Life of William, Earl of Shelburne/Volume 2/Chapter 1

by Edmond George Petty-Fitzmaurice

 

CHAPTER I

 

THE DEATH OF LORD CHATHAM

 

1776-1779

 

Parliament met on the 31st of October 1776, three months after the Declaration of Independence, the news of which was closely followed by the announcement of the failure of the negotiations conducted by Lord Howe under the commission given to him and his brother the general for the pacification of America. The despondency which ensued upon these events was however soon effaced by the successes of the royal troops at Long Island and New York,^[1] and the King's Speech on the first day of the Session breathed nothing but confidence regarding the war in America and the preservation of peace in Europe. The Opposition however did not abate their zeal for conciliation. They attacked the speech in both Houses. Shelburne denounced it as "a piece of metaphysical refinement, framed with a design to impose," and the defence set up for it, as nothing more than "a string of sophisms, no less wretched in their texture than insolent in their tenor." He then proceeded to go through it clause by clause. He denied that the Americans had rejected the means of conciliation held out to them under the authority of the royal commission with circumstances of "indignity and insult." The pretended means of conciliation were held back so long, that even if the Commissioners had been armed with sufficient powers, the Americans would have been fully justified in declaring themselves independent, from the most obvious motives of selfpreservation. The language applied by the speech to the colonists was, he said, indecent; if it were not, then not only the colonists, but the Whigs of 1688 also, were rank rebels and guilty of treason. He was not going to alter his sentiments because of the recent success of the royal arms: they were unaltered. He then proceeded to ridicule the reliance placed by the Ministers on the pacific intentions of France. He said he had recently been in that country, and had seen their preparations, which were notorious to everybody, except to the English Ambassador in Paris; not only France, but Spain also, had been arming for months; a formidable fleet was fitting out at Brest; the French and Spanish ports, both in Europe and the West Indies, were so many asylums for the American privateers; warlike stores were openly transported from almost every harbour in France; the French Court had positively refused to prohibit American trading vessels or ships of war from entering their ports; and to complete the whole, a person sent from the Congress, if not two or three, was now in a public character at the court of Versailles, not perhaps received by M. de Vergennes with the formalities of an Envoy Extraordinary, but most certainly armed with all the efficient powers of a person treating on the part of an independent state. The concluding paragraph of the speech he declared to be a compound of the most glaring hypocrisies, unless attempting to rob the people or America of their property, by laying taxes on them without their consent and stripping them of their charters, was a proof "that no people ever enjoyed more happiness under a milder government," or unless sending over an army of foreign mercenaries was the first step "to restore to them the blessings of law and liberty, equally enjoyed by every British subject."^[2]

Against the ministerial majorities the Opposition fought in vain; and so disgusted were the Rockingham Whigs at their want of success, that after the rejection on November 6th of Lord John Cavendish's motion for the revisal of all laws by which the Americans thought themselves aggrieved, they broke from the agreement they had made with Grafton in the previous year, and ceased to attend in the House of Commons. In this course Shelburne refused to join, and followed by his friends warmly opposed the Bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in the Colonies, which the Ministry were at this moment engaged in passing. Nor was the resistance useless, for Dunning succeeded in carrying a number "of alterations, clauses, and softenings,"^[3] which materially diminished the obnoxious character of the measure. Shelburne also strongly opposed the payment of the arrears of the Civil List, for which the King was again applying, condemning the extravagance of the Court, the careless manner in which it appeared from the papers laid before the House that the accounts were kept, and the unconstitutional character of the doctrine advanced by the King's friends, that he had an absolute right, independent of Parliament, to the Civil List, and that consequently Parliament had no right to interfere with the application and expenditure of it.^[4]

The history of the extension of the control exercised by Parliament over the Civil List affords an interesting study of the growth of the power of the two Houses. It was still urged in the middle of the last century by the King's friends, that as the Civil List had been given to the King for life, in exchange for the cession of the Ordinary Revenue, the House had no right to meddle with it in any way during his lifetime, unless with his previous consent; in other words, that what applied to the Ordinary Revenue of the Crown applied also to the money given in exchange for it. Historically the argument was unanswerable, and Rigby used it in 1780 in an unsuccessful attempt to thwart the reforming zeal of Burke and Dunning in the House of Commons.^[5] The Whig Peers in 1776 took a very bold and extreme view of the question. They asserted, that the Crown had no independent right to the Civil List whatever, and that the Ordinary Revenue of the Crown was part of the national revenue, in the same sense as the money arising from the land tax or any other duty, and that Parliament consequently had the same right to inquire into the expenditure of the money they had voted which it possessed in other cases. The argument, it is to be observed, implied the abolition of the practice of seeking the permission of the Crown whenever the Royal domain is about to be dealt with by Parliament. From enforcing this extreme demand Parliament has hitherto shrunk, and the present practice reposes on a compromise. Whenever the Ordinary Revenue is about to be dealt with, the royal permission is still sought, but Parliament, under the resolution moved by Dunning in 1780, claims an independent right to inquire into the expenditure of the money given to the Crown in exchange.^[6]

Shelburne concluded his speech on the Civil List with a general account of the degeneracy of Parliament, owing to patronage, borough-hunting, contractors and their contracts, peculation and corruption at home, vacillation and weakness in public matters, and the increased influence of the Crown. The last, he said, would bring the country to slavery, destruction and ruin. Corruption had spread beyond Parliament into the general mass of the community; the nation was composed of buyers and sellers; contracts and inexhaustible influence, derived through these fruitful channels, had done wonders, and had succeeded in cases where bribes, places, and pensions, from insuperable impediments, must have for ever failed; and they not only answered purposes in Parliament, but, from their fertile and happy nature, flowed through twice ten thousand channels. The great contractors had their different contracts; those again were divided and subdivided almost ad infinitum among sub-contractors; and they all found their interest in prolonging a war, by which, though the public might be ruined, they were themselves rendered opulent.^[7] The idea that the measures of the Ministers could be defended by saying that Parliament had called for them signified, he said, "just nothing." Parliament, in the first place, did not represent the nation; even if it did, it could be shown that the nation itself was deluded; and he related a conversation he had had with a Wiltshire farmer, who he said was a just picture of the majority of the people within and without doors. He had asked the farmer what he thought of the American war and the general state of public affairs. The farmer wished for peace with America, but thought the Colonies should be taxed as well as Great Britain. The man was one of the wealthiest farmers in the county of Wilts. Such men, he said, were sometimes sent to Parliament; men of extremely good natural understanding, but who did not trouble themselves much with abstruse researches into politics as a science. If such a man, he argued, was in the Parliament which had addressed the throne, declaring the Colonies in rebellion and pledging itself and the nation to all the consequences of an American war, it was extremely probable that he would reason precisely in the same way, and determine accordingly; he would think that America had as good a right to pay taxes as Britain; he would think, as England had the power, England ought to employ it to enforce what appeared to him to be fair and equitable terms; and when the measures of enforcing obedience to the laws were resisted, and attended with great difficulty in the execution, he would probably wish for peace; but yet be tempted to go on, sooner than forego the attainment of the grand object he had first in view, namely, alleviating his old and new burdens.^[8]

The outspoken language and conduct of Shelburne greatly exasperated both the Whigs and the King. "I have no confidence in Lord Shelburne's professions," the Duke of Portland wrote to Rockingham, and the King habitually spoke of him as "Malagrida" and the "Jesuit of Berkeley Square."^[9] So notorious did this become, that one Dignam having given information of a plot to assassinate the King, and to seize the Tower, thought it worth his while to place the names of Shelburne and Sawbridge, the Lord Mayor of London, at the head of a list of twenty-five persons, whom he denounced. "For a few days it was believed, and the chief accused were watched, and the King was afraid to ride out; but the man being taken up for forging the sale of a place, the plot was found to be his forgery too."^[10] Notwithstanding this exposure, Lord Suffolk, then Secretary of State, declared his story to have been "worthy of attention, plausible, and full of every appearance of truth"; and said in the House of Lords that he would not sit down without once more repeating, that "the conduct of those called the Opposition was detestable; and that though Dignam was an impostor, the Government had other proofs, and those of a nature not to admit a doubt, that the Opposition deserved that public detestation which they were notoriously known to be held in."^[11]

At the moment when the fortunes of the Opposition were at their lowest ebb, it became known that Chatham was once more about to appear upon the scene. On May the 30th he broke his long silence, by moving an address to the Crown to put a stop to hostilities in America. This motion was supported by Shelburne, in a speech which the younger Pitt, who was present as a spectator, declared "one of the most interesting and forcible that he had ever heard, or even could imagine."^[12] The chief features of it seem to have been a restatement of the dangers to be apprehended from foreign powers, and a fierce attack on the Archbishop of York, for having said in a sermon that resistance to the law could not under any circumstances be justified, a proposition against which Shelburne had already protested in his speech on the Civil List. So exasperated was the Archbishop at the attack, that he rose in his place, and declared that he refused to be insulted by even the proudest Lord in that House; whereupon Shelburne again rose, and congratulated the King on having at least removed from the tuition of his son a man who would not allow "the word liberty to be pronounced without a qualification," a taunt which was followed by a scene of great confusion.^[13]

The motion of Chatham was easily defeated, and the Ministry grew more and more elated, when, notwithstanding the assistance which the American army in the field gained from the assistance of Lafayette, Steuben, Kosciusko, and other distinguished foreign volunteers, the battles of Brandywine and Germantown were won, and Philadelphia was captured. It was now hoped in ministerial circles that a final blow would be struck at the rebellion by the success of the expedition which was being led from Canada by Burgoyne.^[14] Burgoyne was to co-operate with Clinton and Howe, but owing to the extraordinary negligence with which the instructions were sent out to the various commanders, and to the natural difficulties which stood in the way of the expedition, this great military operation ended in one of the most memorable disasters which has ever befallen the British arms.^[15] The fatal news had not arrived when Parliament again met on the 18th of November 1777. The tone of the Royal Speech was still all exultation, and an amendment moved to the address by Chatham was rejected by a large majority. Lord Sandwich was especially confident, although it was already practically known that Burgoyne's expedition was, to say the least, a failure. "The noble Earl," said Shelburne, who was in possession of authentic information from the army,^[16] "speaks with great confidence of the expected success of our military operations, but upon what rational foundation I am yet to learn. The issue of Mr. Burgoyne's expedition is too melancholy to be made a subject of conversation; his army, by every appearance, is destroyed; but supposing the contrary, and that not finding it practicable to push forward, he has been so fortunate as to effect a retreat to Ticonderoga, or any of the other posts he left behind him; nay, granting more than the modesty of Administration will permit them even so much as to suggest, that by subsequent successes he has formed a junction with General Clinton, and has reached New York; what end would this answer? At the expense of many millions, and two campaigns, he has reached a place by land which he could without the least trouble or interruption have reached by sea, in almost as many weeks."^[17]

On the 3rd of December Barré called upon Lord George Germaine "to declare upon his honour what was become of General Burgoyne and his troops." Lord North admitted in reply that very disastrous information had reached him from Canada. A fierce outburst against the Ministry followed this statement. Motions were made in both Houses of Parliament for papers. They were however successfully resisted, on the ground that as yet no official information had been received. The Ministers succeeded in adjourning Parliament on the 11th. "They could not meet," said Shelburne, "the force of their opponents' objections. Talk to them about the truth! Like Pilate they waived the question and adjourned the court."^[17] On the 12th the official intelligence of the disaster arrived.

On the receipt of the disastrous news Chatham wrote the following letter to Shelburne:

 

The Earl of Chatham to the Earl of Shelburne.

Hayes, Dec. 18th, 1777.

My Lord,—I cannot, though at dinner-time, suffer your Lordship's servants to return without expressing my humble thanks for the favour of your very obliging and interesting communication. How decisive and how expressive are the ways of Providence! The sentiments and the conduct of the American Colonists, full of nobleness, dignity, and humanity! On the side of the Royalists, native English spirit, not to be extinguished—thank God—by enslaving principles, and peremptory nonsensical orders! When will national blindness fall from our eyes, and the gutta serena be taken off that sight which should behold all with an equal view? If Vaughan has made good his retreat, it is a better fate than I expected; perhaps better than his merciless conduct deserved. I think Howe's situation most critical, Carleton's almost desperate. But more time, which is everything in extreme cases, is perhaps afforded him. I expect that he will use it well, and that firmness and resource will be called forth to save a very valuable Province, absurdly and unjustly distracted and alienated by an ill-understood plan of illiberal Tory principles.

I saw Mr. Walpole here on last Monday, when I learnt all that your Lordship's communication from him contains. I am much obliged for the imparting it, and I beg leave to express the fullest sense of your Lordship's goodness in taking such a trouble.

I rejoice that the Americans have behaved in victory like men who were actuated by principle: not by motives of a less elevated nature. Every hour is big with expectations. Howe's army is besieged, and I expect a disgraceful and ruinous catastrophe to that devoted body of troops: the last remains of the all-conquering forces of Great Britain. If the Undoers of their country ought to be pitied, in any case, my Lord, I may be well entitled to some compassion. I am all gout, but I hold out: going abroad for air. I have not much of the cordial of hope, and trust more to Sir Walter Raleigh than to a higher power, Providence excepted.

The last day in the House of Lords put an end to my hope from the public. I wish I might be permitted to live and die in my village, rather than sacrifice the little remnant I have left of Life to the hopeless labours of controversial speculation in Parliament. If I can avoid it, I mean to come little to Parliament, unless I may be of some service. I know that I cannot alter in the point, and if others who have as good a right to judge cannot either, I had better stay away. I shall thereby do less mischief to the public. I will as soon subscribe to Transubstantiation as to Sovereignty (by right), in the Colonies. Again and again, humble thanks to your Lordship for the favour of your most obliging letter. I am, ever with all respect, your Lordship's most obedient and most humble servant, Chatham.

 

The effect in England however was not so much to cause despondency as to arouse the national spirit. Subscriptions were raised in London and other large towns, and in Scotland, for enlisting troops; Manchester and Liverpool offered to equip two regiments of a thousand men each, at their own expense. These displays of loyalty were of doubtful legality, although the judges came forward to support Mansfield in denying that there was anything unconstitutional in private individuals raising troops by subscription without the consent of Parliament. Against this doctrine the Whig party protested, as well as against the English garrisons of Gibraltar and Minorca being replaced by Hanoverian troops unmentioned in the Army Estimates and Mutiny Act, a proceeding contrary to the provisions of the Bill of Rights, though not absolutely without precedent.^[18] Shelburne denied that Parliament was to pay implicit obedience to the opinions of the judges. "Few questions," he said, "come before this House of which your Lordships are not as competent to decide as the judges. In grand national points I shall never be directed by the opinion of lawyers, nor will I go to Westminster Hall to inquire whether or not the constitution is in danger."^[19] On another occasion, pursuing this topic, he said, that when last in France he had had a conversation with a priest on politics; when the priest declared, that his profession was of all others the best for a statesman; for whenever a priest had endangered the country by political intrigues and had thrown the public concerns into confusion, he had nothing to do but to retire to his church, content himself with the parade of his situation, and lie snug till public matters having taken a different turn, and having recovered their former prosperous condition, it was safe for him again to step forward, and once more become the State pilot. What the priests did in France, the lawyers, Shelburne said, did in England. They did not busy themselves in distributing justice, but with political projects. They turned "State Quixotes," and from motives of vanity and hopes of aggrandizement, indulged themselves with mad schemes, till having nearly ruined the country, they chose a favourable opportunity for escaping from the general confusion, and seeking the shelter of their own courts. With equal bitterness he fell on the clergy of the Established Church. The difficulty of raising supplies being before the House, he said he had no intention to cant, nor did he mean to preach, for that was the office of the clergy; not that his silence was to be taken as implying any agreement with the Bishop of Oxford (Dr. Robert Lowth), who had not given a good answer to the charge which had been made of the bench "being clothed in blood," by preaching up a spirit of unanimity for war; and he went on to tell the Bishop, who had recommended the curtailment of all extravagant expenditure, that he could recommend another resource, which was to lop "those drones of society, the church benefices"; he alluded especially, he said, to the "golden prebends," and those Church officers who, having no parochial connection, lived a life of idleness.^[20]

But though supported by the Law and the Church, and rejoicing in the display of public spirit which the national disasters had evoked, Lord North did not conceal from himself the gravity of the situation. On the 17th of February he introduced two Bills, absolutely renouncing everything for which England had been contending since 1763. The first abandoned the right to impose any tax upon the American Colonies, except for the purpose of regulating trade; the second enabled the King to appoint Commissioners with powers to treat with Congress as a lawful and representative body. A difficulty it was foreseen might arise, should the Americans claim their independence in the outset of the negotiation. Shelburne advised the Ministers to try to avoid a decision, and to treat the question as was done with the preamble of Bills, which are always postponed till the clauses are agreed to.^[21] North accordingly announced that the Commissioners were not to insist on the Americans renouncing independence, till the treaty should receive a final ratification by the King and Parliament of Great Britain. Nor was Shelburne blind to the difficulty of keeping up the taxes imposed for the purpose of regulating trade, of the intense hatred of which in America he had been informed when Secretary of State by Maurice Morgann in 1768. "What has come from the American Congress," he wrote to Price, "opens a new and important field for discussion, by separating regulations of trade from the consideration of a revenue. How far the riches and prosperity of a country need such regulations as we have been accustomed to see enforced by Custom House officers, at a great expense and occasioning great corruption, this is one I conceive of many subjects which must now be decided, however indisposed the Ministry may be for obvious reasons."^[22]

The speech in which North announced his concessions was received with a "dull melancholy silence," and men expected "something more extraordinary and alarming than yet appeared."^[23] Nor had they long to wait; for in a few days it became known that a treaty had been signed between the Court of France and the American Colonies. War with France was now only a question of days. In this critical situation of affairs the unanimous voice of the country demanded that Chatham should take the helm. If peace was to be made with America, he was the statesman best able to obtain advantageous terms; if the war was to be continued, he was the minister most fit to direct it. From all quarters, directly and indirectly, he was imperatively summoned to quit his retreat. Bute, abandoning for a moment the retirement in which he had lived ever since 1763, expressed his opinion that his old antagonist was the man for the situation; Mansfield did the same; Richmond, though believing that it was no longer possible to defer a final separation from the revolted colonies, said, that if Lord Chatham thought it right to adopt a different course, he would be the first to give him every support in his power.^[24]

Unfortunately the other members of the Rockingham connection were unwilling to follow the example of Richmond. By the beginning of February 1778, it had become clear that any co-operation between the two leaders was impossible. "I am as entirely of your Lordship's opinion," writes Shelburne to Chatham, "as to not subscribing to the independence of the Colonies, as any one can be who does not choose to bind his future life in, I am sorry to say it, the desperate state of this country. I am perfectly satisfied, that if the Court gave the subject fair play, and the contrary language was not held by persons out of Government, the object would be still more than attainable to us. But your Lordship may be assured a different opinion gains ground every day; and it fills me with astonishment to meet with persons totally unconnected with each other daily coming over to the acknowledgment of their independence." In almost identical terms he wrote to Dr. Price, who however was not persuaded by his arguments.^[25]

On the 5th of March the American Conciliatory Bills came on for debate in the House of Lords,^[26] when Richmond declared his willingness to consent that the experiment of a treaty with America should be tried, if such was the sense of the House; while Shelburne declared that he hoped never to have to consent to the independence of that country. "The moment," he emphatically said, "that the independence of America is agreed to by our Government, the sun of Great Britain is set, and we shall no longer be a powerful or respectable people." The idea he entertained was that there should be a federal connection between the two countries, which would then have the same friends and the same enemies, with one purse and one sword for common purposes. He then reprobated the idea that the loss of the Colonies could be compensated by a commercial treaty; "for trade and commerce," he said, "between independent states of different interests would not be restrained; they would flow into their natural channels, in spite of every attempt to give them an artificial direction." Under the influence however of the notion held by Adam Smith and the political economists of the time, that the Navigation Act, though wrong from a commercial, was defensible from a political point of view, he then proceeded to adjure the House to hold this distinction in mind and not to give up the Act;^[27] then reverting to the question of American independence he explained that he did not mean that he never would agree to acknowledge it under any circumstances whatever; for circumstances might create a necessity for such an acknowledgment, though they could not justify the folly of an Administration which should reduce him and the nation to so abject a situation; but when the day came on which American independence should be acknowledged, he trusted that House would with one voice call for justice on those who should be the occasion of so fatal a necessity. As to the treaty with France, the existence of which, though still denied by the Government, had been openly stated by Grafton at the beginning of the debate, he said that he was not alarmed by it, if the war with America was instantly terminated; much was to be hoped from the fact of the English and the Americans having the same religion and speaking the same language; their international relations were the same, and their interests were interwoven with one another; besides there were many dispassionate and able men in Congress, who would hesitate in completely severing the connection with the parent state before it was absolutely necessary. But if every means which could now be suggested for restoring them to the empire should prove abortive, the recollection of the condition in which Mr. Pitt found the country in 1757 compared with that in which he left it in 1762 should encourage all men, he said, to hope that under a vigorous administration England might yet exist and flourish, even without a connection with America.

A few days after the debate,^[28] the King received a letter from Lord North expressing a wish to resign, and urging in clear and unmistakable terms the necessity of sending for Chatham. He immediately replied by insisting that North should remain at the head of the Treasury, as his confidential minister; Thurlow was to become Chancellor in the place of Lord Bathurst, Sir Joseph Yorke was to be Secretary of State, and Lord Weymouth Privy Seal. "Upon these conditions," he went on to say, "I am willing, through your channel, to accept any description of persons that will come avowedly to the support of your Administration, and as such do not object to Lord Shelburne and Mr. Barré, whom personally perhaps I dislike as much as Alderman Wilkes; and I cannot give you a stronger proof of my desire to forward your wishes than taking this unpleasant step. But I declare in the strongest and most solemn manner, that though I do not object to your addressing yourself to Lord Chatham, yet that you must acquaint him that I shall never address myself to him, but through you; and on a clear explanation, that he is to step forth to support an Administration, wherein you are First Lord of the Treasury; and that I cannot consent to have any conversation with him till the Ministry is formed; that if he comes into this, I will, as he supports you, receive him with open arms. I leave the whole arrangement to you, provided Lord Suffolk, Lord Weymouth, and my two able lawyers are satisfied as to their situations; but choose Ellis for Secretary at War in preference to Barré, who in that event will get a more lucrative employment, but will not be so near my person. Having said this, I will only add, to put before your eye my most inmost thoughts, that no advantage to this country, nor personal danger to myself, can ever make me address myself to Lord Chatham, or to any other branch of Opposition. Honestly, I would rather lose the Crown I now wear than bear the ignominy of possessing it under their shackles. I might write volumes, if I would state the feelings of my mind; but I have honestly, fairly, and affectionately told you the whole of my mind, and what I will never depart from. Should Lord Chatham wish to see me before he gives an answer, I shall most certainly refuse it. I have had enough of personal negotiation; and neither my dignity nor my feelings will ever let me again submit to it. Men of less principle and honesty than I pretend to, may look on public measures and opinions as a game. I always act from conviction; but I am shocked at the base arts all these men have used, therefore cannot go towards them; if they come to your assistance I will accept them. You have now full power to act, but I do not expect Lord Chatham and his crew will come to your assistance."^[29]

On receiving this letter, North sent Mr. Eden to open negotiations with Shelburne on his behalf. The first person however to whom Eden applied was Fox. The latter, since his separation from North in 1774, had not as yet formally attached himself to any section of the Opposition, and now encouraged Eden to see Shelburne, with whom he was on good terms notwithstanding the suspicion with which he had been brought up to regard him; as for himself, he said, he was "unconnected and at liberty."^[30] Eden then proceeded to see Shelburne. "At a quarter past seven," writes Eden, "I called on Dr. Priestley, who introduced Lord Shelburne to me, and left us." In the conversation which ensued, Shelburne expressed his opinion, that if any arrangement was to be made with the Opposition, "Lord Chatham must be the dictator," and Lord Chatham, he said, thought any change insufficient which did not comprehend and annihilate every party in the Kingdom; that both the Duke of Grafton and Lord Rockingham must be included, though the Treasury would not be given, at least with Lord Chatham's consent, to the latter; that a new law arrangement would have to be made, and Lord Mansfield's influence be put an end to: Lord Gower and Lord George Germaine must certainly be removed. There was to be a meeting of the Opposition, Shelburne added, that same evening, and it was arranged that he and Eden should meet afterwards. The latter was meanwhile to convey his reply to the King.

The Opposition meeting was unable to arrive at any agreement as to terms, for Rockingham and his friends were determined to support the independence of America, while Shelburne, who represented Chatham, would not give way upon that point. If however the propositions of Shelburne were unpalatable to Rockingham, they were still more so in the Royal closet. "His language," the King wrote to North, "is so totally contrary to the only ground on which I could have expected the service of that perfidious man, that I need not enter on it. Lord Chatham as dictator, as planning a new Administration, I appeal to my letters of yesterday if I did not clearly speak out upon. If Lord Chatham agrees to support your Administration (or, if you like the expressions better, the "fundamentals of the present Administration"), with Lord North at the head of the Treasury, Lords Suffolk, Gower and Weymouth in great offices to their own inclination, Lord Sandwich in the Admiralty, Thurlow Chancellor, and Wedderburn as Chief Justice, I will not object to see that great man, when Lord Shelburne and Dunning, with Barré, are placed already in office; but I solemnly declare that nothing shall bring me to treat personally with Lord Chatham. If I saw Lord Chatham, he would insist on as total a change as Lord Shelburne yesterday threw out."^[31]

On the 17th Eden and Shelburne again met. The latter had just made a speech in the House of Lords on the King's message respecting the treaty between France and the Colonies, the tone of which had encouraged Eden to hope that he would find him in a more pliant mood than two days before. This however was not the case; for Shelburne declared that without Lord Chatham any new arrangement would be inefficient and do more harm than good; and that with Lord Chatham an entirely new government and a change in the chief departments of the law was absolutely necessary. Disappointed in his hopes, Eden went away, after stating in the plainest language that the whole idea of Lord Chatham was "narrowness, nonsense, and harshness." They however arranged before separating, that Shelburne should go to Hayes and see Chatham, after which they were to meet again. The result of this interview was that Chatham declined to act upon any terms except those which he had already stated. Shelburne accordingly informed Eden that the time was not yet come for him to take office, and that personally "he found himself much happier in a retired station,"^[32] while Fox, under the influence of Burke, began from this time to gravitate towards the Rockingham connection.

Whether Chatham, had he succeeded to power, would have been able to preserve the connection between England and her Colonies is a question on which the most opposite opinions have been given. There is a natural tendency to argue from the actual result of the war, and to suppose that because England failed in the struggle, the struggle itself could not possibly have had any other result. It has also been said that Chatham himself had never indicated that he had a plan on the subject, and it has been assumed that he therefore had none. It is not however the duty of those who are likely to be called to fill responsible offices under the Crown, to indicate beforehand the details of the means which they think necessary to accomplish the ends they have in view. Chatham had himself declared that it was impossible to conquer America, and from the conversation between Lord Shelburne and Mr. Eden, it would appear that his idea was to withdraw the English troops from all the continent of America except a few strongly fortified and easily held positions on the coast, and then to concentrate all the naval and military resources of his country on the struggle with France. He would have repealed at one stroke all the vexatious legislation which had estranged England from her Colonies, and he would then have trusted to those common ties of race, religion and language, on which Shelburne had insisted, to make it possible to come to terms. The chief difficulty would probably have arisen with reference to commercial legislation. The English Navigation Laws had been practically abolished by the Americans two years previously, when they had thrown open their ports to European commerce. The opinions of Chatham on commercial questions were not in advance of his age, nor was Shelburne at this period altogether prepared to abandon the Navigation Acts. There were however many persons in America besides the professed Loyalists who began to think peace desirable, even at the cost of making some sacrifices; nor would a certain number of commercial restrictions, even had they been insisted upon by England, have proved more burdensome to colonial industry than the depreciated paper currency which the Congress had issued, and the various oppressive measures which with as little success as wisdom they had adopted to keep up its value. "A waggon load of money will now scarcely purchase a waggon load of provisions," Washington wrote at this period.^[33] The two years which followed the battle of Saratoga were curiously enough those in which from a military point of view the fortunes of the American army seemed at their lowest ebb. The troops were ill-armed, ill-paid, and worse clothed; in the Northern provinces no marked success attended their arms; in the Southern provinces they lost ground; the Congress was unable to minister to the wants of the soldiers, and occupied precious time in disputes and selfish recriminations, while the ablest men seemed to prefer service in the State legislatures to sitting in the central Assembly. Under these circumstances it is not impossible that if a ministry with Chatham at the head of it had been formed in England, anxious to conciliate the Colonies, and able at the same time by means of the fleet to make their alliance with France of little avail, a treaty might have been made, leaving to the United Colonies a degree of independence which would have satisfied their immediate demands, and might soon have ripened into that complete liberty which is now practically enjoyed under the Crown by the Canadian Confederation. On the other hand, the wish for liberty when once aroused is the most difficult wish of all to extirpate, and a civil war the most difficult of all wars to end by reconciliation and union. The task of Chatham would in any case have taxed the highest resources of his genius, and it is more than probable that his health and strength would have given way under the effort.

Each party after the failure of Mr. Eden's negotiation went its own way. Lord North remained at the Treasury, while one section of the Opposition attended Parliament to support American independence, and the other to oppose it. Such was the state of affairs when, on the 7th of April, Richmond moved an address to the Crown, praying His Majesty to withdraw his fleets and armies from the Thirteen revolted provinces, and "to effectuate conciliation with them on such terms as might preserve their good will."^[34] The exact words of the motion did not necessarily imply the recognition of American independence. Richmond however informed Shelburne that he intended to support the idea strongly in the course of his speech. "I said everything I could," the latter at once wrote to Chatham, "to dissuade him from this idea, as I see nothing but endless evil and dissension. I am in some doubt about my own conduct in this complicated scene. I have already declared very opposite opinions so distinctly, that no man can suspect me of abandoning them. On the other hand, answering the Duke of Richmond whenever he reasserts them, is in fact doing the business of Ministers, who are abundantly content to look on, hear themselves abused (to which a certainty of indemnity has long rendered them indifferent), and these delicate points otherwise discussed; and as long as I can bring no fresh authority with me, the cause may wear out in such weak hands. Lord Camden seems of opinion that the measure of independence, however wise before, would be useless and disgraceful since the French declaration; but is not sufficiently decided to take a part, unless your lordship's answer, as he knows of my writing, or your opinion conveyed as you may think proper, to which he has an excessive deference, may determine him. The Duke of Grafton may then take the same line."^[35]

It was however found to be impossible to dissuade Richmond, and the debate took its course. Then ensued that memorable scene, when Chatham for the last time came to utter the words of confidence and patriotism, and died in the attempt. "He spoke," says Lord Camden, "but was not like himself; his speech faltered, his sentences broken, and his mind not master of itself. He made shift with difficulty to declare his opinion, but was not able to enforce it by argument. His words were shreds of unconnected eloquence, and flashes of the same fire which he, Prometheus like, had stolen from heaven, and were then returning to the place from whence they were taken. The Duke of Richmond answered him, and I cannot help giving his Grace the commendation he deserves for his candour, courtesy and liberal treatment of his illustrious adversary. Lord Chatham's fit seized him as he was attempting to rise and reply to the Duke of Richmond: he fell back upon his seat and was to all appearance in the agonies of death. This threw the whole House into confusion: every person was upon his legs in a moment, hurrying from one place to another, some sending for assistance, others producing salts, and others reviving spirits; many crowding about the Earl to observe his countenance; all affected, most part really concerned, and even those who might have felt a secret pleasure at the accident, yet put on the appearance of distress, except only the Earl of Mansfield, who sat still almost as much unmoved as the senseless body itself. The debate was adjourned till yesterday, and then the former subject was taken up by Lord Shelburne in a speech of one hour and three-quarters. The Duke of Richmond answered; Shelburne replied: and the Duke who enjoys the privilege of the last word in that House closed the business."^[36] The motion was rejected by a majority of only seventeen.^[37]

Such was the end of the Earl of Chatham, for his political retirement was followed within a month by his death. The King showed little concern at the event. Far different was the verdict of the nation. They recollected that during his Administration "Divine Providence exalted Great Britain to a height of prosperity and glory unknown to any former age,"^[38] and they refused to withhold the "tribute of esteem and veneration"^[39] from his memory. To those indeed who think that a statesman is only another name for a superior clerk, the character of Chatham will be either incomprehensible, or merely seem that of an accomplished rhetorician. Nor are the reasons of this far to seek. His want of early education had deprived him, like Shelburne, of all opportunity of acquiring knowledge of the details of business, nor had he attempted to supply the defects of his own early training, either by himself acquiring a store of positive knowledge, or by gaining associates who could do for him what Price and Dunning were able to do for Shelburne. It would have been impossible for Walpole to describe the latter, as he described Chatham, as asserting during one of the debates of 1770, that Androgeus the Lord Mayor of London had defended the liberties of the city against Julius Cæsar.^[40] Besides his want of acquired knowledge, Chatham laboured under the misfortune of having entered public life at a period when political morality was at a lower ebb than it had been at any time since the reign of Charles II. Base objects were being compassed by base men through still baser means. It was the age of Henry Fox and Bubb Dodington, of Rigby and Lady Yarmouth, of personal politics tempered by public corruption. To all this Chatham personally rose superior, but while despising the example before him, he did not scruple in some measure to follow it, when necessary for his own ends. There was however this difference between his conduct and that of his contemporaries. His ends were invariably noble, and even his impostures were carried out with dignity. He might flatter Lady Yarmouth, but it was not in order to retain the Pay Office; he might come down to the House of Lords, robed like some ancient senator about to die for his country, but he never threw down a dagger on the floor of the House of Commons. Ambition was the lodestar of his life, but it was ambition associated with worthy objects; the reputation of his country abroad, the integrity of her free institutions at home. And precisely in proportion as his countrymen recognized this to be the fact, they forgave the affectation and the mystery, the waywardness and the contradictory conduct, and all the other defects, of which Shelburne in his Autobiography has left too unsparing a record. "You should have been under the wand of the charmer yourself," is said to have been the observation of the younger Pitt, in reply to those who expressed wonder at the enormous power exercised by the eloquence of Fox over the House of Commons. The same observation suggests itself to the student of the career of Chatham. His personality, which his contemporaries alone could properly appreciate, was his strength. Owing to it, from the moment when in the full force of his genius he first rose to speak in the House of Commons, to the day when a weary and broken old man he sank on the floor of the House of Lords, the public confidence never for any considerable period deserted him. He may have talked unhistorical nonsense about Androgeus and Julius Cæsar, but there is no doubt that he delivered the speech about Magna Charta, which remains an eternal monument of the highest eloquence employed on the noblest subjects.^[41] He possessed the rare quality of transfusing others with his own enthusiasm, and making himself the incarnation of the public hopes and fears. He believed that he alone could save the nation, and the nation thought so too. No man could so readily grasp the chief features of a difficult situation, or so easily lay down the main lines of the necessary measures. Possessed of these qualities and partly in consequence of them, he looked down from the lofty height of his own contempt on the politicians of the day. They were the vile instruments whom he might require to use, but he would throw them aside whenever he chose, for there were plenty of others as good as they. His statue in Westminster Abbey seems to denounce the vain attempts of the effigy of one of the Dukes of Newcastle, who lies opposite, to rise to heaven. The attitude of the lifeless statue represents that of the living statesman to the Newcastle of his own time and to all the followers and successors of the Pelhams. He did not sufficiently recognize that as he grew old, and partly as the result of his own example, a purer race of political men was growing up. He made no friends, he had no intimate companions, he lived apart and alone. Even Shelburne, of whom he evidently had a better opinion than of most of his contemporaries, was never admitted to his real confidence. Their correspondence nearly always shows Shelburne addressing his chief like some doubtful worshipper at the shrine of a god, whose oracular utterances are as likely to prove his destruction as his salvation. Such was Chatham, the inspired statesman, and the most commanding figure of English History during the eighteenth century. The small band of statesmen which in his declining days still recognized him as their chief, and now followed him to the grave, chose Shelburne as his successor at this perilous conjuncture.^[42]

It was the opinion of Walpole that Lord Temple practically died on the same day as his brother-in-law.^[43] Nor was the actual event long delayed. While driving in the park at Stowe, this once celebrated statesman, "the ignis fatuus of a brighter epoch,"^[44] was thrown out of a chaise on a heap of bricks, fractured his skull and died. He had once been a leader, but had not a single follower at the moment of his decease, and after throwing away three separate opportunities of ruling the nation, lived to see it forget his existence. Shelburne, who both as a neighbour and a statesman had frequent opportunities of studying his character, has left the following account of the celebrated owner of Stowe.

 

"Lord Temple

"Lord Temple was one of those characters that it is impossible to draw without antithesis. Pride was his ruling passion, which even his best friends must allow often drew him into insolence, and gave him a degree of presumption which his talents, though by no means inferior, did not justify. He scorned to owe anything to the reflected lustre of another, even of his brotherin-law, as appeared first in the business of the garter, and since in every political negotiation they were engaged in.^[45] From his dependants and the other branches of his family, he expected a degree of deference to his opinions and inclinations, which was not consistent with their interest or their dignity; and occasioned the breach with his brother Mr. Grenville, whose abilities deservedly carried him to the first situation. At the same time he seldom made any sacrifices to their objects, or entitled himself to their affections by acts of kindness or generosity. Yet with all this pride he was one of the most affable of men. He was easy of access and caressing to his inferiors. His society was cheerful and débonnaire even to boyishness, and he would bear almost anything to be said to him by those who lived with him. He was magnificent in his buildings and loved ostentation, which his great income, seldom diminished by instances of free bounty and not a little increased by constant parsimony, enabled him to indulge in rendering Stowe one of the finest private palaces in Europe. But in his buildings and gardens may be always seen an attention to economy, that disgraced his splendour and marked his character. Whenever he gave, it was either at the earnest solicitation of those whom he could not refuse, or to gain some object to his vanity or ambition. He knew nothing of the pleasure of giving. His temper was easy and pleasant in his own house, and his domestics did with him just what they pleased; that is, served him as ill as possible, which he never discovered. Yet whoever has heard him in parliament or in his closet upon political subjects, knows that the rancour and violence of his mind were almost incapable of bounds during the fit of passion, which however was not often durable, at least to one object; for he forgave easily; and friendship was often the consequence of his resentment. With all this, he had great strength and firmness of mind, was above all temptations of interest in his public conduct, and boasted that he was the only man the King had never duped. His opinions upon that subject were steady and uniform, as was his opposition from the time he left office. He had an unaffected and ardent zeal for what he thought the interest of his country, and to that he would have been capable of making any sacrifice. It was from that consideration he broke with Lord Chatham, who he thought betrayed Great Britain to America in the contest about the Stamp Act, and reconciled himself to his brother Mr. Grenville; not from caprice but from conviction, and by the same opinions he abided to the hour of his death. He entertained a most sovereign contempt for the Royal closet without any exception, which he never wished to conceal, even at his table, and carried it to the exulting publicly over every instance of humiliation that the times have brought upon the Crown. This alone was his connection with Wilkes and with the City, which however had been long discontinued when he died. When his brother died, whom he lamented as sincerely as if he had never hated him, he saw there was no further prospect for his ambition, and his conduct for the last years of his life had as much dignity in it in his retirement as it had been before marked with faction and intemperance in the heat of his career. His understanding, if not equal to the first-rate, was at the head of the second; more solid than brilliant. He was not easily deceived by specious argument, and his experience had taught him a knowledge of mankind that made it difficult to impose upon him. Though he read little, he was not incapable of application, but he could not have continued it in business. His eloquence, if it deserves that name, consisted more in the strength and vehemence of his attack, and the saying boldly whatever others would have had the most management about, than in graceful and elegant language, or copious declamation. In politics he pursued his game with the eagerness of a fox-chase and the wantonness of a schoolboy, and to the last could receive no entertainment at Stowe, but from a pamphlet, newspaper, or a plan upon the table. He was never remarkable for the tender passion, though his youth had not been averse to gallantry and his old age delighted in playing with young women, but he always considered it as an amusement, not a serious occupation. His Countess, who had many amiable qualities (not the least of which in his opinion was the great fortune she brought him), had not the advantage of person when young, and had been long an object of disgust.^[46] He always treated her opinions with more impatience and contempt than she deserved, and did not seem to find the least resource in her conversation. Yet when she died he was inconsolable. His health manifestly declined daily, and all his gaiety forsook him. Was it a tender recollection of the constant devotion she had always shewn him, or the feeling himself abandoned by the last old friend that remained to him, or the presentiment of his approaching end which so many recent warnings could not but bring forward to his own feelings, or was it perhaps to all these complicated sentiments together that we are to attribute the effect?"

 

The death of Chatham for the time secured North in power, and the tendencies of the Ministry were clearly indicated by the appointment of Jenkinson,once the Secretary of Bute and since the leader of the party known as the "King's Friends" in the House of Commons, to the post of Secretary at War in succession to Lord Barrington on December the 16th, 1778. The followers of Shelburne were not strong enough to form a government by themselves, and refused to coalesce with the Ministers. The followers of Rockingham were committed to the independence of America, and were unwilling to join the other section of the Whig party. "I am ready and desirous to act in concert with them," writes Lord John Cavendish to Rockingham with reference to some overtures made by the Court in June, "but I am strongly and clearly against dividing the bear's skin."^[47] The condition of the Opposition was a source of unmingled satisfaction to the King. He summoned Thurlow to the Upper House in order to strengthen the debating power of the Ministry, and made him Chancellor in the place of Lord Bathurst. At the same time Lord North was created Warden of the Cinque Ports, his official emoluments being thereby raised to £12,000 a year. "There was no danger under the circumstances," said Shelburne, "of the breed of the true Court spaniel becoming extinct."^[48]

The new Warden of the Cinque Ports was fortunate in being the holder of what was become only an honorary office in regard to the defence of the coast; for the year which followed the death of Chatham saw one long succession of disasters to the English arms, especially at sea. Howe found himself without warning suddenly confronted by a superior French fleet in the West Indies; Keppel was in the same position in the Channel. Only the skill of the commanders saved their fleets from destruction. Keppel was tried by court-martial, but the charges against him were pronounced malicious and ill-founded. The decision was looked upon as a party victory, for Keppel belonged to the Opposition. During the trial the leaders of the Rockingham Whigs established themselves at Portsmouth, in order to show their sympathy with Keppel. Shelburne sarcastically proposed that an Act of Parliament should pass to hold Parliament on board ship, and Charles Fox being told by one of the Cavendishes that their friends at Portsmouth were finely warm, replied, "Then I will go thither: I want to see what their warmth is; I have never seen any in them."^[49]

"During these various, unhappy, and serious occurrences," says the Duke of Grafton, "Lord North was well known by his friends, and indeed by some of us, to be very uneasy in his situation and at intervals very anxious to quit it. Two applications came to myself from His Majesty, and as I understood with Lord North's knowledge and assent; but as one proposed only a desire to admit Lord Camden and myself, into such offices as should please us best, this overture took but little time in consideration, though it showed how ill-informed they were of our manner of thinking and acting. The second proposition being conveyed through Lord Hertford, and with an intimation at the same time to me, that Lord North was very willing to make room, and give facility in forming a new arrangement without him, the application called for further attention. I saw in the evening at Lord Gower's by appointment the Lord Chancellor and Lord Weymouth. The latter Lord took the principal part. It was confirmed by his Lordship, that Lord North both knew and approved of this meeting; that we might discuss the business as if he was already out of office, and that Lords Camden and Shelburne would find greater facility in His Majesty towards forming an Administration than they would expect. I only replied, that as His Majesty allowed me to consult both Lords Shelburne and Camden, I should be unwilling to risk an answer on a point so important without the sanction of their concurrence. I found them waiting for my return from the meeting; and we sent an answer that very evening Feb. 3, 1779, in these precise words to Lord Weymouth, as they had been drawn up jointly by Lords Camden, Shelburne and myself:—

"'That it is impossible to give an answer to Lord Weymouth, till such time as a proper application can be made to Lord Rockingham and the Duke of Richmond, to know their sentiments.'

"On hearing nothing further from Ministers we concluded that the answer of us three had closed the business, by which it was apparent that the Court were not yet disposed to trust the reins of Government into the hands of the whole Opposition, or to adopt a change of system and of measures. We derived however one essential advantage from the opportunity it gave of showing to Lord Rockingham, the Cavendishes, Mr. Fox, and their principal friends that we would not stir except in conjunction with them. This circumstance cemented the Opposition into a more solid body, and furnished the means that Lord Camden and I improved, by persuading Lord Shelburne not to contest with Lord Rockingham the Treasury, in case a new Administration was to be formed. Lord Shelburne yielded the point with a better grace than I had expected, and it must be considered as of consequence, since nothing could be more generally circulated by the Ministerial party or more universally credited than the impossibility of such a compliance ever existing between the Leaders of Opposition."^[50]

The proposals of the Commissioners appointed under the second of Lord North's Conciliatory Bills were summarily rejected by Congress. Before leaving America they issued a Proclamation which contained threats of carrying on the war in future with the utmost severity. The Proclamation was said to have received the approval of Mansfield, against whom it had been an article of accusation in former years that when prosecuting the rebels of 1745 he never applied the epithet rebels or any other harsh epithets to them.^[51] This charge he did not attempt at the time to deny, for he said that he had the honour to serve a benign prince and prosecute on behalf of a great and merciful people, and that to obtain Lord Coke's fortune he would not have used the expressions which Lord Coke had used against Sir Walter Raleigh. Shelburne now said that he regretted that Lord Mansfield had not retained the benignant ideas and benevolent disposition of Sir William Murray.^[52]

The attacks of Fox, Burke, Barré and Thomas Townshend in the House of Commons were equally vigorous. Upon one of these debates, in which Barré was conspicuous, Garrick, the intimate friend of many members of the Opposition, wrote the following lines, specially addressed to Mr. Baldwin, member for Shropshire, who had complained of his being admitted under the gallery, and having said that "he gloried in his situation":—

 

"Squire Baldwin rose with deep intent,
And notified to Parliament,
That I (it was a shame, a sin),
When others were shut out, got in;
Asserting in his wise oration,
'I gloried in my situation.'
Perhaps my features might betray,
Unusual joy I felt that day.
I glory when my mind is feasted
With dainties it has seldom tasted;
When reason chooses Fox's tongue
To be more rapid, clear, and strong.
When, from his classic urn, Burke pours
A copious stream thro' beds of flowers:
When Thurlow's words attention find,
The spells of a superior mind.
When Barré, stern with accents deep,
Calls up Lord North and murders sleep;
And if his Lordship rise to speak
Then wit and argument awake.
Now whether I am Whig or Tory
This was a time for me to glory;
My glory further still extends,
For most of these I call my friends;
But if Squire Baldwin, you were hurt,
To see me as you thought so pert,
You might, to punish my transgression,
Have dumbed my triumph of expression,
Have changed my looks of joy and gladness
To dull, desponding, sober sadness.
A beast there is whose voice confounds
And frights all others with strange sounds:
Like him your matchless powers displaying,
Had you, Squire Baldwin, set a braying,
I should have lost all exultation,
Nor gloried in my situation."

 

Notwithstanding the eloquence which so affected Garrick, Barré was about this time the subject of a laughable incident. During the recess, Richard Tickell had published an amusing pamphlet entitled Anticipations of the coming Session, in which he took off the peculiarities of the chief speakers in Parliament, with much humour and exactitude; amongst others the habit, in which the Colonel indulged, of quoting Latin and French, and then translating for the benefit of his more uneducated hearers. Every one had read the pamphlet, except Barré, who had been in the country, and only arrived in the town just before the opening of Parliament. He rose to speak early in the Debate on the Address, and at once betrayed the foible which Tickell had ridiculed. At every new instance the House laughed and laughed again. Barré was of course completely unable to understand the joke, and vainly sought an explanation, which naturally only served to increase the merriment at his expense.^[53]

The inferiority of England on the element where hitherto she had reigned supreme, encouraged Spain to put an end to her hesitations, and once more to throw in her lot with France, after offering her mediation on terms which England could not accept. In the debate which followed the issue of the Spanish manifesto on the 16th of June, Shelburne plainly declared that it was the incapacity of the Ministers, and especially of Lord George Germaine and Lord Sandwich, which had added the Court of Madrid to the number of the enemies of England; and he acknowledged that the state and condition of affairs was thereby much changed since the time when he had last given his views respecting the proper conduct to be pursued with regard to America. From this time forward though not abandoning the idea that a connection between the Mother Country and the Colonies might still be preserved, he acknowledged that it could only be through negotiations, preceded by the complete withdrawal of English troops from the Colonies.^[54]

The Spanish fleet joined the French Channel squadron, and the English Admiralty could only muster thirty-six ships-of-the-line under Sir Charles Hardy, to meet the combined forces of the enemy. An invasion was hourly expected. The Standing Orders of both Houses were suspended, amidst the protests of the Opposition, in order to hurry through a measure suspending all exceptions from impressment. A camp was formed on Cox Heath, and a large force was assembled, but the gloomiest anticipations were prevalent, for the fleet was weak, and little reliance was placed on the land forces.

"If the enemy," Barré wrote to Shelburne, "should, even after a sort of drawn battle with our fleet, land anywhere in England in great force, I think the King will not risk a battle, marching as General at the head of his Army, and meaning in some shape or other to measure himself with M. De Vaux, or to save his Kingdom by a well-judged and obstinate defence. I am apprehensive that something like an underhand Armistice will steal upon us, the real business be taken out of military hands, and such men as Mr. Stanley and Lord Mountstuart be employed to remove the French Army out of the Island. Such a conduct appears to me natural to the Court, and I fear the Country would be glad to get rid of the horrors of War at any rate.

"If the French are wise, all their objects, after landing, may be attained in a short time, especially that greatest of all, the making a Peace, sword in hand and upon English ground. In the above supposed posture of public affairs, if Opposition should content itself with whiling away their time in the country till our wretched Parliament meets, not knowing what to wish for or what to do, and above all, leaving it to this Administration to get us out of that storm which in truth they have raised themselves; then we are in my opinion a completely ruined people.—The country will have nobody to look up to. Opposition will in fact be more contemptible and full as criminal as Administration; any peace will be accepted of, without ever considering that the day on which we submit to disgraceful terms we in fact sign our own annihilation. The nation, God knows, is base enough; yet surely there is a great deal of manly though scattered and divided spirit amongst us. Let it be called forth.

"Opposition should in my opinion assemble immediately in London, establish a correspondence by express everywhere along the coast, try every method to draw the attention of the public, give themselves as much as possible the air (though out of office) of Roman Consuls who were to take care Ne quid detrimenti Respublica capiat; they should watch events, seize favourable moments, and perhaps catching the crisis when the balance of England stands trembling on its beam, by some bold and daring measure, stun the Court, awake the People, and then take the reins of Government into their own hands.

"It may be said in defence of the doctrine 'That we should let them who brought us into this situation get us out of it,' that should they make a dishonourable peace, the country will not bear it, and the consequence will be the overturn of the present Administration and the ruin of the system. The former is not a very great object, unless the latter is the absolute consequence. But I doubt both. Corruption and cowardice will be probably for the present very effectual protectors.

"We are rather a vain-glorious talking people, but our bottom has been great and our name high. We may skulk under a veil however thin from the great cause of defending our country; but when means are held out, when men of great rank, character and property call upon us loudly and publicly to unite and save the kingdom, we have no excuse, we can't give the lie to all our boastings. No, the measure itself will make us brave."^[55]

Fortunately the approach of the stormy season and the outbreak of disease on board the crowded ships of the enemy saved England from a greater danger than any which she had run since the days of Beachy Head. The Prime Minister when Parliament met was able to say that the immense armaments of the enemy had paraded to no purpose, and that their millions had been spent in vain. But while using the language of confidence, North was himself despairing of final success, and he was deserted by two of his ablest colleagues, Gower and Weymouth, both of whom refused to endeavour to preserve a system any longer which they foresaw must end in ruin. About the same time Lord Suffolk died. The vacant places were filled by Lord Bathurst, who became President of the Council, while the Seals were given to Hillsborough and Stormont. The war was to go on. It was the wish of the King. North obeyed, and the victory gained by Admiral Rodney off Cape St. Vincent came to encourage him to persevere in his arduous and thankless task.

 

1. Autobiography of Grafton, 283-284.
2. Parliamentary History, xviii. 1385-1391. The treaties with the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel and the Duke of Brunswick for the "cession of a body of troops" will be found in the Parliamentary History, xviii. 1156-1167.
3. Walpole, Journals, ii. 94.
4. Parliamentary History, xix. 181.
5. Walpole, Journals, ii. 376.
6. See on this subject Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, ed. 1893, 424.
7. Parliamentary History, xix. 183, 185.
8. Ibid. xix. 500.
9. Rockingham Memoirs, ii. 320. George III. to Lord North, in Lord Brougham, Statesmen of the Reign of George III., i. 108, 109.
10. Walpole, Journals, ii. 104.
11. Parliamentary History, xix. 180.
12. Chatham Correspondence, iv. 438.
13. Parliamentary History, xix. 344-350. Dr. Markham had just been appointed Archbishop of York in succession to Archbishop Drummond. He held the see till 1807.
14. "The arrangements for this campaign have been made in England: even the disposition for posting the small corps that is to remain in the Province. It appears to be the attempt of a man who wishes to be thought a great military genius capable of commanding an army at 3000 miles distance; but his attempt here has succeeded so ill, that it exposes him to the ridicule of the subalterns of the army."—Sir Guy Carleton, from St. John's, to Lord Shelburne, January 13th, 1777. "Ticonderoga, the only acquisition made by the British arms on this side the continent, is on the point of being abandoned. Thus ends the campaign of '77, and with it I hope Lord George's pretensions to military power and greatness."—The same to the same, November 6th, 1777.
15. See The Character of Lord George Germaine, by Lord Shelburne, i. 236-251, and the Reports of the Historical MSS. Commission, "Various Collections," vi. 277: "Memorandum by William Knox, Under Secretary in the Colonial Office." See also Historical Review, April 1910, xxv. 315.
16. Shelburne to Price, August 4th, 1776, September 24th, 1777. Carleton to Shelburne, August, September 1777.
17. Parliamentary History, xix. 614.
18. Parliamentary History, xix. 617, 684, 758-996.
19. Parliamentary History, xix. 627.
20. Ibid. xix. 924-925.
21. Walpole, Journals, ii. 182.
22. Shelburne to Price, 1776.
23. Annual Register, 1778.
24. See Lord Stanhope, History of England, vi. 319-321. Lord Mahon to Lord Chatham, February 11th, 1778.
25. Shelburne to Chatham, December 23rd, 1777; Shelburne to Price, December 23rd, 1777.
26. Parliamentary History, xix. 850-856.
27. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, iv. 2. See too Blanqui, Histoire de l'Économie Politique, ii. 29.
28. March 14th, 1778.
29. The King to Lord North, March 15th, 1778. The full text of the letter is given in Lord Stanhope's History of England, vi., Appendix lviii. (ed. 1862), where the rest of the correspondence will be found also.
30. Memorials of C. J. Fox, i. 180. Walpole, Journals, i. 4. Massey, History of England, ii. 301.
31. The King to Lord North, March 16th, 1778.
32. Memorials of Fox, i. 180-187.
33. Washington to Laurent, April 23rd, 1779.
34. Parliamentary History, xix. 1012.
35. Shelburne to Chatham, March 22nd, 1778.
36. Lord Camden to the Duke of Grafton, in the Autobiography of the latter.
37. Parliamentary History, xix. 1012-1059.
38. The words of the inscription on the monument in Westminster Abbey.
39. The words of the inscription on the monument in the Guildhall.
40. Walpole, Memoirs of the Reign of George III., iv. 122.
41. Speech of January 9th, 1770, on the case of Wilkes, in reply to Lord Mansfield.
42. A motion made by Shelburne on May the 13th that the House of Lords should attend Chatham's funeral in Westminster Abbey was lost by a single vote (Parliamentary History, xix. 1233-1234). Shelburne was one of the eight Peers who acted as Assistant Mourners. Colonel Barré bore the banner of the Barony of Chatham.
43. Walpole, Correspondence, vii. 253.
44. Ibid. vii. 251.
45. In 1759 Lord Temple had actually resigned the Privy Seal because the King declined to give him the Garter at once. He was with difficulty persuaded to withdraw his resignation and obtained the Garter in 1760.
46. Anne Chambers, of Hanworth, Middlesex.
47. Memoirs of Rockingham, ii. 354-355.
48. Parliamentary History, xix. 1267.
49. Rockingham Memoirs, ii. 869. Walpole, Journals, ii. 331.
50. Autobiography of the Duke of Grafton, 307.
51. See Vol. I. p. 68.
52. Parliamentary History, xx, 34, 35.
53. Moore's Journals, iv. 34.
54. Parliamentary History, xx. 885.
55. Barré to Shelburne, 1779.