwards Earl of Eldon), solicitor-general, 206, 371;
chief justice of common pleas, 434;
created baron, 434.
Scott, John (afterwards Scott-Waring), major, 303.
Secker, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 60.
Secretaries of state, division of departments of, 10, 87, 229, 336.
Seditious meetings bill, 379, 380.
Selim III. (Turkish sultan), 418.
Selwyn, George, 94, 256.
Senegal, 23, 24, 26;
seized by the French, 197;
ceded to France, 243.
Seringapatam, siege of, 305;
taken, 420.
Seymour, Lord Hugh, admiral, 431.
Sháh Alam, Mughal emperor, 78.
Sharp, Granville, philanthropist, 295.
Page 564
Sheares, Henry, 408.
Sheares, John, 408.
Sheerness, 393, 394.
Shelburne, Earl of (Fitzmaurice), afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne, 49, 52;
secretary of state, 73, 80, 82;
resigns, 89, 128, 160, 188, 203, 204, 213, 228;
home secretary, 229, 230, 231, 238, 239;
first lord of the treasury, 240-245, 251, 287, 293, 336, 341, 359.
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 246, 258, 286, 291, 294, 304, 308-311, 318,
335, 336, 359, 406, 447.
Shore, Sir John (afterwards Lord Teignmouth), 419.
Shujá-ud-Daulá, 77, 248.
Siddons, Mrs., 258.
Sinking fund, 291-293, 332, 347.
Sistova, peace of, 326.
Skenesborough (U.S.A.), 177.
Slave trade, 295, 296, 323, 324, 404.
Smith, Adam, his Wealth of Nations, 137, 261, 269, 276, 277.
Smith, Colonel, 140.
Smith, Sir Sidney, 355, 402, 418, 419, 431, 432.
Smuggling, 267-268, 284;
hovering act against, 285.
Social progress. See England.
Sheares, John, 408.
Sheerness, 393, 394.
Shelburne, Earl of (Fitzmaurice), afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne, 49, 52;
secretary of state, 73, 80, 82;
resigns, 89, 128, 160, 188, 203, 204, 213, 228;
home secretary, 229, 230, 231, 238, 239;
first lord of the treasury, 240-245, 251, 287, 293, 336, 341, 359.
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 246, 258, 286, 291, 294, 304, 308-311, 318,
335, 336, 359, 406, 447.
Shore, Sir John (afterwards Lord Teignmouth), 419.
Shujá-ud-Daulá, 77, 248.
Siddons, Mrs., 258.
Sinking fund, 291-293, 332, 347.
Sistova, peace of, 326.
Skenesborough (U.S.A.), 177.
Slave trade, 295, 296, 323, 324, 404.
Smith, Adam, his Wealth of Nations, 137, 261, 269, 276, 277.
Smith, Colonel, 140.
Smith, Sir Sidney, 355, 402, 418, 419, 431, 432.
Smuggling, 267-268, 284;
hovering act against, 285.
Social progress. See England.
Page 565
Societies, revolutionary, 335, 338, 358.
Somers, Lord, 352.
Soubise, Prince, 14, 36.
Spain, King of. See Charles III.
Spain, grievances of, against Great Britain, 24;
alliance with France, 24-30;
Great Britain declares war against, 33;
war with, 37-38;
navy of, 112;
dispute with Great Britain concerning the Falkland islands, 113, 114;
alliance of, with America, 181-183;
alliance with France against Great Britain, 196;
declares war against Great Britain, 196-200, 203, 208;
peace between Great Britain and, 242-243;
convention of 1786 with, 318;
discontent in Spanish America with, 319, 320;
treaty with Great Britain, 321;
joins the first coalition, 349;
abandons coalition, 363;
alliance of, with France, 381.
Spanish America. See Spain.
Speenhamland, 278.
Spencer, Earl, 340;
privy seal, 366;
first lord of the admiralty, 366, 393, 452.
Speyer, surrender of, 337.
Spitalfields riots. See London.
Spithead, 209;
Somers, Lord, 352.
Soubise, Prince, 14, 36.
Spain, King of. See Charles III.
Spain, grievances of, against Great Britain, 24;
alliance with France, 24-30;
Great Britain declares war against, 33;
war with, 37-38;
navy of, 112;
dispute with Great Britain concerning the Falkland islands, 113, 114;
alliance of, with America, 181-183;
alliance with France against Great Britain, 196;
declares war against Great Britain, 196-200, 203, 208;
peace between Great Britain and, 242-243;
convention of 1786 with, 318;
discontent in Spanish America with, 319, 320;
treaty with Great Britain, 321;
joins the first coalition, 349;
abandons coalition, 363;
alliance of, with France, 381.
Spanish America. See Spain.
Speenhamland, 278.
Spencer, Earl, 340;
privy seal, 366;
first lord of the admiralty, 366, 393, 452.
Speyer, surrender of, 337.
Spitalfields riots. See London.
Spithead, 209;
Page 566
mutiny at, 392, 393.
Stafford, Marquis of. See Gower, Earl.
Stamp act, 59-63, 69-71, 134.
Stanhope, Earl, 317, 359.
Stanley, Hans, diplomatist, 24-29, 32.
Staten island, 164.
Stephen, James, 324.
Sterne, Laurence, 260.
Steuben, Baron, 182.
Steyer, armistice signed at, 439.
Stirling, Lord (so-called), William Alexander, American general, 165.
Stockdale, John, publisher, 324.
Stormont, Lord (afterwards Earl of Mansfield), 115, 183;
secretary of state, 203, 210;
president of the council, 245, 369.
Strange, Lord, 71.
Stuart, James, general, 238.
Stuart, Sir Charles, general, 363.
Suchet, French general, 436.
Sudbury, the borough of, 19.
Suffolk, Earl of (Howard), privy seal, later secretary of state, 115;
Stafford, Marquis of. See Gower, Earl.
Stamp act, 59-63, 69-71, 134.
Stanhope, Earl, 317, 359.
Stanley, Hans, diplomatist, 24-29, 32.
Staten island, 164.
Stephen, James, 324.
Sterne, Laurence, 260.
Steuben, Baron, 182.
Steyer, armistice signed at, 439.
Stirling, Lord (so-called), William Alexander, American general, 165.
Stockdale, John, publisher, 324.
Stormont, Lord (afterwards Earl of Mansfield), 115, 183;
secretary of state, 203, 210;
president of the council, 245, 369.
Strange, Lord, 71.
Stuart, James, general, 238.
Stuart, Sir Charles, general, 363.
Suchet, French general, 436.
Sudbury, the borough of, 19.
Suffolk, Earl of (Howard), privy seal, later secretary of state, 115;
Page 567
death of, 203.
Suffren, Bailli de, French admiral, 238.
Sullivan, John, American general, 155, 165, 194.
Sumter, American partisan leader, 219-221, 223.
Surinam, surrender of, 431.
Suvorov (Suwarrow), Russian general, 327, 425, 426.
Sweden, King of. See Gustavus III.
Sweden, proposed defensive alliance with, 75;
revolution in, 115;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
invaded by Denmark, 325;
makes a treaty with Russia, 326;
joins the maritime confederacy, 442.
Sydney, Lord. See Townshend, Thomas.
Syria, Bonaparte's campaign in, 418.
Talbot, Earl (Talbot), lord steward, 97.
Talleyrand, French statesman, 333, 334, 336, 337, 433, 437.
Tandy, Napper, 414.
Tarleton, Sir Banastre, colonel, 220, 221.
Taxation, right of colonial, 62-63, 69.
Tea-duty, 90, 109, 110, 129, 162;
Chatham urges repeal of, 188, 284.
Suffren, Bailli de, French admiral, 238.
Sullivan, John, American general, 155, 165, 194.
Sumter, American partisan leader, 219-221, 223.
Surinam, surrender of, 431.
Suvorov (Suwarrow), Russian general, 327, 425, 426.
Sweden, King of. See Gustavus III.
Sweden, proposed defensive alliance with, 75;
revolution in, 115;
joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
invaded by Denmark, 325;
makes a treaty with Russia, 326;
joins the maritime confederacy, 442.
Sydney, Lord. See Townshend, Thomas.
Syria, Bonaparte's campaign in, 418.
Talbot, Earl (Talbot), lord steward, 97.
Talleyrand, French statesman, 333, 334, 336, 337, 433, 437.
Tandy, Napper, 414.
Tarleton, Sir Banastre, colonel, 220, 221.
Taxation, right of colonial, 62-63, 69.
Tea-duty, 90, 109, 110, 129, 162;
Chatham urges repeal of, 188, 284.
Page 568
Tchernitchev, Russian general, 33, 35, 36.
Temple, Earl, first (Richard Grenville-Temple), 20, 28, 30, 39, 43, 44, 46,
49, 50, 66, 67, 73, 74, 99, 100.
Temple, Earl, second (George Grenville), afterwards Marquis of
Buckingham, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 240;
secretary of state, 250, 251;
created Marquis of Buckingham, 287, 315, 367.
Thelwall, John, lecturer, 359.
Thompson, printer, 117.
Three Rivers (Canada), 156.
Thugut, Baron, Austrian minister, 351, 360, 421-423, 425, 431, 436.
Thurlow, Edward, Lord (Baron), solicitor-general, 103, 115, 116, 118;
attacks Clive, 123, 125;
lord chancellor, 191, 203, 228, 231, 245, 250-251;
the great seal stolen, 254, 286, 302, 306, 309, 310, 312, 323, 324;
dismissed, 332.
Ticonderoga, 144, 146, 151, 166, 168, 170, 173;
surrender of, 176, 177.
Tierney, George, 399;
duel with Pitt, 403-404, 435.
Tipú, Sultán, 237;
succeeds Haidar Alí, 238, 305, 397, 418-420.
Tobago, 24, 40, 218, 243, 333, 334;
taken by English, 356.
Tolerance, religious, subscription to thirty-nine articles, 118, 119, 205, 323;
bill for relief of dissenters, 295.
Temple, Earl, first (Richard Grenville-Temple), 20, 28, 30, 39, 43, 44, 46,
49, 50, 66, 67, 73, 74, 99, 100.
Temple, Earl, second (George Grenville), afterwards Marquis of
Buckingham, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 240;
secretary of state, 250, 251;
created Marquis of Buckingham, 287, 315, 367.
Thelwall, John, lecturer, 359.
Thompson, printer, 117.
Three Rivers (Canada), 156.
Thugut, Baron, Austrian minister, 351, 360, 421-423, 425, 431, 436.
Thurlow, Edward, Lord (Baron), solicitor-general, 103, 115, 116, 118;
attacks Clive, 123, 125;
lord chancellor, 191, 203, 228, 231, 245, 250-251;
the great seal stolen, 254, 286, 302, 306, 309, 310, 312, 323, 324;
dismissed, 332.
Ticonderoga, 144, 146, 151, 166, 168, 170, 173;
surrender of, 176, 177.
Tierney, George, 399;
duel with Pitt, 403-404, 435.
Tipú, Sultán, 237;
succeeds Haidar Alí, 238, 305, 397, 418-420.
Tobago, 24, 40, 218, 243, 333, 334;
taken by English, 356.
Tolerance, religious, subscription to thirty-nine articles, 118, 119, 205, 323;
bill for relief of dissenters, 295.
Page 569
Tone, Wolfe, 367, 368, 386;
death of, 415.
Tooke, Horne (previously Horne), 104, 127, 145, 322, 358.
Torgau, battle of, 14.
Toulon, surrenders to Hood, 352;
evacuation of, 355, 356, 375, 381, 415, 418, 427, 428.
Tourcoing, battle of, 361.
Tournai, 361.
Townshend, Charles, 20;
paymaster of forces, 67;
chancellor of the exchequer, 74, 80, 82, 83;
death of, 86.
Townshend, Marquis, 274;
viceroy of Ireland, 94.
Townshend (Thomas), afterwards Lord Sydney, home secretary, 240, 251,
267;
resigns, 315.
Traitorous correspondence bill, 357.
Transportation of criminals, 267.
Travancore, rájá of, 305.
Treasonable practices bill, 379, 380.
Trebbia, battle of the, 425.
Trecothick, lord mayor, 113.
Trenton, 168, 173.
death of, 415.
Tooke, Horne (previously Horne), 104, 127, 145, 322, 358.
Torgau, battle of, 14.
Toulon, surrenders to Hood, 352;
evacuation of, 355, 356, 375, 381, 415, 418, 427, 428.
Tourcoing, battle of, 361.
Tournai, 361.
Townshend, Charles, 20;
paymaster of forces, 67;
chancellor of the exchequer, 74, 80, 82, 83;
death of, 86.
Townshend, Marquis, 274;
viceroy of Ireland, 94.
Townshend (Thomas), afterwards Lord Sydney, home secretary, 240, 251,
267;
resigns, 315.
Traitorous correspondence bill, 357.
Transportation of criminals, 267.
Travancore, rájá of, 305.
Treasonable practices bill, 379, 380.
Trebbia, battle of the, 425.
Trecothick, lord mayor, 113.
Trenton, 168, 173.
Page 570
Trincomali, 237.
Trinidad, captured by the English, 389.
Triple alliance of 1786, 301, 320, 324-326;
comes to an end, 328, 374.
Troubridge, Sir Thomas, admiral, 388, 389, 427.
Tryon, William, governor of New York, 124, 130.
Tucker, Joseph (Dean of Gloucester), 137.
Turks, wars between Russia and, 114;
Austria declares war against, 325;
capture of Ochakov, 325;
treaty with Prussia, 326;
peace with Austria, 326;
war continued with Russia, 327;
war with France, 418-419, 421, 427, 432.
Turner, Joseph, 262.
Tuscany, Grand Duke of, 363, 380.
Ulm, capitulation of, 436.
Ulster, conspiracy in, 405.
Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 450.
United Irishmen, 367, 368, 385, 386, 398, 405, 406, 409, 414.
United Provinces, 297, 299-301, 324-325;
threatened by French, 336-340, 343;
invaded, 349;
subject to France, 363;
form Batavian republic, 440.
Trinidad, captured by the English, 389.
Triple alliance of 1786, 301, 320, 324-326;
comes to an end, 328, 374.
Troubridge, Sir Thomas, admiral, 388, 389, 427.
Tryon, William, governor of New York, 124, 130.
Tucker, Joseph (Dean of Gloucester), 137.
Turks, wars between Russia and, 114;
Austria declares war against, 325;
capture of Ochakov, 325;
treaty with Prussia, 326;
peace with Austria, 326;
war continued with Russia, 327;
war with France, 418-419, 421, 427, 432.
Turner, Joseph, 262.
Tuscany, Grand Duke of, 363, 380.
Ulm, capitulation of, 436.
Ulster, conspiracy in, 405.
Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 450.
United Irishmen, 367, 368, 385, 386, 398, 405, 406, 409, 414.
United Provinces, 297, 299-301, 324-325;
threatened by French, 336-340, 343;
invaded, 349;
subject to France, 363;
form Batavian republic, 440.
Page 571
See also Holland.
United States, commercial treaty between England and the, 378.
Ushant, naval fight off, 193.
Valenciennes, 350, 354.
Valetta, siege of, 426, 431;
surrender of, 438, 439;
the Tsar's designs on, thwarted, 441.
Valley Forge, 175.
Valmy, battle of, 337.
Vansittart, Henry, his government of Bengal, 77.
Vellinghausen, battle of, 14.
Venice, 349, 390, 397.
Verdun, 337.
Vereker, Colonel, 414.
Vergennes, Comte de, 181-183, 215, 239, 241.
Versailles, treaty of, 236, 241, 244, 292, 296.
Villaret-Joyeuse, rear-admiral, 364-366.
Vinegar Hill, battle of, 409-411.
Viri, Comte de, Sardinian minister, 17, 20, 38.
Vorontsov (Woronzow), Count, Russian ambassador, 394, 440.
Voltaire, 315.
United States, commercial treaty between England and the, 378.
Ushant, naval fight off, 193.
Valenciennes, 350, 354.
Valetta, siege of, 426, 431;
surrender of, 438, 439;
the Tsar's designs on, thwarted, 441.
Valley Forge, 175.
Valmy, battle of, 337.
Vansittart, Henry, his government of Bengal, 77.
Vellinghausen, battle of, 14.
Venice, 349, 390, 397.
Verdun, 337.
Vereker, Colonel, 414.
Vergennes, Comte de, 181-183, 215, 239, 241.
Versailles, treaty of, 236, 241, 244, 292, 296.
Villaret-Joyeuse, rear-admiral, 364-366.
Vinegar Hill, battle of, 409-411.
Viri, Comte de, Sardinian minister, 17, 20, 38.
Vorontsov (Woronzow), Count, Russian ambassador, 394, 440.
Voltaire, 315.
Page 572
Volunteers, Irish, 202, 232, 289.
Wages, agricultural labourers, 273, 276, 435;
bill for the regulation of, 378;
combinations to raise, 277;
fixed by statute, 276;
law against combinations of workmen, 434;
sailors, 392;
weavers, 272, 273.
Wakefield, Gilbert, 434.
Waldeck, Prince of, 154.
Waldegrave, John, third Earl, 4, 119.
Waldegrave, Maria, Countess of (afterwards Duchess of Gloucester), 119.
Wales, George, Prince of (afterwards George IV.), 38, 246, 283, 307, 308-
312, 313-315, 372, 373, 406, 453.
Wales, Prince of (George II.'s son), 3.
Wales, Princess of, Caroline of Brunswick, wife of George, Prince of Wales,
373.
Wales, Princess Dowager of (George III.'s mother), her character and
influence on George III., 3, 4, 21, 42, 51, 65, 112;
death of, 119.
Wallis, Samuel, discoverer, 263.
Wall, Richard, General (Spanish minister), 27-30, 32, 74.
Walmoden, General, 362.
Walpole, George, colonel, 404.
Wages, agricultural labourers, 273, 276, 435;
bill for the regulation of, 378;
combinations to raise, 277;
fixed by statute, 276;
law against combinations of workmen, 434;
sailors, 392;
weavers, 272, 273.
Wakefield, Gilbert, 434.
Waldeck, Prince of, 154.
Waldegrave, John, third Earl, 4, 119.
Waldegrave, Maria, Countess of (afterwards Duchess of Gloucester), 119.
Wales, George, Prince of (afterwards George IV.), 38, 246, 283, 307, 308-
312, 313-315, 372, 373, 406, 453.
Wales, Prince of (George II.'s son), 3.
Wales, Princess of, Caroline of Brunswick, wife of George, Prince of Wales,
373.
Wales, Princess Dowager of (George III.'s mother), her character and
influence on George III., 3, 4, 21, 42, 51, 65, 112;
death of, 119.
Wallis, Samuel, discoverer, 263.
Wall, Richard, General (Spanish minister), 27-30, 32, 74.
Walmoden, General, 362.
Walpole, George, colonel, 404.
Page 573
Walpole, Horace, 52, 75, 260-262, 267.
Walpole, Sir Robert, 6, 43, 57, 191, 292.
Warburton, William, Bishop of Gloucester, 50.
Warrants, general, 46;
declared illegal, 47, 52, 66, 72.
Warren, Richard, Dr., 313.
Warren, Sir John, admiral, 376, 415.
Washington, George, 133;
American commander-in-chief, 146, 147, 150, 154, 155, 164-169, 173-
176, 180, 186, 193, 194, 197, 198, 214-216, 218, 219, 223-
226, 402.
Waterloo, 361.
Wattignies, 354.
Watt, James, 270, 358.
Wedderburn, Alexander (afterwards Lord Loughborough and Earl of
Rosslyn), 107;
solicitor-general, 115, 123, 126, 170;
attorney-general, 191;
created Lord Loughborough, 207, 309, 333;
lord chancellor, 341, 371;
his treachery, 451, 452, 455.
Wedgwood, Josiah, 270, 290.
Wellesley, Sir Arthur (afterwards Duke of Wellington), 420.
Walpole, Sir Robert, 6, 43, 57, 191, 292.
Warburton, William, Bishop of Gloucester, 50.
Warrants, general, 46;
declared illegal, 47, 52, 66, 72.
Warren, Richard, Dr., 313.
Warren, Sir John, admiral, 376, 415.
Washington, George, 133;
American commander-in-chief, 146, 147, 150, 154, 155, 164-169, 173-
176, 180, 186, 193, 194, 197, 198, 214-216, 218, 219, 223-
226, 402.
Waterloo, 361.
Wattignies, 354.
Watt, James, 270, 358.
Wedderburn, Alexander (afterwards Lord Loughborough and Earl of
Rosslyn), 107;
solicitor-general, 115, 123, 126, 170;
attorney-general, 191;
created Lord Loughborough, 207, 309, 333;
lord chancellor, 341, 371;
his treachery, 451, 452, 455.
Wedgwood, Josiah, 270, 290.
Wellesley, Sir Arthur (afterwards Duke of Wellington), 420.
Page 574
Werela, peace made between Russia and Sweden at, 326.
Wesley, John, 264.
Westminster election of 1785. See London.
Westmorland, Earl of (Fane), lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 366-369, 371, 452.
West Point, 197, 215.
Wexford, rebellion in, 409, 412.
Weymouth, Viscount (Thynne), secretary of state, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, 102;
resigns office, 115;
again in office, 159, 203.
Whately, Thomas, 125-127.
Wheble, printer, 117.
Whitbread, Samuel, 378, 435.
Whiteboys, 92.
White Plains, battle of, 167, 224.
Whitworth, Sir Charles (afterwards Lord), British ambassador at St.
Petersburg, 421, 440;
sent to Copenhagen, 441.
Wickham, William, British ambassador at Berne, 383.
Wilberforce, William, philanthropist, 254, 265, 287, 295, 296, 323, 324,
372, 384, 404.
Wilhelmsthal, battle of, 36.
Wilkes, John, 39, 43;
Wesley, John, 264.
Westminster election of 1785. See London.
Westmorland, Earl of (Fane), lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 366-369, 371, 452.
West Point, 197, 215.
Wexford, rebellion in, 409, 412.
Weymouth, Viscount (Thynne), secretary of state, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, 102;
resigns office, 115;
again in office, 159, 203.
Whately, Thomas, 125-127.
Wheble, printer, 117.
Whitbread, Samuel, 378, 435.
Whiteboys, 92.
White Plains, battle of, 167, 224.
Whitworth, Sir Charles (afterwards Lord), British ambassador at St.
Petersburg, 421, 440;
sent to Copenhagen, 441.
Wickham, William, British ambassador at Berne, 383.
Wilberforce, William, philanthropist, 254, 265, 287, 295, 296, 323, 324,
372, 384, 404.
Wilhelmsthal, battle of, 36.
Wilkes, John, 39, 43;
Page 575
case of, 46, 47, 50-52;
returned for Middlesex, 95-98, 104, 108, 117, 118, 135, 142, 170, 206,
231, 312.
William V., Prince of Orange, stadholder of Holland, 298, 299, 300, 362,
430, 431.
Willis, Francis, Dr., 310, 312, 313, 453.
Wilmington (U.S.A.), 222.
Wilson, Richard, 262.
Windham, William, 258, 318, 335, 340, 341, 382, 396, 452.
Windsor, borough of, 212.
Winnsborough (U.S.A.), 221.
Wood, John, architect, 262.
Wood, Robert, under-secretary of state, sued by Wilkes, 47.
Wordsworth, William, 260.
Worms, surrender of, 337.
Wray, Sir Christopher, 283.
Wright, cruel treatment of, 408.
Wurmser, Austrian general, 354, 381, 390.
Würtemberg, Duke of, subsidiary treaty between England and the, 436.
Wyatt, James, architect, 262.
York (Edward), Duke of (brother of George III.), 4.
returned for Middlesex, 95-98, 104, 108, 117, 118, 135, 142, 170, 206,
231, 312.
William V., Prince of Orange, stadholder of Holland, 298, 299, 300, 362,
430, 431.
Willis, Francis, Dr., 310, 312, 313, 453.
Wilmington (U.S.A.), 222.
Wilson, Richard, 262.
Windham, William, 258, 318, 335, 340, 341, 382, 396, 452.
Windsor, borough of, 212.
Winnsborough (U.S.A.), 221.
Wood, John, architect, 262.
Wood, Robert, under-secretary of state, sued by Wilkes, 47.
Wordsworth, William, 260.
Worms, surrender of, 337.
Wray, Sir Christopher, 283.
Wright, cruel treatment of, 408.
Wurmser, Austrian general, 354, 381, 390.
Würtemberg, Duke of, subsidiary treaty between England and the, 436.
Wyatt, James, architect, 262.
York (Edward), Duke of (brother of George III.), 4.
Page 576
York (Frederick), Duke of (son of George III.), 309, 311, 314, 346, 350,
351, 353, 361, 362;
appointed field-marshal, 366, 390, 391, 430.
York, petition from, 203.
Yorke, Charles, 8, 102, 130.
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 209.
Yorktown, 224;
surrender at, 225, 226.
Young, Arthur, agriculturist, 259, 274-276.
THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS LIMITED.
351, 353, 361, 362;
appointed field-marshal, 366, 390, 391, 430.
York, petition from, 203.
Yorke, Charles, 8, 102, 130.
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 209.
Yorktown, 224;
surrender at, 225, 226.
Young, Arthur, agriculturist, 259, 274-276.
THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS LIMITED.
Page 577
GREAT BRITAIN showing
PARLIAMENTARY
REPRESENTATION
PARLIAMENTARY
REPRESENTATION
Page 578
Map of United States of America (northern
section)
Map of United States of America (southern
section)
section)
Map of United States of America (southern
section)
Page 579
Transcribers' Notes
General : Errata listed have been applied to the text.
General : Page headers have been interpreted as sidenotes.
General : Changes to punctuation have not been individually documented.
General : No attempt made to standardise chief justice/chief-justice as both
forms used approximately equally.
Pages 41, 295, 323, 345 : slave-trade standardised to slave trade.
Page 45 : hardworking standardised to hard-working.
Page 77 : "A little army under Major Adams," as in original.
Page 96 : ring-leader standardised to ringleader.
Page 101 : wide-spread standardised to widespread.
Page 114 : counter-balanced standardised to counterbalanced.
Page 127 : unpremediated changed to unpremeditated.
Page 140 : war-like standardised to warlike.
Page 154 : smallpox standardised to small-pox.
Pages 157, 364, 365 : Flag-ship standardised to flagship.
Page 166 : gun-boats standardised to gunboats.
Page 194 : outmanœuvred standardised to out-manœuvred.
Page 243 : log-wood standardised to logwood.
Page 248 : Afghán standardised to Afghan.
Page 376 : Sombrueil standardised to Sombreuil.
General : Errata listed have been applied to the text.
General : Page headers have been interpreted as sidenotes.
General : Changes to punctuation have not been individually documented.
General : No attempt made to standardise chief justice/chief-justice as both
forms used approximately equally.
Pages 41, 295, 323, 345 : slave-trade standardised to slave trade.
Page 45 : hardworking standardised to hard-working.
Page 77 : "A little army under Major Adams," as in original.
Page 96 : ring-leader standardised to ringleader.
Page 101 : wide-spread standardised to widespread.
Page 114 : counter-balanced standardised to counterbalanced.
Page 127 : unpremediated changed to unpremeditated.
Page 140 : war-like standardised to warlike.
Page 154 : smallpox standardised to small-pox.
Pages 157, 364, 365 : Flag-ship standardised to flagship.
Page 166 : gun-boats standardised to gunboats.
Page 194 : outmanœuvred standardised to out-manœuvred.
Page 243 : log-wood standardised to logwood.
Page 248 : Afghán standardised to Afghan.
Page 376 : Sombrueil standardised to Sombreuil.
Page 580
Pages 377, 491 : Ponthièvre standardised to Penthièvre.
Page 384 : Befal corrected to befall.
Page 417 : Sentence "Her assailants poured so fierce a storm of shot upon
her that her crew could not get the fire under." as in original. Probably
missing final word control.
Page 471 : Application of errata here has meant that the office of secretary
of state for the northern department was not listed May-September 1763.
This may or may not be correct.
Page 473 : Lt.-lieut. corrected to Ld.-lieut.
Page 477 : Asuf-ud-Daulá standardised to Asaf-ud-Daulá.
Page 481 : Drapier corrected to Draper.
Page 484 : Index entry for Admiral Thomas Graves corrected from 216 to
226.
Page 487 : Kempenfeldt moved to correct place in index.
Page 490 : Patna standardised to Patná.
Page 492 : Salbai standardised to Salbái.
Page 494 : Sultan standardised to Sultán.
Page 495 : Whateley standardised to Whately.
Page 384 : Befal corrected to befall.
Page 417 : Sentence "Her assailants poured so fierce a storm of shot upon
her that her crew could not get the fire under." as in original. Probably
missing final word control.
Page 471 : Application of errata here has meant that the office of secretary
of state for the northern department was not listed May-September 1763.
This may or may not be correct.
Page 473 : Lt.-lieut. corrected to Ld.-lieut.
Page 477 : Asuf-ud-Daulá standardised to Asaf-ud-Daulá.
Page 481 : Drapier corrected to Draper.
Page 484 : Index entry for Admiral Thomas Graves corrected from 216 to
226.
Page 487 : Kempenfeldt moved to correct place in index.
Page 490 : Patna standardised to Patná.
Page 492 : Salbai standardised to Salbái.
Page 494 : Sultan standardised to Sultán.
Page 495 : Whateley standardised to Whately.
Page 581
*** END 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 ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
ENGLAND, FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE
CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION, 1760-1801 ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
Page 582
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are
Page 583
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:
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.
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:
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.
Page 584
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.
Page 585
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project
Page 586
Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to
Page 587
you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the
Page 588
efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment
life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment
Page 589
including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a
Page 590
copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
Page 591
Page 592
back
Page 593
back
Page 594
back