Life of William, Earl of Shelburne/Volume 2/Chapter 7
CHAPTER VII
THE COALITION
1783
While the Administration of Shelburne had been negotiating abroad, it had not been idle at home. Fresh difficulties had arisen in Ireland. In the autumn of 1782, Lord Mansfield gave judgment in the Court of King's Bench in an outstanding Irish case, which some time before had been brought before him, but previously to the passing of the recent legislation. A cry at once arose in Dublin that the country was betrayed. The absurdity of the grievance was almost self-evident; for as no more writs of error could be issued, the English Courts would in future be clearly unable to decide on Irish cases. The storm none the less grew, and Lord Temple was interrupted in the midst of his labours for the establishment of the new order of the Knights of St. Patrick, by the complaints of the Patriots. Mr. William Grenville had to rush over to England to consult with the English Government, and Townshend,[1] in order to humour the susceptibilities of Flood and his friends, who had in reality only stirred the question to gain a cheap popularity at the expense of Grattan, introduced a Bill formally renouncing the claim of England to legislate for Ireland and confirming the independence of the Irish Courts of Justice.[2]
The course of economy, of which Burke's Civil List Act[3] was the first instalment, had been vigorously pushed on by Shelburne, and the reforms which he had already begun in the Treasury, he intended to carry into the other Departments. The task was not easy. "The Reform of 1782," says Lord Shelburne in an unfinished memorandum on the subject, "stood under every possible disadvantage, so that it is next to incredible that anything material could have been effected within the time, considering, 1. That the Court was averse to it from a variety of motives, and no one man in Administration or Opposition was in earnest in the support of any reform, except the Duke of Richmond, who confined himself to the Ordnance, and there proceeded upon principles entirely of his own. 2. The state of the Ministry, their inexperience, and the unwillingness of every office and every servant of Government, conscious of abuses which if reformed, however liberally, would not only change their whole existence, but in the course of the examination might prove their criminality; as their profits in many instances were such as could not be stated by them, and no indemnity could compensate: besides the insincerity of the new servants, who, now they were in, could not brook the idea of foregoing the fortunes which their predecessors had made, and were suffered to enjoy with impunity; and the general opinion which went through the offices, that it was a storm which would blow over, and that if the summer could be got over, winter would bring forward another change, or at least other questions to divert the attention of Ministry and of the public; and what was worse than all, every man knew how to cover his disobedience by confounding Reform with Faction, and stating every regulation proposed as an attack upon the Prerogative of the Crown. The course was, first, to try to laugh it down; when that did not do, to call it personal revenge, then Republicanism; and in all events to gain time by retarding as much as possible. 3. The War; the conduct and economy of which, on account of its pressing importance and magnitude, required attention in the first instance. 4. The negotiations of Peace. 5. The terms of the Civil List Act, which had been drawn up by men totally unacquainted with Office, who rather wanted to make believe than to do anything effectual, and who from change of position and a variety of motives, wished nothing so little as to see justice done to the principles which they had professed in Opposition.
"It is not too much to say that the whole of the above rested upon one person, which appears by the little which has been done in that line since. However a considerable beginning was then made notwithstanding all these disadvantages which may be seen by referring to (1) The General Principles established by the Board of Treasury as applicable to all offices of Public Expenditure. (2) The Reform of Particular Offices.
I
General Principles
Abolition of Fees and Simplification of Salaries.
"As to the simplification of salaries. Fees are out of the question. Nothing can be so absurd as one office scrambling a few hundred pounds from another, under the notion that the Civil List and the Public are different interests, or that somewhat is to be drawn from Ireland or the India Company by these means.
"Limitation of Incidents, and particularly Stationery.—The abuses under the head of Incidents, are best seen by the Bills, which were called for by the Treasury in 1782 from all the offices. It went to the very ridicule of abuse; particularly the stationery, under which head several articles of household furniture were had in many instances through the medium of patents; each article paying 40 per cent, tax to the Usher of the Exchequer, besides the enormous profits of the patentee.
"Prohibition of Pluralities, Sinecures, and Patents.—The names speak the abuse of each. As to pluralities, what could be so absurd as to find Mr. clerk in the Treasury, and Secretary of State's Office; Mr. Pointz clerk in the Treasury and acting Deputy Pay Master in America at the same time? As for patents, what can be so inconsistent with every principle of economy, as to have the right of supplying several offices with stationery for ever, sold at public auction, and bought like a freehold estate, to be let out afterwards by the owner to the highest bidder, or in other instances, granted for one, two or three lives?
"Publicity on all matters of Expenditure or Judicature, except Secret Service.—It has been found by experience that this is the grand principle of economy, and the only method of preventing abuses; far better than oaths or any other checks, which have been devised. Instead therefore of oaths of secrecy, there should be an obligation to print at the end of the year every expenditure and every contract, except in cases of Secret Service, which may be subjected to checks of another nature.II
Reform of Particular Offices.
"The Revenue Offices knew no such thing as control or order. It was a general scramble. There was not a commis of any consequence, who had not a line of his own distinct from his principal, and a correspondence of his own to support it. Stockjobbing pervaded the whole to such a degree that a broker was actually lodged in the Treasury for the purpose of more speedily acting upon intelligence on its arrival.
"The best means were adopted, of which the time would admit, to stop the immediate effects of this state of things, and to lay the foundation at the same time of a permanent reform.
"Mr. Gilbert was appointed to examine every Department under the Civil List, of what reform it was susceptible, in consequence of which the whole of it was newly regulated and simplified.[4] The King's expenses were for the first time brought within his income, a regular mode of accommodating was chalked out from the highest to the lowest, and a saving in the establishment to the amount of nearly 100,000l. a year, besides indemnifications for fees and other profits, so as not to leave a single ostensible complainant except one Captain Wolseley, who was out of the kingdom at the time.
"Sir William Musgrave was appointed to examine the state of the Customs, both the office and administration of the customs, and Mr. Stiles, who was a clerk, was made secretary with the same view.
"Mr. Brooksbank was appointed to do the same as to the Excise, and to look out a proper person to be secretary; Mr. Rose to examine the incidents of all the offices, and to see a proper distribution of business among the clerks of the Treasury.
"The American claims in Lord North and Lord Rockingham's time, were left to the discretion of the Minister, and the decisions of course were the consequence of influence more than of justice. A commission was now established of two persons[5] of the most respectable fortune and character, unconnected with ministry, who would accept no salary and undertook to examine publicly the several claims, and decide upon the justice of each claim, without any communication whatever with Administration.
"A commission of the like sort was established to examine into the state of the Crown Lands, the Woods, and Forests.[6] This was undertaken likewise by two gentlemen of the same description with the former, with no salary, who proceeded likewise independently of Administration, to inquire into and rectify numberless abuses which had prevailed in this administration, to the prejudice of the Crown and the retardment of agriculture, and to prepare plans, the object of which would have been to have suppressed several offices, which instead of preserving woods, etc., are so absurdly constituted as to profit by the destruction of them. These plans would have gone to make a revenue out of what is now an expense, and to bring into cultivation immense tracts of land, which now lye waste for want of regulation, and to have laid the foundation of a nursery of timber, proportionable to the demand in all times of the Royal Navy.
"Another commission was instituted of two singularly capable men to enquire into the Mint,[7] and the general state of every part of the coinage with a view to regulate the same in a manner which might facilitate commerce and the communications with other countries, who produced a very capital reform on this subject.
"Enquiry was made into the abuses of the Post, and the foundation laid of the plan which has since taken place on the Bath Road, besides other improvements tending to increase the revenue, and improve the service and facilitate the means of communication.
"A most pernicious custom prevailed for a number of years, as unconstitutional as it was inconvenient, in regard to the service of the Navy. Under the pretence of it being impossible to foresee and consequently make an estimate of the expenses of the year, so that they might be voted like the other services, it became customary to exceed without scruple the grants of Parliament for this service, and supply the want of money by granting bills for the several articles they purchased. Every person selling hemp, iron, or any other article had three calculations to make: 1st, the price of the commodity, 2nd, the interest of money, 3rd, the time of payment which was always uncertain. Add to this that these bills became immediately a public stock, and necessarily a still greater source for gambling, intrigue and speculation than even the other funds. All this was traced to the bottom. Different statements were prepared of it, to show the frightful price which was sooner or later paid by Government for every article, and the pernicious consequences of it, in order to abolish for ever so slovenly a resource.[8]
"Four Acts of Parliament were prepared for the Better Regulation of the Police.
"It was also proposed to adopt a new mode in regard to the public loans, by opening a new fund at the real price of money, instead of adding to the capital without end, which renders all idea of redemption vain—this has been partly executed since by paying last year's portion of Navy bills by a 5 per cent. fund—to set forward a plan of conversion by which the holders of 3 per cents., and 4 per cents. may be induced by a small premium to change their stock to 5 per cents. with a view to redemption; after regulating and simplifying the taxes, so as to produce a sinking fund; to secure the application of it by means of public trustees, or some other means which shall make it truly sacred, independent even of Parliament; to open trade upon the most liberal principles, and revise all the laws relative to it, and to take up a system in regard to Foreign affairs, suited to the interests of Great Britain with regard to all the other powers of Europe, and without regard to former prejudices.
"When Secretary of State, Lord Shelburne obtained an Act to prevent certain offices in the Plantations being executed by Deputy, or granted for life. These were previously certain offices in each of the islands, and all other plantations, which produced from 1000l. or 3000l. a year, and were always given to the children or near relations of Secretaries of State (the younger sons of Lord Egremont, Lord Sackville, &c., hold such now to a considerable extent), and have them executed by deputies, who rent them to a very great amount. After this Act no such office can be so granted."[9]It was not to be expected that these reforms would take place without exciting great opposition. The cry of parsimony and cheese-paring, of sacrificing efficiency to economy, and of favouritism, were at once raised. Of this abuse Burke made himself the mouthpiece in Parliament. "He himself," he said, "had aimed only at the destruction of Parliamentary influence, and of sinecures for Parliamentary men; but the Ministers had aimed their blows at poor inferior officers of twenty, thirty, and forty pounds a year, which was all their dependence and support, after a life of service, for themselves and their families."[10] Outside Parliament, Walpole, who was directly affected by the reforms of the Stationery Office and of the Ushership of the Exchequer, joined his voice to that of Burke in an even fiercer diatribe;[11] and Shelburne only added to their indignation by declaring that his views on the necessity of Parliamentary reform were entirely unaltered, and that he looked forward to adding one hundred members to the County Representation: proposals which Burke and Walpole agreed in considering to be subversive and dangerous to the Constitution.[12]
Thus by the time that the Preliminary Articles of Peace were signed, it was an open question whether the field of home or of foreign politics would be most dangerous to the Prime Minister, while of the genuine support of the King there were doubts. The responsibility for the recent reforms was fixed upon him, nor did he shrink from it. They were, he himself states, "his own unassisted work."[13] The peace negotiations, it was known, had been mainly conducted by him. On him accordingly, as he probably foresaw, the storm broke, and unlike former Ministers he had not a party in the true acceptation of that word, with which to combat it. He gloried, on the contrary, in not having a party; but meanwhile he was almost in danger of not having a ministry. Keppel resigned; Richmond ceased to attend the Cabinet; Lord Carlisle gave up the office of Lord Steward; Grafton threatened to resign, considering that sufficient deference was not paid to his opinion, especially in matters of ecclesiastical and other patronage; Camden declared that the ship was sinking, and desired to quit it; Temple was discontented at not being made a duke. Such a condition of affairs was naturally tempting to those who sat in the cold shade of Opposition.[14]
In the latter part of the month of December mutual overtures had been made by the friends of North and Fox, to bring these two leaders together, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government and dividing the spoils of office. The intermediaries of the negotiation were Eden and George North for Lord North, and Colonel Richard Fitzpatrick, Lady Shelburne's brother, for Charles Fox. "I own," says George Selwyn, "that to see Charles closeted every instant at Brooks by one or the other, so that he can neither punt nor deal for a quarter of an hour, but is obliged to give an audience while Hare is whispering and standing beside him, like Jack Robinson, with a pencil and paper for mems., is to me a scene 'la plus parfaitement comique que l'on puisse imaginer,' and to nobody it seems [more] risible than to Charles himself."[15]
Considering the extraordinary violence of the language habitually indulged in by Fox during the past seven years against North, it might have been thought that any endeavours to form a coalition between them would have been but labour lost. But Fox approached the high game of politics in the same spirit in which he approached the faro table at Brooks.[16] Not a year was gone by since he had apostrophized the Administration of his rival in the following terms: "From the moment," he said, "when I shall make any terms with one of them, I will rest satisfied to be called the most infamous of mankind. I would not for an instant think of a coalition with men who in every public and private transaction as ministers, have shown themselves void of every principle of honour and honesty. In the hands of such men I would not trust my honour even for a minute." Only six months before he had stated that in his opinion so utterly detestable was the character of Shelburne, that he was even capable of coalescing with North, and he had more than once asserted that the latter deserved to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours committed against the State.[17] Yet when the prizes of office rose in view, the high crimes, the misdemeanours, the want of common honour and honesty of North were alike forgotten by Fox, the idea for a moment entertained by Rockingham in 1780 was revived, and the negotiation for a coalition begun by Richard Fitzpatrick and William Eden and nurtured by Loughborough who hoped to be Chancellor, soon assumed a hopeful aspect.
Their plan was no secret, and Shelburne seeing his Cabinet threatened in this unexpected manner, and weakened by the discontent of some of his colleagues and the resignation of others, was obliged to consider what means he could take to weather the coming storm.
A coalition with North was open to the same objections in his own case as in that of Fox. It might however be possible, without offering office to him or to his principal friends, to obtain from them a degree of support sufficient to carry a vote on the Peace through Parliament. The idea however did not find favour with the Ministry as a whole; but Dundas, who had pressed the idea, communicated it on his own account to William Adam, a personal friend of North, telling him however that the support given must be explicit and unconditional, a proposition which the less scrupulous mind of Temple considered stamped with the "vanity and personal arrogance" of Shelburne, as he believed that North would have done what was wished upon terms of immediate provision for his friends.[18]
This attempt having failed, Shelburne next obtained the King's leave to form a junction with Fox and those of his friends who had left the Administration in July, and an interview in consequence took place between the latter and Pitt. Fox, who a few days previously had told Grafton that he and his friends were immovable on the necessity of the Cabinet proposing the head of the Treasury, at once asked Pitt if it was intended that Lord Shelburne should occupy that post? Pitt replied that it was. "It is impossible for me," Fox rejoined, "to belong to any Administration of which Lord Shelburne is the head." "Then we need discuss the matter no further," said Pitt, "I did not come here to betray Lord Shelburne"; and with these words he ended what is said to have been his last private interview with Fox.[19]
"I am not in the least surprised," the King wrote, "at Mr. Pitt's interview having ended as abruptly as the hastiness and impoliteness of Mr. Fox naturally led me to expect; I shall certainly not object to any other quarter Lord Shelburne may with the advice of Mr. Pitt choose to sound; but must insist that Lord Shelburne's remaining in his present situation be the basis of any plan that may be prepared for my inspection. By this clear instruction Lord Shelburne must feel himself at liberty to act as he may find it necessary, and I can trust his own sentiments are too much exalted to think of supplicating any party; but that whoever he treats with must be expected to feel obliged for any offer that is made."[20]
Shelburne on receiving this letter fell back upon the idea of gaining support from the friends of North. To this Grafton strongly objected, and taking umbrage at the same time at the bestowal of a seat in the Cabinet on the Duke of Rutland, a friend of Pitt, recently appointed Lord Steward, as well as at the refusal of some small pieces of private patronage which he had solicited for his friends, announced his intention of shortly resigning the Privy Seal, being determined not to abet Lord Shelburne's views "of becoming Prime Minister, and being determined never to consider him but as holding the principal office in the Cabinet."[21]
Shelburne now sent for Dundas. On the latter entering the room he asked "whether he had ever heard the story of the Duke of Perth." Dundas answered "No." Shelburne then said, "The Duke of Perth had a country neighbour and friend, who came to him one morning with a white cockade in his hat. 'What is the meaning of this?' said the Duke. 'I wish to show your Grace,' replied his country friend, 'that I am resolved to follow your fortunes.' The Duke snatched the hat from his head, took the cockade out of it, and threw it into the fire, saying, 'My situation and duty compel me to take this line, but that is no reason why you should ruin yourself and your family.' I find," he continued, "that it will now be necessary for me to quit the Government; and as you are beloved by all parties, I wished you to have early notice of it, that you might be prepared for what must happen. Fox and the Duke of Portland will make up a Government with Pitt, for I cannot hear of Pitt's high notions of not taking part in any Government where I am not one. He shall not think of resigning with me. Lady Shelburne is so distressed that I cannot think of remaining longer in this situation; and having worked the great work of peace, I am not desirous to remain"; and he ended by expressing his own belief that a junction would take place between Pitt and Fox, to the exclusion of North. This conversation was at once reported by Dundas to Adam, in the hope that it would frighten North into giving some support to the Government. It had precisely the opposite effect, as might have been expected, for Fox could not offer less to North than Shelburne had proposed, or than Pitt was ready to give. "It was your communication," said Rigby to Adam, "that put an end to everything."[22]
An interview had meanwhile taken place between Fox and North, at which it was formally agreed that they should forget their former differences, and coalesce in order to overthrow the Government. They agreed to make the reform of Parliament an open question, and to join in opposing the Address on the Peace which was about to be moved. With the latter object North drew up an amendment to be moved by Lord John Cavendish. To some further overtures for support made by Rigby to North on behalf of Shelburne, North replied, "It is too late."[23]
The Address upon the Peace was studiously moderate in tone. "We agreed," says the Duke of Grafton, "that no triumphant words could be carried, or ought to be proposed." The debate upon the Address took place in both Houses on the 17th of February, when it at once appeared that the coalition was an established fact. Lord Pembroke and Lord Carmarthen were the mover and seconder in the House of Lords; Mr. Thomas Pitt and Mr. Wilberforce in the House of Commons. The amendments, moved respectively by Lord Carlisle and Lord John Cavendish, were cleverly drawn so as to engage Parliament to confirm the peace, but asking time to consider; in other words refusing to approve them.[24]
The chief supporters of the amendment in the House of Lords were Lord Townshend, Lord Stormont, Lord Sackville, Lord Walsingham, Lord Loughborough, and Lord Keppel who had just resigned. Against them were ranged the Duke of Grafton, Lord Grantham, Lord Howe, the successor of Lord Keppel at the Admiralty, Lord Hawke, Lord Shelburne, and the Chancellor. The Duke of Richmond, who had also resigned, expressed himself dissatisfied with the Preliminaries, but refused to vote against them; Lord Gower adopted a similar course.
The principal points selected for attack in the American Treaty were the boundary line between the two countries throughout its whole length, the clause relating to the fisheries, and the alleged neglect of the Loyalists. In the French and Spanish Treaties hardly a clause except that relating to Minorca remained unchallenged. The national interests, it was declared, had been entirely abandoned; the fleet it was alleged, especially by Keppel, had never been in so efficient a condition, and the glorious recollections of 1763 were evoked to put to shame the negotiators and the Ministers of 1782, who it was further asserted had no right to sign the treaty without consulting Parliament. The condition of the finances of the country was too prosaic a subject to be deemed worthy of much attention by the excited critics of the day.
The debate in the House of Lords continued till a very early hour of the following morning. Late at night Shelburne rose to reply to the objections which had been urged against the treaty. He began by dwelling on the difficulty of the position at the moment he was called to the head of affairs, and pointed out how numerous and intricate the questions were which he had had to consider; on all these questions he had sought the best advice, and consulted those persons whose opinions were generally regarded as authoritative. As to the cession of the back lands of Canada, he showed that considering the small annual value of their exports and imports, it was preposterous to argue that their loss would ruin the trade of England, while it should be recollected that the best fur districts were in the country which was retained, and that the preservation of the English monopoly in those countries had cost no less than £750,000 a year. "What then," he said, "is the result of this part of the treaty? Why this: you have given America, with whom every call under heaven urges you to stand on the footing of brethren, a share in a trade, the monopoly of which you sordidly preserved to yourselves at the loss of the enormous sum of 750,000l. Monopolies, some way or other, are ever justly punished. They forbid rivalry, and rivalry is of the very essence of the well-being of trade. This seems to be the æra of Protestantism in trade. All Europe appears enlightened, and eager to throw off the vile shackles of oppressive and ignorant monopoly; that unmanly and illiberal principle, which is at once ungenerous and deceitful. A few interested Canadian merchants may complain; for merchants always love monopoly, without taking a moment's time to think whether it is for their interest or not. I avow that monopoly is always unwise; but if there is any nation under heaven which ought to be the first to reject monopoly, it is the English. Situated as we are between the old world and the new, and between southern and northern Europe, all we ought to covet upon earth is free trade and fair equality. With more industry, with more enterprise, with more capital than any trading nation upon earth, it ought to be our constant cry, let every market be open, let us meet our rivals fairly, and we ask no more."
On the question of the Loyalists, Shelburne appealed to his own past conduct, as a proof that he was not likely to have neglected their interests. Lord Sackville, he said, had declared his belief that the recommendation of Congress on their behalf would prove of no avail; but the word "recommendation" was that which Congress had always used to the Provincial Assemblies in all their measures relating to money and men. It was difficult, from the nature of the Constitution of the United States, to procure more than a recommendation. It might also be fairly asked which of the two styles of language was most likely to assist the Loyalists: the style of the Address which declared the confidence of Parliament in the good intentions of the Congress, or of those orators who declared that recommendation to be worth nothing.[25] In reply to the questions, "Why have you given America the freedom of fishing in all your creeks and harbours, and especially on the banks of Newfoundland, and why have you not stipulated for a reciprocity of fishing in the American harbours and creeks," he showed that for the first of the two annual fishing seasons it would have been impossible to exclude the American fishermen, while in the second there would be plenty of room for both parties, and no necessity for the English fishermen, owing to their superior advantages from the exclusive command of the neighbouring shores, to feel hampered by the presence of those of the United States. The same reply could be given on the question of the concessions made to France, which had the additional merit of being the best means of preventing the eternal bickerings of the fishermen of the two countries.
The cession of the two Floridas, like that of the back lands of Canada, he defended, by the test of imports and exports. These amounted to £220,000 a year, a sum not worth contending for, at the hazard of continuing the war. The cession of Tobago, it had been said, would be the ruin of the English cotton manufacture. He replied that the English cotton manufacture had been great before Tobago was an English possession, while the islands restored to England were just as well adapted to the cultivation of cotton as Tobago. The cession of St. Lucia and the clause relating to Dunkirk were, he said, mourned over as fatal, when considered from a naval and military standpoint; but the opinion of Admiral Rodney could be quoted to the effect that Dominica was more than the equal of St. Lucia for those purposes; while the authority or Admiral Hawke, and there was no higher authority, could be quoted to show that all the art and cost which France could bestow on the harbour of Dunkirk would not render it formidable to England. France, as Lord Grantham had already observed, wished to have the feathers she had formerly strutted in restored to her, and no sober man would continue the war to thwart a fancy so little detrimental. The cession of Senegal, he observed, had been declared to be as fatal to the gum trade as that of Tobago to the cotton trade. The objection breathed the spirit of the old colonial system: "By this article of the treaty," he said, "we secure as much as we ever had secured, a share in the gum trade, and we are not under the necessity we formerly were of making that coast a grave for our fellow-subjects, thousands of whom were annually devoted to destruction from the unhealthiness of the climate, by means of our jealousy, which sent them there to watch an article of trade which in vain we endeavoured to monopolise."
The distracted state of the British dominions in India, and the condition of the affairs of the Company, were the justification for the concessions made in that quarter of the globe. The troops were four months in arrear of their pay; the credit of the Company was at the lowest ebb; there were drafts unpaid to the amount of £1,400,000, and there were others to the amount of £240,000 coming home. The ancient enemy of England, M. de Bussy, was leaving France in the decline of life almost at the age of eighty for the sole purpose of forming alliances. The Mahrattas were still hostile; the forces sent out against Hyder Ali were in daily dread of being starved to death. In such a condition of affairs concession was unavoidable, and neither in India nor elsewhere did he deny that concessions had been made; the question however was whether those concessions could have been avoided, and the answer depended on the condition of the finances, and of the naval and military resources of the country. In his opinion peace even at the cost of some sacrifices was necessary. "On an entire view of our affairs," he said summing up his argument, "is there any sensible man in the kingdom that will not say that the powerful confederacy with which we had to contend had not the most decided superiority over us? Had we one taxable article that was not already taxed to the utmost extent? Were we not 197 millions in debt? and had we not the enormous sum of 25 millions unfunded? Our Navy bills bearing an enormous discount; our public credit beginning to totter; our commerce day by day becoming worse; our army reduced, and in want of 30,000 men to make up its establishments; our navy, which has been made so much the boast of some men, in such a condition, that the noble Viscount, now at the head of the profession, in giving a description of it, strove to conceal its weakness by speaking low, as if he wished to keep it from going abroad into the world. But in such a day as this it must be told; your Lordships must be told what were the difficulties which the King's Ministers had to encounter in the course of the last campaign. Your Lordships must be told how many sleepless nights I have spent; how many weary hours of watching and distress. What have been my anxieties for New York? What have I suffered from the apprehension of an attack on that garrison, which, if attacked, must have fallen! What have I suffered from the apprehension of an attack on Nova Scotia or Newfoundland! The folly, or the want of enterprise of our enemies, alone protected those places; for had they gone there instead of to Hudson's Bay, they must have fallen. What have I suffered for the West Indies, where, with all our superiority of navy, we were not able to take one active or offensive measure for want of troops; and where, if an attack had been made where it was meditated, we were liable to lose our most valuable possessions! How many sleepless nights have I not suffered for our possessions in the East Indies, where our distresses were indescribable! How many sleepless nights did I not suffer on account of our campaign in Europe, where, with all our boasted navy, we had only one fleet with which to accomplish various objects! That navy the noble Viscount was fair to own, was well conducted. Its detachment to the North Seas, to intimidate the Dutch, was a happy and a seasonable stroke; but the salvation of the Baltic fleet was not at all to be ascribed to ability; accident contributed to that event; accident contributed to more than one article of our naval triumphs. How many of our ships were unclean? The noble Viscount has told us the case of the fleet with which he was sent to the relief of Gibraltar. He could hardly venture to swim home in the Victory. How many of our ships were in fact undermanned? Did the House know this? Did they know that our naval stores were exhausted, that our cordage was rotten, that our magazines were in a very low condition, and that we had no prospect of our navy being much better in the next campaign than it was in the present? Does the House know all this? The noble Lord is offended at my directing myself to him.[26] I have no idea of imputing blame to the noble Lord. His abilities are unquestioned; but when the greatness of the navy is made not only a boast, but an argument, it is fair to examine the fact. Are not these things so, and are not these things to be taken into the account, before Ministers are condemned for giving peace to the country? Let the man who will answer me these questions fairly, tell me how, in such circumstances, he would make a peace, before he lets his tongue loose against those treaties, the ratification of which has caused so many anxious days and sleepless nights. It is easy for any bungler to pull down the fairest fabric, but is that a reason, my Lords, he should censure the skill of the architect who reared it? But I fear I trespass, my Lords, on your patience too long. The subject was near my heart and you will pardon me, if I have been earnest in laying before your Lordships, our embarrassments, our difficulties, our views and our reasons for what we have done. I submit them to you with confidence, and rely on the nobleness of your natures, that in judging of men who have hazarded so much for their country, you will not be guided by prejudice, nor influenced by party."[27]
The debate concluded with a legal battle between Loughborough and Thurlow, on the right of the Crown to sign a treaty ceding national territory without the previous consent of Parliament. The speech of Thurlow upon this occasion is generally considered to have settled the question in the affirmative.
At half-past four in the morning the House divided on the question, "that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the address." The Contents and proxies were 72, the not Contents and proxies were 59. There was consequently a majority for the Address of 13. It was observed that of the Bench of Bishops only thirteen were present, and only seven voted with the Ministry. Their consistency may however be admired in not desiring to associate their names with the conclusion of a war which they had done so much to excite and embitter.
The event in the House of Commons was different. There Lord John Cavendish's amendment was carried by 224 to 208, and the Coalition triumphed.
"Blessed are the Peacemakers," Caleb Whitefoord wrote from Paris; "so it is written, and so it might have been in ancient times, but in those of modern date on a changé tout cela, and changed too with a vengeance; for of all mankind none are so apt to be traduced, vilified and misrepresented as your Peacemakers. Is it not amazing that one man who plunges a nation into all the horrors of a ruinous war should be universally applauded, and another man who extricates them out of it should be cursed and abused."[28]
Next day there were reports that Shelburne was about instantly to resign, and men began at once to write the epitaph of the fallen Minister. "Lord Shelburne," said Johnson, "is a man of coarse manners, but a man of abilities and information. I don't say he is a man I would set at the head of a nation, though perhaps he may be as good as the next Prime Minister that comes; but he is a man to be at the head of a club—I don't say our Club—for there's no such Club." "But," said Boswell, "was he not a factious man?" "O yes Sir," replied Johnson, "as factious a fellow as could be found; one who was for sinking us all into the mob." "How then Sir," said Boswell, "did he get into favour with the King?" "Because Sir," replied Johnson, "I suppose he promised the King to do whatever the King pleased."[29]
Some said he intended to dissolve Parliament; nor were there wanting numerous advisers of such a course.[30] Considering the great success which attended the dissolution of the same Parliament by Pitt in the following year, it might seem as if a dissolution would have been the best policy. The circumstances were not however exactly the same, as however unpopular the Coalition already was, it had not yet had full time to show that the genius of violence and faction which had presided over its birth was also to inspire and direct its maturer counsels. Nor was Shelburne Pitt. The popularity of the latter was in no small degree owing to the fact that he stood totally unconnected with the quarrels of the past twenty years: quarrels of which the country was grown weary and disgusted. The nation in 1784 was inclined to throw itself into the arms of any man of sufficient ability and purity of character who it was believed would open a new era. The feeling was akin to that which in other countries has led to a Dictatorship and the loss of parliamentary institutions, when they have been made the instruments of sordid intrigues and personal ambitions. The history of England from 1760 to 1782 had been the record of the struggle between the Court and the great Whig Houses, and of the internal jealousies of the latter. Of all this the nation was weary, and although Shelburne following the example of Chatham, had attempted to form an Administration which was to be the slave neither of the King nor of the Whigs, he had been too much personally identified with the turmoil, the strife, and the political anarchy of the past twenty years to have the same hold on the public as Pitt. There was yet another reason why a dissolution in 1783 would have been a dangerous experiment. The peace for the moment was not popular; a scapegoat was desired, and Shelburne was the scapegoat. It had been easy to denounce the war; it was now equally easy to denounce the peace, and the passions of the hour had been worked with the utmost skill by the Whig pamphleteers, for whom no misrepresentation was too gross, no slander too base, so long as it served the object of blackening the character of their former ally in Opposition. The virulence of their language may be gathered from the fact that a scurrilous publication by Dennis O'Brien, entitled, A Defence of Lord Shelburne, was popularly attributed to Burke or Sheridan.[31] As Thurlow observed with bitter irony during the last debate in the House of Lords, "When the Opposition apprehended that the difficult task of making peace would fall upon themselves, then our condition was painted in all, and perhaps in more than its real gloom; and their Lordships were depressed and tortured with the accounts which were given of our navy and our resources. Then any peace, it was declared, would be a good one. A peace for a year even, nay for a month, for a day, was coveted. Anything that would just give us breathing time, and serve to break the dangerous confederacy against us, would be a prosperous event. But when the grievous task was shifted to others, how did the language differ! The navy grew as it were by magic. The resources of the State became immense. The condition of the country flourishing; and the Ministry were to be tried by the strictest and most rigid law."
There was yet another reason against dissolution. Shelburne's extensive ideas of Reform had alarmed many of his own colleagues and had probably frightened the King himself. The main object at which he proposed to aim, and he did not conceal it, was to abolish "the false system of Government," which had grown up under the circumstances described in the Autobiography since the accession to the throne of the House of Hanover.[32] The Crown and Parliament were each to be restored to the sphere to which it was entitled under the Constitution; and an end was to be put to their reciprocal encroachments each upon the other. The absolute supremacy of the House of Commons as to finance, which under Lord North had been flouted, was to be restored and rigidly maintained. On the other hand, the constant inroads of the House of Commons on the proper sphere of the Executive and on the patronage of the Crown were to be terminated, bearing in mind the disastrous effects which had thereby been produced under Lord North. There was to be a real first minister, on whom the King could rely in these matters for advice and support. Few however of Shelburne's principal colleagues—Pitt, Ashburton and Conway were probably the only exceptions—understood these ideas. Grafton and Richmond openly resented them as encroachments on their own rights; or in a confused way considered that they were a clear proof that "Shelburne was as fully devoted to the views of the Court as Lord North ever had been."[33]
Such were the considerations which probably induced Shelburne not to dissolve Parliament. The end was now not far off. On the 20th Grafton resigned the Privy Seal, giving as his reason that he had not been sufficiently consulted, especially with reference to the recent appointment of the Duke of Rutland to the office of Lord Steward with a seat in the Cabinet.[34] The same day Shelburne had a long interview with Camden, who advised him to retire at once, "as unfortunately it plainly appeared that the personal dislike was too strong for him to attempt to stem it, with any hope of credit to himself, advantage to the King, or benefit to the country; that he had it in his power, to retire now with credit, and the approbation of the world; for whatever the arts and powers of the united parties had expressed by votes in Parliament, still the nation felt themselves obliged to him for having put an end to such a war, by a peace which exceeded the expectations of all moderate, fair judging men."[35] Camden further advised Shelburne to advise the King to send for Portland, or if he did not resign himself, to try to coalesce with North.
Shelburne next saw Pitt. The following day Lord John Cavendish was to bring forward a second motion, which, with sublime indifference to the declaration of its predecessor, that the House had not yet had time to examine the preliminaries and therefore could not applaud them, now proposed to censure them in the lump, without even calling for papers. "Such a gross indecorum," says Walpole, "was perhaps occasioned by the desire of saving Lord North from any retrospect the neglect of which they could not justify if they went into articles against Lord Shelburne."[36] The result of the interview between Shelburne and Pitt seems to have been that they should await the debate on the Resolutions; and that if Pitt saw that the result must be adverse, he should announce the resignation of Shelburne.
Their decision was based to a considerable extent on an idea that the King had been hitherto playing them false and now regretted it. The division list of the House of Commons might consequently in some instances be altered, and as a few votes would turn the scale, the Resolutions of Lord John Cavendish might after all be thrown out. In the previous division Jenkinson, once Secretary to Lord Bute, who had been a member of Lord North's Administration after 1778, as Secretary at War, and was still regarded with Mr. John Robinson as the leader of the party known as the King's friends in the House of Commons, had indeed voted for the Address, but he had not been followed by all the members who were supposed to know his real mind, and some members of the household, it was supposed with the consent of the King, had expressed disapprobation of the peace.[37] The suspicions of Shelburne were thereby aroused, for he had always distrusted Jenkinson, and they were increased on receiving a letter from Mr. Orde, who had succeeded Strachey as Secretary to the Treasury, running as follows:[38]—
"I cannot help troubling your Lordship with this hasty line merely to communicate a conversation I have just had with Mr. Hatsell,[39] to whom I had gone for information on the subject of the division of Monday.
"He observed to me, that he would not ask about your Lordship's intentions, but he would merely in confidential talk with me throw out his own idea and firm belief, that the question of stability or downfall to your Administration depends solely (as your Lordship has always said) upon the Highest. It is not the difference of the peace. It is his will. Lord Guildford is notoriously liable to his influence in a complete degree—and Lord North is not less so to Lord Guildford's. That it would therefore be only necessary to represent to the King that the matter solely depended upon him; that if he was solicitous to continue the Government in the present hands, he should speak to Lord Guildford and to such others, as will be moved by the certainty of his interference; such as Sir G. Osborne &c. &c.; that it would not answer to take any power yourself to treat, for experience had formerly shown, that nothing less than the King's earnest co-operation and immediate address could do. If he declines this, it should be taken as an infallible evidence of his indifference, at least about the event, and of course your Lordship would consider whether it would be comfortable, creditable, or safe, to continue efforts in his service under such disadvantage.
"I must own, that this opinion, though not meant to be conveyed to your Lordship, and without the most distinct intimation from me, that I designed to do so, so entirely coincides with my own, and which I in part took the liberty of opening to your Lordship this morning, that I cannot help writing it, as soon as I have got back to the Treasury.
"I am convinced, that it would be of the first consequence to know the King's mind upon this, before the debate of to-morrow, upon which the fate of all must rest. I am sure your Lordship will excuse my earnestness, which all arises from anxious attachment to you without the smallest concern about my office."
The King himself was loud in his protestations ot friendship, but his Minister remained convinced that he was playing a double game, and he ever afterwards declared that the Court had tricked and deserted him. George III. he said had one art beyond any man he had ever known; "for that by the familiarity of his intercourse, he obtained your confidence, procured from you your opinion of different public characters, and then availed himself of this knowledge to sow dissension."[40]
Whatever the conduct of the King himself may have been, it must be recollected that the position of the King's friends in Parliament was widely different in 1783 from what it had previously been. Some had been affected in purse, others in their future prospects, all in public estimation, by the recent reforms. Of these they knew Shelburne to have been the inspiring genius, whatever his calumniators might say to the contrary. The opportunity of revenge was now come. They sent to ask the price of their support, and received the uncompromising reply that the peace must obtain the unbought approbation of Parliament or none at all.[41] After this their part was taken, and when Lord John Cavendish brought forward his resolutions, it soon became known what the result of the division was to be. Late in the evening Pitt rose to reply, and before he sat down the result of his recent interview with Shelburne appeared. After a masterly defence of the treaties, he said, alluding to Fox:
"The honourable gentleman who spoke last has declared with that sort of consistency that marks his conduct, 'because he is prevented from prosecuting the noble Lord in the blue ribbon to the satisfaction of public justice, he will heartily embrace him as his friend.' So readily does he reconcile extremes, and love the man whom he wishes to prosecute! With the same spirit, Sir, I suppose he will cherish this peace too because he abhors it. But I will not hesitate to surmise, from the obvious complexion of this night's debate, that it originates rather in an inclination to force the Earl of Shelburne from the Treasury, than in any real conviction that Ministers deserve censure for the concessions they have made: concessions which, from the facts I have enumerated and the reasoning I have stated as arising from these facts, are the obvious result of an absolute necessity, and imputable, not so much to those of whom the present Cabinet is composed, as to that Cabinet of which the noble Lord in the blue ribbon was a member. This noble Earl, like every other person eminent for ability, and acting in the first department of a great State, is undoubtedly an object of envy to some, as well as of admiration to others. The obloquy to which his capacity and situation have raised him has been created and circulated with equal meanness and address: but his merits are as much above my panegyric, as the arts, to which he owes his defamation, are beneath my attention. When stripped of his power and emoluments, he once more descends to private life without the invidious appendages of place; men will see him through a different medium, and perceive in him qualities which richly entitle him to their esteem. That official superiority which at present irritates their feelings, and that capacity of conferring good offices on those he prefers, which all men are fond of possessing, will not then be any obstacle to their making an impartial estimate of his character. But notwithstanding a sincere predilection for this nobleman, whom I am bound by every tie to treat with sentiments of deference and regard, I am far from wishing him retained in power against the public approbation; and if his removal can be innocently effected, if he can be compelled to resign without entailing all those mischiefs which seem to be involved in the resolution now moved, great as his zeal for his country is, powerful as his abilities are, and earnest and assiduous as his endeavours have been to rescue the British Empire from the difficulties that oppress her, I am persuaded he will retire, firm in the dignity of his own mind, conscious of his having contributed to the public advantage, and if not attended with the fulsome plaudits of a mob, possessed of that substantial and permanent satisfaction which arises from the habitual approbation of an upright mind. I know him well: and dismiss him from the confidence of his sovereign, and the business of the State when you please, to this transcendant consolation he has a tide, which no accident can invalidate or affect. It is the glorious reward of doing well, of acting an honest and honourable part. By the difficulties he encountered on his accepting the reins of government, by the reduced situation in which he found the state of the nation, and by the perpetual turbulence of those who thought his elevation effected at their own expense, he has certainly earned it dearly: and with such a solid understanding, and so much goodness of heart as stamp his character, he is in no danger of losing it. Nothing can be a stronger proof that his enemies are eager to traduce, than the frivolous grounds on which they accuse him. An action which reflects a lustre on his attention to the claims of merit, has yet been improved into a fault in his conduct.[42] A right honourable gentleman who has exhausted his strength in the service of the State, and to whose years and infirmities his absence from the Parliament can only be attributed, owes to the friendship and interference of the noble Earl a pension, which however adequate to all his necessities and convenience in the evening of life, is no extraordinary compensation for the public spirit which has uniformly marked his parliamentary conduct. Surely the abilities and virtues of this veteran soldier and respectable senator deserved some acknowledgment from that community in which they had been so often and so manfully exerted. Surely his age entitled him to a little repose in the lap of that public to whose welfare his youth had been dedicated. Surely that principle of humanity, which stimulates those in power to commiserate in this manner the situation of neglected merit, possesses a nobleness, a generosity, a benevolence, which instead of incurring the censure of any, ought to command the admiration and praise of all.
"I repeat then, that it is not this treaty, it is the Earl of Shelburne alone whom the movers of this question are desirous to wound. This is the object which has raised this storm of faction; this is the aim of the unnatural coalition to which I have alluded. If however the baneful alliance is not already formed, if this ill-omened marriage is not already solemnized, I know a just and lawful impediment, and, in the name of the public safety, I here forbid the banns."[43]
At half-past three in the morning, the House divided, when the numbers were found to be, Government 190, Opposition 207. On receiving the intelligence of the result the King at once wrote to Shelburne:—
"I cannot help writing, on coming home and receiving Mr. Secretary Townshend's note with the list of speakers and the numbers of the division this morning, just to express that I am sorry that it has been my lot to reign in the most profligate age, and when the most unnatural coalition seems to have taken place, which can but add confusion and distraction among a too-much-divided nation.
"Lord Shelburne's letter, containing the sentiments of the gentlemen in high office in the House of Commons on the unnatural and factious coalition of adverse parties to my present Ministry, gives me great concern, though after the event of last night it does not surprise me. Had my immediate presence been necessary, I should have instantly set out for town; but as I think it proper Lord Shelburne should have seen all the effective Cabinet Counsellors before he speaks fully to me, there cannot be the smallest necessity for my coming till Monday. Lord Shelburne has my consent to communicate to the Boards and any others he thinks proper on this subject; Mr. Pitt and Mr. Townshend may state what they have to say to me on that day, as well as the Duke of Rutland; the Chancellor and Lord Camden should also come and deliver any opinion that occurs to them, for I shall certainly not take the smallest step, till I have heard all the Cabinet. It is unpleasant to be again, indeed from necessity, left to extricate myself, to the assistance of Divine Providence, and that fortitude which a rectitude of intentions always produces and I must again depend on. Of one thing I can answer, that no difficulties shall drive me to throw myself into the hands of any party, and that a coalition of the best of all parties, not the narrow line of one can prevent anarchy."[44]
On the 23rd Shelburne called a Cabinet, and in the evening a larger assembly of his own friends. To both meetings he declared his resolution of resigning, which on the following day he accordingly did; recommending the King to send for Mr. Pitt. This advice the King instantly followed. "Our friends," writes Mr. Pitt to his mother the following day, "are eager for our going on, only without Lord Shelburne, and are sanguine in the expectation of success, Lord Shelburne himself warmly so."[45] After sounding the ground however, he was obliged to inform the King that the task was as hopeless for him as for Shelburne.
"Every argument I could think of," writes the King to the latter, "I employed to actuate Mr. Pitt to take the step which would undoubtedly do him credit; and on reflecting since, I am clear I could not add any more; yet nothing could get him to depart from the ground he took, that nothing less than a moral certainty of a majority in the House of Commons could make him undertake the task; for that it would be dishonourable not to succeed if attempted; all I could obtain was that he should again try, but as fixed a declaration that if he cannot meet with what he thinks certainty, he shall decline. I have therefore directed the Chancellor to attend after the drawing-room, to see, if he declines, what is the next best step; for I can never think of putting myself into the chains of a desperate faction."[46]
While the King was engaged in searching for a Minister, Pitt decided, with the concurrence of Shelburne, to push on the Bill which proposed to regulate intercourse with the United States, pending the conclusion of the commercial treaty which Oswald and Strachey were to have negotiated. The measure was one of obvious urgency, and was framed in concurrence with the liberal principles which had actuated Jay and Oswald in their conversations on the subject at Paris, and it relieved the commerce between the United States and England of the burden of the Navigation Acts. The introduction of it however was the signal for opposition from the Whigs, nor was it able to make any material progress.[47] Meanwhile no success had attended the endeavours of the King to form a Ministry. "It is no fault of mine," he wrote to Shelburne, "that no leader in the House of Commons is yet appointed; the laying myself at the feet of any party is a step I can never stoop to; want of zeal has till now prevented others, but I am not without hopes soon to be able to name a proper one."[48]
In this dilemma the King on March the 9th, after seeking advice in various quarters,[49] summoned Lord Ashburton, for whom he had conceived a strong regard during the short period of their official connection. Of their interview Lord Ashburton has left an account. The King began by giving a short sketch of his relations with his various Ministers since his accession, in order to prove that he had himself acted fairly throughout; he then proceeded to more recent events.[50] He said he had pleasure in understanding the people had so far recovered their senses, that there was but one opinion about "the thankless combination which had given success to the disappointment at the peace." His servants however having declared that in consequence of the votes of the House of Commons the business of government could no longer go on in their hands, he had thought it necessary to see his whole Cabinet; he had been sorry to find that none of them had anything to suggest by which the coalition (on which he bestowed many harsh epithets) could be resisted; being however determined to resist, he had thought it necessary to inform himself whether it had gone the length reported. With this view he had sent and spoken to Lord Guildford, who expressed his disappointment in the strongest terms; but believed it had not gone so far as to bind Lord North; on which point he was desired to inform himself, and if it proved the case to send to Lord North. Late next day he had heard from Lord North, but being then on his way to St. James's, he appointed and in consequence saw Lord North at 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening. He received Lord North with studied hauteur, expressed his surprise at his conduct, and asked him, "Whether he saw any real objection to the peace?" "To the French and Spanish certainly none, but to the American." Upon which he said Lord North must know "American independence was a thing he could ill bear, but that he must like it when he knew that no better could be expected, after what had passed in the House of Commons; with which, if anybody was to be reproached, it was his new associates." He reminded him upon this occasion of what was known before he quitted his office; for Lord North, he said, before the meeting of the House of Commons, had told him they could not go on; that the war could not be supported without heavy taxes on the necessaries of life; and that people of all classes were so little inclined to submit to new burdens, or indeed government of any sort, that a peace was absolutely necessary. As Lord North had thereby not only agreed to, but recommended a change of Administration, he had not expected opposition from him. He had also, he added, been to Lord North after his resignation, and received from him an explicit assurance of his and his friends' support of the measures of Administration, qualified by no other exception than that of any attempt to change the Constitution. Lord North agreeing that peace could not be avoided, expressed his dissatisfaction with the boundary line; "upon which," said the King, "I reminded him of a transaction between him, Lord Dunmore, Lord Hillsborough, and Lord Carlisle, with David Barclay, in which they were told the Americans would insist on that line; and I asked him whether he thought it possible after their subsequent successes, and what had passed in December, to prevail with them to recede from what they had so strenuously insisted on so long before?" Then he mentioned the Loyalists. "Could he think that I meant to abandon men who had suffered by their attachment to the Constitution?" "Did he think it wise to continue a war for this purpose; now at any rate?" He answered by an estimate of the expenses necessary to continue the war.
Since then, so the King went on to Lord Ashburton, he had nothing to do with Lord North, but he had sent for and seen the Chancellor, who though he agreed in the propriety of resisting the combination, had nothing instead to suggest, and told him he had had a conversation with Lord Mansfield, who thought that all soberminded people would set their faces against it. Upon which the Chancellor asked, "where the sober-minded people were to be found": and added, "sober-minded people before they set themselves to crush one Administration should have another to put in its place." He had thought it necessary to see Lord Mansfield, but found him broken and helpless; he expressed his general dislike of the combination, said that it was never out of his head, and that he cried all day long over his situation; but that he saw nothing was to be done, except to give way to the Parliament, which could not be resisted. "I observed to him," said the King, "that I understood the coalition met with little concurrence from his friends, and advised him to consult them, which he promised to do, and he afterwards assured me that he conversed with some few of his friends, who were of opinion nothing could be done but what he had proposed. Pitt said this was so different to his usual manner, which was bold enough where the subject was what other people should do, and when nothing was to be done by himself, that I considered him as an old woman who could be of no use to me. In the interview with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gower's name had been mentioned as one whose detestation of the coalition was likely to incline him to step forth. I saw him; he seemed inclined, if another Administration could be formed; and he suggested Mr. Thomas Pitt, if he could be prevailed on.[51] I desired him to apply to Mr. Thomas Pitt or Mr. Thomas anybody. Afterwards he let me know that he had not been able to find a proper channel of communication with Mr. Thomas Pitt. I proposed to send to him myself; but it ended in his proposing to go to him. He told me afterwards he had seen Mr. Thomas Pitt, who declined, but recommended giving way to the coalition people, to fill the efficient offices, and take such measures as they thought right, but not to allow them to dispose of honours of any sort; nor to expect any support from the Court. The idea I found was that such an Administration could not last a month, and as well for that reason as that I could not reconcile myself in point of morality, I declined it. Being told Mr. Thomas Pitt had put his ideas in writing, I desired to see them. Lord Gower brought the paper to me, but thought he had no authority to part with a copy. I desired he would get leave to make a copy. Mr. Jenkinson's name having been mentioned, I was afraid that old prejudice might revive; at any rate a name less connected with party would be much preferable; in case such a name should occur to him, I chose to see him. From Lord Gower I learnt that he had refused to join Lord North in opposing the peace, that he had dissuaded Lord North from the measure, and that the friends who had lately been consulted were, Mr. Edmund Burke, Mr. Keene, Mr. Charles Townshend and Mr. George North; in short the people who were to profit by the intended coalition. He told me too that the Duke of Richmond was very much against it."
After thus describing what had passed, the King suddenly said: "I have been thinking of a measure which it is my determination to use, if nothing better can be done. It is to go to the House of Lords, and to deliver a speech which, without assistance or communication anywhere, I have composed. It purports, that by most interested and selfish views of some men, and the want of zeal or public spirit of others, I found myself unable to make up an Administration, in place of the one whose demerit was the making a peace which the state of public affairs had rendered necessary, comprehending the Courts of France and Spain; asks your advice, and declares it to be my unalterable resolution, never to consent to such a change of councils, so obtruded on me." "I conceive," writes Lord Ashburton, "that it was meant to convey the idea which he owned very fully in conversation, that if an Administration was to be so formed, it must be settled with his son. I represented to him the hopelessness of the measure, as there were none very much inclined to support it in the House; said I preferred a minister to a speech. If he could get anybody to take it up, I recommended leaving out the intemperate part at the conclusion of what he had prepared to take as an unexampled step. He urged repeatedly his wish to find some name in the House of Commons less unpopular than Townshend and the Lord Advocate; none occurring to me, he mentioned Thomas Pitt. I thought him a wrong-headed man. He said the Chancellor appeared to be inclined to give way, but that he would send for Lord Gower again, and try what could be done with him, together with the Lord Advocate. If he declined he thought of the Duke of Northumberland."
"On March 26th," Lord Ashburton continues, "I received a note informing me that the Chancellor was to call on me in his way to London, and desiring me to come to the Queen's house where I had seen him. The Chancellor called soon after 11 to learn from me how the numbers were to be made up, which could carry measures through, and said he understood from the King that I could explain it to him, and that the King was much encouraged by what Mr. Pitt had said to him. I told him I had undertaken no such part; that all I had said, was that Lord Gower, Mr. Townshend, and the Lord Advocate appeared to me a band to stand out upon, in the hope that numbers would follow, when a standard was raised; and if not, no harm was done. He said if he saw a man of force in the House of Commons, and had a board of his own, he would offer himself; but did not know any one else that would; that he had advised the King, seeing no more bright proposals, to send to Lord North, Mr. Fox etc., and to Lord Loughborough, as a man who would keep a sort of middle line. At half-past twelve I found the King had not misunderstood me, nor misrepresented me;[52] but on the contrary had told the Chancellor that I had disclaimed to him any knowledge of numbers; that the Chancellor had left him to see the Lord Advocate at breakfast, and to call on me to talk with me about what could be done; that he had himself seen Lord Gower, who declined, and Mr. Jenkinson, who was ready to act as he should direct; that if he should listen to the Chancellor's advice, he would have Lord Weymouth present at the conversation, and the terms, whatever they might be, to be proposed to Lord North reduced to writing; he lamented the situation in which he was struggling, and inclined to run all hazards with Thomas or William Pitt, who was more concerned in the quarrel; as if encouraging Mr. Fox to fight. I meant to observe what Lord Shelburne represented this evening.
"On the 30th of March I received a note desiring me to come to the Queen's house, as I had not understood a hint he had given me at the levée that he wished to see me there. The King read to me the letters that had passed between himself Lord North, and the Duke of Portland, and latterly Mr. Pitt, and gave a verbal narrative of so much of the transaction, as was necessary to correct and explain. The history was in substance that he had had a species of negotiation with Lord North and the Duke of Portland. He had had the precaution to write to Lord North to be convinced of the Duke of Portland and his friends' desires; and said when they would send again to him, he would mark his agreement or disagreement of the whole or any part. The Duke came himself and began with observing, that as his Majesty had done him the honour to call for his assistance he had come. He reminded him of the paper, and said the conversation must proceed on the foot of that paper. The Duke complained of the want of confidence, and said that without confidence they could be of no use. He understood however from the Duke and Lord North that he was to be informed what they meant to propose; but that Lord North afterwards resigned the thing, as the Duke would not consent to leave the Seal with the Chancellor, who he had then an idea had resigned, or leave Lord North the places in the Cabinet he desired. Here it was understood the thing was at an end; as without Lord North and his friends they could not carry on. Afterwards the Duke had agreed to make Lord Stormont President of the Council; and the Duke came and said he had a list of the intended Cabinet to produce. Being pushed he looked at the paper: Lord Stormont, President, Lord Carlisle, Privy Seal, Mr. Fox and Lord North, Secretaries, Duke of Portland, Treasury, Lord Keppel, Admiralty. The King observed he supposed they meant to fill the vacancies, and he wanted to know how they were to be filled, and the other measures of 'imposition' he was supposed to assent to. He was informed that they did not mean to meddle with his Bedchamber or the charge of the Horse;—that on this he had sent to Mr. Pitt, who seemed to think that he ought not to submit to so unwarrantable a demand, as to agree to acquiesce in whatever measures such a Cabinet would pursue; advised against the making peers, giving life offices as well as tides without knowing to or with whom; and upon this he had conferred with Mr. Pitt privily, and in his presence wrote to the Duke of Portland and to Lord North; that by this he considered Mr. Pitt meant to accept the office; that the next morning he had a note from Mr. Pitt signifying that he thought it requisite before any arrangements were made, to feel the sense of the House on the Earl of Surrey's motion;[53] that he acquiesced in this, trusting that Mr. Pitt would contrive to take the sense of the House, and recommending to him by a note to declare in the course of the debate his resolution to stand forth; that he saw him afterwards at the tevJe, and he explained this was to be the measure of the day; that he was much disappointed when he heard we had proposed a resolution which had not passed, and still more the next day when Mr. Pitt wrote to him, that it was his final resolution to decline. He desired me to consider what he could do consistently with what he declared to be his final resolution, not to submit to the combination; though Thurlow, he said, had despondingly urged him to it. It was obvious that the last step had increased the difficulties in the way of the measure, had he been inclined to it. I thought there were but three measures to choose out of, to try again for an Administration of his own, to try what could be done with Lord North, or to give way; that if he could not make any use of the two last, it was not impossible but that a portion of the indecision of which he felt and remembered so much, would procure support to any Administration he could form. Lord Gower and Mr. Thomas Pitt were talked of again.
"About two o'clock I received another summons. The King told me he had seen Lord North with a view to Lord Gower, and had sent the Chancellor a note, who had had Lord Gower with him, but the latter had declined going to Thomas Pitt, and acknowledged now, that he had consented to stand forth, if William Pitt would; and then he, the King, had sent to Thomas Pitt, and had understood from him that he would be in town as soon as he could. He was willing to persuade himself that something would come of this. He desired me to come to him again that evening, as he wished to communicate what might pass, and afterwards sent me a note, appointing 8. I went and found that nothing could be made of this; that Thomas Pitt had talked of the necessity of raising large sums which would make those who should do it odious, and thought it was time for his cousin, who alone could save the nation, to step out. The Chancellor was mentioned as likely, if Pitt took the Treasury, to call out the Advocate, Jenkinson, etc. The King desired me to see him. I found him out that night, but saw him the next day; found him adverse to the Treasury and to the King's plan. Lord Temple was then suggested, and he proposed to see Lord Gower, if he would not decline. I urged him again to try Lord North, which he consented to. I had understood in the evening, imprimis: that he had written to both Lords with Mr. Pitt, and expected a letter from Lord Temple, but desired to see me at 10 when he should have seen Lord North. I went and found both had failed."[54]
The majority in the House of Commons had meanwhile grown furious.[55] The King at length saw that he must give way. Shelburne informed him that it was impossible that the country should be any longer left without a Government, and knowing the great value attached by the King to the opinion of Lord Ashburton, sent him a note he had received from the latter to the same effect. The King replied with the following letter, the last addressed by him to his retiring Minister:—
"Lord Ashburton's note gives me sincere concern; I have had within these few weeks sufficient proof of the sensibility of his feelings; the cause of my having wished to see him. From my finding, on the coolest reflection, that at an hour when the supplies are not yet found for the navy, army and unfunded debt, a bankruptcy must ensue, if I did not sacrifice myself to the necessities of my people, I have taken the bitter potion of appointing the seven Ministers named by the Duke of Portland and Lord North to kiss hands, who are after that to form their plan of arrangements; I do not mean to grant a single peerage or other mark of favour. Those cannot be called matters that regard the conduct of public affairs, and if they fly out at that, I think torpid as all collectively have seemed, I cannot fail in such a case to meet with support."[56]
Thus was formed the Coalition Ministry. The Duke of Portland became First Lord of the Treasury, Lord North and Mr. Fox Secretaries of State, Lord Stormont President of the Council, Lord Carlisle Privy Seal, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord John Cavendish Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Great Seal was put in commission, much to the vexation of Lord Loughborough, who had taken an active share in the intrigues which had led to the downfall of the late Administration, and expected to be the successor of Thurlow. Fitzherbert and Oswald were both recalled from Paris, and the Duke of Manchester and Mr. Hartley were appointed to fill their places.
One of Shelburne's last acts before finally retiring was to recommend the King to raise the liberal Bishop of St. Asaph, Dr. Shipley, to the see of Canterbury, vacant by the death of Dr. Cornwallis.[57] He also requested the King as a personal favour to make Thomas Townshend a peer, who now accordingly became Lord Sydney.[58] For himself he asked nothing. Lord Grantham, Sir Joseph Yorke, and the Chancellor received pensions. Against these a great outcry was raised, but it is difficult to understand on what grounds, unless a general condemnation be pronounced upon all pensions. The Chancellor had held the seals since 1778. He was to receive a pension of £2800 a year. A far shorter term of service entitles Lord Chancellors to £5000 a year at the present day. Sir Joseph Yorke had been Ambassador at the Hague since 1752, and Lord Grantham, besides his brief tenure of the Foreign Office, had been Ambassador at Madrid for the eight years previous to 1782, and on the declaration of war refused any longer to accept the salary to which he was still legally entitled.[59] A far shorter term of service entitles a diplomatist of the present day to a pension of £1700;[60] and the amount to be received by Lord Grantham and Sir Joseph Yorke was £2000. To the arguments that these grants of money were contrary to Burke's Bill, which precluded the King from giving any pension larger than £300 a year, the answer was obvious. Burke's Bill had not yet come into operation, and when it did, pensions for diplomatic service were expressly exempted from its operation, while it was acknowledged on all hands that an exception would have to be made in the Act in favour of the person who should fill the high office of Chancellor.[61] It is also worth observing that neither the Chancellor nor Sir Joseph Yorke were adherents of Shelburne.
An unexpected piece of patronage at this time came in Shelburne's way. Vergennes expressed a wish to show by any means that lay in his power his sense of the upright and honourable manner in which Shelburne had conducted the Treaty negotiations. Shelburne replied that if any favour could be shown to the Abbe Morellet it would also be a favour to him; as it was to Morellet that he owed the liberal views on commercial affairs and the proper relations between England and France, which could be recognized in the treaties of peace, and were to have entered in a yet more decided shape into the commercial treaties which he had hoped to negotiate. Morellet accordingly received a pension of four thousand francs per annum on the Economats, which he enjoyed till the Revolution.[62]
Having arranged these matters Shelburne retired into the country, where, writing to Mr. Francis Baring, whom he had frequently consulted on commercial questions during the recent negotiations, he described himself as "immersed in idle business, intoxicated with liberty and happy in his family."[63] He only once appeared in his place in Parliament during the remainder of the session, when, by previous arrangement with Pitt,[64] he attacked Lord John Cavendish on the 5th of May for abandoning the sinking fund, and for borrowing by increase of capital rather than by increase of interest, and for attaching a lottery to the loan, a species of public gambling, he said, "most dangerous and offensive, which ought to be at once and for ever abolished, because it corrupted the manners of the people." It appeared from Lord John Cavendish's own statement that £94,000 had been allotted among the clerks in the different public offices. He also adumbrated a plan for a new sinking fund, in which the hand of Dr. Price may be recognized, containing the ideas which Pitt subsequently rendered familiar to the public mind, and had already made his own in a speech on the 11th of April.
The debate on this occasion gave Shelburne an opportunity of vindicating his own recent conduct against the imputations freely levelled at him in the House of Commons by Burke, to the effect that the promises of reform contained in the King's speech had been made only to delude the public. "With regard to the argument," he said, "that he had lost the confidence of the House of Commons, he did not believe it, but let the House of Commons beware or they would lose his confidence. With regard to himself, he had gone out of office holding up his head higher than those who came in, and he now thanked God that he remained independent of all parties. With regard to the promises in the King's speech, they had begun to be fulfilled; the Custom House Bill, a very essential reform, had been already presented to the House of Commons; other great and essential forms of economy were ripening, and would soon have been matured had he and his friends continued in office. The Admiralty department was, he must own, the least active of any great department, with a view to reform. He declared he meant no attack; but such was the fact. With regard to the question so often put 'Why did not the last Administration make the loan,' the truth was, the loan was to have been brought in the very next week after the resolution upon the peace had passed the House of Commons."[65]
This was the last appearance of Shelburne in public for some time. Shortly afterwards he went abroad, after having a long interview with Pitt before leaving England.[66] He was joyfully received by his old friends on the Continent, from whom he had so long been separated by the war. They however no longer gathered in the salon of Mme. Geofrrin, who had died in 1779 from the results of an accident. "Savez-vous," said Morellet, "que son impertinente fille a fermé la porte de sa mère à d'Alembert, à Marmontel, à moi, et à deux ou trois autres hommes de lettres, de ceux qu'on appelle les Encyclopédistes et philosophes, pour s'en faire honneur dans le monde dévot."[67] From Paris Shelburne went to Spa accompanied by Morellet. "Me voici," the latter wrote to Vergennes, "auprès de Lord Shelburne. J'ai observé avec plaisir que le regret de n'avoir pu achever d'ouvrage ne prend pas sur le bonheur de sa vie, et puisque les détails qui l'intéressent ne peuvent vous être indifférents, je vous dirai qu'il a un intérieur domestique charmant, parfaitement calculé, comme ils disent, pour le bonheur. II a avec lui deux sœurs de son épouse[68] et ces trois dames ont tout ce qui peut rendre son intérieur agréable; ajoutez un joli enfant, et vous penserez plus que personne qu'avec des jouissances si douces et si près de soi, on peut se passer d'être Ministre. Ce sont les nations qu'il faut plaindre, lorsqu'elles perdent des hommes faits pour les rendre heureuses."[69]
- ↑ 23 G. III. c. 28.
- ↑ Temple to Townshend, November 20th, 1782. Courts and Cabinets, i. 118-140. Sec the correspondence on Ireland between Pery and Lord Shelburne, Hist. MSS. Commission, Lord Emly's Papers, 175, and the correspondence between Lord Temple and William Grcnville in the Dropmore Papers, i. 165-212—"You may recommend to Townshend to keep that pen which signed the treaty with America, for it will be wanted on some future day for the treaty of conciliation with Ireland" (Temple to Grenville, December 12th, 1782, p. 170).
- ↑ 21 G. III. c. 82.
- ↑ It was Mr. Gilbert's researches into the Public Offices which caused the value of the post of Usher of the Exchequer held by Horace Walpole to be revealed. Walpole, Correspondence, viii. 396. Lord Holland in his edition of Horace Walpole's Journals of the Reign of George II. has pointed out how apt the author was to be influenced by momentary and personal considerations in his criticisms of public men (ii. 196, note). See too Memorials of Fox, i. 50.
- ↑ Mr. Wilmot and Mr. Parker Coke.
- ↑ Mr. McCall and Mr. (name illegible).
- ↑ Mr. Garbett and his son.
- ↑ Immediately after the resignation of Shelburne, Pitt brought in the Bills prepared to carry out several of the above reforms and retrenchments in the public offices. Only one passed into law: the act mentioned below relating to the Plantations. The Customs Bill was adjourned on the 30th of May; and the Bill regulating the Public Offices, after passing the Commons, was thrown out by the House of Lords on the 30th of June, "on the ground of its encroaching on the executive Power of the Crown."
- ↑ Lansdowne House MSS. The Act is 22 G. III. c. 75. The papers of William Knox, for many years Under-Secretary in the American and Southern Department, illustrate the unpopularity of these reforms. Hist. MSS. Commission (various collections), vi. 285. In a letter now at Holland House, Lord Lansdowne says he will send Lord Holland an account of the adjustments of 1782. The Memorandum printed above is probably a portion of it. Price estimated the effect of the contemplated reforms would be a saving of about half a million a year. R. Price, State of the Public Debt and Finances in January 1783, 18, 19, note.
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xxiii. 263.
- ↑ Letters, viii. 264, 396; ix. 2. Walpole, Journals, ii. 566.
- ↑ Shelburne to Pepper Arden, and the latter to Shelburne, October 11th, 25th, 29th, 1783. Parliamentary History, xxiii. 218.
- ↑ Lansdowne House MSS.
- ↑ Autobiography of Grafton, 353, 374. The King to Shelburne, January 4th, 7th, 1783. Walpole, Journals, ii. 582.
- ↑ George Selwyn, Letters and Life, March 2nd, 1783, 196.
- ↑ Madame du Deffand in 1777 had described Fox and Fitzpatrick as follows: "Fox n'a pas un mauvais cœur: mais il a nulle espèce de principes; et il regarde en pitié tous ceux qui en ont. … La plus extrème pauvreté, l'impossibilite de payer ses dettes, tout cela ne lui fait rien. Le Fitzpatrick paraîtrait plus raisonnable, mais le Fox assure qu'il est encore plus indifferent que lui sur ces deux articles. Cette étrange'sécurité les élève à ce qu'ils se croient au-dessus de tous les hommes. … Ce sont des têtes absolument dérangées, et sans espérance de retour. Je n'aurais jamais cru, si je ne l'avais connu par moi-même, qu'il pût y avoir des tetes comme les leurs." Lettres à Horace Walpole, ed. 1812, iii. 371-372. 14 janvier 1777.
- ↑ March 5th, 1783.
- ↑ Memorials of Fox, ii. 32. Autobiography of Grafton, 353. Courts and Cabinets, i. 301. For a discussion of this point, the evidence on which is not quite clear, see Sir G. C. Lewis's Administrations of Great Britain, 57, note.
- ↑ Memorials of Fox, ii. 33. Autobiography of Grafton, 355. Courts and Cabinets, i. 149. Gitrard, Life of Pitt, i. 49. Tomline, Life of Pitt, i. 89.
- ↑ The King to Shelburne, February 11th, 1783.
- ↑ Shelburne to Grafton, February 1783. Autobiography of Grafton, 361. Sir William Anson observes that "it is difficult to understand the Constitutional aspect of the Cabinet as conceived by the Whigs of 1783. Fox maintained that the Cabinet was to choose the Prime Minister. Grafton teemed to think that a Prime Minister might be dispensed with, but that the Cabinet should be consulted before any addition was made to its numbers. How the Cabinet was to be chosen in the first instance does not appear. Autobiogriaphy of Grafton, 361, note.
- ↑ Memorials of Fox, ii. 21, 33-39. Courts and Cabinets, i. 158, 301. Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 88. Hist. MSS. Commission. The Marquis of Abergavenny's Papers, Tenth Report, pt. vi. p. 57. Robinson to North, February 1st, 1783.
- ↑ Stanhope, Life of Pitt, i. 95, 96.
- ↑ Walpole, Journals, ii. 582.
- ↑ It is painful to have to acknowledge that those who argued that the recommendation would be worth next to nothing proved right. The chapter relating the conduct of the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures to the Loyalists is not pleasant reading. Only in South Carolina was any attempt made to carry out the promises of the Treaty. (See Rose, William Pitt and the National Revival, 444-445.) The Loyalists were almost everywhere treated with great injustice, and in many places with cruelty. (See Kingsford's History of Canada, vii. ch. iii. 173, ch. v. 214. The First American Civil War, by Henry Belcher, ii. 94-95. Sabine, The American Loyalists, Preliminary Remarks, 86-87. Nova Scotia, by Bickles Wilson, ch. ix.)
- ↑ Lord Keppel. It is to be remembered that Lord Keppel had just resigned, and been succeeded at the Admiralty by Viscount Howe.
- ↑ The Debate in the House of Lords on the Address on the Preliminary Articles of Peace is to be found in the Parliamentary History, xxiii. 373-435; that in the Commons, xxiii. 436-498.
- ↑ Whitefoord Papers, 180.
- ↑ Boswell's Johnson, iv. 174. A writer in the European Magazine, xxx, 160, says that Johnson visited Lord Shelburne at Bowood. At dinner he repeated part of his famous letter to Lord Chesterfield. A gentleman arrived late. Shelburne telling what he had missed, went on: "I dare say the Doctor will be kind enough to give it us again." "Indeed, my Lord, I will not. I told the circumstance first for my own amusement; but I will not be dragged in as a story teller to a company."
- ↑ Walpole, Journals, ii. 586 5 and many private letters at Lansdowne House.
- ↑ Walpole, Journals, ii. 570. Wraxall's Posthumous Memoirs, i. 230.
- ↑ Morellet, Notes of Conversations in 1783, where he quotes the actual words to be found in the Autobiography. See Vol. I. Ch. I. p. 16 et seq.
- ↑ Autobiography of Grafton, 322.
- ↑ Ibid. 357, 359.
- ↑ Ibid. 364.
- ↑ Walpole, Journals, ii. 587. Nicholls, Recollections and Reflections during the Reign of George III., 51.
- ↑ Walpole, Journals, ii. 586. Rutt, Life of Priestley, i. 206.
- ↑ Thomas Orde to Lord Shelburne, February 21st, 1783.
- ↑ Clerk of the House of Commons.
- ↑ Nicholls, Recollections and Refections, i. 389. Memorials of Fox, i. 479; ii. 65.
- ↑ Rutt's Life of Priestley, i. 206.
- ↑ Alluding to the pension granted to Colonel Barré.
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xxiii. 550-553.
- ↑ The King to Shelburne, February 22nd, 1783.
- ↑ Pitt to Lady Chatham, February 24th, 1783. Lord Shelburne nevertheless subsequently, in conversation with Bentham, twice complained of Pitt in regard to these transactions. "On the day of his resignation," he told Bentham, "there was a meeting of Peers on that occasion at Lansdowne House. Pitt, fearing the intimation of resignation was not sufficiently explicit, came out to him from the Peers to desire he would make it more so. He did; and then Pitt, having got his assurance, accepted the place. … It seemed to sit very heavy on him; but I did not perceive either time wherein the treachery consisted, nor how Pitt was to blame. There seemed to be a tacit reference to some compact expressed or understood."—Bentham, x. 214.
- ↑ The King to Shelburne, February 27th, 1783.
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xxiii. 602, 640, 724. Lindsay, History of Merchant Shipping, ii. 346. Ultimately another Bill was brought in by Fox merely repealing the Prohibitory Acts, and passed into law. Parliamentary History, xxiii. 728, 894.
- ↑ The King to Shelburne, March 6th, 1783.
- ↑ Life of Lord Kenyon, by the Hon. G. T. Kenyon, 99, and see infra, 320.
- ↑ See Vol. I. 258.
- ↑ Thomas Pitt was the son of Thomas Pitt, brother of Lord Chatham. He sat in Parliament from 1761 to 1784, taking at times an active part. In January 1784 he was created Lord Camelford.
- ↑ This interview is mentioned in the Courts and Cabinets of George III., i. 209.
- ↑ On the 31st of March Lord Surrey was to move that "a considerable time having elapsed without an Administration responsible for the conduct of public affairs, the interposition of this House on the present alarming crisis, is become necessary."
- ↑ Lansdowne House MSS.
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xxiii. 690.
- ↑ The King to Shelburne, April 2nd, 1783.
- ↑ The King considered Dr. Shipley's opinions to be tainted with Socinianism, and suspected Lord Shelburne's recommendation for preferment on the same ground. He also feared that Fox would make the same recommendation, and he determined at all hazards to beat both the outgoing and incoming Ministers over the appointment. How he succeeded in doing so and how Dr. Moore, Bishop of Bangor, got appointed is related in Wraxall, Memoirs, iii. 347. See also Ailesbury Papers. Hist. M.SS. Com. Reports, 15th Report, Appendix, pt. vii. p. 277.
- ↑ Shelburne to the King, February 1783. Walpole, Journals, ii. 593.
- ↑ See Pitt's speech. Parliamentary History, xxiii. 588-590.
- ↑ 22, 23 Vic. c. 43, s. 7. Walpole (Journals, ii. 595) states that Lord Grantham already enjoyed a pension of £3000. This however had not been granted to him, but to his father for two lives, many years before, and secured on the Irish establishment. Similarly Fox had inherited the Clerkship of the Pells in Ireland from his father, who in 1757 had received it for three lives. Being attacked on this subject during the debate, he defended this pension "as part of his fortune, no favour to him from the Crown, no boon from his present Majesty, or his Ministers, but a legacy left him by one of his relations." Parliamentary History, xxiii. 597. Lord Grantham could say exactly the same thing.
- ↑ See Pitt's speech, Parliamentary History, xxiii. 588-589.
- ↑ Mémoires de Morellet, i. 269, 271. Morellet to Shelburne, June 27th, 1783. Before leaving office Lord Shelburne also obtained from the King of Sardinia the pardon of Count Viri, the son of M. de Viri, the real negotiator, together with the Bailli Solar de Breille, of the peace of 1763 (see Vol. I. p. 109). Viri had married Miss Speed, a niece of Lady Cobham. Owing to her intriguing disposition, he was placed under permanent arrest at Susa in 1777, "Madame having leave to go where she pleased." Walpole Corretpondence, vi. 481.
- ↑ Shelburne to Baring, April 25th, 1783.
- ↑ Pitt to Shelburne, May 1783. Parliamentary History, xxiii. 808.
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xxiii. 824.
- ↑ Orde to Shelburne, December 1783. See below, p. 178.
- ↑ Morellet to Shelburne, 18 fevrier 1777. Lettres, 111.
- ↑ Lady Holland and Lady Ossory, sister and sister-in-law of Lady Shelburne.
- ↑ Morellet to Vergennes, September 3rd, 1783. The character of Lord Shelburne by Walpole may be inserted by way of contrast:—
"The falsehood of Lord Shelburne was so constant and notorious, that it was rather his profession than his instrument. It was like a fictitious violin which is hung out of a music shop to indicate in what goods the tradesman deals; not to be of service, nor to be depended on for playing a true note. He was so well known that he could only deceive by speaking truth. His plausibility was less an artifice than a habit; and his smiles were so excited that, like the rattle of the snake, they warned before he had time to bite. Both his heart and his face were brave; he feared neither danger nor detection. He was so fond of insincerity as if he had been the inventor; and practised it with as little caution as if he thought nobody else had discovered the secret. With an unbounded ambition of governing mankind, he had never studied them. He had no receipt but indiscriminate flattery, which he addressed to all, without knowing how to adapt it to any particular person, for he neither understood the characters of men nor penetrated them. Hence his flatteries were so gross, that instead of captivating, they prompted laughter. So ignorant was he of mankind, that he did not know how absurd it was in a man of such glaring ambition to affect having none. He would talk of himself as void of all views, when there was no industry and intrigue of which he was not suspected. The folly of his professions was the only chance he had for not being thought a deep politician, for who could believe that such palpable duplicity was the offspring of anything but of want of sense? He not only had no principles, but was ready for any crime that suited his plans, which seemed drawn from histories of the worst ages—for he was rather a pedant in villany, than a politician who adapted himself to the times in which he lived. Thus a Catiline or a Borgia were his models in an age when half their wickedness would have suited his purpose better—for when refinements have taken the place of horrid crimes, and the manners of men are rather corrupt than flagitious, excess of profligacy is more destructive to ambition than serviceable. He determined to be Prime Minister by any means, but forgot that, in a country where faction has any weight, character is a necessary ingredient towards acquiring or preserving power. The King hated him, all the higher orders knew him, and the people could have no favourable opinion of him. To combat hatred, suspicion, and at best indifference, he had no arms but a resolution of recommending himself to the King by unbounded flattery and servility, and the power and mercy of the Crown he trusted would maintain him against all other sinister impressions."—Walpole, Journals, ii. 566.