Life of William, Earl of Shelburne/Volume 1/Chapter 15

by Edmond George Petty-Fitzmaurice

 

CHAPTER XV

 

THE BOSTON TEA SHIPS

 

1774-1776

 

Αὖται δὲ αἱ νέες ἀρχὴ κακῶν ἐγένοντο.—Herodotus, v. xcvii.

 

Ever since the riots at Boston on the 5th March 1770, an apparent lull had taken place in American affairs. The repeal of all the duties except that on tea had left but narrow ground for the renewal of differences of opinion between the mother country and her Colonies, and many of the latter began to withdraw from the non-importation agreements into which they had entered. There were elements, however, on both sides of the Atlantic which did not understand compromise, but it was the general impression in both countries that it only needed a little mutual generosity and the repeal of the Tea Duty to restore a permanent good understanding.

New England indeed stood firm; but even in New England there were many who wavered. Samuel Adams almost alone believed, not only that a rupture with England was inevitable, but also that the Colonies were sufficiently strong to resist successfully, if united amongst themselves. He was accordingly occupying himself in organizing corresponding Committees in all the principal towns, so as to be ready for any emergency, and he shrank from none; even were it to involve a definite breach with the mother country. George III. stood in the same relation to the English policy of the day as Samuel Adams to the American opposition, for the King was determined that the Colonies should submit to taxation, and he unfortunately had worthy representatives in more than one of the colonial governors, especially in Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, who in 1770 had succeeded Sir Francis Bernard.^[1]

During the administration of his predecessor, Hutchinson had obtained credit for liberal views, but he was hardly installed in power before he proceeded to prove to the inhabitants of Massachusetts that if Bernard had scourged them with whips he intended to scourge them with scorpions. He convoked the General Assembly at Cambridge instead of at Boston; he handed over the fortress on Castle Island, which had usually been garrisoned by troops in the pay of the province, to an English force; he refused his consent to a Bill which the Assembly had passed for the improvement of the local Militia; he objected to the General Tax Bill because the officers of the Crown were not exempted from its provisions; he perpetually laid himself open to charges of duplicity, and was never weary of exciting the suspicions of the King and his advisers in England, and of painting the conduct of the colonial statesmen in the darkest colours. He finally engaged himself in a discussion with the House of Assembly on the relative rights of the Crown, the English Parliament, and the Colonies; till the Assembly, weary of perpetual altercations, and fearing that the salaries of the judges as well as those of the Governor were soon to be paid from England, petitioned the King in council to remove him. What Hutchinson was in Massachusetts, Governor Wright was in Georgia, and Lord Charles Montagu in South Carolina. "If you want to lose your Colonies," said Shelburne, many years after these events, "you should begin with the Governors";^[2] and it can hardly be doubted that he spoke with special reference to Bernard and Hutchinson. "Lord Shelburne," says Josiah Quincy, "confirmed my former intelligence of Governor Hutchinson's assiduity, assurance, and influence, but observed that the eyes of the nation must soon be opened."^[3] The evil effects of the conduct of the Governors were yet further increased by the perpetual wrangles which arose between the Commissioners of Customs and Revenue Officers and the Colonial merchants, owing to the laws of trade. Not even the removal of Hillsborough in 1772 from the Colonial Office, and the accession to power of the well-intentioned Dartmouth, a former member of the Rockingham Administration, could afford any real guarantee against the want of discretion of the representatives of the Crown on the other side of the Atlantic.

It is usually some small event which precipitates a crisis. The discovery of the letters of Hutchinson to Whateley—how obtained by Franklin it is here immaterial to inquire—and the facilities given to the East India Company for exporting tea to America, acted as the match to fire the accumulated stores of ill-will which Bernard and Hutchinson had long been collecting. How the cargoes of the tea ships were seized in the harbour of Boston, and thrown into the sea, is amongst the best known events in the history of the eighteenth century. When the news arrived in England, there was a general outcry against the Colonists. Boston, it was loudly proclaimed, was in rebellion, and strenuous measures must be adopted. Nothing loath, the King and his advisers yielded to the popular clamour, and announced a vigorous policy. "Our American affairs," writes Shelburne to Chatham, "afford abundant matter of attention. Besides the resistance to the Tea Duty, the Ministry appear desirous of taking up the affairs of Boston. The two Houses of Assembly petitioned the King, about six months since, for the removal of the governor and lieutenant-governor; alleging their loss of public confidence, and their incapacity to serve the King, in general terms. The petition was at first laid aside, but was on a sudden resumed, and referred to the Privy Council, who ordered the respective agents to attend with counsel, though not desired on the part of the Province, on Saturday last. Thirty-five Lords were assembled besides those in office. It was reported that Lord Camden was to have been there; but he told me yesterday that it was occasioned by some conversation he had with the President, and that he abided decidedly by his old principles. Mr. Dunning asked, on the part of his clients, the reason of his being ordered to attend, and spoke shortly on the general object of the Petition; which meant no prosecution, but to convey the sense of the people to the throne. Mr. Wedderburne, under the pretext of reply, and the encouragement of the judges—the indecency of whose behaviour exceeded, as is agreed on all hands, that of any committee of election^[4]—entered largely into the constitution and temper of the Province, and concluded by a most scurrilous invective against Dr. Franklin; occasioned, as Dr. Franklin says, by some matter of private animosity; as Mr. Wedderburne says, by his attachment to his deceased friend Mr. Whateley,^[5] the publication of whose correspondence contributed to inflame the assembly to their late resolutions; and others say, it is the opening of a new plan of American government. The resolution of Council is not yet public, but is generally understood to be as much in favour of the governor and as discouraging to the province as words can make it; and on Tuesday Dr. Franklin was dismissed the office of post-master for America, by a letter dated the preceding day.

"Lord Buckingham, the same day, moved the Lords, that his Majesty should order the Boston correspondence to be laid before the House, alleging, that the question now was, not about the liberty of North America, but whether we were to be free, or slaves to our colonies, and comparing Dr. Franklin to an Ambassador sent from Louis XIV. to the Doge of Genoa, &c. Lord Stair spoke after, in a bad, theatrical manner, which contributed to prejudice the House; but observed on the wildness of such language, and that humanity, commercial policy, and the public necessities (upon which he dwelt very properly, alleging the public to be little better than bankrupt in point of finance), dictated a very contrary one. Lord Dartmouth pressed to acquaint the House that it was the intention of Ministry to lay the papers in question before Parliament, and Lord Buckingham very readily withdrew his motion.

"Various measures are talked of, for altering the constitution of the government of New England, and prosecuting individuals, all tending more or less to enforcement. The opinion here is very general that America will submit, that Government was taken by surprize when they repealed the Stamp Act, and that all may be recovered. I took the liberty to tell your Lordship in the summer that the great object of my parliamentary conduct would be to prove, that if the King had continued his confidence in the sound part of his administration in 1767, the East Indies might have proved the salvation of this country, without injury to the Company, or to any individual, and that peace might have been preserved in Europe and in America: which last will appear sufficiently evident from the papers of that time, when the colonies universally agreed to the Mutiny Act, in contradiction to their own principles. I have the Attorney and Solicitor-General's opinion, for their full and satisfactory submission to the parliament; and Sir Francis Bernard acknowledges, in his letter dated January 30, 1768, that 'the House of Assembly showed a good disposition to a reconciliation with government, and had given good proof of it, having acted in all things with spirit and moderation, avoided subject,' &c., and Lord Hillsborough himself, in his letter dated April 22, 1768, 'laments, that the same moderation had not continued.' I am further convinced, that it is only by recurring to the same principles, that the King can obtain any of those great objects, whatever hands he may employ, and that he might, by doing so in America, secure the commerce and customs of that country, upon any footing Parliament might judge expedient; might secure the growing produce both of the quit rents and post-office; might command a respectful, if not an affectionate language from the several assemblies; besides very possibly a supply, if it should be judged reasonable, in the way of requisition.^[6]

.

.

.

.

.

.

"On Thursday night Mr. Charles Fox received a letter from Lord North, acquainting him that the King had ordered a new commission to be made out for the treasury, and that his name should be left out of it.^[7] I know nothing from any authority of his successor. The town talks of Lord Beauchamp, or Sir William Meredith, or Mr. Cornwall.

"In the mean time, the public have been amused with a very solemn trial in the House of Lords upon literary property; which ended in the reversal of certainly a very extraordinary decree of Lord Mansfield's, who showed himself the merest Captain Bobadil that, I suppose, ever existed in real life. I ought, instead of being a bad writer, to be a good painter, to convey to your Lordship the ridicule of the scene. You can, perhaps, imagine to yourself the Bishop of Carlisle,^[8] an old metaphysical head of a college, reading a paper, not a speech, out of an old sermon book, with very bad sight, leaning on the table; Lord Mansfield sitting at it, with eyes of fixed melancholy, looking at him, knowing that the Bishop's were the only eyes in the House who could not meet his; the judges behind him full of rage at being drawn into so absurd an opinion, and abandoned in it by their chief; the Bishops waking, as your Lordship knows they do, just before they vote, and staring on finding something the matter; while Lord Townshend was close to the bar, getting Mr. Dunning to put up his glass to look at the head of criminal justice. He has not reappeared since in the House of Lords, and all Westminster Hall behold his dejection without, I believe, one commiserating eye."^[9]

During the two following months it was the duty of Shelburne to keep Chatham informed of the further progress of events.

 

Lord Shelburne to Lord Chatham.

March 15th, 1774.

"You will read Lord North's proposition in the newspapers, to change the port from Boston, till the assembly has indemnified the India Company, and to enable the king afterwards, if he judges proper, then to restore it. Colonel Barré tells me that, finding the Rockinghams divided, that is, Mr. Dowdeswell, after some hesitation, directly opposing, and Lord John Cavendish rather tending to approbation and decidedly declining a division, thought the best service he could do to America was to support government to a certain degree, avowing his original principles, and that he might have more weight to resist propositions of a more coercive nature, which might be offered in the prosecution of this business, which is to come on again on Friday. I accidentally met Lord Dartmouth yesterday morning at Mr. Wilmot's. Without entering into the particular measures in question, he stated, with great fairness and with very little reserve, the difficulties of his situation, the unalterableness of his principles, and his determination to cover America from the present storm, to the utmost of his power, even to repealing the act; which I urged to him as the most expedient step, the first moment he could bring his colleagues to listen to such a measure. This, together with Lord North's language, which Colonel Barré tells me was of a moderate cast, leads me to hope the further measures will not be so hostile as was expected.^[10]

·

·

·

·

·

·

April 4th, 1774.

"The Port Bill underwent a fuller, and by all accounts a fairer, discussion on Tuesday in the House of Lords than it did in the House of Commons. The debate took a general turn; and Lord Camden, in his reply to Lord Mansfield, met the question fully, and even as near the extent of his former principles as he could well do. The remarkable features of the day were the notorious division among the Ministry, which was very near avowed, some calling what passed in Boston commotion, others open rebellion, a more than disregard to Lord Dartmouth, and somewhat of the same sort towards Lord North. Lord Mansfield took upon himself a considerable lead: alleged that it was the last overt act of high treason, proceeding from over-lenity and want of foresight; that it was, however, the luckiest event that could befall this country, for that all might be recovered; compensation to the India Company he regarded as no object of the bill; that if this Act passed, we should be passed the Rubicon; that the Americans would then know that we should temporize no longer; and if it passed with tolerable unanimity, Boston would submit, and all would pass sine cæde.

"The House allowed me very patiently, though very late at night, to state the tranquil and the loyal state in which I left the colonies, with some other very home facts; and I cannot say I met with that weight of prejudice I apprehended. Lord Temple having come down to attend General Frazer's bill, declared, early in this debate, that he did not intend voting, or giving any opinion on the measure, but that the backwardness of the Ministers to explain their plan appeared an indignity to the House; that they were mistaken if they thought the measure a trifling one; that in his opinion nothing could justify the Ministers hereafter, except the town of Boston proving in an actual state of rebellion; but he feared the Ministry had neither heads nor hearts to conduct either system. During the whole debate the Ministers would never declare whether they would this session repeal the Act or not. In regard to their plan, Lord Dartmouth appeared to stop, after declaring the proposed alteration of the charter; but Lord Suffolk declared very plainly, that other very determined measures should be offered, before the end of the session. The landed property, except some of the most sensible, are, as is natural, I believe, for violent measures. The interest of the commercial part is very decidedly on the other side, and their passions are taking that turn."^[11]

 

These other "very determined measures" soon appeared, although in the interval it had become known that the riots at Boston had mainly been caused by the obstinate refusal of the Governor and Commissioners of Customs to grant a pass and clearance to the tea ships, without landing their cargoes; a course by which all difficulties were avoided at Charleston and Philadelphia. The Port Act was rapidly followed by five other Bills: the first abrogated the clauses of the Massachusetts Charter, giving the election of the council to the House of Representatives, and practically abolished town meetings; it also transferred the power of appointing the Sheriffs to the Executive, and to the Sheriff it entrusted the return of Juries. A second measure, known as the Quebec Act, extended the boundaries of Canada, so as to include within them the region on the Ohio and the Mississippi, the area of the present States of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio, thus reversing the decision of Shelburne in 1763.^[12] Over this enormous territory it established the rule of a military Governor and a nominated council. The ministers who proposed and defended the Bill hardly concealed their hope that the Roman Catholic population of Canada would allow itself to be used as an instrument to overawe the Protestant settlers in New England. It would have been far better, said Shelburne, to have given the rights of citizens to the Roman Catholics before making them soldiers; "they would now, no doubt, willingly employ the arms in their hands to destroy the privileges of which they were not suffered to partake."^[13] A third measure transferred the place of trial of civil officers and soldiers, indicted for any capital offence committed in supporting the Revenue laws, or in suppressing riots, to Great Britain. Two other Acts legalized the quartering of troops within Boston or any other town. All these measures were passed by large majorities, and a proposal of Burke, on the 19th of April 1774, to repeal the Tea Duty was contemptuously rejected. Equally vain were the efforts which Shelburne made in the House of Lords, where he insisted again and again on the true nature of the connection between England and her Colonies. "I always have thought," he said, "and ever shall think, that both Ireland and America are subordinate to this country, but I shall likewise retain my former opinion, that they have rights, the free and unimpaired exercise of which should be preserved inviolate. The principal fundamental right is that of granting their own money. That this invaluable privilege is going to be wrested from America, I take to be the true grievance. Remove that away and everything I daresay will return into its former channel. I do not here promise to meet the ideas of every person on the other side of the Atlantic indiscriminately. There may be some factious, turbulent, ambitious spirits there. I would be understood to speak of the prevailing governing dispositions of both countries. There may, on the other hand, be many people in this country so mistaken as to desire a revenue, but what I mean is, that if the claim of taxation were fairly relinquished, without reservation, I am confident the supremacy of the British Parliament would be acknowledged by America, and peace between both countries be happily restored"; and he went on to show that even if there were no other objection to the ministerial policy, the fact of the penalties and prohibitions laid on the Colonists including guilty and innocent alike, and condemning them without a hearing in their own defence, was alone fatal to it.^[14]

"I execrate the present measures," said Barré in the House of Commons. "You have had one meeting of Congress; you may soon have another; for if they submit they are slaves."^[15] His words were prophetic. The answer of Massachusetts to the Port Bill was a summons to a General Congress at Philadelphia, and whatever unwillingness or hesitation at first existed among the other Colonies was removed as the news arrived of the still more oppressive measures which had followed. The Acts themselves were set at nought; nobody could be found to act as Sheriff or as a nominated councillor, while General Gage, who had been sent out armed with full civil and military powers to replace Hutchinson, having inaugurated his rule by seizing the powder of the province, saw the people rise in resistance, and by September 1774 the King's rule, except inside Boston, had ceased to exist in Massachusetts, and Boston itself became subject to a species of blockade. On the 4th of September the Congress met, and resolved to petition the King. Their councils were of the most moderate kind; those who like Samuel Adams desired independence were as yet but few, and did not venture openly to proclaim their views. In New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, and Maryland, the conservative party was especially strong. The ruling spirit of the hour was Dickenson, of Pennsylvania, the author of The Farmer's Letters. A respectful hearing was given even to those who, like Galloway, were afterwards during the war among the most devoted royalists. Washington at this period believed that no reflecting person as yet wished for independence. In their petition the Congress only asked for a return to the state of things which had existed previous to 1763; in order to conciliate Rockingham, they made no express mention of the Declaratory Act, and to conciliate Chatham they clearly acknowledged their consent to all Acts of the British Parliament passed for the purpose of regulating trade. At the same time they expressed their approval of the conduct of the State of Massachusetts, and their intention of supporting it in future if necessary; a non-importation agreement was also determined upon, to come into effect on the ist of December, should their grievances remain unredressed at that date.

It was the general belief in England amongst men of moderate views, that the proposals of Congress afforded a fair ground for reconciliation. George III., however, could see nothing in them but the first evidence of an overt rebellion, which, as he expressed it to North, "blows alone could put down."^[16] North indeed wished to negotiate, but the King had no difficulty in inducing the majority of the Cabinet to reject all temperate advice, and they resolved to introduce further repressive measures, to forbid all commerce with New England, and while extending royal clemency to those who might submit, to proclaim all those who resisted, traitors and rebels. "There are men now walking in the streets of London who ought to be in Newgate or at Tyburn," said Hillsborough; and he was understood to refer to Franklin and Quincy, the friends of Shelburne.^[17]

The divided condition of the Opposition, which was still suffering from the effects of former quarrels, materially facilitated the plans of the King and the Court. It was not indeed that the repressive measures against America had experienced no resistance. The eloquence of Burke had vied with that of Chatham, the learning of Dunning with that of Camden, in denouncing the unconstitutional character of the proposals of the Government. On every occasion Shelburne and Barré had raised their voices against the measures brought forward in either House of Parliament. But there was neither real concert nor lasting union. Sometimes the leaders would not lead, sometimes the followers would not follow. Seldom were they able to make a well-concerted plan of resistance; hardly ever did they unanimously carry it through when made. A few short notes written in the third person were all that passed at this period between Shelburne and Rockingham, and when early in 1775 an interview took place between the latter and Chatham, no substantial agreement could be arrived at. "I look back," said Rockingham, "with very real satisfaction and content on the line which I indeed, emphatically I, took in the year 1766: the Stamp Act was repealed, and the doubt of the right of this country was fairly faced and resisted."^[18] But Chatham believed that the Declaratory Act must be included in the general repeal of all the obnoxious statutes, and agreement becoming impossible, he went alone, as he expressed it to Shelburne, "to look the tapestry and the Bishops in the face."^[19]

Plans of conciliation were laid before Parliament during the months of January and February 1775 by Chatham and North respectively. The essential difference between them was that while the former proposed to recognize the existence of Congress, and to repeal all the vexatious statutes passed since 1763, the latter only suggested that should any single colony undertake to provide for the common defence and the civil government, and should their plan be approved by Parliament, England would abstain from imposing any tax within the province. The proposals of Chatham, which Shelburne strongly supported, were summarily rejected, and a like fate awaited an analogous plan put forward by Burke in the House of Commons. Even the moderate propositions of North all but caused his downfall, owing to the opposition of the Bedford Whigs, still, as before, the bitterest enemies of America. To conciliate them, a Bill was proposed to restrain the commerce of the New England provinces with Great Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies, and to prohibit them from sharing in the fisheries on the banks of Newfoundland; while an address was carried to the Crown by the House of Commons declaring that Massachusetts was in rebellion, and pledging the country to join the King in suppressing the outbreak. The only real step taken in the direction of conciliation was the recall of Gage, who had shown as little ability in military as in civil affairs. He was replaced as Civil Commissioner by Lord Howe, while the command of the troops was given to General Howe. Before, however, the two brothers could reach America, blood had been shed at Lexington,^[20] and the second continental Congress had met.^[21]

Moderate counsels, however, continued to prevail. Jay proposed a second petition to the King, and Dickenson still remained master of the situation. A second petition was accordingly drawn up in terms resembling the first, and confided to Richard Penn, one of the Proprietaries of Pennsylvania. It was only after much hesitation that Congress, at the request of Massachusetts, took over the direction of the army, which for some time had been collecting round Boston, and appointed Washington Commander-in-chief. The greater part of the force was only enlisted for one year, and the sum borrowed to support it was not large enough to last beyond that period. Meanwhile not only the Congress, but the individual States had declared the propositions of the English Ministry unsatisfactory and inadmissible. "In my life," said Shelburne, "I never was more pleased with a State paper than with the Assembly of Virginia's discussion of Lord North's proposition. It is masterly. But what I fear is, that the evil is irretrievable."^[22]

It was at this juncture that the rejection of the second petition of Congress by the King came to render reconciliation between England and her Colonies far more difficult than it had been previously.^[23] It was urged that it was contrary to the dignity of Parliament to negotiate with a body which, like the Congress, had no legal status, but this, said Shelburne, was a subtlety worthy only of Mansfield. It should be recollected, he added, that the idea of an American Congress was no new idea;^[24] for it could be shown not only that men like Franklin had favoured it, but that it had met the approval of Lord Halifax, Mr. Grenville, and Mr. James Oswald.^[25] It was also useless, he pointed out, to embitter the discussion of the questions before Parliament by accusing the Colonies of planning Independence, in the face of their explicit declaration to the contrary, contained in the Petitions which they had sent over. To do so was the best means to make them desire Independence. To call the Americans rebels was idle and wicked. The Romans had a war of a character similar to that being carried on in America. They did not call their enemies in that war rebels; the war itself they called the Social war, and in the same way he desired to call the war in America a Constitutional war. The principles of Selden and Locke, he went on to say, had since the Revolution been generally considered the surest guide for English statesmen, but the present Ministers were reverting to the precedents of the Stuart period. It was the lurking spirit of despotism that produced the Stamp Act in 1765; that fettered the repeal of that Act in 1766; that revived the principle of it in 1767; and had since accumulated oppression upon oppression. But if the ideas of the Ministers were odious, the means by which they sought to carry them out were still more so. They had gone about begging for troops from every petty potentate in Germany. They had not scrupled to arm the Roman Catholics of Canada against the Protestants of New England, and to let loose the savage Indian nations of the interior against the civilized inhabitants of the Colonies. Ministers were, however, he confessed, able to do what they liked while Parliament was constituted as it was. Not only did Parliament misrepresent the nation, but the Ministers had corrupted the Parliament. Parliament was full of placemen, pensioners and contractors, and as regarded the support of the landed interest, which was so frequently appealed to, the landed interest was neither the whole nation, nor always the most enlightened portion of it. It was idle, therefore, to talk of the nation wishing this, or the nation wishing that. It was not the nation, but only Parliament that spoke, and Parliament was dictated to by Ministers, who were themselves the creatures of the King. For many years, he insisted, a fatal and overruling influence had governed the country. Lord Mansfield was the real Prime Minister, and through his despotic counsels a Great Empire was being plunged in all the miseries and horrors of civil war, while the domestic liberties of the country were equally endangered. In how odious a light the conduct of the Ministers appeared to the people at large, might, he said, be judged from the unpopularity of both the services. The resistance of the City authorities to the press warrants had met with as much approval as it had met with disapproval when the question was not of fighting the Colonies but of fighting Spain, and the first lord of the Admiralty had had to threaten officers, who did not at once furnish the Board with an account of their places of residence, with striking them off the list. Loyal addresses were indeed many, but enlistments were as few as the signatures to the addresses were numerous.^[26]

Under the influence of feelings similar to those of Shelburne, Grafton, who for some time past had been dissatisfied with his position, resigned the Privy Seal, after making a vain attempt to induce the King and the Prime Minister to retrace their steps. About the same time Rochfort, who had held the Seals of the Southern Department ever since the resignation of Shelburne in 1768, resigned his place, and was succeeded by Weymouth. The additions which were thereupon made to the Ministry clearly indicated the nature of the ideas which the King intended to govern it. The Privy Seal was given to Dartmouth, while Lord George Sackville, now become Lord George Germain, filled the place of Dartmouth as Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Grafton now threw himself into a vigorous opposition. His great object was to unite the various sections of the Whig Party, and after many difficulties, chiefly occasioned by the hesitations of the friends of Rockingham, he succeeded in concerting a plan of action for the coming session, which enabled the Opposition to act with greater vigour and union during the winter of 1775 than it had done for some time past. "The light," he says, "in which the business appeared to me was partly this: that if a cordial reconciliation was not speedily effected with the Colonies, to lose America entirely would be a lesser evil than to hold her by a military force, as a conquered country; and that the consequences of holding that dominion by an army only, must inevitably terminate in the downfall of the constitution and liberties of Britain. Thus success itself would be dreadful. To prevent these threatening consequences, the Opposition was most honourably engaged: and it was with the most hearty concurrence with the principal men who composed it, that I added my little aid: having fully opened our minds to each other, and found little difference in our opinions.

"I did not aim at any particular knowledge of Lord Shelburne's opinions, as I had heard from Lord Camden that they tallied to a great degree with my own. But I was, however, much pleased with the following paragraph of a letter which, dated November 4th, 1775, I received from Lord Camden. 'The mention of the last lord's (Shelburne's) name gives me an opportunity of acquainting your Grace that I was desired by him to deliver a handsome and a frank message to your Grace, which I could not well do then, nor indeed can I now; because I cannot venture to recollect the words, and I am afraid of going too far. Thus much I can safely say, that he will fairly open his mind, and tell your Grace very frankly how far he will go, and where he will stop: and in my opinion, he and his friends Barré and Dunning have a manly and explicit way of proceeding which pleases me.'^[27]

"After some conversation with Lord Shelburne on public affairs, in consequence of the above message, we became good political friends, and remained so, with the exception of a few immaterial squabbles, to the end of his life. It is but justice to the eminent personages, who composed this Opposition, to say that there never existed at any time, such another in purity of intention towards the public, to whose benefit and welfare their measures were solely directed."^[28]

The King still further aggravated the position by issuing a proclamation for repressing rebellion and sedition, the terms of which seemed equally pointed at the Opposition in England and at the colonists in America, while a Bill was brought forward extending the Prohibitory Bill, so as to include not only New England, but the other Colonies as well. The answer of America to the Boston Port Bill had been the first meeting of Congress. The answer to the attack on Concord had been the first organization of the continental army. The reply to the Royal Proclamation against sedition and the Prohibitory Bill were the first acts of real sovereignty exercised by the Congress, viz. the appointment of a Committee on Foreign Affairs and the issue of letters of marque. Events now marched rapidly. Step by step the party of moderation had to yield to the party of action, as it gradually became clear that, notwithstanding the efforts of Shelburne, Grafton, and the other members of the Opposition, the English Government gave no choice between war and absolute submission, while the early successes of the American arms encouraged the belief that the result of war might not be unfavourable to the younger country. On the 4th of July 1776 the Declaration of Independence announced that a new State had taken its place amongst the Powers of the World. "The Colonies," said Lord Camden, "are gone for ever."^[29]

One of the first steps which the party of action in the Colonies had taken was to seek the aid of foreign powers, especially of France, to which Silas Deane was sent on a mission. It is extraordinary to read the speeches of the English Ministers of the time in which, regardless of the information existing in the offices over which they presided, they insisted that no danger was to be apprehended from abroad. It was in vain that Shelburne, aware that since the very recent death of Louis XV. the ideas of Choiseul in the person of Vergennes were once more inspiring the councils of the French Government, warned the country of the perilous position in which it stood. "I foresee the possibility," he said, "if not the strong probability, of our being compelled to engage in a foreign war. I remember a few years since that we were lulled into a security which must inevitably have proved fatal, but for the strange revolution which took place in the French Cabinet, the dismission of that bold enterprising Minister Choiseul,^[30] who had planned the destruction of this country, in revenge for the disgraces France had suffered, and the repeated injuries, he imagined, she had received in the course of a long, glorious, and successful war, carried on by Great Britain. I do not pretend to dive into the secrets of Cabinets farther than I am well warranted, or presume to point out the persuasive arguments employed to bring over the woman to whose influence this unexpected turn of affairs is attributed;^[31] but this I will venture to assert, because I have the proofs in my power, that Gibraltar, Minorca, Jamaica, and the greater part of our possessions in the East and West Indies would have been among the first sacrifices that would have fallen, had it not been, I may say, for the miraculous interposition of Providence in our favour." As regarded the pacific attitude of France, which was being perpetually insisted upon by the Ministers, he said he would only remind the House of what happened in 1741 during the Spanish war, when Cardinal Fleury, a man of a most pacific disposition, directed the councils of France. Lord Waldegrave, the English Ambassador at Paris, frequently pressed his Eminency relative to an armament then fitting out at Brest, to know its destination, whether it was meant to join the Spanish fleet or not. The Cardinal always assured him in the fullest and most explicit terms that France was determined to take no part whatever in the quarrel. Lord Waldegrave, however, one day heard in the streets that the fleet had left Brest, to reinforce the Spanish fleet in the Mediterranean. He immediately repaired to the Cardinal to upbraid him with his breach of promise. "You were not misinformed, my Lord," replied the Cardinal, "the fleet has actually sailed, and for the purpose you heard. I confess likewise that I had frequently solemnly assured you of the contrary; and I further own, that Spain is entirely in the wrong, and that it is perhaps neither prudent nor politic in us to take part in their business; but I would wish you, my Lord, at the same time to perfectly understand, though we do not approve of the motives of their going to war, and will always carefully avoid to encourage them in their broils in the first instance, when engaged for any time we can never submit to remain inactive spectators of their ruin and your consequent aggrandizement."^[32]

The language of Cardinal Fleury was exactly that with which Vergennes in a year's time was parrying the complaints of Lord Stormont.^[33] Silas Deane had arrived in France by July, and was having frequent conferences with the French Ministers. Arrangements were made between them for the secret supply of war material to America, while numberless officers flocked over to take service under Washington, and the American privateers were received in the French ports. It was tolerably certain that where France led, Spain would soon follow, whatever the danger might be to her colonial empire from an active participation in the war. Under these circumstances, Shelburne said in a powerful speech in the House of Lords, a crisis having arrived, it was necessary that the supreme direction of affairs should be placed in the hands of the Earl of Chatham. "He was not influenced by any private motive in saying so; it would be vain and preposterous in him to insinuate that his connection with that noble Earl was anything but a political one. The disparity of their years rendered private friendship unattainable, but he considered the Earl of Chatham as the greatest ornament of the two Houses, in which he shone with such unrivalled lustre: the most efficient servant of the crown, and, while he had life in him, the nerve of Great Britain.^[34] Unfortunately at this moment Chatham was again struck down by the same mysterious malady which had paralysed his energies in 1767; and was only able to declare, in a paper which he dictated to Dr. Addington, and sent to Shelburne as a species of political testament, "that he continued in the same sentiments, with regard to America, which he had always professed, and which stand so fully explained in the Provincial Act offered by him to the House of Lords. Confiding in the friendship of Dr. Addington, he requested of him to preserve this in his memory; that, in case he should not recover from the long illness under which he laboured, the Doctor might be enabled to do him justice, by bearing testimony, that he persevered unshaken in the same opinions. To this he added that, unless effectual measures were speedily taken for reconciliation with the Colonies, he was fully persuaded, that, in a very few years, France would set her foot on English ground; that, in the present moment, her policy might probably be to wait some time, in order to see England more deeply engaged in the ruinous war, against herself, in America, as well as to prove how far the Americans, abetted by France indirectly only, might be able to make a stand, before she took an open part by declaring war upon England."^[35]

The speech which Lord Shelburne made on the above occasion marked his position as the destined successor in the lead of the section of the party which recognized Chatham as their chief. Lord Camden rated his oratorical powers above those of any peer of his time, Lord Chatham alone excepted.^[36] Lord Thurlow complimented him on the correctness and minuteness of his information,^[37] and Walpole does not deny him a high place amongst the debaters of his time. Jeremy Bentham, indeed, does not join the latter in his commendation. "Lord Shelburne," he says, "used to catch hold of the most imperfect scrap of an idea, and filled it up in his own mind, sometimes correctly, sometimes erroneously. His manner was very imposing, very dignified, and he talked his vague generalities in the House of Lords in a very emphatic way, as if something good were at the bottom, when in fact there was nothing at all."^[38] Jeremy Bentham, however, cannot be considered a good judge of Parliamentary speaking. He would probably have wished every speech to have begun with a general statement of the utilitarian theory, to have proceeded to the application of it to legislation in general, and to have concluded with its bearing on the question immediately under discussion. "In his public speeches," says the third Lord Holland, "Lord Shelburne wanted method and perspicuity, and was deficient in justness of reasoning, in judgment and in taste; but he had some imagination, some wit, great animation, and both in sarcasm and invective not unfrequently rose to eloquence. His mind seemed to be full and overflowing, and though his language was incorrect and confused, it was often fanciful, original and happy. There was force and character, if there was not real genius, in his oratory. If he did not convince the impartial, or confirm the wavering, he generally gratified his own party and always provoked his adversaries; he was a great master of irony, and no man ever expressed bitter scorn for his opponents with more art or effect. His speeches were not only animated and entertaining, but embittered the contest and enlivened the whole debate."^[39] Sarcasm and invective certainly seem to have been his forte; diffuseness and repetition his weakness. It was the latter faults which were the butt of the satirists of the Rolliad, when, in after years, taking off the speech he made on the first of March 1787 on foreign politics in the House of Lords, they make him come forward and speak as follows:

 

"Lost and obscur'd in Bowood's humble bow'r,
No party tool—no candidate for pow'r—
I come, my lords, an hermit from my cell,
A few blunt truths in my plain style to tell.
Highly I praise your late commercial plan;
Kingdoms should all unite, like man and man.
The French love peace—ambition they detest;
But Cherburg's frightful works deny me rest.
With joy I see new wealth for Britain shipp'd.
Lisbon's a froward child, and should be whipp'd;
Yet Portugal's our old and best ally,
And Gallic faith is but a slender tie.
My lords! the manufacturer's a fool;
The clothier, too, knows nothing about wool;
Their interests still demand our constant care;
Their griefs are mine—their fear is my despair.
My lords! my soul is big with dire alarms;
Turks, Germans, Russians, Prussians, all in arms!
A noble Pole (I am proud to call him friend)
Tells me of things—I cannot comprehend.
Your lordships' hairs would stand on end to hear
My last dispatches from the Grand Vizier.
The fears of Dantzick merchants can't be told;
My accounts from Cracow make my blood run cold.
The state of Portsmouth and of Plymouth Docks,
Your Trade—your Taxes—Army—Navy—Stocks,
All haunt me in my dreams; and when I rise
The Bank of England scares my open eyes.
I see I know some dreadful storm is brewing;
Arm all your coasts your Navy is your ruin.
I say it still; but (let me be believ'd)
In this your lordships have been much deceiv'd,
A noble Duke affirms I like his plan;
I never did, my lords!—I never can—
Shame on the slanderous breath which dares instil
That I, who now condemn, advis'd the ill.
Plain words, thank Heav'n, are always understood;
I could approve, I said—but not I would.
Anxious to make the noble Duke content,
My view was just to seem to give consent,

While all the world might see that nothing less was meant."^[40]

 

His favourite antagonist was always Lord Mansfield, "the dark designing lawyer," "the director of the fatal and overruling influence." On one occasion, during the debate on the address to the King upon the disturbances in North America, a scene of extraordinary violence took place between them. Lord Mansfield insinuated that Lord Shelburne had not behaved like a gentleman, and that the charges he made were malicious, unjust, and indecent; whereupon Lord Shelburne returned the charge of falsehood in direct terms.^[41] On another occasion he became involved in an altercation almost as violent with the Archbishop of York, who in a charge to his clergy had attacked the fair character of Lord Rockingham.^[42] It would, however, be difficult perhaps to draw any real distinction between the violence of Lord Shelburne and that of many other speakers. As the Duke of Grafton observes in his Memoirs, the debates at this period "were unusually frequent and warm," and few readers of them will be inclined to disagree with the opinion of so competent a judge.^[43]

 

1. The earlier historians of the American Revolution have not sufficiently recognized that the less responsible sections of opinion in America represented by Samuel Adams desired a rupture with the mother country, and were not anxious that a conciliatory policy should succeed. It was these same persons who were mainly responsible after the war was over for the cruel and vindictive treatment of the Loyalists, and the practical disregard of Articles IV., V., and VI. of the Treaty of 1783. (See Belcher, The First American Civil War, and Fisher, True History of the American Revolution, clix.)
2. Shelburne to James Oswald of Dunnikier (undated), communicated to the present author by Sir James Colvile of Culross.
3. Memoir of Josiah Quincy, 223.
4. The same statement is found in a letter of November 10th, 1802, from Dr. Priestley, who was present with Burke on the above occasion.
5. The invective of Wedderburne concluded as follows: "Amidst these tranquil events, here is a man who, with the utmost insensibility of remorse, stands up and avows himself the author of all. I can compare him only to Zanga, in Dr. Young's Revenge,—

   'Know, then, 'twas I—
   I forged the letter—I dispos'd the picture—
   I hated—I despis'd—and I destroy.'

   I ask, my Lords, whether the revengeful temper attributed to the bloody African is not surpassed by the coolness and apathy of the wily American?"

6. Shelburne to Chatham, February 3rd, 1774.
7. Fox was at this time a Lord of the Treasury in the Administration of Lord North. His debts, amounting to the enormous sum of £140,000, had recently been paid by hit father, Lord Holland, and being thus relieved of financial anxiety, he began to show signs of adopting an independent attitude in Parliament, which led to his abrupt dismissal. His father, Lord Holland, died on July 1st, 1774; and his mother a few days afterwards. They left him considerable legacies. On the death of the second Lord Holland almost immediately afterwards (December 26th, 1774), he succeeded to the Irish sinecure which Henry Fox had got settled on himself and two lives in 1754. (See supra, Ch. II. and III.) Thus by an extraordinary succession of events Charles Fox in 1774 suddenly found himself a wealthy man.
8. Dr. Law, formerly Master of St. Peter's College, Cambridge.
9. Shelburne to Chatham, February 27th, 1774. The debate above alluded to related to the question of literary property. One Becket had obtained a decree against some other bookseller for pirating a work belonging to him. It was maintained by the defendants that the statute of Queen Anne took away any right which an author might previously have had at common law of multiplying copies exclusively for ever. Lord Camden supported this view, in which the House of Lords concurred. Lord Mansfield had supported the decree, but now seemed to shrink from his own opinion.
10. Shelburne to Chatham, March 15th, 1774.
11. Shelburne to Chatham, April 4th, 1774.
12. 14 George III. c. 83. Mr. Kingsford, in his History of Canada, severely criticises this portion of the Act, which he distinguishes from the other provisions (v. 244, 245). The full text of the Act is given in v. 256. As to the population of Canada see v. 188.
13. Parliamentary History, xviii. 724. Compare vol. i. 260-267. Shelburne in 1766 wished to enfranchise the Roman Catholics, and make them eligible for the Assembly and Council, which Sir Guy Carleton, liberal and sagacious as he was, hesitated to recommend at that time (see supra, p. 302, and Bancroft, History of the United States, vi. 51-55). By "the rights" of citizens in his speech in 1774 Shelburne evidently intended political "rights," as the Bill conferred civil rights on the inhabitants, and was opposed for that reason amongst others. The opposition to the Quebec Bill was not the most creditable part of the attack on the Government. Both in the New England State* and at home it became mixed up with a mere "anti-Roman Catholic" cry against the Bill, because it left the inhabitants of Canada their ancient French civil laws, which they understood, and exempted them from taking the oath of supremacy (Parliamentary History, xvii. 1357-1406). At this time the Protestant inhabitants are laid to have only numbered a few hundreds; the Roman Catholics about 60,000. The small body of English settlers were bitterly opposed to enfranchising the Roman Catholics. See as to Sir Guy Carleton, Kingsford, History of Canada, v. 191, 215-217.
14. Parliamentary History, xviii. 921, 959, 1083, 1087, 1271.
15. Ibid. xviii. 683.
16. George III. to North, November 1774.
17. See Bancroft, vii. 178.
18. The above words occur in a letter from Lord Rockingham which can be read in vol. ii. of the Memoirs, p. 258.
19. Chatham to Shelburne, January 19th, 1773.
20. April 19th, 1775.
21. May 10th, 1775.
22. Bancroft, vii. 388.
23. August 1775.
24. The allusion is to the General Congress which met at Albany in 1764.
25. Parliamentary History, xviii. 922.
26. The principal speeches of Shelburne in 1775 will be found in the Parliamentary History, xviii. 162, 448, 722, 920, 1083, 1220.
27. See a correspondence on these subjects which passed between Sir George Savile and Dr. Priestley in 1775, Hist. MSS. Commission Reports. Foljambe Papers, 149-151.
28. Autobiography of the Duke of Grafton, 318.
29. Autobiography of the Duke of Grafton, 290.
30. In 1770.
31. Madame du Barry.
32. Parliamentary History, xviii. 673-675.
33. Charles Gravier de Vergennes was born at Dijon in 1717. After holding several important diplomatic posts, including that of Ambassador to the Porte, he went on a special embassy to Sweden, and contributed largely to the success of the Revolution carried out in 1772 by Gustavus against the aristocracy. (See Le Comte de Vergennes, son Ambassade en Suède, par Louis Bonneville de Marsangy, Paris, 1898.) Soon afterwards he became Minister for Foreign Affairs. He died in 1787.
34. Parliamentary History, xviii. 922, 1220.
35. Chatham Correspondence, iv. 423-427.
36. Sketch of Life by Mr. George Hardinge. Lord Campbell's Chancellors, v. 362. Lord Stanhope's History, v. 317.
37. Debate in the House of Lords, February 4th, 1782.
38. Bentham, Works, x. 116. "We suspect that the gracefully rounded periods of Murray, and the splendid declamation of Pitt would have been similarly described by the philosopher as vague generalities with nothing at the bottom." (Edinburgh Review for 1875, p. 404.)
39. Memoirs of the Whig Party, i. 41.
40. The allusion was to the fortifications of Gibraltar which Lord Lansdowne criticised in 1787, but which, according to the Duke of Richmond, he had approved in 1782.
41. Parliamentary History, xviii. 276, 281, 283.
42. Autobiography of the Duke of Grafton, 296.
43. Ibid. 298.

 

END OF VOL. I