Life of William, Earl of Shelburne/Volume 2/Chapter 3

by Edmond George Petty-Fitzmaurice

 

CHAPTER III

 

LORD SHELBURNE AND THE KING

 

1780-1782

 

Shelburne, under the influence of the feelings described in the previous chapter, now seldom appeared in Parliament, but remained at Bowood. "You must be so good," he wrote to Barré, "as to make up a Christmas party for us; for otherwise I assure you we live so excessively happy in this obscurity, that we shall lose all habit of company. Apprise Lord Dartrey that he must not think of going away before his time, and tell him (but take care that Lady Dartrey is not on the same floor) that we will play all Christmas-day and the money go to the poor."^[1] "I hear very little politics," he told Lady Ossory, "and nothing which inclines me to give up the farmer," and he describes himself as spending five or six hours of the day in tracing roads or rides, and two or three more in reasoning with his tenants about allotting ground.^[2] The only speech he made during the whole session was on the 25th of January 1781, when the King sent a message announcing that a rupture with Holland had taken place. The circumstances which led to the ancient friend and ally of England being at this moment added to the number of her already too numerous enemies, constitute one of the most disgraceful chapters of the history of this country.^[3] The quarrel originated out of the vexed question of the Rights of Neutrals. It was the contention of England that the flag of a neutral nation does not protect the goods of a belligerent on board a neutral ship, and that regard should be had to the property of the goods, not of the vessel. The claim, which was based on the old rule of the Consolato del Mare, had invariably been upheld by those States which from time to time had had a marked superiority at sea, such as Spain, England, and Denmark. The other Continental States, being comparatively weak at sea, had long been attempting to substitute for the old rule the principle that free ships make free goods, except in the case of contraband of war; though more than one instance could be quoted of States which when at war amongst themselves had been tempted by a comparative superiority at sea, to abandon the principle for which they had themselves contended against the great naval powers. The Continental States were also at variance with England as to the articles which should be included in the list of contraband; and they also protested against the doctrine that a blockade which was not systematic and continuous could be held rightfully to entail the condemnation of a ship which had approached the coast of a belligerent.

But besides the customs of earlier times, there were other reasons which had largely contributed to the maintenance of the rule of the Consolato del Mare. It had been the policy of Europe for the mother country to monopolize the trade of her colonies; and, as a general rule, no other nation had been permitted in time of peace either to carry their produce or to furnish them with supplies. If therefore a belligerent had been successful in destroying the colonial trade of the enemy, but the latter could continue to trade with security under a neutral flag, it was clear that the advantage of superiority at sea was immensely diminished. Hence had grown up what was known as the Rule of 1756, which substantially amounted to this: that a neutral had no right to deliver a belligerent from the pressure of his enemy's hostilities, by trading with his colonies in time of war in a way prohibited in time of peace; and England considered herself justified in condemning under this rule, not only the cargoes of belligerents found on neutral vessels engaged in such trade, but the neutral vessels also, and any neutral goods they might have on board.

The results of the conflicting views of the nations of Europe on the question of maritime rights were reflected in their public acts. While on the one hand there were countries like England, which held to the old principles of the Consolato del Mare, and on the other, those who had adopted the principle of "Free ships, free goods," there was yet a third class which had adopted the converse of the latter proposition as well, viz. "Enemies' ships, enemies' goods"; and this principle of having exclusive regard to the property of the vessel, and not of the goods on board, had been adopted in most of the treaties made since 1650.^[4]

It has already been seen that the claims put forward by England had led to the proclamation of an Armed Neutrality by Russia, which since that date had been joined by the other Northern powers, by Prussia, and the Empire. Of all the States however most interested in the introduction of a change in maritime law, Holland stood the first. Her position in regard to England was peculiar. When the latter claimed and exercised the right of searching the vessels of Russia or of Sweden, she had immemorial practice on her side, unrestrained by any special treaty or convention; and it is open to doubt if the difference with the Northern powers, which led to the Armed Neutrality, might not have been avoided, had it not been for the extension of the definition of contraband of war by the English commanders and prize courts, to articles which the law of nations had not hitherto been supposed to condemn, and which happened to be the staple produce of the Baltic powers. With Holland the case was different. As a belligerent power at sea she had steadily declined, ever since the great wars of the seventeenth century, but her carrying trade had as steadily increased, although those wars had been the undoubted result of the selfish desire of England to destroy her trade. No power had in consequence laboured more assiduously for the principle that free ships make free goods. Ultimately, in 1674 a treaty with England had established the new principle; on the other hand, according to the Treaties of 1678 and 1716, Holland was bound by positive stipulations to assist England in the event of her being attacked in Europe. England therefore could not claim to exercise the same rights against Dutch ships as she might against those of Russia and Sweden.

From the commencement of the war however, the respect paid by the English cruisers to the Treaty of 1674 was of the most equivocal character, and timber on board Dutch vessels was treated as contraband of war. In July 1779 the English Government demanded of the States-General the succour stipulated by the Treaties of 1678 and 1716, and soon after claimed that the American privateers in Dutch ports should be treated as pirates and their prizes restored.

The States-General were in a position of great difficulty. The United Provinces at this time enjoyed the most cumbrous form of Government which probably has ever existed. It was difficult to say where the powers of the States-General ended, and those of the Seven Provinces began. In the States-General the voting was by provinces, but the representatives of any province could claim the right of consulting their constituents. It was not clear in what cases either a majority or absolute unanimity was necessary; the Presidency was a weekly office, occupied in rotation by representatives of the provinces; the power of the Stadtholder was chiefly executive, and was in reality not equal to that of the Grand Pensionary of Holland, who was practically the foreign minister of the Republic.^[5] The Stadtholder was attached to England, and the Grand Pensionary to France. Such was the position of affairs when the repeated aggressions of the English cruisers opened the eyes of the Dutch statesmen to the fact, that notwithstanding their rejection in 1778 of the offer of a Treaty of Amity and Commerce,^[6] by the American Commissioners Franklin, Lee, and Adams, they stood in serious danger of becoming involved in the war.

In their demand for succour the English Government had expressed an opinion that the stipulations of a treaty like that of 1674, founded on the interest of trade only, must give way to those founded on the general interests of the two nations, in other words to the Treaty of 1716. The States-General however denied that the origin of the war in which England was engaged came within the terms of the latter treaty, and contrasted the conduct of England, in claiming the benefit of one treaty, and rejecting the obligations of the other. A long exchange of memorials and counter-memorials followed, but meanwhile the English cruisers continued to prey on Dutch commerce. Finally in December 1779 a Dutch fleet of merchant vessels, laden with articles not generally regarded as contraband of war, was attacked while sailing under convoy in the Channel, by the English fleet, and five ships of war and five merchant vessels were captured. In April 1780 an Order in Council suspended all treaties between the two countries, and Dutch ships were seized as blockade runners, and condemned on the preposterous theory that the geographical position of England constituted an effective blockade of the whole Spanish and French coasts. Almost simultaneously Russia proclaimed the Armed Neutrality, and invited the other powers of Europe to accede to the proposals contained in it. The temptation to Holland was sore. She had been subject to the grossest provocation, she had seen her most cherished rights openly violated, and she had a manifest interest in the destruction of the English colonial system, to support which the Navigation Acts had been passed against her own trade. Nor could anything be more overbearing than the language of the English diplomatists. "The best way," Stormont wrote to Yorke, "to bring the Dutch to their senses is to wound them in their most feeling part, their carrying trade. The success of our cruisers has hitherto fallen much short of our expectation."^[7] A rupture however was still delayed; the party of the Stadtholder succeeded in making the accession of the States-General to the Armed Neutrality contingent on the guarantee by Russia of the Dutch possessions in the East and the West Indies, and the negotiation subsequently hung fire. An accident came at this moment to precipitate a crisis. In the month of October Mr. Laurens, whom the Congress had appointed to be one of their Commissioners in Europe, was captured on his passage from America to the Netherlands. Among his papers was found the draft of a treaty, which in the previous year had been drawn up under the sanction of Van Berckel, Pensionary of Amsterdam, and Jan de Neufville, an Amsterdam merchant, by William Lee, American Commissioner to Vienna and Berlin, and by him was communicated to the American Commissioners at Paris. Van Berckel and Neufville had only obtained the informal consent of the burgomasters of Amsterdam to their negotiation with William Lee. The States-General had never been consulted, and the treaty was nothing more than a project, which Van Berckel and his friends intended to lay before the States-General, in the not improbable event of America becoming independent. The American Commissioners had looked upon Lee as an intermeddler, and, probably at their recommendation, Congress had soon after dismissed him from their service. The discovery of the draft was held in England to reveal a deep-set purpose on the part of Holland. It was however difficult to make Van Berckel's Treaty a casus belli, for on the 3rd of November the States of Holland met and condemned the conduct of Amsterdam. It was therefore resolved to insist upon the punishment of Van Berckel and his accomplices, in the event of the States-General acceding to the Russian offers. On the 23rd the States of Holland formally disavowed Van Berckel and their example was followed by the States-General. Stormont however insisted on the punishment of the Amsterdam offenders, and on the 16th hearing that the States-General had decided to accede to the Armed Neutrality he ordered Sir Joseph Yorke, the English Minister, to quit Holland without taking leave and without waiting for an answer, and himself sent secret orders to seize the Dutch settlements in the West Indies, and at once to sweep the sea of the Dutch ships wherever found. These orders were given several days before Yorke had quitted the Hague.^[8] Such is the discreditable history of the rupture between England and Holland. The Administration, deeming itself secure at home and calculating on success abroad, only looked on the plunder of St. Eustatia and the other Dutch settlements as an additional means of increasing their own popularity and that of the American war.

The whole history of these transactions, "the bullying and oppressive conduct pursued by England" towards the Dutch, the contrast it afforded to the offer which shortly before had been made to yield to Russia^[9] on the question of Free Ships Free Goods, the peculiar institutions of the Dutch, which taken in connection with the ancient alliance between the two countries was a reason for treating the States-General with great consideration, and the successive diplomatic steps taken during the negotiation, had been already brought before the House of Lords by Shelburne in a speech on the 1st of June 1780.^[10] He now returned to the subject, and, while declaring himself, as did Lord Camden, in favour of the old principles of the law of nations if not unduly extended, commented with special severity on the seizure of the Dutch ships, in what was practically a time of peace, and before the English Minister had left the Hague.^[11] He reminded the House of the indignation which had been excited throughout Europe against England by the seizure in 1756 of the French ships before a formal declaration of war; although in that case hostilities had already begun in America. "But now," he said, "in a time of the most profound peace between the two states, allied by treaty, friendship and common interest, without any hostile appearance or preparation on the part of Holland; in the midst of the most perfect security and confidence, as well upon the faith of subsisting treaties, as under the universal and established customs current among and acknowledged by every civilized nation on the face of the earth; upon an uncertainty at the best, and so far as appears upon the most shameful pretext imaginable; what has been the decision of the British Cabinet? To seize all Dutch ships, whether of private or public property; whether under commercial protection or driven in by stress of weather. And what next?—it may be supposed to compel justice withheld; to procure satisfaction for some insult; to indemnify our own subjects; and to retain the property thus seized and withheld, till the object, whatever it might be, should be attained. By no means:—but to the disgrace of the country, to the total dishonour of its councils, and in direct violation of all laws, whether of nations, of nature, of public honour, or private faith, the ships and cargoes are seized, not to be detained, but confiscated, for the joint advantage of the captors and the state; and what is worse than all, a commandment is given to render the municipal tribunals the instrument of legalizing an act, which is equally repugnant to every law now existing in the written codes, current, or of authority, throughout Europe."^[12]

Before concluding his speech Shelburne adverted to the state of affairs in America, which he described as "the native offspring of ministerial ignorance, obstinacy and want of principle"; and in England, where the immediate object of the Ministers was, he said, to increase the influence of the Crown and the power of the sovereign. Their policy, he declared, was conceived in ambition; it was nurtured by folly and rashness; it was founded on ideas totally subversive of the British Constitution; it was unjust and wicked in the extreme; it was carried on with violence and without prudence; and prosecuted in all its parts with the most unrelenting and unheard-of cruelty. In respect to the recovery of North America, he confessed that he had been "a very Quixote," and expected, because he most anxiously wished, that our Colonies might be prevailed upon to return to their "former state of connection" with this country. He had indeed pushed his expectations further, he believed, than any impartial person informed of all the circumstances both here and in America, the present Administration excepted, ever had: but his hopes had long since vanished. "He had waked," he said, "from those dreams of British dominion, and every important consequence which he flattered himself might be derived from them. But as in the course of what he might have urged in favour of those delusive hopes and vain and idle expectations, some expressions of a loose, general, and indeterminate nature, might have fallen from him, he wished to be perfectly understood. Much as he valued America; necessary as the possession of the Colonies might be to the power and independence of Great Britain; fatal as her final separation might prove, whenever that event might take place; as a friend to liberty, as a reverer of the English Constitution, as a lover of natural and political justice, he would be much better pleased to see America for ever severed from Great Britain, than restored to her possession by force of arms or conquest. He loved his country; he admired her political institutions; but if her future greatness, power, and extent of dominion were only to be established and maintained on the ruins of the Constitution, he would be infinitely better pleased to see this country free, though curtailed in power and wealth, than possessing everything the most sanguine expectation could picture to itself, if her greatness was to be purchased at the expense of her constitution and liberty."

Early in November, Grafton informed Shelburne, that notwithstanding his unwillingness to abandon his retirement, he thought it advisable that they should both recommence a regular attendance in Parliament.^[13] Shelburne accordingly went to London, so he himself relates, and "as soon as he arrived he conveyed to the Marquis of Rockingham, through a channel highly respectable and of strict honour, a message to the following purpose; viz. that he was come to town in the design of being in perfect good humour, and of uniting in any plan of opposition which might prove of essential advantage to the public; that he had always wished to stand upon the ground laid down in the second address from the Committee of Association of the county of York; and that he still wished that Lord Rockingham would unite upon that ground; that if Lord Rockingham would propose any alteration in that plan which would tend, in an equal degree, to reform the Representation of this country, he would agree to it, and that he did not doubt but that the county of York, &c., would also accede thereunto; that if Lord Rockingham would explicitly propose any other radical and effectual plan, which would unite and satisfy the friends of the country, both within doors and without, he would be willing to co-operate with Lord Rockingham upon such ground; that he wished never to see more than two parties; that of the Crown, and that of the People; and that he thought any third party, distinct from both, ruinous to the kingdom.

"Lord Rockingham (after having been pressed for two days) refused to accede to any of the three above mentioned propositions; but had no plan of his own whatever to propose. A union on the ground of the American war, was the only idea suggested by Lord Rockingham; which was thought much too vague, too weak, as well as too inadequate to the situation of the country for Lord Shelburne to accede to."^[14]

Such was the position of affairs, when instead of the anticipated victories the news arrived on the 25th of November 1781 of the surrender of the army of Lord Cornwallis at York Town. Parliament was to meet on the 27th. "It is with great concern," said the Royal speech, "that I inform you, that the events of war have been very unfortunate to my arms in Virginia, and have ended in the loss of my forces in that province." It none the less spoke of prosecuting the war with vigour.^[15] In both Houses amendments were moved to the address; in the Upper House by Shelburne, who insisted on the absolute impossibility of continuing the struggle, and moved an amendment which he supported with especial reference to the condition of the finances of the country. The last loan of twelve millions, he pointed out, had been borrowed by giving stock worth twenty-one; eighty millions had already been added to the National Debt, which would amount to one hundred before the next campaign was over; America could not be conquered by arms, and in Europe England had not a single ally. He then proceeded to say that he could easily account to himself why the King, who had seen his empire, from a pitch of glory and splendour perfectly astonishing and dazzling, tumbled down to disgrace and ruin with a degree of precipitation which no previous history could parallel, should rise in greatness of mind superior to the dreadful situation of his affairs. As little was he surprised that ministers should take advantage of the noble sentiments of their monarch, and contrive and fabricate such a speech as should best flatter his personal feelings; but it was to be remembered, that those ministers had never governed long for the people's advantage in any country, who had not fortitude enough to withstand the mere impulse of their master's sentiments.^[16] The ministerial majority in the House of Lords was however not to be shaken, and the amendment was negatived by 75 to 31. In the House of Commons the case was different. There the Opposition, led by Fox and Burke, by Barré and Dunning, and reinforced by the rising talents of Pitt and Sheridan, carried on an incessant warfare against the Ministry during the whole of the session before Christmas, and saw the majorities opposed to them steadily diminish. During the recess fresh disasters both by sea and on land came to confirm the necessity of peace, which now began to be demanded by the powerful voice of the mercantile community. The fleet of Admiral Kempenfelt was unable to face the French squadron owing to his own inferiority of numbers. St. Eustatia, Demerara, and Essequibo were retaken by the French, together with the colonies of St. Christopher, Nevis, and Montserrat. Finally Minorca, which, lost in 1756, had been regained at the Peace of Paris, was obliged to surrender to the Due de Crillon.

Lord North now felt that it was necessary to bend to the storm. He began by getting rid of Lord George Germaine, whose fall was softened by his elevation to the Peerage as Viscount Sackville. This gave rise to two animated debates in the House of Lords, where many Peers strongly protested against the creation to be a Peer of a person "whose disgrace was entered in the Orderly Book of every British regiment."^[17] The question thereupon arose whether the House of Lords had the power of refusing to admit a new member. Shelburne on this occasion made a speech which became of great importance, quite apart from the merits of the conduct of Lord George Germaine and of the court-martial which had condemned him in 1760.^[18] Already in 1778, when speaking on the Duke of Richmond's motion on the state of the nation, he had declared that he never would submit to the doctrine that the members of the House of Commons were the only representatives and guardians of the people's rights; he asserted that the House of Lords were equally the representatives of the people; they held the balance; and if they perceived the Crown and the House of Commons uniting to oppress the people it was their duty to interpose. He also expressed a doubt whether the House of Lords was really incompetent to alter a Money Bill, and he said that he should like to have the question fairly tried, were it for no other reason but to hear "the sleek, smooth contractors" come to the Bar, and declare that they and they only could frame a Money Bill and could alone dispose of the property of the Peers of Great Britain.^[19] The first half of the above doctrine is undoubtedly correct. "The Lords," said Selden, "sit for the Commonwealth,"^[20] and the truth of this maxim though frequently forgotten can be easily supported by reference to the historical origin of the Upper House. In the Thoughts on the Causes of the present Discontents, Burke himself had formerly set the example of appealing to the people against a corrupt House of Commons, though in 1784 he forswore his own doctrine, and to a certain extent it would appear for no better reason than that Shelburne had since enunciated it.^[21] Returning to the question Shelburne now said that he had no objection to the King having an opinion of his own, and feeling an interest in the management of the affairs of the realm, and in that sense being his own minister and unlike the King of the Mahrattas, a nominal monarch, with a Peishwa or efficient Cabinet holding the reins of Government and keeping the King locked up. He also desired to see a free and independent House of Commons. They now however had a high-toned prerogative Prince, and a servile and corrupt Parliament; the strongest symptoms of despotism and tyranny. He could not therefore but anxiously wish to see a perfect representation of the people, and when that happy time arrived he should be justified in entertaining a reasonable expectation of better prospects. Meanwhile, he asserted, the House of Peers held the balance between the Crown and the other House, and had the power to resist extraordinary stretches of the prerogative.^[22] In its real constitutional point of view no man thought more highly of the House of Commons than he did; but when sunk in corruption, when it became the mere creature of the minister and affected to be a kind of septennial nobility, without the dignity, the means, the situation, and the personal interest in the State of a real aristocracy, it became an object of public contempt and an instrument of public danger.^[23] As to the question immediately before the House, he considered that a greater outrage had been committed, when the direction of the war had been placed in the hands of Lord George Germaine as Secretary of State, than now when he was created a Peer, and he would not himself have supported the motion against the creation, had it not been for the unconstitutional language about the prerogative held by the Ministers; more especially as he had no objection to make to the personal conduct of Lord George Germaine while in office.^[23]

The motion which had been brought forward in the House of Commons on the war with America had not contained any words which specifically bound the movers to recognize the absolute independence of America. Shelburne desiring that his own views on the question of America should not be misunderstood in the event of the retirement of Lord North, took the opportunity of a debate on the surrender of Lord Cornwallis to state that they remained unchanged since he had last spoken, and that while fully recognizing that any attempt to restore the former relations between the Colonies and the mother country by force would be useless, he was still as strongly as ever opposed to the absolute severance of all ties between them.^[24] Neither this speech nor that on the Sackville peerage made co-operation between him and Rockingham easier; for the latter was now determined to insist on the unconditional independence of America, and fully intended that if he was Prime Minister, George III. should be a King of the Mahrattas. The difference of opinion between the two Whig leaders was now of greater importance than ever, for after a number of defeats equivalent to victories the Opposition in the House of Commons carried a resolution on the 27th of February, declaring the advisers of the further prosecution of offensive war with America to be the enemies of their country. The following day the Attorney-General introduced a Bill to conclude a peace or truce with America, and an informal negotiation was at once set on foot in Paris with Franklin. On the 8th of March a vote of censure on the Ministers was lost by a narrow majority. The King now thought it advisable to consult Rockingham, through the Chancellor. Rockingham, who had a winning game to play, stated the propositions to be assented to by the King as follows: "American Independence, no veto; Establishment Bill; Great parts of Contractors Bill; Custom House and Excise Bill; Peace in general if possible; Economy in every branch."^[25] The King refused these terms, and the negotiation after lasting eight days failed. Meanwhile the attack in the House of Commons continued. On the 15th a direct motion of want of confidence was brought forward by Sir John Rous, a former supporter of the Government, and was lost by a majority of only 9. Another motion of a similar character was put down for the 20th. The King however still declared that he would not throw himself into the hands of the Opposition, and he even talked of retiring to Hanover.^[26] At last on the morning of the dreaded 20th, the King understood that the struggle could no longer be continued, and the same evening Lord North announced in the House of Commons that his Administration was at an end. The King now bethought himself of sending for Shelburne and an interview between them took place at the Queen's house in the Park. "The King," says Lord Shelburne, "proposed to me to take the Administration with the Chancellor, Ld Gower, Ld Weymouth, Ld Camden, the Duke of Grafton, Ld Rockingham, &c., if the latter would agree to state their pretensions of what they meant by a broad bottom, for the King's consideration. I declined this, as absolutely impracticable. The other features of this conversation were, the state of his health; his agitation of mind; his determination to risk anything rather than do an act of meanness; the cruel usage of all the Powers of Europe; the bad opinion of Ld Rockingham's understanding; his horror of C. Fox; his preference of me compared to the rest of the Opposition; that it was unbecoming him to speak to many; that the general wish was for a Broad Bottom."^[27]

Shelburne after this interview reported what had passed to Rockingham. "You can stand without me," he said, "but I could not without you," and they resolved to wait. The King next sent for Gower, who however told the King that he could not help him.^[28] "The following day," says Shelburne, "I stated to the Lord Chancellor the several advantages of the King sending to Lord Rockingham, which would result to himself and to the public, and would enable me to be of far more service both to him and to the public; but if he had conceived an invincible aversion to this measure, rather than see his health impaired, or that he should risk any desperate measure, I certainly would not run away from any opportunity of serving his Majesty or the public, providing the objection went no further, than what regarded the overt act stated of sending to Lord Rockingham in the first instance."^[29] In the evening of the same day he made a bitter invective in the House of Lords against Lord North and Lord Stormont, in order to make it quite clear to the King, that it was not with them that he intended under any circumstances to ally himself.^[30] On the 23rd the Chancellor came to see Shelburne, and informed him "that he had found the King invincible as to sending to Lord Rockingham himself; that the King had it in contemplation to send for a number of principal persons, in which he might be included, but was dissuaded from that measure as liable to many objections, and could not bring himself further than to receive his Lordship through me. I restated to the Chancellor the reasons for still pressing the other, but if it could not be effected, duty to him and the public forbade my running away; provided—

"1. That his Majesty would give me every engagement I had already entered into; clear both as to men and measures, at first setting out.

"2. That the assistance and co-operation of the Rockinghams was to be procured, cost what it would more or less.

"3. Full power and full confidence.

"Supposing the above granted, that I was at His Majesty's devotion, and hoped to prove myself a faithful servant, from whom he might have nothing to apprehend."^[31]

It was at last agreed by the King, that he was to accept Rockingham as the head of the Administration, but negotiate with him through Shelburne. The latter then entered into communication with Rockingham on the subject of the composition of the new Cabinet, and the measures to be pursued. Rockingham insisted very rightly that there should be no ambiguity on the latter subject.^[32] Shelburne accordingly had another interview with the King, and explained to him that in the existing state of affairs the moment had arrived when he must make up his mind to state definitely to Lord Rockingham that he placed no veto upon American independence. The King unwillingly consented, but insisted on retaining Thurlow as his Chancellor, while Shelburne, partly in order to compensate Dunning for waiving his undoubted claims to the Great Seal, and partly in order to have in the Cabinet some person of equal legal knowledge to Thurlow but with Whig opinions, demanded and obtained a Peerage for his friend with the Duchy of Lancaster either for life, or until the Lord Chief Justiceship became vacant.^[33] For this course there was a precedent in the case of the eminent lawyer Sir Nicholas Lechmere, who in 1718 was raised to the Peerage, and at the same time received the Duchy for life. Dunning accordingly became Lord Ashburton, taking his title from the village of that name in Devonshire where he was born. It was however only after many hesitations that he accepted the Duchy. "I have always," he wrote to Shelburne, "given myself the credit enough with your Lordship to have it believed and not imputed to a silly affectation, that instead of desiring I have a dread of any office of any sort, proceeding from a perfect satisfaction with my present situation, an apprehension that I cannot change it with credit to myself or advantage to my friends, and that as far as such talents as mine can be of any use, they may be better employed where I am. Your Lordship's authority has silenced though not satisfied me as to a particular office (for which the habits of my life must have gone further towards qualifying me than for any other), so far that when that office becomes vacant, if it shall be thought proper so to dispose of it, with a full sense of the danger I shall be ready to encounter it. But as to what your Lordship suggested last night of an interim situation, the more I think of it, the less I can bring my mind to the acceptance of an office which is in truth a pension under another name, and is to entitle me to public money without doing anything for it."^[34]

The other appointments were as follows: Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Richmond Master-General of the Ordnance, Mr. Fox Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Camden President of the Council, the Duke of Grafton Privy Seal, and General Conway Commander-in-Chief. These with Thurlow, Dunning, and Shelburne, who became Secretary of State for Home, Irish, and Colonial Affairs, formed the Cabinet.^[35] Barré became Treasurer of the Navy, Thomas Townshend Secretary-at-War, Sheridan Under-Secretary of State to Fox, and Burke, who was treated with strange neglect by his friends, Paymaster-General. Lloyd Kenyon, the friend and once the pupil of Dunning, was appointed Attorney-General, and John Lee Solicitor-General. The Duke of Portland went to Ireland as Lord-Lieutenant, with Colonel Richard Fitzpatrick, the friend of Fox and the brother-in-law of Shelburne, as his Secretary. Lord Shelburne and the Duke of Richmond were appointed Knights of the Garter. It had been the wish of Shelburne to have given high office to Pitt, and at one moment it was all but so settled. On the 28th of March, Lady Chatham writing to Shelburne to congratulate him on his return to office, begs leave "to add a few words to express her own private happiness on the high honour done her son William, which increases that enjoyed by her on the propitious change that has taken place."^[36] It would appear likely however that Rockingham and his friends, already incensed at the promotion of Dunning,^[37] succeeded in keeping Pitt out of the Cabinet. An inferior office he had pledged himself not to take, and he refused the Vice-Treasurership of Ireland, which was offered him.^[38]

Thus was formed the second Administration of Lord Rockingham. "Thank God, Thank God," Horace Walpole writes to Mason on the 21st of March. "What remains of this country and constitution may be saved. No art or industry [but] has been employed to divide and break the Opposition. Lord Shelburne has resisted nobly and wisely, and they triumph together."^[39] On entering office the new Prime Minister was assured by the King, "that he would always receive his recommendations and advice, and the more so when they were concerted with Lord Shelburne and his other servants in the departments to which they related." The King also told his Whig advisers "that the same principle which induced Lord Shelburne originally to give the advice of taking in Lord Rockingham's friends, must induce to make him act cordially with them." "To cement you more," he went on to say, "I forbore to make the Bottom wider. It is for the same purpose that I am now earnest to assure you, that I shall receive your advice and recommendation with great attention, but certainly the more if it meets with Lord Shelburne's concurrence, and vice versa. My opinion was to have the Administration consist of the ablest men without selection or party descriptions; Participation, not Division."^[40]

Men in general anticipated a long tenure for the new Ministers; others who were behind the scenes knew that the crew of the Whig ship was divided against itself and that the captain was dying. On the 25th of March, Shelburne met Fox going down to the House and told him that Dunning would move an adjournment to allow the final arrangements to be made. Fox curtly replied "that he perceived the Administration was to consist of two parts, one belonging to the King, the other to the public."^[41] These unconciliatory words were the sure presage of the internal differences, which were now to be added to external difficulties in themselves quite sufficient to try even a united Cabinet; for no English Ministry had as yet entered on so arduous a task as that which in 1782 lay before Rockingham and his friends. They had either to end a disgraceful and disastrous war, or to carry it on with the impaired resources and diminished prestige of a country of which the army had been directed by Lord George Germaine and the fleet by Lord Sandwich. In the East Indies the Bailli de Suffren was almost a match for Admiral Hughes; in the West Indies the large armament, commanded by De Grasse, would it was feared prove equally dangerous to Admiral Rodney; Gibraltar was beleaguered by sea and land; Mahon had already fallen; England herself might before long be invaded. Sea and land were strewn with the wreck of previous defeats, and the sky was black with clouds presaging a renewal of disasters. It was consequently to the immediate restoration of the naval and military resources of the country that the first efforts of the new Ministers were turned. A circular letter was issued by Shelburne to the principal towns, containing suggestions for the immediate levy of corps of volunteers for the national defence.^[42] Keppel was equally active, "and the low state of the fleet at home, lower by much than the retiring Ministry had told their successors that they would find it, was raised through zeal and alertness to a pitch which ordinary exertions could never have effected."^[43]

It was however above all things necessary to pacify Ireland, in order to be able to negotiate successfully abroad. The concessions made by Lord North on the matter of commerce had come too late. "We have gotten commerce," said Grattan, "but not freedom," when, on the 19th of April 1780, he moved a resolution declaratory of the legislative independence of Ireland. The motion was then lost, and for a short time after, in Ireland as in England, the liberal movement lulled, only to gather new strength, as the inevitable termination of the war with America and the fall of North were foreseen. The repeal of the 6th of George I. and of Poynings' law, with the abolition of the superiority exercised by the English courts of law over those of Ireland, were openly demanded in addition to the former claim of a quam diu se bene gesserint tenure for the judges and an annual Mutiny Bill. In these demands the whole of Ireland was united, and Grattan outstepping his more timid Protestant coadjutors, declared that he would refuse to give freedom to but 600,000 of his countrymen, when he could extend it to two millions more, thereby sounding the death-knell of Catholic disabilities. At the back of these formidable demands was the equally formidable force of the Volunteers. Lord Carlisle, who in 1781 had been sent over, with Mr. Eden as his Secretary, to replace Lord Buckinghamshire, did not conceal from his official chiefs in England, that matters had arrived at that point where a greater or less amount of concession was absolutely necessary.

Such was the position of affairs when in March 1782 the Duke of Portland became Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and Shelburne Secretary of State. The recall of Lord Carlisle was embittered by his simultaneous dismissal from the Lord-Lieutenancy of Yorkshire, to which Lord Caermarthen was now restored. The dismissal was looked upon as a personal affront. Eden returning to London, refused to hold any communication with the new Government, and in order to still further embarrass them, on the 8th of April himself proposed the repeal of the 6th of George I. Fox however, in an impassioned speech, overwhelmed him with shame, complaining with justice of the unfairness of not allowing the Government even a few days to deliberate on the question.^[44]

The 16th of April was the day fixed by Grattan for his motion declaratory of the legislative independence of Ireland. On the nth, Shelburne presented to the Lords a message from the King recommending the House to take the affairs of that country into their most serious consideration. In presenting this message he declared, that in the situation of Ireland the popular demands must be listened to, that vain forms would not prevent a wise Administration from adopting that course, and that from all he could learn, there existed in the country a fund of loyalty and attachment which no misfortune or calamity had been able to shake.

It was evident that in the event of Grattan carrying his resolution in the form which he proposed, a task of the utmost difficulty would at once be imposed on the English Ministry, at a moment when their hands were already more than full. Rockingham and Fox were exceedingly anxious to gain time. Grattan however absolutely refused. It was the opinion of the English officials in Dublin, that he had been encouraged thereto by the speech which Shelburne had just made. "Lord Shelburne's speech," Fitzpatrick wrote to Fox, "gives great satisfaction here, and probably if there had been any chance of soothing this country into moderation, would have done infinite mischief. It is curious enough, that while he is recommending us to support the authority of England more than we either can, or, I think, ought to do, he should be declaring in the House of Lords that the claims of Ireland must be acceded to."^[45] Portland wrote to Shelburne himself in a similar strain. "Your Lordship's speech," he said, "as reported by the newspaper writers, was received with the utmost exultation and joy. For it was considered here as an unequivocal proof not only of the inclinations of the King's Ministers, but of the Parliament on your side, and particularly of the House of Lords, and the conclusion drawn from it amounted almost to a conviction in the minds of people here that you coincide in all their wishes, that you allow them to be founded in justice, and that they must be granted of necessity."^[46]

On the 16th the Irish House of Commons met, and Grattan carried an amendment to the address to the effect that Ireland "was a distinct kingdom with a separate Parliament, and that this Parliament alone had a right to pass laws for her." The amended address then went on to recapitulate the various points which England was summoned to yield. The Cabinet were now above all things anxious to obtain some delay, in order to consider the various knotty points of constitutional law which at so short notice they were called upon to determine. "It would give me a bad opinion," Shelburne wrote to Fitzpatrick on the 19th of April, "of Mr. Grattan's head, who am inclined to have a very good one both of his head and heart, if he objects to the adjournment. The only thing I fear of you, is giving way too easily. It is incredible how much is got by arguing and persevering. Tell them that peace may be made in a moment, and it behoves them to make the most of the instant, and conclude on reasonable terms. I beseech you above all things be distinct and explicit."^[47]

The incapacity of Portland proved at this moment a great obstacle in the way or the English Cabinet. He had begun by assuring Shelburne that the Irish demands would not prove so extreme as had been anticipated, and that some of them would admit of modification. Hence the speech of Shelburne on the 11th of April. It is difficult to find out upon what facts the Duke had based these expectations. "Your Grace," Shelburne at length wrote to him, "seemed at first to apprehend by the requisitions they urged for the repeal of the Act 6 George I., that the chief object of their expectations was the independent legislature," which however was in no manner inconsistent with the idea of obtaining some guarantee for a permanent contribution by Ireland to what at the present day we should call Imperial purposes, "and that the point of final judicature would not be so strongly contended for, or any alteration required in the appellate jurisdiction either by writ of error, or by appealing to the House of Lords; and that in regard to Poynings' law it was only wished to be modified, and that there was much difference of opinion about the extent of the modification. On the subject of the Mutiny Bill you did not suppose that any objection would be made on our part to the wishes of Ireland respecting it; but after the account received of what passed in the two Houses, your Grace felt yourself at a loss in regard to the opinion you were to give of the wishes or sentiments of the people, nor could you positively assert without better information that there was even any intention of retaining the advantage of appealing to the Judicature of England, while every one of the propositions in question seemed to be insisted upon with unanimous zeal and ardour. I must therefore hope, that your Grace will have gained such additional insight into the nature and extent of their views, that by the aid of your advice we may be enabled to settle a successful plan, and adopt the measures most conducive to the speedy termination of the discontents and jealousies upon each specific head of complaint. If those ties by which the two kingdoms have been hitherto so closely united, are to be loosened or cut asunder, is your Grace yet prepared to advise whether any and what substitutions are thought of for the preservation of the remaining connection between us? If by the proposed modification of Poynings' law so much power is taken from the two Privy Councils, as they are now constituted, are we to look for any agreement in any new institution of Council, which may answer the purposes of keeping up the appendancy and connection of Ireland to the Crown of Great Britain, and of preventing that confusion which must arise in all cases of common concern from two Parliaments acting with distinct and equal powers, and without any operating centre? In addressing these queries to your Grace I make it evidently appear that I seek for information, and do not yet hold myself competent to offer any digested plan, or propose any definitive resolution upon them. Without therefore dwelling any longer at present upon the particular force and extent of the several requisitions made by the two Houses, and upon the probable degree in which they may be induced to recede from those terms, and agree to a discussion and accommodation to mutual contentment, I can only repeat my hope of great assistance from a full communication of those opinions and ideas, which your Grace has opportunity of deriving from the parties themselves, and are yourself so entirely capable of suggesting, upon this very interesting and complicated subject. But I must with yet more earnest expression assure your Grace of my entire reliance upon your advice, with respect to the different modes in which it would be wished, or be thought most advisable for us to proceed to a disquisition of these articles of treaty (for as such I regard them) towards that final adjustment, wherein we are certainly on both sides so deeply interested, and must be so anxious to compose our differences, and cement a-new, with fresh attachment, the bonds of connection between us."^[48]

Grattan plainly intimated to Shelburne through a mutual friend, that he would admit no treaty or negotiation. There was not only to be no foreign legislature, but also "no commissioners."^[49] The only concession which Portland was able to obtain was the adjournment of Parliament for three weeks from the 4th of May, "but," he wrote despairingly to Shelburne, "it is no longer the Parliament of Ireland that is to be managed or attended to. It is the whole of this country; it is the Church, the law, the army I fear, when I consider how it is composed; the merchant, the tradesman, the manufacturer, the farmer, the labourer, the Catholic, the Dissenter, the Protestant; all sects, all sorts and descriptions of men": and he sorrowfully confessed that it was true that every letter he had written had progressively reduced the hopes he had originally held out.^[50] "Every day," he went on to say, "convinces me not only of the impossibility of prevailing on this country to recede from any one of the claims set forth in the addresses, but of the danger of new ones being started. The hope I expressed of reserving the final judicature, if not totally, at least by retaining the writ of error, no longer exists." Nevertheless he still had some hopes left. "I recommend," he wrote to his colleagues, "that positive assurances be given them that the alteration of the Mutiny Bill and the modification of Poynings' law shall be conceded to them in the form required by their Address; that the 6th of George I. shall be repealed, and that Writs of Error shall no longer be received by our Court of King's Bench; but that, as Great Britain by these concessions is desirous, not only of satisfying the expectations of the Irish upon all constitutional points, but of preventing every possible source of future jealousy and discontent, she does not doubt of receiving an unequivocal testimony of a correspending disposition on the part of Ireland, and is persuaded that the Parliament of this country will cooperate in the most effectual method, either with the King's confidential servants, or with Commissioners appointed by the Parliament of Great Britain, or through the medium of the Chief Governor of this kingdom, to settle the precise limits of that independence which is required, the consideration that should be given for the protection expected, and the share it would be proper for them to contribute towards the general support of the Empire."^[51]

With this information before them the Cabinet had no choice, and on the 17th of May Shelburne carried without serious opposition the two following resolutions in the House of Lords:

 

1. That it is the opinion of this House, that the Act of the 6th of George I., entitled "An Act for the better securing the dependency of Ireland upon the Crown of Great Britain," ought to be repealed.

2. That it is the opinion of this House, that it is indispensable to the interest and happiness of both Kingdoms, that the connection between them should be established by mutual consent, upon a solid and permanent footing, and that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to take such measures as his Majesty in his royal wisdom shall think most conducive to that important end.^[52]

 

Similar resolutions were moved and carried by Fox in the House of Commons, and at once sent over to Ireland accompanied with an assurance that Bills founded upon them would be at once introduced.^[53] Instructions were at the same time given that no opposition was to be offered to the other measures of reform, which naturally originated in the Irish Parliament.^[54] The joyful tidings was followed in Ireland with a burst of gratitude, and the Parliament voted £100,000 for the levy of twenty thousand seamen. "You will not be displeased," wrote Portland to Shelburne, "at the proof your countrymen have given of their gratitude, liberality and affection to Great Britain. I am not afraid of the speedy revival of their confidence, and though a very considerable and I confess not unnatural share of jealousy remains, if some temper and patience could be taught them, they would become as useful members as they actually are zealous admirers of the English Constitution; but I must add that in my opinion, time is requisite to effect this purpose."^[55]

The Irish nation could not however be persuaded to make any concessions in accordance with the spirit of the second resolution of the English Parliament. For some time indeed Portland deceived himself with vain hopes, as the two following letters will show.

 

Duke of Portland to the Earl of Shelburne.

"Most Secret and Confidential.Dublin Castle, Thursday noon.
June 6, 1782.

"My Lord,—The measure which I stated to your Lordship in my letter of last night as a sufficient inducement for deferring the Prorogation of Parliament, is of so delicate a nature and requires so much secrecy and management, that I think it unadvisable to trust the communication of it to any other hand than my own, and as it is possible that the event may not justify the hopes I entertain, it would be perhaps more prudent to suppress the intelligence, which I am about to give you, until I could transmit the plan properly authenticated for the consideration of your Lordship and the rest of the King's confidential servants. However as I feel that I have a right to take credit for my endeavours, and that the Ministers in England equally partake of my responsibility in the Administration of the affairs of this country, I am as anxious that they should share any merit that can be derived from our joint conduct, as that they should be liable to any blame, to which the adoption of ill-advised or inconsiderate measures may expose them. I shall therefore acquaint your Lordship, that I have good reason to hope that I may be shortly enabled to lay before you the sketch or outlines of an Act of Parliament to be adopted by the Legislatures of the respective kingdoms, by which the superintending power and supremacy of Great Britain in all matters of State and general commerce will be virtually and effectually acknowledged, that a share of the expense in carrying on a defensive or offensive war, either in support of our dominions or those of our allies, shall be borne by Ireland in proportion to the state of her abilities, and that she will adopt every such regulation as may be judged necessary by Great Britain, for the better ordering and securing her trade and commerce, with foreign nations, or her own colonies or dependencies, consideration being duly had to the circumstances of this country. I am flattered with the expectation of receiving the most positive assurances from Mr. Grattan (who may be considered as omnipotent) and his friends, of their support in carrying such a Bill through both Houses of Parliament, and in case such an object could be obtained, I should presume that it would be very desirable to trespass upon the patience of this country to bring it to perfection, even in the present moment. Your Lordship may depend upon the earliest accounts of my success in this business.

"I have the honour to be, with great regard and esteem,

"My Lord,

"Your Lordship's most obedient humble Servant,

"Portland."

 

Earl of Shelburne to the Duke of Portland.

"London, 9th June 1782.

"My Lord,—In the very instant of the departure of the messenger with the despatches accompanying this letter, I have the honour to receive your Grace's of the 5th and your most secret and confidential letter of the 6th.

"The contents of the latter are too important, to hesitate about detaining him, while I assure your Grace of the satisfaction which I know your letter will give the King. I have lived in the most anxious expectation of some such measure, and nothing prevented my pressing it on your Grace in this last despatch, except that having repeatedly stated the just expectations of this country, I was apprehensive of giving that the air of demand, which might be better left to a spirit of voluntary justice, gratitude, and foresight. I therefore gave your Grace confidence for watching the temper of those you had to deal with, and cannot express the pleasure it gives me to find that confidence justified. Bargains and compacts may accomplish little objects, but great ends must commonly be obtained by a bolder policy. No matter who has the merit, let the two kingdoms be one, which can only be by Ireland's now acknowledging the superintending power and supremacy in precise and unambiguous terms, to be where nature has placed it. I am sure I need not inculcate to your Grace the importance of words, and to leave nothing loose in an Act which must decide the happiness of ages, particularly in what regards matters of trade and contribution. Your Grace will have every merit which I can give you. Mr. Grattan, if he has the power your Grace attributes to him, may prove his mind to be enlarged as well as virtuous, and may justify all that Parliament has done in his favour. I can assure your Grace of every support in the prosecution of this measure, and of the most confidential return to every communication you think the public service may require. I entirely agree in your Grace's reasons for putting as speedy an end as possible to the present Session, unless the measure your Grace has in contemplation can be obtained.

"The King is at Windsor. Almost everyone else is out of town. I therefore only write the sentiments of

"Your Grace's, &c. &c.

"Shelburne."

 

Notwithstanding the expectations of Portland, it was found impossible to persuade Grattan and his enthusiastic followers, on whose support the Lord-Lieutenant had so confidently relied, that their work was in any sense incomplete.^[56] The recent changes were claimed by them to be a final settlement of all outstanding differences. Only two members, Mr. Walsh and Sir Samuel Bradstreet, had the courage to record their votes against a motion that "there no longer existed any constitutional question between the two nations that could interrupt their harmony." Meanwhile 211 members voted in the other lobby, and time was left to judge between them and the minority.^[57]

It has been seen that the affairs of Ireland were not settled without suspicions being excited between the two Secretaries of State, Fitzpatrick accusing Shelburne to Fox of holding one language in the House of Lords, and another in his despatches to Portland.^[58] These suspicions were soon converted into positive opposition.

"Though Lord Shelburne had the confidence of the King from March 27th, when the Administration was dismissed,"—so he writes himself in an unfinished memorandum on these times—"yet from the influence of the Rockingham party, their number in the Cabinet, and their numbers in Parliament, it was impossible for him to do much good. He found it easier to prevent evil. He made to them three propositions,—(1) for a Reform of Parliament, (2) for a general reform of the receipt and expenditure of the Publick Revenue, (3) to bring Lord North to a Publick Trial for the American War and other measures."^[59] These proposals were rejected by the Cabinet. The reform of the Civil List and the diminution of Royal influence in Parliament were however points which Rockingham had insisted upon before accepting office, and these he at once proceeded to carry out. Hardly however was his scheme framed before the King began to raise difficulties, and appealed to Shelburne to support him.

In order to spare the feelings of the King as far as possible Shelburne suggested that the latter should of his own accord abolish the doomed offices, and that the abolition should in every instance have the subsequent sanction of an Act of Parliament. This was not however settled without a warm debate in the Cabinet. "I told them," says Fox writing to Fitzpatrick, and speaking of the Chancellor and Shelburne, "that I was determined to bring the matter to a crisis, as I am, and I think a few days will convince them that they must yield entirely. If they do not, we must go to war again. This is all; I am sure I am ready."^[60]

The following letters which passed between the King and Shelburne illustrate the respective positions of the two parties in the Cabinet.

 

The King to the Earl of Shelburne.

"Queen's House, April 12th, 1782.
10 m. pt. 9 a.m.

"The Cabinet being summoned to a meeting this morning on the subject of what is called the Establishment Bill, I late last night thought it right to cast my eye on it, and finding some parts more revolting than others to my mind, thought that the very handsome manner in which Lord Shelburne has spoken on this very unpleasant business to me, demanded my writing without reserve to him on this very personal subject; and my sending the copy I have of the old Bill as printed when Mr. Burke was carrying it through the House of Commons, with written references on the margin, and the fate of each clause in the Committee. When Lord Shelburne has made his use of the Bill, I desire he will return this copy to me, but before I enter on this business it may not be improper for me to state what passed on this measure to the best of my recollection with Lord Shelburne and afterwards with Lord Rockingham.

"When necessity made me yield to the advice of Lord Shelburne in permitting him to offer the Treasury to Lord Rockingham, four propositions were insisted on by that quarter.

"1º. No veto to the Independence of America. 2º. Contractors Bill. 3º. Disqualification of Revenue Officers from voting at Elections of Members of Parliament. 4º. The reduction of several offices proposed in Mr. Burke's Establishment Bill, and a rigid economy in the Administration of the Civil List.

"The answers I gave were I hope cautious and not unsatisfactory as to the three first, and therefore need not be repeated here. As to the last I declared a willingness to introduce the most rigid economy; but that I trusted it could not be meant under that word either to affect the dignity of the Crown, by reducing such offices as had any peculiar attendance on the person of the King, or to diminish its comforts by disabling it from those acts of benevolence which alone make the station bearable; and that I supposed it could now be settled by interior regulations, and was an object for the attention of the Cabinet as far as related to the interest of the Crown, as I thought public economy the object of Parliament.

"Thus things stood till last week, when I found the language of the Marquis of Rockingham changed, and that his ideas began to run entirely on bringing the Civil List before Parliament, and within these two days he has avowed that he means to introduce the whole of Mr. Burke's Bill, and it was with the utmost difficulty I could prevent his taking such a step in the House of Commons, without previously laying the matter before the Ministers, saying it was one of his four propositions, and therefore did not require any consultation.

"He means to-day to lay a message before the Cabinet which, though I tried to avoid it, he obliged me to read yesterday, but on which I did not utter a syllable. Now what I wish is—

"1. That Ld Shelburne will consider at the meeting how far it is necessary for this business to be opened by a message from me.

"2. That the Bill if necessary shall be examined clause by clause at the Cabinet, that the Ministers may coincide in it, and have no diversity of opinions in either House of Parliament.

"3. That those offices which have any peculiar attendance on the Crown may be continued. By the present arrangement, the Treasurer and Comptroller of the Household, the Master of the Buck-Hounds, and the Master of the Jewel Office, are continued. I expect the Master of the Robes also to remain. He has the peculiar attendance of carrying my train at the House of Lords and at all the ceremonies of the Garter, besides constant attendance at my public dressing.

"4. In page 13 it is proposed that the Pensions as it is called in the Bill, but should be Establishment of the different branches of the Royal family and the King's Privy Purse, shall in future be paid fifth in the new order of payments. They have uniformly stood first, as they ought now to remain.

"5. No diminution of the Privy Purse, which in reality is the only fund of which I have the total disposal, and from which I pay private bits of benevolence and every improvement in my gardens: nay, many articles of convenience for the Queen as well as myself.

"6. In page 4 there is a very grating clause that the Crown shall be furnished for its table, household furniture &c. by open contract as an hospital. I am certain this must revolt every one's mind, if it had not stood part in Mr. Burke's Bill, and having been much reprobated in the House will now be proposed to show the weight acquired there.

"7. It will be impossible to carry on the common affairs of my household, if all payments are transferred to the Exchequer, for instance if a messenger is to be sent suddenly abroad he cannot get his travelling money under some days if it is to be paid at that office. The Secretary of State or the Chamberlain's Office must have money on account to answer such services, as also the Master of the Horse for the purchase of horses, the steward of the Household for several articles. I only give these instances that at the moment occur; many others must be under the same predicament. Lord Shelburne has seemed very solicitous for my health, which undoubtedly is much interested in the fate of this business. If I am made uneasy in my private situation, it cannot be expected I shall not severely feel it, and that it will add to my disquietude at having been forced to yield to the times.

"If Lord Shelburne has any wish to consult the Chancellor in the different stages of this business, I do not object to his showing him this letter; all that can be done at the Cabinet this day is to settle if a message is to be sent; then the words of it, and that a Bill when framed shall be laid before the Cabinet for examination previous to being presented to Parliament.

"G. R."

"Queen's House, April 13th, 1782.
59 m. pt. 3 p.m.

"On coming home I found this box containing the printed Bill I sent yesterday to Ld Shelburne and a copy of the extract of it. I think it may not be improper to mention that Ld Rockingham rather cautiously avoided any explanation of what had passed at the Cabinet, and I showed no curiosity, but he chose to express his ideas of the necessity of the message, and an intention of not laying a list of the offices to be reformed, nor the other matters to be fixed by the proposed Bill before the Cabinet, lest the Ministers should not all coincide in his opinions, which were to follow very exactly Mr. Burke's former Bill. I said I thought it absolutely expedient the Cabinet should weigh every clause before the Bill came before the House of Commons; that I wished it the more as I hoped to be as little as possible mixed in the whole business; besides it was better to accommodate the Bill to the ideas of the members of the Cabinet, than by not consulting them have them take different lines on this business in Parliament. G. R."

 

The Earl of Shelburne to the King.

"16 April, 1782.

"Sir,—I have considered since Sunday the state of the Civil List business, and its probable course, and am desirous of submitting to your Majesty's better judgment, whether there would be any inconsistency with the line of conduct your Majesty has laid down, to order Lord Rockingham to lay before your Majesty the alteration proposed in your Household, Wardrobe, Stables, and other Court Services, after consulting the persons most experienced in each of these services, with a comparative view of their present and their intended state, in regard to expense and every other circumstance. I humbly conceive that this may be done under the head of interior regulation, and need not interfere with the desire your Majesty has expressed of mixing as little as possible in the large changes proposed, which go to the reduction of Ministerial influence in Parliament. Whoever was to explain these details to the House of Commons can easily put them on paper for your Majesty's consideration, and your Majesty may refer them afterwards to the Cabinet.

"I proposed to dwell in the House of Lords on the large line of Public Expenditure already taken up by the Commissioners, as the object worthy attention in an economical point of view, and that the proposed reduction of Ministerial influence arising from the Civil List must make the struggle within and without doors, who should contribute most to your Majesty's dignity, comfort, and splendour. I am very sorry on many accounts, that the line of the Message in the House of Commons was so much departed from, as to make it impossible for any person to take the line I proposed without hazarding a public breach.

"I have the honour to be with most respectful attachment

"Your Majesty's dutiful Subject

"and devoted Servant

"Shelburne."

 

Still further differences of opinion arose between Shelburne and Fox when the Contractors Bill reached the House of Lords. An amendment was moved and carried by Lord Ashburton, after a strong speech in favour of the Bill by Shelburne, excepting from its operation contractors selling nothing but the growth, product, or manufacture of their own estates. When however the Bill was returned to the House of Commons, the amendment was objected to with great vehemence by Fox and rejected.^[61] The question of Parliamentary Reform next ranged the two sections of the Ministerial supporters in opposition to one another. On the 7th of May, Mr. Pitt brought forward a motion on the question. It was thrown out by a majority of twenty through a combination of the former supporters of Lord North with those of Lord Rockingham led by Burke, though on this occasion Fox and Sir George Savile were not found voting with their usual friends.^[62] There were also a variety of differences relative to Court appointments, with reference to which Shelburne wished to humour the King, for he had discovered that the latter, if treated by his Ministers with deference on small matters which concerned his personal position, was willing to support them in the large measures which they wished to propose to Parliament. The Whigs however were determined to fill the Court entirely with the members of their own connection, and to make the King as much a slave in his own palace as he had been in the time of George Grenville, of whose visits he about this time assured Shelburne he had a most disagreeable recollection.^[63]

It is however possible that notwithstanding these various causes of offence a rupture between the two sections of the Cabinet, who were popularly compared to Hanoverians and Hessians in the same camp,^[64] might have been avoided, had it not been for the negotiations with America and the belligerent powers in Europe.

 

1. Shelburne to Barré, December 1780.
2. Shelburne to Lady Ossory, January 1781.
3. he diplomatic history of the Armed Neutrality has been written in great detail, and after consulting the original authorities at Berlin, St. Petersburg, and Amsterdam, by Mr. Bancroft. History of the United States, x. ch. xii. xx.
4. Marten's Law of Nations, b. viii. c. vi. sec. 19.
5. Lord Chesterfield when Minister at the Hague described the system as "something to absurd and so impracticable in government" that it was wonderful that "even the form of it had been tolerated so long." Letters (ed. Bradshaw), ii. 620.
6. Suffolk to Yorke, July 17th, 1778.
7. Stormont to Yorke, May 30th, 1780.
8. Stormont to Yorke, December 5th, December 16th, 1780.
9. Malmesbury Correspondence, i. 263.
10. Parliamentary History, xxi. 629.
11. Ibid. xxi. 1023-1043.
12. As to the general practice in Europe at this time, see Marten's Law of Nations, b. viii. ch. ii. s. v.
13. Grafton to Shelburne, November 15th, 1781.
14. Lansdowne House MSS.
15. Parliamentary History, xxii. 634.
16. Ibid. xxii. 644.
17. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1003. Speech of Lord Derby.
18. Ibid. xxii. 1003.
19. Parliamentary History, xix. 1048, 1049.
20. Selden's Table Talk, article "House of Commons," p. 35, ed. 1890, edited by S. W. Singer.
21. "Motion relative to the Speech from the throne, June 14th, 1784," and in the "Thoughts on the French Revolution."
22. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1003.
23. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1006, 1021.
24. Ibid. xxii. 987.
25. Rockingham Memoirs, ii. 451-459.
26. Walpole, Journals, ii. 520.
27. Lansdowne House MSS. The allusion in the chapter of Autobiography, i. 36, to the situation in 1782 as resembling that which followed the fall of Sir Robert Walpole, when Pulteney admitted having "lost his head," may refer to these events or to those in the June following.
28. Walpole, Journals, ii. 522-524.
29. Lansdowne House MSS.
30. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1232. Walpole, Journals, ii. 524.
31. Lansdowne House MSS.
32. Rockingham to Shelburne, March 24th, 1782. Shelburne to Rockingham, March 24th, 1782. Rockingham to Shelburne, March 24th, 1782.
33. See Hansard, Series 1, ix. 201, 202; and infra, Ch. IX. 318, "Character of Dunning."
34. Dunning to Shelburne, March 25th, 1782.
35. The third or Colonial Secretaryship established in 1768 was now abolished. Fox was the first Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. No order in Council or Departmental minute authorizes the change, which is only recorded in a circular letter from Mr. Fox to our foreign representatives. (See Sir William Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, ii. i. 165.)
36. Lady Chatham to Shelburne, March 28th, 1782.
37. Memorials of Fox, i. 293. Wraxall, Memoirs, iii. 13. Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds, 65, quoted by Dr. Felix Solomon in his Life of Pitt, 67, note.
38. March 8th, 1782. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1149. Stanhope, History of England, ed. 1853, vii. 214. Life of Pitt, i. 72.
39. Walpole Correspondence, viii. 184.
40. Notes of a conversation between the King and Lord Rockingham. Lansdowne House MSS.
41. Memorials of Fox, i. 292.
42. Parliamentary History, xxiii. 1-14.
43. Autobiography of the Duke of Grafton, 316, 317.
44. Eden to Shelburne, April 5th, 1782. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1241.
45. Fitzpatrick to Fox, April 19th, 1782.
46. Portland to Shelburne, April 24th, 1782.
47. Shelburne to Fitzpatrick, April 19th, 1782.
48. Shelburne to Portland, April 29th, 1782.
49. Grattan to Mr. Day, April 22nd. Grattan to Fox, May 6th, 1782.
50. Portland to Shelburne, May 6th, 1782.
51. Portland to Shelburne, May 6th, 1782.
52. In Arthur Young's Tour in Ireland, ch. xxiii. (ii. 250-251, ed. 1892) will be found the outline of a plan for a permanent agreement as to a contribution for military and naval expenses by Ireland, for which the author says he was indebted to Lord Shelburne, and from a speech made by Dr. Lawrence in the English House of Commons, on January 22nd, 1799, it is clear that there was a complete identity of views between Burke and Shelburne on this subject. Dr. Lawrence speaking against the proposal for the Union of the Parliaments, having referred to Mr. Burke as "an illustrious friend of his now no more, whose pre-eminent abilities had been for many years the admiration of that House and of the Kingdoms of Europe, whose wonderful endowments yielded to nothing but the benevolence of his heart and his pure, his ardent, his enlightened love of his country," went on to say: "He (Mr. Burke) never had in contemplation any such measure as the present. On the contrary, it was his opinion that the two countries had now grown up under circumstances which did not admit of such an incorporation. But what he desired was that the connexion of the sister kingdoms should be reduced to a positive compact, that the manner should be explicitly defined in which Ireland, with the entire and absolute power of local legislation as far as she now enjoys it, should be bound on Imperial questions of peace and war to stand or fall with the fortunes of Great Britain." (See a letter from Professor Swift McNeill in the Times of February 24th, 1912.)
53. Parliamentary History, xxiii. 16-48.
54. Shelburne to Portland, May 18th, 1782.
55. Portland to Shelburne, June 8th, 1782.
56. In Grattan's Speeches, iii. 355-409, January 15th, February 22nd, 1800. Memorials of Fox, i. 426-431. Parliamentary History, xxx. 957 (Speech of General Fitzpatrick).
57. Plowden, i. 226.
58. The Duke of Portland, it would appear, allowed himself to be persuaded in the month of June by Mr. Ogilvy, who had married the Duchess of Leinster, that Grattan was not really so intractable as he seemed to be; and it also appears from a letter written in 1799 by Fox to Fitzpatrick, that the Duke never informed him of the negotiation with Mr. Ogilvy. (See Memorials of Fox, i. 431.)
59. Lansdowne House MSS.
60. Memorials of Fox, i. 314-315.
61. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1356-1377 and xxiii. 74.
62. Parliamentary History, xxii. 1416-1438.
63. The King to Shelburne, April 12th, 1782. Autobiography of Grafton, 319-320. Memorials of Fox, i. 313, 324.
64. Nicholls' Recollections, i. 96.