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

by Edmond George Petty-Fitzmaurice

 

CHAPTER II

 

LORD SHELBURNE AND LORD NORTH

 

1779–1780

 

In 1778 Lord Shelburne had been engaged to be married to Miss Molesworth, but the engagement was broken off. "Your divine Miss Molesworth," Miss Elliot wrote to her brother Hugh Elliot then at Berlin, and once the admirer of the lady, "has surprised the world by breaking off from Lord Shelburne. She dined at his house and sat at the head of the table and was seen to cry all dinnertime. Her aunt, when she came home, asked her what was the matter. She made no answer, but ran upstairs to her own room, and sent Lady Lucan a letter to tell her she found she had an antipathy to Lord Shelburne, and begged she would break off the detested match; which was accordingly done, by showing his Lordship the letter. He was angry, as you will believe, to lose 40,000l. and so pretty a wife, but put a good face upon it, and said it was proper the ladies should settle those matters."^[1] However the following year a lady was found more faithful than Miss Molesworth. "I am delighted," Walpole wrote on the 16th of June to Lady Ossory, the sister-in-law of the future Lady Shelburne,^[2] "with the confirmation of Lady Louisa Fitzpatrick's match. My acquaintance with Lord Shelburne is very slight; but two essential points are Gospel, that he is a man of sense, and that he made an excellent husband to a wife far inferior to Lady Louisa in beauty. There is a third, which, though negative, I reckon a capital merit at present: he is not a gamester." By his marriage, Shelburne became brother-in-law to Richard Fitzpatrick the wit, and a connection of Charles Fox, whose brother Stephen, Lord Holland, had married Lady Mary, sister of Lady Louisa Fitzpatrick.

Owing to this family alliance, followed by the political negotiations detailed in the previous chapter, the Opposition by the end of 1779 was once more a united party. "Their principles," said Shelburne, "were the same; their future rule of conduct was to be correspondent; whatever different opinions they might have held, they no longer interfered with their general plan; they were confidentially and fully united in the great leading principle of new men and new measures; if the salvation of the country was to be effected, it was only by those means; if the country was to be saved from ruin, it could only be by a change of system."^[3] There was indeed hardly any department of public policy which did not urgently call for attention. The organization of the Army, the administration of the Fleet, the overgrown influence of the Crown in Parliament, were all crying grievances. But first and foremost stood the condition of Ireland.

Ever since the struggle on the Army Bill in 1768, there had been but little alteration in the condition of the sister kingdom. Lord Townshend soon found that it was impossible in practice to manage the Irish Parliament without corruption, and although a certain change resulted from the struggle on the Augmentation Bill^[4] in the composition of the party which represented the interests of the Castle, that party was none the less guided by self-interest, and was only kept together by rewards and pensions. Lord Shannon with his friends hovered between the Patriots and the Castle, anxious to flatter the Patriots, yet determined to thwart every scheme of reform, if the opportunity offered, and ready to return to his old allegiance, if he could at the same time secure his ancient power and patronage. Meanwhile the commercial grievances and religious inequalities of Ireland remained unredressed. The only encouraging circumstance was the steady increase within the walls of Parliament of the small number of men who could be patriotic without being factious, and were too pure-minded to sell their country for a pension, or abandon her cause for a place.

How long this state of affairs might have continued but for the American War it is difficult to say. It lasted through the remainder of the Lord-Lieutenancy of Townshend, and through that of his successor Lord Harcourt. In some respects a change was even made for the worse, for in defiance of the arrangement by which the woollen trade of Ireland had been sacrificed to that of England, heavy import duties were laid in England upon Irish linens, with the immediate effect of depressing the one remaining Irish manufacture. An immense emigration at once began from Ulster to America, and in the ranks of the American army were found ranged many of those who by race and religion ought to have been the best friends of England in Ireland.^[5] A Bill to enable the King's subjects of whatever persuasion to testify their allegiance upon oath, served only to remind the Catholics of the other and graver disabilities under which they laboured.^[6]

The war with America by closing the American market to Irish linens still further increased the distress in the North. The condition of the South of the island was even worse. An embargo laid upon the export of provisions sent down the value of cattle and wool, and of land; rents were everywhere in arrear; the taxes could not be collected; the Budget showed a constant deficit; the funded and the unfunded debt went on increasing; public credit was destroyed. Meanwhile French and American privateers rode unmolested off the coast. An invasion was looked for, but neither a fleet nor an army existed to resist the enemy. It was necessary to do something, but difficult to do much, for George III. told his advisers that "experience had convinced him that England gained nothing by granting indulgence to her dependencies."^[7]

"Look upon the map," Shelburne wrote to Price, "and you'll see a little Isle called Valentia in the South Western corner of the Old World. Opposite to this I have been this fortnight, where I found the land in a state of nature, the people worse: the result of poverty, and the Popery laws, which are subversive of all morality, public or private confidence and industry. I found these poor people under a degree of oppression scarcely conceivable. The head tenants have no idea of drawing their subsistence from cultivating the ground, but from racking the poor people, which goes sometimes four or five deep, till you find the real occupier very little removed from the brute creation, in appearance, food, dress, or state of mind. They have refined to such a degree upon this system, that I found a considerable tenant letting his land in ounces,^[8] a new measure containing I suppose half a rood. The clergy are the worst landlords of all, and what mortifies me, is that they shall demand tythe the very first year upon land which I give amongst the poor rent free for twenty years.

"I find all classes in this kingdom much more animated about America than in England. In every Protestant or Dissenters' house the established toast is success to the Americans. Among the Roman Catholics they not only talk but act very freely on the other side. They have in different parts entered into associations, and subscribed largely to levy men against America, avowing their dislike of a Constitution here or in America, of which they are not allowed to participate. On the other hand the Parliament pretend to no will but that of the Ministers."^[9]

The King however could not silence the voice of the English Parliament, and during the session of 1778 Irish affairs were more than once brought before the House of Commons. On the 7th of April 1778, Lord Nugent moved a series of resolutions to the effect that goods and merchandise, with the exception of wool and woollen manufactures, should be permitted to be exported directly from Ireland to any of the plantations and settlements of Great Britain, that similarly colonial produce should be allowed to be imported into Ireland, that the duties on cotton yarn of Irish manufacture should be repealed, and the prohibition of the exportation of glass removed. The resolutions were carried. Thereupon a fierce opposition arose from all the great English trading towns, and the Ministry in consternation, notwithstanding the support of Burke, withdrew their countenance from the measure. By the time however that the Bills founded on the resolutions became law, they had been reduced to a bare allowance of a free export of all Irish produce, always excepting the most important item of all: woollens. The discontent in Ireland at once assumed alarming dimensions.

North hoped to conjure the storm by removing some of the Catholic disabilities. The opportunity seemed favourable. On the motion of Sir George Savile seconded by Dunning, a Bill had just passed the English Parliament to relieve the Roman Catholics. Priests and Jesuits were relieved from the frightful penalties which attached to officiating in the services of their Church. Popish heirs educated abroad were no longer to forfeit their estates, nor were Protestant heirs to be able to oust Catholic owners otherwise legally entitled, and Catholics were to be no longer forbidden from acquiring legal property by means other than descent. "These prohibitions," said Dunning, "ought only to be mentioned in order to excite indignation, for they placed Roman Catholics at the mercy of informers, the lowest and basest of mankind."^[10] Shelburne, in supporting the measure in the House of Lords, adverted to the case of a Mr. Molony, who had been apprehended and brought to trial by a well-known informer in London, and, on conviction of being a Popish priest, had been condemned to perpetual imprisonment. The sentence, he added, would have been executed, had not he himself, as Secretary of State, advised the King to grant a pardon.^[11] A similar measure was now passed through the Irish Parliament,^[12] and measures were at the same time taken to put the country in some state of defence by passing a Militia Bill and making a loan to the Irish Government. These tardy measures however gave neither satisfaction nor security, and armed and well-organized bodies of volunteers began to assemble without the sanction of the Government, nominally to protect the country: in reality to obtain a redress of grievances. These associations, Shelburne told the House of Lords, would only be dissolved when it was known that the English Parliament intended to grant real relief.^[13] A practical proof of their necessity as against the enemy was shortly given; the towns of Belfast and Carrickfergus having applied to the Government for garrisons, were told that only sixty troopers could be spared from Dublin.

On the 11th of May 1779, Rockingham brought forward a resolution asking for papers, and condemning the Administration for their neglect of the affairs of Ireland. On the motion of Gower, whom Shelburne supported, that portion of the resolution which censured the Government was omitted, in order to give time for the development of their policy.^[14] For his conduct on this occasion, Shelburne was loudly accused by many persons in Ireland of having betrayed their cause; an opinion which was also conveyed to him by more than one anonymous correspondent. Nothing was however done by the Government, and not long after the debate on Rockingham's motion, North himself took the opportunity of declaring, that it was out of his power to form a plan for the relief of Ireland; that next session he would lay the necessary accounts before Parliament, and leave the business to them, expressing at the same time some doubts as to the real existence of the wrongs of Ireland. Incensed at this language, and at the neglect of the Government, Shelburne on the 2nd of June moved—

 

That this House do present an humble Address to his Majesty, requesting that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to order to be laid before this House, "an account of such steps as have been taken in consequence of the Address of this House of the nth of May, and of his Majesty's most gracious Answer thereto;" and humbly to recommend to his Majesty, if his royal prerogative, as vested in his Majesty by the constitution, be not adequate to the relief of the acknowledged, distressed, and impoverished state of his Majesty's loyal and well-deserving subjects of Ireland, that he would be pleased to continue the parliament of this Kingdom as now assembled, and give immediate orders for calling forthwith his parliament of Ireland, that their just complaints may be fully considered and remedied without delay; that the wonted union of affection may be preserved between both Kingdoms, always desirable, but in the present position of public affairs absolutely essential and indispensable to the preservation and welfare of both; and that the united strength of Great Britain and Ireland may in due time, and with due effect, be exerted, under the blessing of God, against the common enemy.

 

In the course of his speech he declared that the American War had commenced on less provocation than this country had given Ireland. The resolution, though supported by the whole Opposition, was rejected by a large majority.^[15]

In October the Irish Parliament met. Among the members was Henry Grattan, who had first been elected in 1775 as member for Charlemont, and now rapidly assumed a leading position. On the 12th of October, through his instrumentality, an amendment to the Address was carried in the following words: "That it is not by temporary expedients, but by a free trade alone, that this nation is now to be saved from impending ruin." Non-importation agreements, after the American fashion, began to be made, and the volunteer movement assumed gigantic proportions.^[16] In England the Opposition, who, it has been seen, had closed their ranks, began an equally vigorous campaign.

On the 1st of December Shelburne again called attention to the affairs of Ireland, and moved a vote of censure upon the Administration. He began by painting the consequences of their neglect. "Ireland," he said, "now disclaimed any connection with Great Britain; and put herself into a condition of defence against her foreign enemies. Oppressed by England, and at length reduced to a state of calamity and distress, experienced by no other country that ever existed unless visited by war or famine, and perceiving that all prospect of justice or relief was in a manner closed, and that she must perish or work out her own salvation, she united as one man to rescue herself from that approaching destruction which seemed to await her. The people had armed themselves, and the numbers armed had increased to upwards of 40,000 men, and were daily augmenting. This most formidable body was not composed of mercenaries, who had little or no interest in the issue, but of the nobility, gentry, merchants, citizens, and respectable yeomanry: men able and willing to devote their time and part of their property to the security of their country. The Government had abdicated, and the people had resumed the powers vested in it; and in so doing were fully authorised by every principle of the constitution, and every motive of self-preservation."

To prove that these were the declared and real sentiments of the whole Irish nation, Shelburne declared he would not dwell upon the resolutions of county and town meetings, or upon the language of the Associations, or upon the general prevalent spirit of all descriptions of men and of all religions: matters of this kind, however true or manifest, were subjects which might admit of controversy. He would solely confine himself to a passage contained in a State paper; he meant the Address of both Houses of the Irish Parliament, declaring that nothing but granting the Kingdom "a free trade" could save it from certain ruin. "Here was the united voice of the country, conveyed through its proper constitutional organs, both Houses of Parliament, to his Majesty, against which there was but one dissenting voice in the Houses,^[17] and not a second, he believed, in the whole Kingdom. Church of England men and Roman Catholics, dissenters and sectaries of all denominations; Whigs and Tories; placemen, pensioners, and country gentlemen; Englishmen by birth; in short, every man in and out of the House, except the single instance mentioned, had all united in a single opinion, that nothing would relieve the country short of a free trade." He however pointed out that free trade would not cure all the wrongs of Ireland. The country suffered under many other grievances besides commercial restraint; amongst these he especially mentioned the Crown being invested with the disposal of the hereditary revenue, which became an endless source of corruption, and he dwelt on the deplorable condition of the Established Church.^[18] The motion was again rejected by a large majority.

The Irish House of Commons now carried by a majority of 170 to 47 a resolution to grant no new taxes. They then passed a money Bill for six months only by 138 to 100.^[19] Lord North at length understood that he could no longer throw the responsibility of action off his own shoulders on to those of Parliament. On the 12th of December he proposed and subsequently carried three Bills for the relief of the commerce of Ireland, giving her a free export of her wool, woollens, and wool flocks; a free exportation of glass and glass manufacture; and a freedom of intercourse with the British plantations on the basis of an equality of taxes and customs upon an unrestrained trade.^[20] These great concessions were received with unbounded joy; but the Irish question was not thereby solved, either commercially or politically, as Shelburne had already warned the English Parliament.

The next triumph of the Opposition was their carrying, and almost without resistance, the same measure of relief from subscription which the Bishops had contumeliously rejected in 1772. "From what I see," Richmond wrote to Shelburne, "a general spirit is rising. I do not expect such immediate effects as some do, but I think it will be gradual, only to become more formidable if commonly well managed."^[21] All over the country the enormous cost and the want of success attending the war were causing general indignation. Inquiry was naturally stimulated into the expenditure, and the question began to be asked, whether, even if the war were to be continued, the burdens of the country might not be lightened by a curtailment of pensions and of sinecure places, by a more rigid application of the supplies to the objects to which they had been appropriated, and by placing a check on the presentation of supplementary estimates for expenses in reality actually incurred, or as they were termed "extraordinaries." In the month of December 1779, a great public meeting in Yorkshire, at which every section of the Whig Party was represented, drew up a petition to Parliament on these subjects, and appointed a committee to carry on a correspondence with other counties, and to prepare a plan for a National Association. The movement did not fail to spread, and though in some cases through secret machinations and in others by open opposition the Court party attempted to resist, it rapidly became more formidable than any movement since the Revolution, through the numbers, character, and position of those who shared in it. The year did not close without the first mutterings of the coming storm being heard within the walls of Parliament. Already on the 7th of December, Richmond, supported by Shelburne, had brought forward a motion for a more economic administration of the Civil List.^[22] On the 15th Shelburne himself called attention to the Army extraordinaries.^[23]

"The debate yesterday in the House of Lords," writes Mr. Fitzpatrick to Lord Ossory, "was the best I ever remember to have heard. By coming late, I lost the first half of Lord Shelburne's speech; but what I heard I thought excellent, very violent, and very personal to the King: in short, a counterpart of Charles' in the House of Commons; and to-day he told me he meant it as such. Many compliments in it to the Rockinghams, which were answered on their side; and the Duke of Richmond equalled him in violence."^[24] And yet between Shelburne and Fox there was little in common. "Don't you remark," the former wrote to Barré about this time, "in Charles Fox's speeches, notwithstanding their violence, a something always, that does not appear net, and that you cannot see to the bottom of?"^[25]

The real attack was however deferred till February. On the 2nd of that month a great meeting was held in Westminster Hall, when in the presence of 3000 persons, and with Wilkes standing by the side of the Duke of Portland, Fox was adopted as the Whig candidate. The Court party vainly struggled against the stream. They dispersed hand-bills on the dearness of coals, and excited the people against Richmond, who was said to have been enriched by the Coal Tax. They obtained the dismissal of Lord Caermarthen from the Lord-Lieutenancy of the East Riding for having countenanced the Yorkshire petition, of Lord Pembroke from Wiltshire, and of the Duke of Richmond from Sussex; but these marks of Royal indignation only increased the popularity of the victims.

On the 8th, Shelburne brought forward a motion for a Committee of both Houses, to consist of neither placemen nor pensioners, to inquire into the expenditure of the public money. He wished, he said, to annihilate the undue influence operating upon both Houses of Parliament, and to establish a constitutional power instead of an unconstitutional influence. Having thus stated his object, he proceeded to dwell upon the enormous increase of debt and taxation, and the wasteful manner in which loans were contracted; illustrating his position by a review of the various financial measures taken since the outbreak of the American war, and attributing all the errors which had been committed, in the first place to the mistaken policy of Lord North, and in the second place to his reckless administration. He then proceeded to work out the latter topic in detail, using the papers which he had recently purchased at the sale of Mr. West, late Secretary of the Treasury, and pointing out how, especially in the Admiralty and War Office, there was no real system of account. Those offices drew on the Treasury to any amount they pleased; warrants were struck in consequence of their requisitions; but when the Treasury asked for vouchers for the expenditure of the money, the answer was that they had not come to hand; the consequence being that accounts in some cases were fifteen or twenty years behindhand. The supplies were perpetually exceeded; supplementary estimates containing gross accounts were then presented, and the money was voted without anybody being informed how it had been expended. Certain flagrant cases however had recently come to light, notwithstanding the efforts of Ministers to suppress them. The contractors were known who by their corrupt influence in Parliament were a curse to the country, and had amassed immense private fortunes by public rapine and plunder. There was Mr. Stuart who had cleared £70,000 by contracting for a supply of beads, tomahawks, and scalping knives for the Indians; there was Mr. Atkinson who had taken a liquor contract at exactly double the price which it cost him. In connection with these contracts new places had been invented: for example, there was now a Taster of Rum with a salary; and £40,000 had been paid to a superintendent at Cork, for doing nothing except the duty belonging to the merchant contractor himself. These facts were notorious; although Lord North had succeeded in so composing the Committee of the House of Commons which examined into them, that their inquiries had led to nothing. To remedy these enormous evils he wished to have a Commission of Accounts instituted, similar to those which had existed from the Revolution to the year 1715. Parliament would then know that the money which it had voted and appropriated had really been spent in the manner intended, and when extraordinary votes were asked for, they would be able to see whether the sums expended had or had not been distributed in wastefulness and corruption.^[26]

The motion of Shelburne was supported by the whole Opposition, amongst others by Lord Caermarthen, who spoke amid much applause on the indignity to which he had been subjected by his recent dismissal.^[27] On a division the Opposition vote was the largest which they had registered for some time past, for they numbered fifty-five. The motion was however rejected.

The same day Sir George Savile presented the Yorkshire Petition. On the 11th, Burke introduced his plan of Economic Reform in a speech which, to borrow the words of Dunning, must remain "as a monument to be handed down to posterity of uncommon zeal, unrivalled industry, and invincible perseverance."^[28] On the 14th Sir George Savile brought in a Bill to take away several sinecure places and pensions which Burke had proposed to spare, and Barré, following the example of Shelburne, gave notice that he would move for a Commission of Accounts to improve the method of accounting for the expenditure of public money. On the 21st Sir George Savile moved for an account of pensions granted during pleasure or otherwise. The debate was warm. North was defended by the Lord-Advocate Dundas and by Wedderburne, both of whom were Scotchmen. Colonel Barré thereupon said that no Englishman could be found to defend the Government. Dundas retorted by asking him "if it was not as honourable to be the King's pensioner as Lord Shelburne's, which Barré notoriously was." Greatly excited, Barré exclaimed, "It is false! It is false!" The House was instantly thrown into a ferment, and the Speaker had to interfere. Finally Barré declared that in what he had said he had meant nothing personal, and the matter terminated.^[29] On the 24th Sir Philip Clerk's Bill for excluding contractors from Parliament was accepted by an unwilling Government; on the 2nd of March, the second reading of Burke's Establishment Bill was carried unanimously, and Lord North announced that he adopted the plan of a Commission of Accounts. So far things had gone well, but soon a turn took place in the tide.

On the 8th Shelburne moved a resolution relative to the removal of Lord Caermarthen and Lord Pembroke from their respective Lord-Lieutenancies. It was rejected by a majority of 56 to 31. The same day the clause in Burke's Bill abolishing the third Secretaryship of State was thrown out by 208 to 201. North had set himself to destroy in Committee what for appearance' sake he had been forced to accept on the second reading. The clause relative to the Board of Trade only escaped an untimely fate by eight votes. Finally on the 20th the clause abolishing the Treasurer of the Chamber was thrown out by 211 to 158. This was looked upon as a test division, and Burke, having lost the point, declared his indifference of what became of the rest of the Bill.^[30]

The indignation of the Associations now knew no bounds. The Westminster Committee had issued notices for deputations from each Association to meet at the St. Alban's Tavern. Seeing their moderate demands for Economic Reform stifled by clever Parliamentary tactics, they began loudly to demand a Reform of the Representation of the people and a shortening of the duration of Parliaments. The Yorkshire Committee as usual gave the lead. On both these points the followers of Rockingham were opposed to the Associations, while both Shelburne and Fox were in favour of their demands. "I am by no means satisfied," Rockingham wrote to Shelburne, "that the proceedings at York are likely to produce good effects. Discretion and correctness have not predominated. I cannot enter into the whole of this subject in a letter. I must defer till we meet, but I think it incumbent upon me to throw at least a shadow of caution, lest your Lordship should lay more stress upon some circumstances than the whole facts might bear. I return your Lordship many thanks for the communication of what had passed in Wiltshire. Your Lordship may say that I am not easily satisfied; for I confess, I rather think—that Wiltshire is too cold, and that I should at the same time express an opinion that Yorkshire has been too precipitate. I think a medium between both would have been more likely to have produced general concurrence."^[31]

"I am very sorry," Shelburne wrote in a contrary strain to Lord Mahon, "that the Buckinghamshire Committee has been appointed to meet in London, as they cannot be assisted by the country members without manifest inconvenience. I cannot, with any propriety, ask the gentlemen in this part to go out of the county. As to the business which it meets upon, I can only repeat to your Lordship, that I cannot discover in the plan of the Yorkshire Association a single exceptionable principle. General union is acknowledged to be essential to our success. To this end, there must be a reasonable lead somewhere. Where can it remain so safely or so honourably as with the Meeting of the County of York, which took its rise from a sense of oppression, who have uniformly proceeded hitherto with a view to measures and not to men, and regarding whom there does not exist the smallest well-founded suspicion of the interference of party? Next as to the points which are made the objects of association. It is acknowledged that the approaching Election has a very great influence on the divisions now taking place in the House of Commons in favour of Reform and redress of grievances. The county members have very generally voted on the public side; except a few who are likely to lose their seats by not doing so. What, then, is so natural or so reasonable, as to follow where these principles lead, and desire that Parliament shall be shortened, and an effectual addition or substitution of county members made to the present House of Commons? My principle does not go to influence the political opinion of any man. But I think it a duty to declare my own, and your Lordship will do me a great deal of honour by communicating these as my sentiments to the Committee either individually or collectively, if those of absent persons shall be alluded to."^[32]

Zeal on behalf of reform was not without danger. During the debate on the 8th of March, Shelburne had alluded to the recent introduction into the Army of what was known as "occasional rank," by which, in Militia regiments, persons of no military experience were given the superiority in command over regular soldiers. As an illustration he cited the case of Mr. Fullarton, a Scottish gentleman, formerly Secretary to Lord Stormont at Paris, but now a Lieutenant-Colonel, and he was understood to apply the word commis in a sarcastic fashion to the newly created officer.^[33] On the 20th Mr. Fullarton, who was in Parliament, made a warm and abusive attack from his place in the House of Commons on Shelburne. He said that he had been Secretary to the Embassy in Paris, and that Lord Shelburne, having been Secretary of State, must have known the falsehood of his own assertions when he described him as a commis. Here Fox rose, and asked that Fullarton should be called to order for naming persons, and for referring to debates in the other House. He concluded by expressing his regard for Shelburne, whom Barre also defended, hinting to Fullarton that he had better seek satisfaction elsewhere. Fullarton, again rising, denounced Lord Shelburne's "aristocratic insolence"; but was again called to order. The same evening he wrote a report of his speech, adding what he had intended to have said, had he not been called to order, and sent it to the Public Advertiser, in which it appeared next morning. Lord Shelburne's conduct was described as "false, insolent, and cowardly," and he was accused of being in correspondence with the enemies of his country. The allusion was to Franklin; nor was this the only occasion on which the accusation was brought up, for in the following month Lord Stormont thought fit to make himself the mouthpiece of it in the Upper House, but not with impunity, for he was practically forced to retract it.^[34] Fullarton sent his effusion to Shelburne, who on receiving it, and being told by the servant who brought it that an answer was expected, replied that no other answer was proper than to desire Mr. Fullarton to meet him next morning in Hyde Park at five o'clock. They met there accordingly; Mr. Fullarton's second being Lord Balcarres; and Lord Shelburne's Lord Frederick Cavendish, with whom he had served at St. Malo and St. Cas. Two shots were fired without effect. Fullarton's second shot wounded Lord Shelburne slightly in the groin. Lord Frederick then asked Lord Balcarres if his principal was satisfied. Lord Balcarres replied "If his Lordship would say he had meant no affront."^[35] Lord Shelburne said it was too late, and that he was ready to continue, but the seconds decided that the affair should end there.^[36]

The following day the subject was taken up in the House of Commons, when Sir James Lowther talked of making a motion against duels as hindering the freedom of debate. "If," said he, "questions of a public nature which came before either House were to be decided by the sword, Parliament would resemble a Polish Diet." Then Mr. Adam, who had recently had a duel with Fox on account of language spoken in the House of Commons, rose to defend his own conduct. Mr. Fergusson next vindicated the conduct of Mr. Fullarton, and Burke the language of Shelburne; as did Fox, who announced his intention of renewing the attack on Mr. Fullarton, when the new levies came before the House, and on the same grounds as Shelburne. The debate concluded by Rigby expressing a pious hope that all parties had obtained a lesson in moderation, and the subject then dropped. Meanwhile the news of the duel had been noised abroad. It was insinuated by many persons that Fullarton was only the instrument of the Government, and it was noticed that he, like Adam who had fought Fox, was a Scotchman. The old animosity between the two nations at once blazed forth; numerous addresses were sent to Shelburne; several towns conferred their freedom on him, and the Common Council of London sent to inquire how he did.^[37]

The deputation of the County Committees next issued from the St. Alban's Tavern a Memorial signed by their Chairman, Mr. Wyvil, recommending the Associations to ask for shorter Parliaments, and the addition of one hundred county members. On the 5th of April a great meeting was held at Westminster, when Fox spoke in favour of these demands. A riot was expected and the Guards were ordered to be in readiness, but the precautions proved unnecessary. The following day the House of Commons considered the Petitions from the Associations. There were forty of various kinds. "They were piled on the table," says Walpole, "signed by thousands of names."^[38] It had been arranged that Dunning, without having given previous notice, should move "that the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished"; and he now rose to do so. "He stated his proposition," writes Barré to Shelburne, "in a most masterly and convincing manner; Lord Ossory seconded him. The Treasury Bench appeared stunned and confounded; every symptom promised their intending to have recourse to a division without a debate, when the Speaker got up and gave a distinct, short and pointed support.^[39] The Lord-Advocate made a foolish speech concluding with a motion to leave the chair; T. Pitt spoke incomparably well, home to Lord North, and confounded him; the disorder in the Ministry was so great that we were all desirous to finish there, and in fact we nearly did so, for neither Fox, Burke, Lord John, Sir G. Savile, &c., nor I, said one word; except the first, who spoke only for a minute or two. Lord North lost all temper, tried at first to be insolent, and attacked the minority in language which he was called to order for, in such a manner as cured him of that sort of inclination. Nugent spoke early, and more ridiculously than ever. Wedderburne spoke in so weak, confused and flimsy a manner that he was not in the least attended to. Dunning was up three or four times, and in full possession of himself, the House, and in the end of Victory. We divided 233 to 215. I should have told you that the Advocate was ashamed of his motion, and with leave withdrew it. Afterwards in the course of the debate they cooked up a most ridiculous amendment, which he moved, which was only to add these words 'That it is necessary to declare that the influence, &c.' This we accepted of, and then divided on the main Question. Rigby after the division, in truly Royal manner, put a good face on and tried to be very merry and a little profligate. Dunning then moved his second question, which was in substance that the House had a right to examine into the expenditure of the Civil List as well as all other public money. This we carried with a division. There was just flying debate enough to give time to cook up another motion, in substance thus: 'That it is the duty of this House to redress all the abuses stated in the different Petitions presented from the several counties and cities in England.' This likewise with only languid and light objections, passed without a division. To complete the night we reported to the House immediately, and the three resolutions were adopted likewise without a division."^[40]

The brilliant success which had rewarded Dunning's efforts was followed by a reaction similar to that which had rendered nugatory the great speech of Burke on the 11th of February. The Court had a real majority in the House, and it was only the fear of the approaching General Election which had induced so many members to desert Lord North. Dunning saw his followers diminish on each successive division, and when on the 10th he moved to exclude twelve officers of the Household from sitting in the House, he only had a majority of two votes.^[41] Two days after the Bill for disqualifying Revenue Officers from voting at elections was thrown out by 226 to 195.^[42] This was immediately followed by the House of Lords throwing out the Contractors Bill by 57 to 41,^[43] and when, on the 24th, Dunning moved an Address to the Crown that no dissolution nor prorogation of Parliament should take place till proper measures had been taken to diminish the influence of the Crown, he was defeated by 51 votes.^[44] Two days after, the House being again in Committee on the Petitions, a motion "that the Chairman do leave the Chair" was carried against Dunning by 43, and immediately afterwards several fresh clauses of Burke's Bill were lost. On the 18th of May, Burke declared he would divide no more.^[45]

Dunning had seen his great triumph of the 6th of April become merely historical; but the popular movement in the country continued to grow, and notwithstanding the unwillingness of Rockingham, the two great questions, of the Reform of the Representation and the Duration of Parliaments, continued to attract an increased share of attention. Shelburne and Fox continued to express their agreement with the Associations, and dissensions on the question now arose between the former and Burke.^[46] On the 8th of May 91 votes were recorded in the House of Commons for Sawbridge's motion in favour of triennial Parliaments, and Richmond, whose opinions on these questions were more extreme than even those of Mr. Wyvil, gave notice that he would call the attention of the House of Lords to the character and constitution of Parliament. It is at least probable that, considering the temper of the times, the union of the Opposition, and the discredit into which the home policy of the Government was fallen, some substantial result might have been obtained, if not in the existing, at least in the coming Parliament. Nor were these the only reasons. The declaration made on the 26th of February 1780 by the Empress Catherine—commonly known as that of the Armed Neutrality—had shown that Russia, who it was expected would soon be followed by the other Northern powers, was to be numbered among the concealed, if not the open enemies of England, while a rupture was expected with Holland, owing to the overbearing conduct of the English Administration. Thus not only the Home but the Foreign policy of the Government lay open to the attacks of the Opposition, when suddenly the "Lord George Gordon Riots," occasioned by the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, which, with the interval of two days, raged from the 2nd to the 9th of June, came to teach the lesson, that popular violence is a worse enemy to Reform than even a king such as George III., or a minister such as Lord North. "The ministry," writes Richmond to Shelburne, "were much alarmed, and seemed near at a stand; but will now convert this business into the main object of all their government. I much lament these disturbances. The cause was unjust; the proceedings extravagant, wicked, and weak; and will tend to discredit any attempts of the people to do themselves justice on any future occasion when the cause may warrant it."^[47]

The conduct of Shelburne during these riots, excited attacks against him similar to those of which he had been the object at the time of Dignam's plot. He was accused not only of having consented, but of having been an actual party to some of the excesses of the mob; and the fact of his being one of the few Peers who, on the evening of the 2nd of June, had reached the House of Lords without molestation, gave a colourable pretext for slanders, to which Judges on the Bench did not scruple by their language to give an importance which they otherwise would have lacked.^[48] The natural explanation of the favour with which Shelburne was regarded by the Protestant mob lay in his being known, like Grafton, to hold, notwithstanding his advocacy of religious toleration, views respecting the Papal powers similar to those which had influenced the statesmen of the Revolution; but were now beginning to lose their force, with the altered policy of the Roman Curia, since the Pontificate of Ganganelli.^[49]

"As to the suggestions," writes Dunning, "that the late disturbances have proceeded from or been in any degree countenanced by any man of rank or consequence in the country, and above all by any of those who have distinguished themselves as asserters of, or advocates for, the rights and liberties of the people in opposition to the weak and ruinous measures of the present Administration, whatever countenance those suggestions may have received from Judges or others who have condescended to be the scandalous instruments of Ministers in propagating them, they have been thrown out without proof or the semblance of proof, without probability, and it is no breach of charity to add, by men who have not themselves believed them or at least they would have been able to give them some colour; as the means of detecting and proving such practices, if they had existed, were in their hands, and they do not appear to have been very delicate in the choice of them.

"To induce a belief that men in their senses would act a part so directly contrary to their interests (whether by interests are understood those of the public upon which they professed to act, or those selfish and various interests which their adversaries, judging from themselves, impute to them), should require better evidence than any which corruption, operating upon the worst men in the worst times, has yet been able to procure. Such however seems to have been the credulity, or rather the infatuation of the times, that these suggestions without any evidence at all, and in contradiction to the strongest evidence arising from the nature of the case, have been so far adopted as to throw some degree of discredit upon means and measures, certainly intended for the prevention of such evils in future, and for the restoration and preservation of the Constitution, and by which, if by any, that important object may be attained. So successful have been the instruments employed to this wicked purpose, as sufficiently to account for their having been so employed; and perhaps to warrant any suggestion, that those who so industriously impute those outrages to others are themselves the authors or the abettors of them, and were tempted to be so, by the hope of imposing upon ignorant men an idea, that all Associations must be of the same description, although distinguished by their members and by their objects, and having nothing in common but the name. With this view, it has been assumed that the members of what has been called the 'Protestant Associations' were those who burned houses, opened jails, &c., in this metropolis, and the argument is supposed to be complete when it is added, that some of the most respectable men in the kingdom, who in Yorkshire and elsewhere have associated in common defence against common danger, are likewise Associators. But if there were any colour, which it is believed there is not, to represent that enormities like those which have been practised were among the objects of the Protestant Association, it is hoped there is no Englishman so ignorant or so uninformed as to need to be reminded that there is some difference between associating to support the Constitution or to overturn it."^[50]

The conduct of Shelburne has been impugned long subsequently to the riots themselves. It has been said, that under the impulse of factious motives he opposed calling out the military, and thereby threw difficulties in the way of the Government at a moment of extreme public danger.^[51] It is however to be observed that the speech in which he said "that he would on all occasions oppose such a proposition" was made on the 2nd of June,^[52] and it was not till the 4th that the riots assumed those gigantic proportions which made an appeal to the military force absolutely necessary. The 3rd of June was a day of absolute quiet; so was the 5th, when the Privy Council met, and believing the danger to be over, decided to do nothing beyond offer £500 reward for the apprehension of the persons who had destroyed the chapels of the Bavarian and Sardinian Ambassadors.^[53] The real lesson which the riots taught was the necessity of reorganizing the police. This was insisted upon with great force by Shelburne in the House of Lords on the 3rd of June. "Let the Administration," he said, "recollect what the Police of France was; let them examine its good, and not be blind to its evil. They would find its construction excellent, its use and direction abominable. Let them embrace the one and shun the other.^[54] The Police of France was wise to the last degree in its institution, but being perverted in its use, its very merit became its mischief. Instead ot applying it to the general benefit of the kingdom, the ministers of France had applied it to their own political purposes; they had perverted it into an espionnage, a word, which he thanked God, would not yet admit of an English interpretation. Let the appointment of magistrates in Westminster be elective; let the people have a power to vote for them and choose them by their suffrages; the election would then be pure, no jealousy of government could prevail, and the end of such a police would be most fully answered. Perhaps it might not be unworthy the attention of those in power, to consider for a moment the police of the City of London, a police abundantly better regulated and more effectual than that of Westminster. The city was divided into wards, and subdivided into parishes, each of which, both in the division and subdivision, had its separate police so constituted as to make a part of the whole police of the city. Might it not be worth the while of Government to copy the example, and make Westminster a corporation as London was? The project was not difficult, and all the danger of altering the police lay entirely with Government. If they perverted the alteration to an extension of influence, they would do harm, and increase the mischiefs of the present system of police; if they avoided assuming fresh power, and left the people at liberty to elect for their magistrates those whose character, ability, and independence served to point them out as proper in their eyes to fill the office of magistrates, they would act wisely, and would find by the effect that they had done what was right, and that they had instituted a police answering every good and desirable end, both public and private."^[55]

The ultimate suppression of the riots was due to the courage of the Attorney-General, Wedderburne, who was rewarded with the Barony of Loughborough and the Lord Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas. While London was burning, the Privy Council was discussing whether the troops could fire till after the Riot Act had been read, and one hour had elapsed. This was the theory embodied in a War Office Order on the subject; the question however was if it contained the law on the subject. The Attorney-General gave it as his opinion, that when a felony was being committed, and the Civil power lacked other means to repress it, the Military could interpose without any formality whatever, not as soldiers, but as citizens. "No matter," said Mansfield, "whether their coats be red or brown, they are employed not to subvert but to preserve the laws and Constitution."^[56] This doctrine, though correct, is clearly one which requires very close watching; as Dunning pointed out in some observations which he addressed to Shelburne on the subject.^[57]

The immediate effect of the riots was the rejection of Burke's Establishment Bill on the 23rd of June.^[58] The King foresaw that he could now with perfect safety dissolve Parliament. The Opposition were dispirited, and to a great degree discredited by the successful calumnies of the Minister's friends, and Burke most injudiciously chose this moment to publish a pamphlet in which he abused the Nonconformists as having been greatly concerned in the recent riots.^[59] Rockingham himself was especially despondent; and the fact becoming known, the King in July again opened negotiations with him. His reply showed a practical desertion of everything for which the Opposition had been struggling during the past year. Even the independence of America was abandoned.^[60] Nor did he propose to give office to Camden, Shelburne, or Grafton, but only to his immediate friends, to Fox, and, in order to please the King, to North. "His terms," says Waipole, "discovered no general views, aimed at reforming no capital grievances, and still less specified complaints against anybody. They were not more honourable to his party than beneficial to the nation. They were so timid, so insignificant, so unmanly, that they had the appearance of being managed only to facilitate Burke's throwing himself into all the measures of the Court, and did not even preserve the dignity of the man courted to be an apostate. The Court treated the Marquis with the contempt which he had so justly incurred."^[61]

The result of this abortive negotiation was again to divide the Opposition. Not only Shelburne but Grafton, Camden, and even Richmond, whom Rockingham had intended to form part of his new arrangement, expressed the utmost indignation. Shelburne himself retired into the country. On the 1st of September, Parliament was dissolved, and the new elections again gave the Court a majority. Among the new members were William Pitt and Sheridan.

During these events the intimacy of Shelburne with Dr. Price continued undiminished, and more than once when speaking on financial questions he acknowledged the obligations he was under to him. Quite apart from the question of the soundness of his views, there can be no doubt that Price conferred a great service by calling attention to the growth of the National Debt and to the necessity of reducing it. To this opinion Shelburne, it has been seen, was an early convert.

The discovery that the scheme put forward by Price had the effect, so far as it proposed to support the Sinking Fund by loans in time of war, not merely of not diminishing, but of actually increasing the debt, has caused his merit as a financier to be as unduly depreciated by posterity as it was unduly exalted by his contemporaries. Till the moment arrived when a loan had to be made, the Sinking Fund operated on perfectly sound principles; not indeed by the magical virtue of money growing at compound interest and paying off debt without burdening the tax-payer, in defiance of the Lucretian doctrine, that something cannot be produced out of nothing; but by the application to the reduction of debt of the excess of revenue above expenditure. Capital to increase at compound interest must be invested in some reproductive employment, and it is an abuse of terms to describe the reinvestment of the interest of stock as an investment of capital at compound interest. The modes of operation are the same, but the means when examined are seen to be totally different. It is not however quite clear that Dr. Price or Lord Shelburne or Mr. Pitt really thought that there was no burden on the tax-payer, but rather that the burden was not perceived; just as in the modern arrangements connected with the Terminable Annuities, debt is paid off by an arrangement which in reality lays on the tax-payer a burden just as heavy, though not so easily discovered, as the sum annually voted for the direct extinction of debt. There are however other objections to the plans of Dr. Price besides those just mentioned. A Sinking Fund is apt to be looked upon by ministers as furnishing resources which in a time of need they may squander at pleasure. A war is begun. The operation or the fund is at once stopped, and a few millions are taken from it to be spent on warlike preparations. Meanwhile no increase of taxation takes place, and no increase of the national burdens being felt, no attention is given to the additional expenditure. It may also often happen that a greater benefit will accrue from lightening the public burdens than by keeping up taxation for the reduction of debt, and this objection was certainly full of force in the last century.

Price, and following him Shelburne, had the merit also of being among the first to attack the practice begun by North, and since frequently followed, of funding by increase of capital; a practice originating in the neglect of the consideration, that the country when it borrows may have to look forward not merely to paying a perpetual annuity, but eventually to repaying the principal of the debt. It may seem to be a matter of indifference whether £100 is borrowed in a five per cent stock at par or in three per cent stocks at 60. When however the moment for repayment arrives, the stocks originally worth sixty in a time of national distress, will probably have risen to a far higher quotation, and the nation will have to repay at that quotation, losing the difference. Moreover a three per cent stock at 60 afforded greater prospects to speculation than a five per cent stock at par, and it was therefore easier to negotiate loans by increase of capital than by increase of interest.^[62]

It was not however to financial questions only that Dr. Price devoted his attention. From the beginning of the troubles with America to their end he remained the zealous friend of the Colonists. In 1775 he published his Observations on Civil Liberty, and The Justice and Policy of the War with America, in which he insisted that a free Government was one of the natural rights of civilized man. The press was unable to supply the demands for it. Application was made to him by the supporters of the American cause, for leave to publish a cheap edition, and sixty thousand copies were immediately sold. In consequence of this publication the freedom of the City of London was presented to him by the Aldermen and Common Council, "as a testimony of their approbation of his principles, and of the high sense which they entertained of the excellence of his observations on the justice and policy of the war with America." On the other hand he became the victim of the attacks of every pamphleteer in the employment of the Government, and not of them only, but also of Dr. Markham the Archbishop of York, of Wesley, and of Burke, who all found a common ground in attacking the doctrine that mankind had or could have natural rights, and joined the Shebbeares, the Macphersons, and the Linds, in the anathemas which they poured on the author. The second edition of this work expressly recommended for adoption the views lately put forward in the House of Lords by Lord Shelburne, Shortly after when the question of the profits and Parliamentary position of contractors was attracting public attention, Price in conjunction with Horne Tooke prepared a pamphlet under the title of "Facts addressed to the subjects of Great Britain and Ireland." Shelburne however for some unexplained reason objected to the publication. Dr. Price was willing to give way, but Horne Tooke refused, and published the pamphlet. This produced a rupture between him and Shelburne, which admitted of no reconciliation.^[63]

After the Lord George Gordon riots the King believed himself to be master of the situation. Not only was the Opposition once more at variance, but during the last campaign a substantial amount of success both on sea and land had rewarded the efforts of the English commanders. General Arnold deserted the American cause, and it was reported that dissensions between the Colonists and their French allies were on the increase.^[64] The Armed Neutrality had as yet produced but little effect; France was undoubtedly growing weary of the war, and in the month of December Necker made a secret overture for peace, on the basis of a truce during which the two armies in America were each to retain the territories it then occupied. In a moment of infatuation this moderate proposal was rejected. Shortly afterwards Necker was driven from the French Ministry, and the Court of Versailles determined on a vigorous prosecution of the war. The Court of St. James', on the other hand, "was insolent and seemed determined to stick at nothing."^[65] A whole gang of paid scribblers was let loose against the Opposition. Mr. Turnbull, son of the American Governor of Connecticut, was arrested as a spy, and the letters found upon him were asserted to have proved that Richmond and Shelburne were traitors. More duels were openly recommended, and language of the utmost violence both in and out of Parliament was used to provoke them.^[66]

Never had union been more necessary among the chiefs of the Opposition. This was especially felt by Richmond, who early in December took the opportunity of expressing his opinion to Barré, whom he had met in the House of Lords. "He began," the latter wrote to Shelburne, "with lamenting your absence, and wishing most earnestly that you would come to town; he pressed me to write to you upon the subject. He doubted whether we could do much or even any good, if we were united, but being divided all was lost. He appeared not only in earnest, but much agitated, and as far as I could judge he apprehended that you was quite off, and determined not to come up at all. He said that he himself had come with reluctance to town, and that he had but one reason for shewing himself in the House when the Address was moved, which was, lest people who knew the breach between your Lordship and the Rockinghams, and likewise the very general conformity of opinions between you and him, might interpret his absence as giving up or a quarrel between him and his old friends. He said that he had often differed with you, but that for these two years past he was most completely and entirely of your opinion, and added that your conduct with respect to him and his friends during that time had been distinct, fair and most honourable; that this had been uniformly and was still his language to them. He was exceedingly mortified by every thing that had interrupted or broke the union which had subsisted between us, and wished me to be (as I knew your sentiments and had great and just weight with you) an instrument of peace and re-union. 'You know,' says he, 'the force of connection and friendship, as well as any man; I have done my best; I am sorry when I hear of anything offending. I was much hurt with Ld Fitzwilliam's opposing with so much warmth that proposition of the 100 Knights in the Westminster committee yesterday; Lord Mahon told me of it, but he gets warm and sometimes says unpleasant things to us such as—"If we don't come into this or that measure, the public will doubt our sincerity."' 'I have,' says he, 'worked night and day with Lord Rockingham; I have told him repeatedly the mischievous consequences of his not adopting this measure; that it must come forward; and that the loss of it (if it should be lost) will be laid at his door; and he will besides have the mortification of seeing most of his best friends quitting him upon the division. All that he says in answer is, that he is sure the measure is not popular without doors, to which, the Duke replies, 'You and we can soon make it so. However,' adds the Duke to me, 'for God's sake get Lord Shelburne to come to town, and then we can talk it over, the sooner the better.'

"To all this I answered, after some sentences of respect to him, that you had by no means abandoned the public; that the times promised many events of such a nature as would probably force you from retirement, to do justice to your own honor, by striving to serve even an inanimate public. That as to the ordinary trammels of Opposition, after what had happened, I thought you would not and even could not submit to them. That Ld Rockingham's indecision, to give it no harder name, was not to be cured by crabbed conversations or messages in town; that he, the Duke, knew the little effect of that medicine; that Ld Rockingham was now where we last left him; that his and some of his friends' indecision had been always stated by me as more fatal than a manly negative; that your taking an active part in such circumstances was and would be only a foil in the eyes of the public to a bad government, and would shew us all together as totally contemptible; that it was better for us all to leave Administration undisturbed, than thus to shew our own impotence and distraction in both Houses of Parliament; that, thinking as I did, I could only promise his Grace to give your Lordship as true an account of his sentiments as I could, but that it was impossible for me to recommend to Lord Shelburne what I would not do myself were I in his situation.

"In reply to all this, he repeated frequently his request, adding that he was afraid that there were some prejudices and dislikes remaining since last Session, which, says he, have not been much diminished, I suppose, by that negotiation in the summer; but, says he, Burke is not now in Parliament, though I suppose indeed he is to come in. This brought on a little discussion of Burke, in which we pretty much agreed, and which I closed with these words,—'My Lord, I love Burke, I admire him, even in his wanderings; but when those wanderings come to be adopted seriously and obstinately by men of far higher description than himself, they then become alarming indeed.' 'That strange negotiation,' says the Duke, 'I assure you I had nothing to do with. I first heard of it after the first answer, which was that the King would take time to consider of it; which convinced me that it would come to nothing. A week afterwards I heard of the final answer. I asked if Lord Shelburne had been consulted or communicated with, and hearing he had not, I expressed my surprise and said that he ought to have been and was highly entitled to it. I never consented to or approved of that business. I could not I thought with decency sit at the same council table with Lord North, whom I had been for years accusing and charging as a criminal, yet even that I might be brought to, upon the condition of Ld North sitting there for the purpose of assisting to undo all that he had been doing for years back. I will tell you fairly, says he, I never as long as I breathe will make a part of any Administration that will not do something to mend the Constitution.' He then went back to the prejudices and dislikes, and mentioned an instance of Ld R. taking offence at some want of attention in you, but desired I would not mention it to you. Indeed it is not worth repeating.

"In answer to all this, I said that I had heard of that negotiation, but that in the present situation of public affairs, if we meant to do good by acting together, it would be better to have no retrospect whatsoever; that I knew the shape of your mind and your wishes for the public, placed you far above little prejudices or personal hatreds; but that after what had passed there was no way of drawing the eye from retrospect but one, and that was to hold out a fair, distinct, and flattering prospect: no clouds, no doubts, no knotty points. I added, my Lord, 'that time is not yet come, even by your Grace's confession, and therefore I can only write to Ld Shelburne, state our conversation to him, and still adhere to my opinion against his coming to town. You are the best "middle man" in the world to settle this business; your Grace is correct; you will best see what can be done with Ld Rockingham, and when you see daylight such as I have been speaking of, Ld Shelburne, I am confident, will listen to you sooner than anybody.'

"Somewhat more might have passed, but I don't think anything material has been omitted. I told him Ld Mahon was zealous, warm, and not much practised in dealing with men; and therefore any expression of the sort alluded to, ought not to be taken too seriously. The Duke said, 'Ld Mahon tells me that if Ld Rockingham comes into the proposition of the hundred Knights, Ld Shelburne will immediately come to town': I answered, 'Ld Mahon may answer for his coming upon such an occasion, but I will not venture to do so.' He seemed very well pleased with our conversation, for I believe he suspected that there was some negotiation going on, and was happy to find that there was no room for his suspicion.

"I met Ld F. Cavendish in the Park, and we had a conversation of the same nature though a very short one. I told him of what had passed between the D. of R. and me, he expressed much satisfaction, and finished with these words, 'Ld Shelburne must with very little attention and management be at the head of us, our body has property, &c., but we have not those powers that enable men to take the lead in public assemblies. You see what has been the case of C. Fox. We must naturally give way to such men.'

"In my last letter I told you Dunning agreed in opinion with you and me; I have not been able to see him since these conversations: he is in good health and spirits. Our business does not I believe come on till Wednesday, as Ld N. has been very ill, but has got much better. Fox called at my house yesterday after I had set out for this place."^[67]

To this communication, which was followed by several others bearing on the same subject, Shelburne replied:

"Be so good to tell the Duke of Richmond that I am extremely sensible to every mark of his attention. He cannot be surprised at my not attending Parliament; on the contrary, he must have a strange opinion of my unsteadiness and irresolution if I did; as he was present when I repeatedly stated the alternative to Lord Rockingham. It is plain Lord Rockingham perfectly understood it, by the decided steps which he risked during the summer. As to the public proposition, Lord Rockingham has certainly checked its popularity (as I have had very disagreeable experience of in this very county, through the medium of his connections), and may have made it on the whole unpopular. My letter to Lord Mahon as I told you was conceived in general terms. For as to any future plan, if any were to be adopted, it requires a great deal of consideration both as to matter and mode, and many people to be consulted. Be so good to tell as much as you please of this to the Duke of Richmond, when you happen to see him. There is no hurry, as no hurry was used towards me. You may assure him of my sincerest respect and esteem. I cannot give a greater proof than the dependence I had upon him as a public man, in case the summer negotiation had taken place. You will be so good as to set him right about Lord Mahon, who certainly mistook the general terms of my letter if he attempted to extract any specific proposition from it.

"As to having done right in the conversation, I will tell you frankly, I think decidedly so. If I was to make any remark, it would be that your wonted generosity of character made your language rather incline too much to forgiveness, where honour as party as well as public men has been forfeited. Nothing is farther from my intention than having any thing to do with them, if there is any other part left to take. I protest it is not myself I consider, but I owe nothing to them, and much to others. I owe a great deal to Dunning, and am responsible to the public about him; not to mention what I owe to the friend to whom I write. And there is nothing I wish so much, as that no friend whom I love should directly or indirectly commit himself to individuals or the public till we see further. The conduct of others during the summer will abundantly justify silence and inaction. As to voting, it is another matter, and I have nothing to offer one way or other. Charles Fox is scarcely entitled to ceremony.

"I am here^[68] for the first time leading the life I ought to do for the sake of my health, fortune, and character, and happier than ever, and certainly will follow your advice, till I have most explicit reasons for re-embarking.

"You are such a bad visitor, that I know you to be capable of forgetting to call on the Duke of Grafton, and I know his temper enough, to be sure he will imagine some reason for it if you do forget.

"I would be vastly glad to see Dunning take up the matter of elections. I wish to God, it occurred to him, to sow seed as long as we cannot reap fruit. I have a strong prepossession, that regulations might be fallen upon, relative to the expense of county elections, the poll, &c., and the Shoreham Act reduced to a principle, which might in time and gradually correct the administration. But I mention this loosely and only to you, not to Dunning, for to propose anything of a measure, would be vain and ridiculous in our present state.

"Is it not almost incredible that the head of the Whigs, as he styles himself, should not be moved by resentment, rivalship, the call of his country, the conduct of his friends, particularly Sir George Savile, to be a whit more decisive than when he set out, and still there he stands obstinately stopping the free course of popular spirit, which alone can ever oppose the Court."^[69] Amid recriminations such as these, did the eventful year 1780 draw to a close.

 

1. Memoir of Hugh Elliot, by the Countess of Minto, p. 147.
2. Walpole to Lady Ossory, June 16th, 1779. Lady Louisa Fitzpatrick was the younger daughter of John, first Earl of Upper Ossory, by his marriage with Lady Evelyn Leveson. The latter subsequently married Mr. Richard Vernon, and became the mother of the Miss Vernons, so frequently mentioned in the letters of Horace Walpole and Bentham, and in these pages. Anne Liddell, Countess of Upper Ossory, Walpole's correspondent, was wife of John, the second Earl.
3. Parliamentary History, xx. 1165.
4. See Vol. I. p. 345 et seq.
5. Plowden's Ireland, ii. 178.
6. 13, 14 George III. c. xxxv.
7. George III. to North, November 1778.
8. Unciata terræ. Modus agri, sc. duodecima pars jugeri. In chartâ Thomæ Regis Manniæ an. 1055 in Monastico Anglicano. T. i. p. 718. Du Cange, Glossary.
9. Shelburne to Price, September 5th, 1779.
10. Parliamentary History, xix. 1140.
11. Parliamentary History, xix. 1145.
12. 17, 18 George III. c. 49.
13. Parliamentary History, xx. 650.
14. Ibid. xx. 635-651.
15. Parliamentary History, xx. 663.
16. Plowden, History of Ireland, ii. 185-191.
17. Lord Lifford.
18. Parliamentary History, xx. 1156.
19. 10 Com. Journ. 34.
20. Parliamentary History, xx. 1272.
21. Richmond to Shelburne, December 7th, 1779.
22. Parliamentary History, xx. 1255-1267.
23. Ibid. xx. 1285.
24. Fitzpatrick to Lord Ossory, December 2nd, 1779.
25. Shelburne to Barré, 1780.
26. Parliamentary History, xx. 1318.
27. Ibid. xx. 1339.
28. Ibid. xxi. 342.
29. Ibid. xxi. 103. See on the above subjects generally, ibid. xxi. 1-154. Walpole, Journals, ii. 353-373.
30. Parliamentary History, xxi. 193, 233, 296.
31. Rockingham to Shelburne, April 2nd, 1780.
32. Shelburne to Mahon, April 7th, 1780.
33. Parliamentary History, xxi. 218. It ought to be stated that Mr. Fullarton had raised the regiment himself.
34. See Walpole, Journals, ii. 399. Parliamentary History, xxi. 459.
35. There was no reason why Mr. Fullarton should have been offended at the use of the word commis. Flassan in his Diplomatic History, describes Rayneval as "un des premiers commis des Affaires Étrangères." Walpole says "that Lord Shelburne had never applied the words clerk and commis to Colonel Fullarton, but had only said that he would not use the term commis, with which he had offended Mr. Eden on a previous occasion."
36. As to the above duel, see Walpole, Journals, ii. 385-389. Parliamentary History, xxi. 293-319. There are some allusions to Mr. Fullarton's duel in the correspondence of Mme. du Deffand. "L'histoire du Fullarton m'a intéressée," she writes to Horace Walpole, "c'est un joli garçon, il a de la vivacité, de la sincérité, et ne manque point d'esprit; il me marquait du désir de me plaire, et il y avait réussi; il me voyait souvent; il a plu généralement à tous ceux qui l'ont connu." It appears that he had presented her with "une garniture de chéminée de sept vases étrusques, sur lesquels il y a de très jolies peintures."—Lettres à Horace Walpole, iv. 71, 171, ed. 1812, 24 oct. 1778, 4 avril 1780.
37. Walpole, Journals, ii. 389. Lansdowne House MSS.
38. Walpole, Journals, ii. 391.
39. Sir Fletcher Norton was Speaker.
40. Barré to Shelburne, April 7th, 1780.
41. Parliamentary History, xxi. 374-386.
42. Ibid. xxi. 403.
43. Ibid. xxi. 414.
44. Ibid. xxi. 494.
45. Ibid. xxi. 538, 616, 628. Walpole, Journals, ii. 398-401.
46. Walpole, Journals, ii. 401.
47. Richmond to Shelburne, June 16th, 1780.
48. See Wraxall, Memoirs, i. 360.
49. Walpole, Journals, ii. 419. Parliamentary History, xix. 1145.
50. Dunning, Memoranda on the Riots, June 1780. Lansdowne House MSS.
51. Massey, History of England, ii. 462.
52. Parliamentary History, xxi. 671.
53. Stanhope, vii. 35.
54. Lord Shelburne told Morellet in 1783 that had he remained in office he would have made the establishment of a real Police Force under the control of the Secretary of State one of his principal objects. (Notes of Conversations, Lansdowne House MSS.)
55. Parliamentary History, xxi. 680-681. It was during these debates that Lord Rockingham sarcastically observed that he had heard many voices shouting "no Popery," but had felt several hands trying to get at his watch.
56. Parliamentary History, xxi. 694.
57. Lansdowne House MSS.
58. Parliamentary History, xxi. 714.
59. Walpole, Journals, ii. 418.
60. Memorials of Fox, i. 251: "Propositions of the Opposition as understood by Mr. Montagu." Walpole, ii. 422.
61. Walpole, Journals, ii. 424.
62. See Hamilton on the National Debt, ch. vi.
63. Memoir of Price, by William Morgann.
64. Barré to Shelburne, December 7th, 1780.
65. Walpole, Journals, ii. 436.
66. Walpole, Journals, ii. 433-436.
67. Barré to Shelburne, December 1780.
68. Bowood.
69. Shelburne to Barré, December 1780.