libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is
manifest that the Government should have left the law to take
its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now
required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry
which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and
this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister,
readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant
and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by
the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of
the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the
question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner,
insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On
the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel
with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who
had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of
provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place;
but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question
of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they
resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to
the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought
to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in
the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and
dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public
spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus
officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically
futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this
very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a
member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of
this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was
consistent with the loftiness of his character. ... The
conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower
House. ... The session was principally occupied by the
proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the
unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament
had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name
was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner
appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon
'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who
rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their
hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its
stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems
which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his
supposed royal patroness. ... Wilkes himself, however, was
forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of
Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not
the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend
in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after
the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was
eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately
followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for
Aylesbury."
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. E. T. Rogers,
Historical Gleanings,
volume 2, chapter 3.
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 41-42 (volume 5).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War:
The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg.
America to be English, not French.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination to tax the American colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1764.
The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its
consequences.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1765.
Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.
Grenville dismissed.
The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries.
Repeal of the Stamp Act.
Fresh trouble in the American colonies.
"Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the
people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of
their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the
king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George
afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he
recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency
Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a
Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers,
however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry,
persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's
name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the
Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult
on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration.
Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name
by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his
Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some
time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of
them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make
overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost
any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king
was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He
was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's
following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no
underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a
burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he
determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the
Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ
again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland
opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the
Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. ... The new
Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord
of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. ...
{931}
Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power
of language or government. ... He was totally free from any
suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than
talent in the Ministry altogether. ... The back-bone of the
party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke
was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was
not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its
own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to
effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far
accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act
[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused
so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time
passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. ... The
king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his
Ministers. ... The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them
was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with
them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance
with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely
party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on
whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to
form a coalition, in which were included men of the most
opposite views--'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the
few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any
office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of
following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this
Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the
leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham.
Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The
Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington,
Barrington, Camden, Granby--all men of the most opposite
views. ... This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the
very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage.
... As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an
uncongenial atmosphere. ... His name, too, had lost a great
deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to
conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and
humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' ... There
were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had
increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout,
that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His
disease later almost approached madness. ... The Ministry
drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of
opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want
of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking
entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with
America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's
repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet,
and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had
always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought
forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and
paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and
1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. ...
This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its
author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry
became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable,
some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition
was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords
Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord
Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded
Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first
Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number
of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst
that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the
short period of its existence was marked by a succession of
arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that
it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed
to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal
connection with it was not severed for some time"--that is,
not until the following year, 1768.
B. C. Skottowe,
Our Hanoverian Kings,
pages 234-239.
ALSO IN:
The Grenville Papers,
volumes 3-4.
C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2.
E. Lodge,
Portraits,
volume 8, chapter 2.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769.
The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.
See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
The Middlesex elections.
In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned
to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but
his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved
and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a
candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247
votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this
decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex.
The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At
the close of the poll the numbers were--Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr.
Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which
astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was
in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to
illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.'
It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom
they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. ... A
month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though
relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in
your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly
expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes
appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the
sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his
expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having
surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal;
consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the
offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000,
and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he
was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of
the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself
into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench.
Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that
he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense
multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its
purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House,
became furious, and commenced a riot.
{932}
Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired,
wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they
butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house,
and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the
inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against
the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did
the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier
was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a
reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A
general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington
conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed,
assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to
them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve
it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in
the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and
protection that the law can authorise and this office can
give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the
necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent
before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used
without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His
observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth
of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext
for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days
afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five
votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John
Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament
expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a
member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election
was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned
him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At
another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court
tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for
Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been
elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had
been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a
subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not
hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal
resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of
'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very
name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident
that not the law only had been violated in his person, but
that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound.
Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In
the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his
debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at
length done what was right between him and one of the
Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the
other having been removed by death beyond the reach of
justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages.
These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed
out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had
exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the
ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs
of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of
April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid
succession to the offices--then much sought after, because
held in high honour--of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of
London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member
for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting
the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally
expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the
City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post
till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the
latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has
generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by
several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and
energetic opponent of the war with America."
W. F. Rae,
John Wilkes
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10).
ALSO IN:
W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
part 1.
G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapters 5-6, and 8.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.
The Letters of Junius.
"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the
'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson
Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the
day; and he readily received any contributions of a like
tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a
writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767,
continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was
the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of
signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and
Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters
(excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were
published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public
attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in
ability, or still less in acrimony. ... Such was the state of
these publications, not much rising in interest above the
common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of
January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same
hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ
greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or
superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce
and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places,
including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its
predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and
respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army
and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows
which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for
himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed
with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of
Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew
his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William
himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of
the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than
once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay
him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir
William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends
could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned
the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the
controversy. ... These victories over a man of rank and
station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of
Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly
expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author.
{933}
He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names;
sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the
signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main
and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before
he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a
series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton.
Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which
he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a
false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,--an
attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants
to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by
the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture
was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known
statesmen or well-known writers--Burke or Dunning, Boyd or
Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton--flew from mouth to
mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere
hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground.
Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a
little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and
eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries
Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance
by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of
August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and
Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are
forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the
popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was
supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall
was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others
for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The
verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and
publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to
ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that
period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the
Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During
the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued
with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against
the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who
had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into
the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen
controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke.
The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it
commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to
69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those
of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. ... Besides the
letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many
others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending
them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham
appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to
Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript
among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written
in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same
initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made
known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important
of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr.
Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed
in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in
length; but many of great value towards deciding the question
of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the
letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser
were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by
an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly
they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the
streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply
was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to
him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at
the bar of some coffee-house. ... It may be doubted whether
Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. ... When
dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he
declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it
shall perish with me.'"
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 47 (v. 5).
The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the
letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by
different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and
Pseudonyms":
James Adair, M. P.;
Captain Allen;
Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
Mr. Bickerton;
Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
Edmund Burke;
William Burke;
John Butler, Bishop of Hereford;
Lord Camden;
John Lewis De Lolme;
John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton;
Samuel Dyer;
Henry Flood;
Sir Philip Francis;
George III.;
Edward Gibbon;
Richard Glover;
Henry Grattan;
William Greatrakes;
George Grenville;
James Grenville;
William Gerard Hamilton;
James Hollis;
Thomas Hollis;
Sir George Jackson;
Sir William Jones;
John Kent;
Major-General Charles Lee;
Charles Lloyd;
Thomas Lyttleton;
Laughlin Maclean;
Rev. Edmund Marshall;
Thomas Paine;
William Pitt, Earl of Chatham;
the Duke of Portland;
Thomas Pownall;
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich;
John Roberts;
Rev. Philip Rosenhagen;
George, Viscount Sackville;
the Earl of Shelburne;
Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield;
Richard Suett;
Earl Temple;
John Horne Tooke;
Horace Walpole;
Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
John Wilkes;
James Wilmot, D. D.;
Daniel Wray.
ALSO IN:
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 6.
C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2.
Lord Macaulay,
Warren Hastings
(Essays, volume 5).
A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770.
Fall of the Grafton Ministry.
Beginning of the administration of Lord North.
"The incompetency of the ministry was ... becoming obvious. In
the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime
Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants
of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The
rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's
party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently
explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder
of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence
suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named
party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which
had brought discontent in England to the verge of open
outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying
along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point
the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own
Cabinet.
{934}
France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was
beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven
Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the
Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again
to the necessities of party, made a public profession of
friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there
was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between
the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first
session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of
public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the
murrain among 'horned beasts,'--a speech not of a king, but,
said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an
amendment when the address in answer to this speech was
proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the
fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he
blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America,
which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed
strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of
Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be
taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's
voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent.
Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the
persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked
and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby,
one of the most popular men in England, followed the same
course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General,
also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up
by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of
the nation. ... Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet
the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and
much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in
his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion.
The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands,
but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. ...
The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain
his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected
in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one
of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime
Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so
that while the different sections of the Opposition were still
unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to
find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity
gone. The new Prime Minister ... had great capacity for
business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a
first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of
temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep,
during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn
aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his
accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the
Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more
than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the
support of all royal influence from whatever source derived,
North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill
effects of such a system of government, and of the King's
policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really
responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is
closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
the reign--the struggle of the King, supported by the
unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of
those who were represented, against the domination of the
House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels
which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the
great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the
Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that
struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not
recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He
did not understand that the people had other objects much
beyond his own."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages 1057-1060.
ALSO IN:
Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
volume 1.
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 10-13 (volume 1).
J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 17 (volume 1).
E. Burke,
Thoughts on the Present Discontents
(Works, volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.
"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which
still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought
desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors.
It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the
publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It
had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other
periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament,
under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the
'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of
respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an
article which purported to be a report of the debates in
Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared
by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and
derived his information from persons who could seldom give him
more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each
of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the
composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired
oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius.
Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without
the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify,
the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of
which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was
no order of either House specifically prohibiting the
publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been
resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the
privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely
be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting,
therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent
disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the
proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
session.
{935}
There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a
right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses,
had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a
conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in
the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they
would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow,
member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which
wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash
meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he
could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House
had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had
even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable
members."
William Massey,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 15.
"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the
bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after
receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker.
Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who
failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead
of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger
into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were
both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr.
Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had
recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic
magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a
peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not
backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from
custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful
arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had
been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively
apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and
Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of
having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought
the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of
London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both
members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in
their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower.
Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one
long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their
release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards,
the publication of debates has been pursued without any
interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of
privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of
the main sources of its influence--its censure being reserved for
wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued
beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was
prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the
power of a single member of either House to require the
exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously
employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until
1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present
could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
R. F. D. Palgrave,
The House of Commons,
lecture 2.
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1772.
The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1773.
Reconstitution of the Government of British India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress in America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made
efficient by James Watt.
See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.
See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
War measures against the colonies.
The drift toward American independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
relations to the American War.
"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first
stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the
latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its
maximum. ... The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that
the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and
with the King. ... The Declaration of Independence, and the
known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to
English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around
the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness.
... In every stage of the contest the influence of the
Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. ... The
statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue
were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of
Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other
writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that
the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of
Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success
to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs.
... While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified
the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did
the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by
examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully
realise how completely at this time he assumed the position
not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending,
directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of
the Government. ... 'Every means of distressing America,'
wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly
supported the employment of Indians. ... It was the King's
friends who were most active in promoting all measures of
violence. ... The war was commonly called the 'King's war,'
and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King.
The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most
culpable in this matter, was Lord North. ...
{936}
The publication of the correspondence of George III. ...
supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of
the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears
from this correspondence that for the space of about five
years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
judgment and to his own wishes. ... Again and again he
entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again
and again he yielded to the request of the King, who
threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne.
... The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat
with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of
Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable,
that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for.
... He consented, too, though apparently with extreme
reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the
Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three
Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in
the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment
was one of the most terrible in English history. England had
not an ally in the world. ... England, already exhausted by a
war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to
confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few
months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. ...
There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and
consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were
turned. . . . If any statesman could, at the last moment,
conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and
kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly
existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other
hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a
moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord
North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send
for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
the ship would assuredly go down. ... The King was unmoved. He
consented indeed--and he actually authorised Lord North to make
the astounding proposition--to receive Chatham as a
subordinate minister to North. ... This episode appears to me
the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my
own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led
Charles I. to the scaffold."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 14 (volume 4).
"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins
which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed,
was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not
shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired
under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is
difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable
mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the
natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance
and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally
unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."
J. Morley,
Edmund Burke: a Historical Study,
page 135.
"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt
to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than
rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let
us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that
he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation.
And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had
the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let
the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and
no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George
and the British nation were simply not wiser than other
people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from
the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when
any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without
compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even
mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real
power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the
acknowledgment of American independence, King George still
called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title
was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up.
Remember that some people in our own day regretted the
separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If
they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."
E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 183-184.
ALSO IN:
Correspondence of George III. with Lord North.
Lord Brougham,
Historical Sketches of Statesmen
in the Reign of George III.
T. Macknight,
History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
chapters 22-26 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1778.
War with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Catholic penal laws.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.
"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774],
establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier
have been impossible, and it was justly considered a
remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such
a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should
have created no serious disturbances in the country. ... The
success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later,
to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some
part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still
subject. ... The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of
£100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic
priest performing his functions in England, and there were
occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to
the utmost in order to defeat them. ... The worst part of the
persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III.,
and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal
those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending
of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these
and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment,
and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing
land. ... It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was
carried without a division in either House, without any
serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the
concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to
England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing
session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
{937}
It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate
and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity
through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the
country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians
perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first
signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of
Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established
Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending,
and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a
remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an
agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly
through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary
resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills,
newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant
Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. ... Furious
riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and
Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the
Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The
shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods
scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were
compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of
many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the
Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of
Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to
suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not
suffered to fire in their defence. ... The flame soon spread
southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery
had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many
murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and
many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how
easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent
the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. ... The fanatical
party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the
person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a
melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very
ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his
connection with the ducal house of Gordon. ... A 'Protestant
Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics,
was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and
presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that
20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a
petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about
half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three
great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing
blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have
been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different
roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to
have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to
actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the
scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an
aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around
the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of
the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted,
compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No
Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and
many of them, but especially the members of the House of
Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. ... In the
Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and
demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with
much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192
to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George
Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery,
and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed
him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in
the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of
his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of
the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the
body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers'
gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other
ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said
at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North
succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many
anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were
made to force the doors. ... At last about nine o'clock the
troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to
disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further
outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in
Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried
away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in
the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The
Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was
next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could
intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some
slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were
captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force,
for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little
disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in
Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided.
Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels
utterly ruined."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 13 (volume 3).
"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. ...
Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were
adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as
might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On
Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were
perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military
force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of
Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and