maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this
time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the
interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day
was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the
prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also
broken open ... and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks
were likewise made upon several ... private houses. ... But
the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which
they closed the day of madness and crime--the entire
demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable
Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. ...
{938}
The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more
dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town
indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was
felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it
was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter
destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in
all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the
infuriated multitudes who braved their power. ... The King's
Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey
Bridewell, were all burned today. ... The Mansion House, the
Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the
other buildings which it was intended to attack were
circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice
assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was
guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not
without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned
the fire of the military. ... Among other houses which were
set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr.
Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. ... The worst
consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional
excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the
quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many
indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had
rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of
the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this
night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in
different quarters of the town. ... By Thursday morning ...
the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had
succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force
of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that
the rioters would be speedily overpowered. ... The soldiers
attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with
complete success. ... On Friday the courts of justice were
again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the
evening. ... On this first day after the close of the riots,
'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many
places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' ...
Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the
remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a
distant land. ... Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the
part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots,
was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to
trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.
Sketches of Popular Tumults,
section 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 34 (volume 2).
H. Walpole,
Journal of the Reign of George III.,
volume 2, pages 403-424.
Annual Register, 1780,
pages 254-287.
C. Dickens,
Barnaby Rudge.
W. J. Amherst,
History of Catholic Emancipation,
volume 1, chapters 1-5.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
Declining strength of the government.
Rodney's great naval victory.
The siege of Gibraltar.
"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow
of the personal government of George III., was now close at
hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour.
In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina
had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of
that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king
complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had
been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was
scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one.
Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North
and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had
told upon Ireland. ... For more than a year there had been war
in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying
everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost
foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and
insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests
except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire
tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of
Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir
Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola,
thus driving the British from their last position in Florida.
In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the
siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three
years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter
the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to
Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British
possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and
Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous
watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all
the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a
single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however,
impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West
Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships
encountered the French near the island of
Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued,
and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the
most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before
the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and
Grasse was taken prisoner,--the first French
commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an
enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to
Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do
nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was
eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the
course of the summer the English achieved another great
success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a
struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in
modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in
the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded
the other parties to the war."
J. Fiske,
American Revolution,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
"Gibraltar ... had been closely invested for nearly three
years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the
place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced
by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and
commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of
1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in
the month of November, the enemy were driven from their
approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by
a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the
fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of
Gibraltar.
{939}
De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez,
assumed the chief command. ... The garrison of Gibraltar
comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the
allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense
train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well
acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it
from the land side, but relied with confidence on the
formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it
from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and
shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the
action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient
to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which
ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates
was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from
sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were
consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not
until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade
took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great
attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered
fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day,
the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail
of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were
drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb
ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within
close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with
strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the
land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with
the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in
at the first practicable breach. ... The grand attack was
commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400
pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely
anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant
storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to
the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the
most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other
quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the
floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were
silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long
time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous
masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless
from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not
penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless,
the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed
against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of
red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it
was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles,
which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning
to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns
from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which
issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire,
and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue
the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent;
and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal
floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. ... Eight
of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night;
and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames
and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible
flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with
annihilation. . . . The loss of the enemy was computed at
2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted
to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to
repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and
Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the
appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and
relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal,
they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might
enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having
been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits
until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior
array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an
engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the
combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his
stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed
this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish
Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line,
venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the
great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been
regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she
had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had
been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies.
After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."
W. Massey,
History of England, Reign of George III.,
chapter 27 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 62-66 (volume 7).
J. Drinkwater,
History of the Siege of Gibraltar.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783.
Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.
See INDIA: A. D. 1780--1783.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783.
War with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1782.
Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.
Fall of Lord North.
The second Rockingham Ministry.
Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations.
The Shelburne Ministry.
Coalition of Fox and North.
"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an
unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party
allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the
surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November,
1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his
hands, when he heard of it. ... On February 7, a vote of
censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a
majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost
a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one
vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a
resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).
Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's
resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he
seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to
Hanover. ... Indeed, if it had not been for his large family,
and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well
known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried
this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of
which he was no longer master.
{940}
By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the
game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to
Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him
with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you
who desert me, not I who desert you.' ... Even when the
long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no
more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still
flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from
among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would
be able to restore peace without granting independence, and
Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in
this scheme. ... Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall
into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence
of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox,
and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's
phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was
not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of
permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the
supplanter, of Rockingham. ... His game was to wait. He
respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. ... Before
Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct
pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon
American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on
the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed
by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the
old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform,
and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment
of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by
being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took
charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself
went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord
Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of
the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At
the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as
Chancellor. ... The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into
the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway,
and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and
Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. ... Few
Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the
Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence,
and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to
Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a
change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that
ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is
said never to have touched a card during either of his three
short terms of office. ... By the division of work among the
two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the
colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those
relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of
Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two
Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American
colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved
in order to form part of the general treaty of peace.
According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at
once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain
at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and
Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and
England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her
side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme,
but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she
ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and
the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his
control into the hands of Fox. ... Shelburne at once threw his
whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great
effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the
trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be
required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to
make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was
wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and
the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the
isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace
was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the
treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782
(SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and
Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly
have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of
friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed
to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that
important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin
were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the
Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the
Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and
despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then
because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon
earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July
Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the
King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined
to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not
make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord
Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the
Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and
the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt
[Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into
the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to
smile on Shelburne. He ... might well look forward to a long
and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration
lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust
and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in
February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had
concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was
succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry
formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland
succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became
the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the
Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the
Paymastership, the followers of Lord North ... were rewarded
with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of
political parties have been received by historians and
posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the
coalition of 1783. ... There is no evidence to show that at
the time it struck politicians in general as being specially
heinous."
H. O. Wakeman,
Life of Charles James Fox,
chapters 3-5.
ALSO IN:
Lord J. Russell,
Life of Fox,
chapters 16-17 (volume l).
W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
pages 307-317.
Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
volume 3, chapters 3-6.
{941}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1783.
The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of
America signed at Paris.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787.
Fall of the Coalition.
Ascendancy of the younger Pitt.
His extraordinary grasp of power.
His attempted measures of reform.
"Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked
for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of
India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist.
Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter.
... It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against
an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform,
demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed
at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of
India,--patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was
soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the
majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of
Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever,
dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the
King schemed, and controversy raged. ... When the Bill arrived
at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King
had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom
it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper
circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The
peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or
strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of
usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries
of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions
were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. ...
The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was
paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused
to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed
the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found
North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At
first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,'
exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the
message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals
were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and
the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government,
unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli,
'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this
one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay;
the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the
King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First
Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the
Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal
derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of
17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the
difficulties were tremendous. ... The composition of the
Government was ... the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The
majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than
40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and
Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the
meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval
of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the
place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed
on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons
met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The
narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but
would require too much detail for our limits. ... On the day
of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched
divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His
government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed.
The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he
needed no support. He had inherited from his father that
confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can
save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made
himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new
colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had
refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for
he felt that the country required time. ... The Clerkship of
the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a
year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was
universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and
so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote
his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not
£300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious.
... Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He
gave the place to Barré. ... To a nation inured to jobs this
came as a revelation. ... Above and beyond all was the fact
that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the
great leaders allied against him. ... In face of so resolute a
resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions,
though they always showed a superiority to the Government,
betrayed notable diminution. ... On the 25th of March
Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by
the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections
were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate
of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs--of
Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their
seats--was 160. ... The King and Pitt were supported on the
tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which
in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national
sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."
Lord Rosebery,
Pitt,
chapter 3.
"Three subjects then needed the attention of a great
statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force
themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were,
our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of
our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition
of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. ... He brought in a
series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which
the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number.
They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament
which they restrained or completed was much greater. He
attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free
Trade, the principles which he was the first of English
statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of
the country. ... The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly
suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the
worst part of it.
{942}
The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the
national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. ... Mr.
Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the
well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a
certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in
itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be
so paid. ... He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the
debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. ... The exposure
of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so,
such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr.
Pitt's deserved fame. ... The subject of parliamentary reform
is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public
most connected his name, and is also that with which we are
now least apt to connect it. ... He proposed the abolition of
the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey
accomplished it. ... If the strong counteracting influence of
the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he
would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary
representation. ... The state of Ireland was a more pressing
difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical
errors, or our parliamentary corruption. ... He proposed at
once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments,
and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish
Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single
representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in
England. ... Of these great reforms he was only permitted to
carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described
it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it
continued to be for very many years; but the time became
unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."
W. Bagehot,
Biographical Studies: William Pitt.
ALSO IN:
Earl Stanhope,
Life of William Pitt,
chapters 4-9 (volume 1).
G. Tomline,
Life of William Pitt,
chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2).
Lord Rosebery,
Pitt,
chapters 3-4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY).
Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.
See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789.
The King's second derangement.
The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in
the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration
than the first. "He was able ... to sign a warrant for the
further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th
September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the
king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and
placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in
danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a
further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th
November. ... According to long established law, Parliament,
without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed
to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion,
for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to
the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate
upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had
given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of
Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of
sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were
actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of
Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the
exercise of his right. ... Mr. Pitt, on the other hand,
maintained that as no legal provision had been made for
carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of
Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which
these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the
situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the
king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the
Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1789-1792.
War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1793.
The Coalition against Revolutionary France.
Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER),
and (JULY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
Popular feeling towards the French Revolution.
Small number of the English Jacobins.
Pitt forced into war.
Tory panic and reign of terror.
Violence of government measures.
"That the war [of Revolutionary France] with Germany would
widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the
peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom
which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French
revolutionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in
this struggle England would join them. It was from England
that they had drawn those principles of political and social
liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into
practice. It was to England that they looked above all for
approbation and sympathy. ... To the revolutionists at Paris
the attitude of England remained unintelligible and
irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found
but a cold neutrality. ... But that this attitude was that of the
English people as a whole was incredible to the French
enthusiasts. ... Their first work therefore they held to be
the bringing about a revolution in England. ... They strove,
through a number of associations which had formed themselves
under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same
spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy,
Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which
denounced this correspondence as seditious. ... Burke was
still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was
forgotten in their intensity of feeling to spread alarm
throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the
emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them
at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them; 'diffuse
terror!' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have
been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror
in France. ... In November the Convention decreed that France
offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would
strive for freedom. ... In the teeth of treaties signed only
two years before, and of the stipulation made by England when
it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government
resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to
enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt [see FRANCE: A.
D.1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY)]. To do this was to force
England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every
day harder upon Pitt. ... But even while withdrawing our
Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose
Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung stubbornly to a
policy of peace. ...
{943}
No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood
lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion,
and refused to bow to the gathering cry for war. ... But
desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in
vain. ... Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications,
and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War.
From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his
immovable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation,
still kept him at the head of affairs; but he could do little
save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never
fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of
passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic
oversea. ... The partisans of Republicanism were in reality
but a few handfuls of men. ... But in the mass of Englishmen
the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into
sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed property
and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he
still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."
J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4).
"Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a
Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no
response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his
friends to shrink from his side. Of the so-called Jacobin
Societies, the Society for Constitutional Information numbered
only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme
opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite
incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society
was of a more sinister character; but its numbers were
computed only at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal
masses of the people. ... It is sad to say it, but when Pitt
had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil.
To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he
commenced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking
and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist,
characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The
country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous
informers was called into activity by the government. ...
There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase
of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent
a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended; and the liberties of all men were
thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. ... In
Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England."
Goldwin Smith,
Three English Statesmen,
pages 239-247.
"The gaols were filled with political delinquents, and no man
who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow
might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason.
... But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs
could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the
Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now,
as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had
disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its
liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass."
The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy,
who organized the Corresponding Society, and Horne Tooke. But
no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved
against them by creditable witnesses, and both were
acquitted." The public joy was very general at these
acquittals. ... The war lost its popularity; bread grew
scarce; commerce was crippled; ... the easy success that had
been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people
clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took
advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the
constitution which yet covered them. He brought forward the
Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill.
Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of
every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate,
and rendered disobedience to his command a felony."
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6).
J. Gifford,
History of the Political Life of William Pitt,
chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4).
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4).
E. Smith,
The Story of the English Jacobins.
A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 8.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
Campaigns of the Coalition against France.
French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine.
Conquest of Corsica.
Naval victory of Lord Howe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
Angry relations with the United States.
The Jay Treaty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795.
Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands.
French conquest of Holland.
Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
Crumbling of the European Coalition.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
Disastrous expedition to Quiberon Bay.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798.
Attempted French invasions of Ireland.
Irish Insurrection.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments.
Defeat of the first Reform movement.
Mutiny of the Fleet.
Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.
"The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded
during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797.
The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed
every hope of an honourable termination to the war, while of
all her original allies, Austria alone remained; the national
burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per-cents
had fallen to fifty-one; while party spirit raged with
uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial
insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic
arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a
run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was
reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council
appeared (February 26) for the suspension of all cash
payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged
from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes
a legal-tender; and it was not till 1819, after the conclusion
of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place.
{944}
The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew
their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th
May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly
remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently
carried into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after
violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a
similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of
the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and
the requisite supplies were voted. ... Unknown to the
government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in
the navy. The exciting causes were principality the low rate
of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles
II.), the unequal distribution of prize-money, and undue
severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of
complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a
general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel
fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power
of the insurgents; but they maintained perfect order, and
memorialised the Admiralty and the Commons on their
grievances: their demands being examined by government, and
found to be reasonable, were granted; and on the 7th of May
the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of
disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a
more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore,
which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had
been cruising off the Texel under Lord Duncan. The mutineers
appointed a seaman named Parker to the command; and,
blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in
such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant
rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused
dreadful consternation in London; but the firmness of the King
remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the
parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication
with the mutineers under pain of death. Sheerness and Tilbury
Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames;
and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly
arrayed against them, became gradually sensible that their
enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to
their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and
several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was
extended to the multitude. ... Notwithstanding all these
dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its
enemies than during this eventful year. On the 14th of
February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12
frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the
blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St.
Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6
frigates. By the old manœuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the
Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral,
while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of
the British line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and
Collingwood,--the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns,
engaged at once two of the enemy's gigantic vessels, the
Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112;
while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a
quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length carried
the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's
sword on his own quarterdeck. The Santissima Trinidad--an
enormous four-decker--though her colours were twice struck,
escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador,
with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British;
and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half
its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which
was shortly after insulted by a bombardment from the gallant
Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis
(created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at
sea, from the evident superiority of skill and seamanship
which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St.
Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval
campaign; but later in the season a second attempt to reach
Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11
frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried
courage and experience. The British blockading fleet, under
Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the
battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine
miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British
Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his
own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action
commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost
fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with
the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves
worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; but the prowess
of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line,
including the flagship, two 56-gun ships, and 2 frigates,
struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled
two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered.
The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly
equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040
English, and 1,160 Dutch. ... The only remaining operations of
the year were the capture of Trinidad in February, by a force
which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico; and an
abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400
French."
Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 190-196 (chapter 22,
volume 5--of complete work).
ALSO IN:
J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 100-103 (volume 6).
R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapter 4.
E. J. De La Gravière,
Sketches of the Last Naval War,
volume 1, part 2.
Captain A. T. Mahan,
Influence of Sea Power on the
French Revolution and Empire,
chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1798 (AUGUST).
Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1798.
Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (APRIL).
Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
Expedition against Holland.
Seizure of the Dutch fleet.
Ignominious ending of the enterprise.
Capitulation of the Duke of York.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1800.
Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain.
Creation of the "United Kingdom."
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
{945}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801.
The first Factory Act.
See FACTORY LEGISLATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802.
Import of the Treaty of Luneville.
Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone.
Retirement of Pitt.
The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at
Copenhagen.
Expulsion of the French from Egypt.
The Peace of Amiens.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King.
His resignation.
The Addington Ministry.
The Peace of Amiens.
War resumed.
Pitt at the helm again.
His death.
The Ministry of "All the Talents."
"The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party
discussion, which quickly became only second to that of
parliamentary reform. In transplanting the parliament of
College Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the
questions which were there debated; and, of these, none had
been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be
admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism
was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the
cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their
complaints were just. In his private negotiations with the
Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation
should be the sequel to the union. In his place in parliament
he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a
minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not
a minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous
professions, and by skilful shuffles: he was at least an
honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had
given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the
constitution. It had been better for the character of George
III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told
him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to
fulfil, before he had obtained the advantage to gain which
that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic
emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for
the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once
interposed, and when Dundas persisted in his attempt to
overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated
the conference, saying, 'Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy
religious obligations.' Pitt immediately tendered his
resignation. ... All that was brilliant in Toryism passed from
the cabinet with the late minister: When Pitt and Canning were
withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory
party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the
king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon
every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea--the
certain ruin, which must follow the first particle of
innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to
form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of
the question. These were more strenuous for emancipation than
Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons,
was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he
succeeded, with the assistance of the late premier, in filling
up the offices at his disposal. ... The peace of Amiens was
the great work of this feeble administration [see FRANCE: A.
D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the
boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be
restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of
England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded,
yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade
was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France
retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree
restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring
consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was
approved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such
a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington
administration. But he could not control his adherents. ... As
the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency
of the administration became generally acknowledged: with Pitt
sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and
Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only
refraining from violent opposition from a knowledge that if
Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of
the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a
man destitute of commanding talents. When to these