Produced by Paul Murray, Brownfox and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)









_THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND._


_Seventy-five years have passed since Lingard completed his_ HISTORY OF
ENGLAND, _which ends with the Revolution of 1688. During that period
historical study has made a great advance. Year after year the mass of
materials for a new History of England has increased; new lights have
been thrown on events and characters, and old errors have been
corrected. Many notable works have been written on various periods of
our history; some of them at such length as to appeal almost exclusively
to professed historical students. It is believed that the time has come
when the advance which has been made in the knowledge of English history
as a whole should be laid before the public in a single work of fairly
adequate size. Such a book should be founded on independent thought and
research, but should at the same time be written with a full knowledge
of the works of the best modern historians and with a desire to take
advantage of their teaching wherever it appears sound.

The vast number of authorities, printed and in manuscript, on which a
History of England should be based, if it is to represent the existing
state of knowledge, renders co-operation almost necessary and certainly
advisable. The History, of which this volume is an instalment, is an
attempt to set forth in a readable form the results at present attained
by research. It will consist of twelve volumes by twelve different
writers, each of them chosen as being specially capable of dealing with
the period which he undertakes, and the editors, while leaving to each
author as free a hand as possible, hope to insure a general similarity
in method of treatment, so that the twelve volumes may in their
contents, as well as in their outward appearance, form one History.

As its title imports, this History will primarily deal with politics,
with the History of England and, after the date of the union with
Scotland, Great Britain, as a state or body politic; but as the life of
a nation is complex, and its condition at any given time cannot be
understood without taking into account the various forces acting upon
it, notices of religious matters and of intellectual, social, and
economic progress will also find place in these volumes. The footnotes
will, so far as is possible, be confined to references to authorities,
and references will not be appended to statements which appear to be
matters of common knowledge and do not call for support. Each volume
will have an Appendix giving some account of the chief authorities,
original and secondary, which the author has used. This account will be
compiled with a view of helping students rather than of making long
lists of books without any notes as to their contents or value. That the
History will have faults both of its own and such as will always in some
measure attend co-operative work, must be expected, but no pains have
been spared to make it, so far as may be, not wholly unworthy of the
greatness of its subject.

Each volume, while forming part of a complete History, will also in
itself be a separate and complete book, will be sold separately, and
will have its own index, and two or more maps._


Vol. I. to 1066. By Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L., Litt.D., Fellow of
    University College, London; Fellow of the British Academy.

Vol. II. 1066 to 1216. By George Burton Adams, M.A., Professor of
    History in Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

Vol. III. 1216 to 1377. By T. F. Tout, M.A., Professor of Medieval and
    Modern History in the Victoria University of Manchester; formerly
    Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford.

Vol. IV. 1377 to 1485. By C. Oman, M.A., Fellow of All Souls' College,
    and Deputy Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford.

Vol. V. 1485 to 1547. By H. A. L. Fisher, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of New
    College, Oxford.

Vol. VI. 1547 to 1603. By A. F. Pollard, M.A., Professor of
    Constitutional History in University College, London.

Vol. VII. 1603 to 1660. By F. C. Montague, M.A., Professor of History
    in University College, London; formerly Fellow of Oriel College,
    Oxford.

Vol. VIII. 1660 to 1702. By Richard Lodge, M.A., Professor of History
    in the University of Edinburgh; formerly Fellow of Brasenose
    College, Oxford.

Vol. IX. 1702 to 1760. By I. S. Leadam, M.A., formerly Fellow of
    Brasenose College, Oxford.

Vol. X. 1760 to 1801. By the Rev. William Hunt, M.A., D.Litt., Trinity
    College, Oxford.

Vol. XI. 1801 to 1837. By the Hon. George C. Brodrick, D.C.L., late
    Warden of Merton College, Oxford, and J. K. Fotheringham, M.A.,
    Magdalen College, Oxford, Lecturer in Classics at King's College,
    London.

Vol. XII. 1837 to 1901. By Sidney J. Low, M.A., Balliol College,
    Oxford, formerly Lecturer on History at King's College, London.




                 The Political History of England

                        IN TWELVE VOLUMES

               EDITED BY WILLIAM HUNT, D.LITT., AND
                     REGINALD L. POOLE, M.A.




                               X.

                      THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND

              FROM THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. TO THE

                CLOSE OF PITT'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION

                           1760-1801

                              BY
                   WILLIAM HUNT, M.A., D.LITT.
              PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY




                    LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
                   39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
                      NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
                             1905

_The production of this book, which was ready in April, has unavoidably
been postponed by the Publishers_




                           CONTENTS.


                           CHAPTER I.

                       THE KING AND BUTE.

                                                                   PAGE

  25 Oct., 1760.  Accession of George III.                           1
                  National feeling                                   1
                  The king's education and character                 3
                  His plan of government                             6
                  His first cabinet                                  8
                  Influence of the Earl of Bute                     11
                  The civil list                                    13
           1761.  The war in Germany                                13
         7 June.  Capture of Belle Ile                              15
                  The king's covert attack on the whig ascendency   15
                  Opposing views with respect to the war            17
                  The general election of 1761                      19
         25 Mar.  Bute secretary of state                           20
         8 Sept.  The king's marriage                               21
                  Bute's unpopularity                               22


                           CHAPTER II.

                       THE PEACE OF PARIS.

           1761.  Negotiations for a peace                          23
                  France and Spain act together in negotiation      25
                  Pitt maintains British honour and interests       26
                  Pitt and his colleagues                           28
          5 Oct.  Pitt resigns office                               31
   2 Jan., 1762.  The family compact. War declared against Spain    32
                  Frederick of Prussia offended                     33
       25 April.  Newcastle's resignation. Bute succeeds to
                    the treasury                                    34
                  The war in Germany                                35
                  British conquests: Martinique, Havana, Manila     37
                  Negotiations with France                          38
                  A majority in the commons secured                 39
                  The terms of peace                                40
  10 Feb., 1763.  Definitive treaty signed at Paris                 42
            Mar.  The cider tax                                     43
       11 April.  Bute retires from office                          44


                           CHAPTER III.

                  THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION.

           1763.  The new ministers                                 45
          April.  The _North Briton_, No. 45, and the general
                    warrant                                         46
            Aug.  The king's attempts to strengthen the
                    administration                                  48
           Sept.  Changes in the administration                     49
            Nov.  Proceedings in parliament against Wilkes          50
  19 Jan., 1764.  The commons expel Wilkes                          51
                  Violation of the privileges of parliament         52
                  Grenville's economy                               53
                  Great Britain's colonial policy                   54
           1763.  Defence of the American colonies                  58
  10 Mar., 1764.  The stamp bill proposed                           59
  22 Mar., 1765.  The bill enacted                                  60
                  American resistance                               60
                  The right of taxation                             62
                  Unstatesmanlike policy                            63


                           CHAPTER IV.

                THE KING, THE WHIGS, AND CHATHAM.

           1765.  The king and Grenville                            64
      April-May.  The regency bill                                  65
                  The weavers' riot                                 66
        16 July.  A whig administration formed under Rockingham     67
                  Its weakness and difficulties                     68
     Jan., 1766.  Pitt on American taxation                         69
                  Burke, his character and political principles     70
            Mar.  Repeal of the stamp act. The declaratory act      71
           July.  Pitt forms an administration, and is created
                    Earl of Chatham                                 73
                  His foreign policy                                74
      Sept.-Nov.  "A forty days' tyranny"                           76
     Feb., 1767.  Chatham incapacitated by disease                  76
     June, 1763.  Revolt of Mír Kásim                               77
  23 Oct., 1764.  Battle of Baxár                                   78
     June, 1767.  Parliamentary interference with the E. India
                    Company                                         79
        1767-69.  Haidar Alí's invasions of the Karnatic            80


                           CHAPTER V.

                   GROWTH OF THE KING'S POWER.

           1767.  C. Townshend and the new American duties          82
                  The ministry in Chatham's absence                 85
     Jan., 1768.  Junction with the Bedford party                   87
            Feb.  The _Nullum Tempus_ bill                          87
                  Massachusetts heads resistance to the revenue
                    acts                                            88
    1 May, 1769.  Partial repeal of the new duties decided on       90
           1761.  Condition of Ireland. Rise of Whiteboyism         91
                  The government of Ireland                         93
        1768-69.  Octennial act and augmentation of Irish army      94
           1768.  The general election of 1768                      94
                  Wilkes returned for Middlesex                     95
         10 May.  Riot in St. George's Fields                       96
           1769.  Wilkes and the Middlesex electors                 97
                  French annexation of Corsica. Faltering policy
                    of ministers                                    98
                  Arrears of the civil list                         99
                  The _Letters_ of Junius                           99
                  Chatham in opposition                            100
  28 Jan., 1770.  Grafton resigns. North forms an administration   102
                  Triumph of the king's policy                     103
                  Discontent with the constitutional machinery     103
                  Chatham and Burke differ on character of
                    needful reforms                                105


                           CHAPTER VI.

                        THE KING'S RULE.

           1770.  Two parties in the opposition                    106
                  The struggle in parliament                       107
          April.  The Grenville controverted elections act         108
          5 Mar.  The "Boston massacre"                            109
                  Chatham and his city friends demand a
                    dissolution                                    110
                  They are foiled by the king                      111
                  Dispute with Spain concerning the Falkland
                    islands                                        112
                  England's foreign policy                         114
        1770-71.  Changes in the ministry                          115
                  The law of libel                                 116
                  The house of commons and the printers            117
           1772.  Religious toleration                             118
                  The royal marriage act and C. J. Fox             119
     June, 1773.  Affairs of E. India Company. North's
                    regulating act                                 121
            May.  Clive's acquittal                                122
                  The king's political predominance                123


                           CHAPTER VII.

                    THE QUARREL WITH AMERICA.

        1772-73.  Resistance to law in America                     124
  16 Dec., 1773.  The Boston tea-riot                              126
  29 Jan., 1774.  Franklin before the privy council                126
                  The penal acts                                   128
                  The Quebec act                                   129
         5 Sept.  First meeting of a continental congress          132
                  The American loyalists                           134
                  The general election of 1774                     135
                  Opinion in England on the American crisis        136
Feb.-Mar., 1775.  Bills and resolutions for conciliation           138
                  The Americans prepare for war                    139
       19 April.  Fighting at Lexington and Concord                140


                           CHAPTER VIII.

                      THE COLONIAL REBELLION.

    April, 1775.  The American army at Cambridge                   143
            May.  Americans seize Ticonderoga and Crown Point      144
                  English opinion on the outbreak of war           144
        15 June.  Washington appointed American commander-in-chief 146
             17.  The battle of Bunker hill                        147
                  The invasion of Canada                           151
         31 Dec.  Defeat of the Americans at Quebec                152
                  The king hires German troops                     153
             17.  The evacuation of Boston                         155
 May-June, 1776.  The Americans chased out of Canada               155
                  Spread of the idea of separation                 156
        28 June.  Unsuccessful attempt on Charleston               157
         4 July.  Declaration of American independence             158
           1775.  The war generally popular in Great Britain       158
                  The opposition in parliament                     159
                  The state of the navy                            161
            Nov.  North's prohibitory bill                         162


                           CHAPTER IX.

                            SARATOGA.

  27 Aug., 1776.  The battle of Long Island                        164
        15 Sept.  British take New York                            165
     11, 13 Oct.  Carleton's victory on Lake Champlain             166
          8 Dec.  Washington retreats across the Delaware          167
             26.  The surprise of Trenton                          168
                  Partial secession of whigs from parliament       169
                  Impressment for the navy                         170
           1777.  Arrears of the civil list                        171
                  Plan for co-operation between Howe and Burgoyne  172
       June-Nov.  Howe's campaign. Battle of the Brandywine,
                    Sept. 11                                       173
                  American camp at Valley Forge                    175
         6 July.  Burgoyne captures Ticonderoga                    176
                  His difficulties, distress, and failure          177
         17 Oct.  The convention of Saratoga                       179
                  Responsibility for the disaster                  179
   6 Jan., 1778.  Alliance between France and the Americans        181
                  Why England had not yet subdued the Americans    183


                           CHAPTER X.

                   WAR WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.

        1777-78.  The opposition and the war                       186
     Mar., 1778.  The king's refusal to allow Chatham to form a
                    ministry                                       187
         11 May.  Chatham's death                                  190
                  Constitutional importance of the issue of the
                    war                                            191
                  Abuses in naval administration                   191
        27 July.  Naval action off Ushant                          193
                  Progress of the war in America                   193
                  Lord Howe and Count d'Estaing                    194
                  Mistaken naval policy of Great Britain           195
     Aug., 1779.  Combined French and Spanish fleets in the
                    Channel                                        196
                  The war in various parts of the world            196
   12 May, 1780.  The surrender of Charleston                      198
       Jan.-Feb.  Rodney's relief of Gibraltar                     198
       17 April.  His indecisive action off Dominica               199
                  Ireland's grievances                             200
           1779.  The volunteers                                   202
                  Removal of restrictions on Irish trade           202
        1779-80.  Activity of the opposition in England            202
       2-7 June.  The Lord George Gordon riots                     205


                           CHAPTER XI.

                 YORKTOWN AND THE KING'S DEFEAT.

     Mar., 1780.  The armed neutrality                             208
         20 Dec.  Dispute with the Dutch: war declared             209
                  Defence of Gibraltar                             210
   5 Aug., 1781.  Battle of the Dogger Bank                        212
           1780.  General election and the new parliament          212
          2 Oct.  The fate of Major André                          215
   3 Feb., 1781.  Rodney takes St. Eustatius                       216
     July, 1780.  French squadron at Rhode island                  218
         16 Aug.  Cornwallis's campaign in the south: battle
                    of Camden                                      219
  17 Jan., 1781.  Battle of the Cowpens                            221
         15 Mar.  Battle of Guilford                               222
            May.  Cornwallis in Virginia                           223
                  How England lost command in the American waters  224
         19 Oct.  The capitulation at Yorktown                     225
                  Causes of the disaster                           225
                  Reception of the news in England                 226
                  Events in the war with France and Spain          227
     Mar., 1782.  The second Rockingham ministry; the king's
                    defeat                                         229


                           CHAPTER XII.

                      THE ROUT OF THE WHIGS.

           1782.  Attack on the corrupt influence of the crown     231
            May.  Legislative independence conceded to Ireland     232
       12 April.  The "battle of the Saints"                       234
                  Last scenes of the siege of Gibraltar            236
        1780-84.  War in India and in the Indian waters            236
                  Quarrel between Fox and Shelburne                238
     July, 1782.  Shelburne forms a ministry                       240
         30 Nov.  Preliminaries of peace between Great Britain
                    and America                                    241
                  The American loyalists                           242
  3 Sept., 1783.  Definitive treaty of Versailles                  242
                  State of parties in parliament                   243
                  The coalition between Fox and North              244
          April.  The Coalition ministry                           245
            May.  Pitt's motion for parliamentary reform           246
                  Warren Hastings in India                         247
       Nov.-Dec.  Fox's India bills                                249
            Dec.  The Coalition ministry dismissed; Pitt prime
                    minister                                       251
                  Struggle on the question of a dissolution        251
  25 Mar., 1784.  Parliament dissolved                             254
                  General election: "Fox's martyrs"                254


                           CHAPTER XIII.

             SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS, 1760-1801.

                  General character of the period                  255
                  Amusements, gambling, racing, the drama, etc.    256
                  Travelling and the state of the roads            258
                  Literature: poetry, fiction, and serious prose
                    works                                          259
                  The arts, architecture, painting, etc.           262
                  Natural science                                  263
                  Voyages of discovery                             263
                  Religion                                         264
                  The criminal law                                 265
                  The prisons and transportation                   266
                  The police system                                267
                  Increase of trade and manufactures               268
                  The mercantile system and _laissez-faire_        269
                  Steam and water power: iron manufacture          270
                  Canals                                           271
                  Manufacture of textile fabrics                   271
                  Failure of domestic industries                   272
                  Wages of agricultural labourers                  273
                  Regulation of corn trade                         273
                  Improvements in agriculture                      274
                  Enclosures                                       275
                  Combinations of workmen to raise wages           277
                  The poor law                                     277
                  Sufferings of the poor and specially of factory
                    children                                       278


                           CHAPTER XIV.

              EARLY YEARS OF PITT'S ADMINISTRATION.

           1784.  Significance of Pitt's victory                   280
                  Change in office of prime minister and in
                    house of lords                                 281
                  Pitt's character and management of parliament    282
                  The Westminster election                         283
        1784-85.  Pitt's finance                                   284
     Aug., 1784.  His bill for the government of India             286
 18 April, 1785.  His bill for parliamentary reform                287
            May.  His resolutions on Irish trade                   288
           1786.  Establishment of the sinking fund                291
        26 Sept.  Commercial treaty with France                    293
           1787.  Consolidation of customs and excise              294
                  Bill for relief of dissenters                    295
           1788.  The slave trade question                         295
                  Foreign policy                                   296
           1785.  Austrian aggression                              297
        1786-87.  French influence in the United Provinces         298
     Oct., 1787.  Restoration of the stadholder                    300
    April, 1788.  Triple alliance--Great Britain, Prussia, and
                    the United Provinces                           301


                           CHAPTER XV.

                      THE REGENCY QUESTION.

           1785.  Return of Hastings to England                    302
           1786.  Pitt and the charges against Hastings            303
  13 Feb., 1788.  Trial of Hastings begun                          304
        1788-93.  Cornwallis as governor-general of India          305
     Feb., 1788.  Pitt's (India) declaratory bill                  305
      May, 1787.  The Prince of Wales's debts paid                 307
   5 Nov., 1788.  The king's insanity                              309
         10 Dec.  Fox asserts the prince's right to the regency    311
                  Pitt's resolutions                               312
  10 Mar., 1789.  The king's recovery announced                    314
                  The Irish parliament and the regency             314
                  The French revolution begins                     315
                  English opinions on events in France             317
           1790.  Dispute with Spain relating to Nootka Sound      319
         28 Oct.  Convention with Spain                            321


                           CHAPTER XVI.

                  DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.

           1790.  General election                                 322
           1795.  Acquittal of Hastings                            323
        1791-92.  Struggle for the abolition of the slave trade    323
           1792.  Fox's libel bill                                 324
                  Pitt's foreign policy                            324
           1791.  The Russian armament                             326
     Nov., 1790.  Burke's _Reflections on the French Revolution_   328
      May, 1791.  Rupture between Burke and Fox                    329
         27 Aug.  The Declaration of Pilnitz                       331
                  Revolutionary propaganda                         331
           1792.  Dismissal of Thurlow                             332
                  A whig scheme of coalition                       333
                  French proposals                                 333
         21 May.  Proclamation against seditious writings          335
            Aug.  British ambassador recalled from Paris           336
                  French conquest of Flanders                      337
                  The provocations received by England             338
            Dec.  Disruption of the whig party                     340
  21 Jan., 1793.  Execution of Louis XVI.                          342
          1 Feb.  France declares war on England                   342
                  War necessary for the safety of Great Britain    342
                  Conduct of C. J. Fox                             343


                           CHAPTER XVII.

                       THE FIRST COALITION.

           1793.  Change in Pitt's domestic policy                 345
                  Pitt as a war minister                           346
                  Loans raised by Pitt                             348
                  Formation of the coalition                       349
          April.  The conference at Antwerp                        349
                  Success of the allies                            350
                  Their discordant aims                            351
            Aug.  The surrender of Toulon                          352
         8 Sept.  York before Dunkirk: the battle of Hondschoote   353
            Dec.  Attempted co-operation with the Vendeans         354
                  Siege and evacuation of Toulon                   355
            Mar.  Traitorous correspondence bill                   357
        1793-94.  Repressive proceedings                           357
           1794.  The opposition in parliament                     359
                  Selfish conduct of Prussia and Austria           360
                  The British retreat through Holland              362
                  The coalition in a shattered state               363
            Aug.  British conquest of Corsica                      363
  28 May-1 June.  Naval victory: the glorious First of June        364
                  Portland whigs coalesce with government          366
           1791.  Ireland. Society of United Irishmen founded      367
           1793.  Catholic relief act                              368
           1794.  Catholic emancipation question                   368
     Feb., 1795.  The recall of Fitzwilliam                        370


                           CHAPTER XVIII.

                       ENGLAND'S DARKEST DAYS.

           1795.  A desire for negotiation                         372
        8 April.  Marriage of the Prince of Wales                  373
                  Difference between Pitt and Grenville            373
        5 April.  Treaty of Basle                                  374
                  Treaties with Austria and Russia                 374
                  Feeble conduct of war in the Mediterranean       375
           June.  The expedition to Quiberon                       376
                  War in the West Indies                           377
                  Scarcity, riots, and democratic agitation        378
            Nov.  Repressive legislation                           379
           1796.  Bonaparte's campaign in Italy                    380
                  British fleet evacuates the Mediterranean        381
                  Overtures and unsuccessful negotiations for
                    peace                                          382
                  Financial difficulties: the Loyalty loan         384
                  Ireland--United Irishmen adopt a military
                    organisation                                   386
            Dec.  French attempt an invasion of Ireland            386
  27 Feb., 1797.  Suspension of cash payments                      387
             14.  Battle of Cape St. Vincent                       388
       18 April.  Preliminaries of peace between France and
                    Austria signed at Leoben                       390
                  The mutinies in the navy                         391
                  Negotiations at Lille                            396
         17 Oct.  Treaty of Campo Formio                           397
             11.  Battle of Camperdown                             398
                  A partial secession of whigs from parliament     399
            Nov.  The triple assessment                            400


                           CHAPTER XIX.

               IRISH REBELLION AND NAVAL SUPREMACY.

           1798.  Threatened invasion of England                   401
                  The Irish peasantry look to France for help      404
        1797-98.  Rebellion in Ulster averted by severities        405
  12 Mar., 1798.  Arrest of rebel leaders in Dublin                407
                  Cruel measures adopted in midland and southern
                    counties                                       407
         23 May.  Outbreak of rebellion in Kildare                 408
                  Rebellion in Wexford                             409
        21 June.  Rebels routed on Vinegar hill                    411
         20 Aug.  French under Humbert land in Killala bay         413
             27.  "The race of Castlebar"                          413
                  Other attempts at invasion                       414
          1 Aug.  The Battle of the Nile                           416
 Mar.-May, 1799.  The defence of Acre                              418
          4 May.  Storming of Seringapatam and death of Tipú       420
           1798.  Paul of Russia proposes a coalition              421
     Dec., 1798.} The second coalition formed                      423
     Jan., 1799.}
           1798.  British troops withdrawn from San Domingo        424


                           CHAPTER XX.

            ISOLATION IN EUROPE AND THE IRISH UNION.

           1799.  Campaign of Suvorov                              425
                  A French fleet in the Mediterranean              426
           June.  Nelson and the Neapolitan jacobins               427
       Aug.-Oct.  The expedition to the Helder                     429
                  Paul of Russia deserts the coalition             431
          9 Oct.  Bonaparte returns to France                      432
     Jan., 1800.  The convention of El Arish                       432
   25 Dec, 1799.  Bonaparte's letter to the king                   433
          April.  Payment of the income tax                        434
                  Scarcity of wheat                                435
    April, 1800.  Investment of Genoa                              436
        14 June.  The battle of Marengo                            437
                  Bonaparte proposes a naval armistice             438
                  Unprofitable expeditions                         439
   9 Feb., 1801.  The Treaty of Lunéville: isolation of England    440
                  Paul's anger against England                     440
     Dec., 1800.  The armed neutrality                             441
                  Great Britain's maritime supremacy               443
                  Scarcity and desire for peace                    443
                  Irish independence a source of weakness          445
     Oct., 1798.  Pitt contemplates union on a protestant basis    446
           1799.  Hopes of the catholics excited                   447
                  How the government secured a majority            448
   1 Aug., 1800.  The union enacted                                450
           Sept.  Pitt proposes catholic emancipation              451
     Feb., 1801.  The king refuses his assent: Pitt will resign    452
             20.  The king's insanity                              453
            Mar.  Pitt's promise to the king                       454
             14.  Pitt resigns office                              455


APPENDIX  I. On Authorities                                        459
         II. Administrations of Great Britain, 1760-1801           470
        III. The Grenvilles                                        476


                                 MAPS.

                      (AT THE END OF THE VOLUME.)

1. Great Britain, showing the parliamentary representation.

2. The United States of America (northern section) {illustrating the War
3.       "      "          "    (southern section) {of Rebellion and the
                                                   {Treaty of Sept. 3,
                                                   {1783.


                                ERRATA.

[Transcribers' Note: These corrections to errata have been applied to
the e-book]

Page 4, line 25, _for_ "George" _read_ "William".

 "   10, note, _for_ "From about 1760" _read_ "From the
                  Revolution".

 "   49, line 23, _for_ "of state in Egremont's place" _read_ "and took
                  the northern department".

 "   55   "    4, _for_ "1657" _read_ "1660".

 "   "    "    9, _for_ "cotton" _read_ "grain".

 "   71, lines 8, 9, _omit_ comma after "matters," and _for_ "including
                  taxation. The court party" _read_ "whatsoever. Some
                  of the king's household".

 "  115, line 23, _for_ "northern" _read_ "southern".

 "   "    "   24, _for_ "southern" _read_ "northern".

 "  121   "    3, _for_ "cousin" _read_ "aunt".

 "  130, lines 11, 12, _for_ "French laws and customs were swept away"
                  _read_ "The administration of the law was confused".

 "  135, line  7, _for_ "astride on iron rails" _read_ "to ride
                  upon a rail".

 "  144   "   29, _for_ "up" _read_ "down".

 "  220   "   29, _for_ "stony" _read_ "strong".

 "  245   "   36, _for_ "1788" _read_ "1778".

 "  259   "   33, _for_ "1774" _read_ "1770".

 "  263   "    5, _for_ "steel" _read_ "copper".

 "  282   "   12, _for_ "than" _read_ "to".

 "  351   "   31, _for_ "1,500 (Austrians)," _read_ "11,000".

 "  394   "   27, _for_ "Commander" _read_ "captain".

 "  467   "   40, _for_ "Karl von Martens" _read_ "F. de Martens".

 "  468   "   41, _for_ "Clerque" _read_ "Clergue".

 "  470. Newcastle's administration, _secs. of state_, E. of Egremont,
                  _for_ "_succ._ March, 1761," _read_ "_succ._ Oct.,
                  1761"; _for_ E. of Bute, "_succ._ Oct., 1761," _read_
                  "_succ._ March, 1761". _Ld. privy seal_, _after_ "E.
                  Temple" _read_ "D. of Bedford _succ._ Nov., 1761".

 "  471. Grenville's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ _for_
                  "E. of Sandwich" _read_ "E. of Halifax, _succ._ Sept.,
                  1763"; _n. dept._ _for_ "E. of Halifax" _read_ "E. of
                  Sandwich, _succ._ Sept., 1763".

         Rockingham's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ after
                  Conway _read_ "D. of Richmond, _succ._ May, 1766";
                  _n. dept._ _for_ "D. of Richmond" _read_ "H. S. Conway,
                  _succ._ May, 1766".

 "  473. North's administration, _secs. of state, s. dept._ _for_ "E. of
                  Sandwich, E. of Halifax, E. of Suffolk, Visct.
                  Stormont" _read_ "E. of Rochford, _succ._ Dec, 1770,
                  Viscount Weymouth, _succ._ Nov., 1775, E. of
                  Hillsborough, _succ._ Nov., 1779"; _n. dept._ _for_
                  "Viscount Weymouth, E. of Hillsborough," _read_ "E. of
                  Sandwich, _succ._ Dec, 1770, E. of Halifax _succ._
                  Jan., 1771, E. of Suffolk _succ._ June, 1771, Viscount
                  Stormont _succ._ Oct., 1779".

 "  475. Pitt's administration, _admiralty_, _for_ "Hood" _read_ "Howe".

 "  478, col. 1, line 32, _for_ "afterwards" _read_ "previously".

 "   "    "   2   "   50, Bridgewater, _for_ "Earl of" _read_ "Duke of".

 "  481   "   1   "   27, Cumberland, _for_ "George" _read_ "William".

 "  482   "   1   "   26, Emmet, _for_ "Robert" _read_ "Thomas".

 "  487   "   1   "   51, Lincoln, _for_ "Earl of (Clinton), 195, 197,
                  198" _read_ "American general, 195, 198".

 "  491   "   2   "   25, Queensberry, _for_ "Earl of" _read_ "Duke of".




                               CHAPTER I.

                           THE KING AND BUTE.


George III. was in his twenty-third year when he succeeded his
grandfather, George II., on October 25, 1760. His accession caused
general satisfaction. The jacobite schism had come to an end; no one
imagined that a restoration of the exiled house was possible, or
seriously wished that it might take place. The remembrance of the rising
of '45 strengthened the general feeling of loyalty to the reigning
house; the Old Pretender had lost all interest in public affairs, and
his son, Charles Edward, was a confirmed drunkard, and had alienated his
friends by his disreputable life. Englishmen were determined not to have
another Roman catholic king, and they were too proud of their country
willingly to accept as their king a prince who was virtually a foreigner
as well as a papist, and whose cause had in past years been maintained
by the enemies of England. It is true that their last two kings had been
foreigners, but this was so no longer; their new king had been born and
brought up among them and was an Englishman to the backbone. He
succeeded an old king of coarse manners and conversation and of openly
immoral life, and his youth and the respectability of his morals added
to the pleasure with which his people greeted him as a sovereign of
their own nation.

National feeling was growing in strength; it had been kindled by Pitt,
and fanned into a flame by a series of victories which were largely due
to the inspiration of his lofty spirit. He had raised Great Britain from
a low estate to a height such as it had never reached before. The French
power had been overthrown in North America and the dominion of Canada
had been added to the British territories. In India the victories of
Clive and his generals were soon to be crowned by the fall of
Pondicherry, and French and Dutch alike had already lost all chance of
successfully opposing the advance of British rule by force of arms.
Great Britain had become mistress of the sea. Her naval power secured
her the possession of Canada, for her ships cut off the garrison of
Montreal from help by sea; it sealed the fate of the French operations
in India, for D'Aché was forced to withdraw his ships from the
Coromandel coast and leave Lally without support. In the West Indies
Guadeloupe had fallen, and in Africa Goree. In every quarter the power
of France was destroyed, her colonies were conquered, her ships captured
or driven from the sea.

The naval supremacy of England is attested, strange as it seems at first
sight, by her losses in merchant shipping, which were far heavier than
those of France, more than 300 in 1760, more than 800 in 1761, for many
English merchantmen were at sea while the French dared not send out
their merchant ships for fear of capture. Nor was this all, for the ruin
of the commerce of France led the shipowners of St. Malo to fit out many
of their ships as privateers and corsairs, and the ruin of her navy sent
many a fine seaman aboard them. Skippers of English traders who
straggled from their convoy, or sailed ahead of it in order to be first
in the market, were often punished for their obstinacy or greediness by
these fast-sailing privateers.[1] In spite of these losses, England's
supremacy at sea caused a rapid increase in her wealth and commerce, and
she took full advantage of her power, seizing French merchandise carried
in neutral vessels. The wealth acquired through her naval supremacy
enabled her to uphold the cause of her allies on the continent.
England's purse alone afforded Frederick of Prussia the means of keeping
the field, and the continuance of the war depended on her subsidies. The
continental war, in which our troops played a secondary part, was by no
means so popular as the naval war, yet under Pitt's administration it
had helped to rouse the spirit of the nation. A new militia had been
created and the old jealousy of a standing army was weakened. It was,
then, at a time when national feeling was strong that Englishmen were
called upon to welcome a king of their own nationality, and they
answered to the call with enthusiasm.

[Sidenote: _THE YOUNG KING._]

George was in many respects worthy of their welcome. Moral in his
conduct and domestic in his tastes, he set an example of sobriety and
general decency of behaviour. He was kind-hearted and had the gift of
pleasing. On public occasions his demeanour and words were dignified. In
private he talked in a homely way, his words following one another too
quickly and sometimes showing a confusion of thought and excitability of
brain. To the poor he would speak with familiar kindness, chatting with
them like a good-natured squire. Yet simple as he was in his habits and
private talk, he always spoke and acted as a gentleman; the coarseness
of the old court was a thing of the past. He was deeply and unaffectedly
pious, and was strongly attached to the Church of England; his religion
was of a sober kind and was carried into his daily life. He was
constantly guided by the dictates of his conscience. His will was
strong; and as his conscience was by no means always so well-informed as
he believed it to be, his firmness often deserved the name of obstinacy.
Nor, in common with the best of men, did he always clearly distinguish
between his personal feelings and conscientious convictions. He had
great self-control, and was both morally and physically courageous.
Though as a youth he had been idle, he was never addicted to pleasure;
his accession brought him work which was congenial to him, he overcame
his natural tendency to sloth and, so long as his health allowed,
discharged his kingly duties with diligence. His intellectual powers
were small and uncultivated, but he had plenty of shrewdness and common
sense; he showed a decided ability for kingcraft, not of the highest
kind, and gained many successes over powerful opponents. The welfare of
his people was dear to him; he was jealous for the honour of England,
rejoiced in her prosperity, and strove with all his strength to save her
from humiliation. In religion, tastes, and prejudices he was in sympathy
with the great mass of his people; and in matters in which his policy
and conduct seem most open to censure, he had the majority of the nation
with him.

He had, however, some serious failings which brought trouble both on his
people and himself. They were largely the results of his training. His
father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, a fool, a fribble and worse, died
when George was twelve years old. His mother, the Princess Augusta, was
a woman of strong will, ambitious of power, unamiable in temper,
thoroughly insincere, narrow-minded, and full of petty feelings. She was
strict in all religious matters, had a high sense of duty, and was a
careful mother. When her son became king, she acted as though she had a
right to direct him in his political work. Her interference was
mischievous: she was unpopular and incapable of understanding the
politics of a great country; for she had the prejudices of a little
German court, and regarded politics merely in a personal light. George
grew up completely under her influence. Jealous of her authority and
influence over her sons, she was quick to suspect their governors and
preceptors of trying to act independently of her, and thwarted them
continually. They had no chance of gaining George's confidence or of
giving him the benefits which a lad may derive from the society of men
experienced in the ways of the world. Do what they would, the princess
was always too strong for them, and Lord Waldegrave, one of the prince's
governors, records as his own experience that "the mother and the
nursery always prevailed". Nor had George the opportunity of learning
anything from companions of his own age; his mother was afraid that his
morals would be corrupted by association with young people, and kept him
in the strictest seclusion. He had no friend except his brother Edward.
Her jealousy extended to her children's nearest relations. They had
little intercourse with the court, and William, Duke of Cumberland,
whose upright character and soldierly qualities might well have endeared
him to his nephews, complained that as children they were taught to
regard him with the most unworthy suspicion.

Brought up among bed-chamber women and pages, in an unwholesome
atmosphere of petty intrigue, and carefully kept from contact with the
world, George had the failings which such a system might be expected to
produce. His mother certainly succeeded in implanting in his heart
religious principles which he preserved through life, and she turned him
out a pure-minded and well-bred young man; but the faults in his
character were confirmed. He was uncharitable in his judgments of others
and harsh in his condemnation of conduct which he did not approve. His
prejudices were strengthened; he put too high a value on his own
opinions and was extremely stubborn. In dealing with men, he thought too
much of what was due to himself and too little of what was due to
others. As a lad he lacked frankness, and in later life was disingenuous
and intriguing. When he was displeased his temper was sullen and
resentful. He was always overcareful about money, and in old age this
tendency developed into parsimony. His education was deficient; it had
not been carried on steadily, and he had been allowed to indulge a
constitutional inertness. Though he overcame this habit, the time which
he had lost could not be made up for, and ideas which might have been
corrected or enlarged by a more thorough education, remained firmly
fixed in his mind.

[Sidenote: _THE EARL OF BUTE._]

Among these ideas were an exaggerated conception of the royal
prerogative and the belief that it was his duty as king to govern as
well as to reign. His mother's constant exhortation to him, "George, be
a king," fell upon willing ears, and appears to have been enforced by
his tutors. A more powerful influence on the mind of the young prince
than that of any of his tutors was exercised by John Stuart, Earl of
Bute, his mother's chief friend and adviser. He was a fine showy man,
vain of his handsome person, theatrical in his manners, pompous, slow
and sententious in his speech. His private life was respectable; he had
literary and scientific tastes, and a good deal of superficial
knowledge. His abilities were small; he would, George's father used to
say, "make an excellent ambassador in any court where there was nothing
to do".[2] He lacked the steadfast self-reliance necessary to the part
which he undertook to play, and had none of the dogged resolution of his
royal pupil. His enemies freely accused him of falsehood; he was
certainly addicted to intrigue, but he was probably too proud a man to
utter direct lies. The friendship between him and the princess was close
and lasting. It was generally believed that he was her paramour, but for
this there is no real evidence. It would have been contrary to the
character of the princess, and the assertion seems to have been a
malicious scandal. George liked him, and when he was provided with a
household of his own in 1756, he persuaded the king to put the earl at
the head of it as his groom of the stole. Though utterly incompetent for
the task, Bute instructed the prince in the duties of kingship; he
encouraged him in the idea that a king should exercise a direct control
over public affairs, and is said to have borrowed for him a portion of
Blackstone's then unpublished _Commentaries on the Laws of England_ in
which the royal authority is magnified.

George's political system was, it is evident, largely based on
Bolingbroke's essay _On the Idea of a Patriot King_. In this essay
Bolingbroke lays down that a king who desires the welfare of his people
should "begin to govern as soon as he begins to reign," that he must
choose as his ministers men who "will serve on the same principles on
which he intends to govern," and that he must avoid governing by a
party. Such a king will unite his people, and put himself at their head,
"in order to govern, or more properly subdue, all parties". This
doctrine seemed specially appropriate to the state of affairs at
George's accession. During the last two reigns the power of the crown
had dwindled. Neither George I. nor George II. had cared for, or indeed
understood, domestic politics, and the government had fallen into the
hands of the whig party which became dominant at the Revolution. The
whigs posed as defenders of the Hanoverian house and of the principles
of 1688. Those principles limited the exercise of the prerogative, but
they did not involve depriving the crown of all participation in the
government. The whig party exaggerated them, and while the fortunes of
Hanover and continental affairs absorbed the attention of the king, they
completely usurped the government of the country. They were strong in
the house of lords, and secured their position in the commons by
employing the patronage of the crown, the money of the nation, and their
own wealth and influence to control the borough elections. For nearly
fifty years a small number of whig lords shared the government of the
country among themselves. During Walpole's administration the whigs
became split into sections. Several of the more powerful lords of the
party had each his own following or "connexion" in parliament, composed
of men bound to him by family ties, interest, or the gift of a seat.
These sections, while they agreed in keeping the crown out of all part
in the government, and the tories out of all share in the good things
which the crown had to bestow, struggled with one another for office.

[Sidenote: _THE KING INTENDS TO RULE._]

Meanwhile the tories were left out in the cold. So long as jacobitism
was a danger to the state, this was not a fair cause of complaint, for
many tories had corresponded with the exiled princes. By 1760, however,
tories had become as loyal as whigs. George was fully determined to put
an end to this state of things: he would be master in his own kingdom;
he and not the whigs should govern England. He naturally rejoiced to see
the tories, a large and important body of his subjects, reconciled to
the throne; and as he had been brought up in tory principles, he
welcomed with peculiar pleasure the support of the party of prerogative.
The tories were no longer to be neglected by the crown; the whig
monopoly was to be brought to an end. He did not contemplate taking
political power from one party in order to vest it in another. He
designed to rule independently of party; no political section was
necessarily to be excluded from office, but no body of men, whether
united by common principles or common interest, was henceforth to
dictate to the crown. To be willing and able to carry on the government
in accordance with his will was to be the sole qualification for a share
in the administration. Ministers might or might not be agreed on matters
of the first importance; all the agreement between them which was
necessary was that each in his own sphere should act as an agent of the
king's policy.

The system was not so impossible as it would be at present. The idea of
the cabinet as a homogeneous body, collectively responsible to
parliament, was not yet established. Government was largely carried on
by ministers working more or less independently of one another. In 1760
the cabinet, an informal committee of the privy council, was an
institution of a different character from that of to-day. During the
last two reigns it had included, along with the ministers holding the
chief political offices, whether of business or dignity, certain great
court officials, and some other personages of conspicuous position whose
assistance might be useful to the government. Nominally the "lords of
the cabinet" were fairly numerous. They did not all take an equal share
in government. The king's "most serious affairs" were directed by not
more than five or six of them, who formed a kind of inner cabinet, the
first lord of the treasury, the two secretaries of state, one or more of
the principal supporters of the administration, and generally the lord
chancellor. They discussed matters privately, sometimes settling what
should be laid before a cabinet meeting, and sometimes communicating
their decisions to the king as the advice of his ministers, without
submitting them to the cabinet at large.[3] Outside this small inner
circle the lords of the cabinet held a position rather of dignity than
of power, and some of them rarely attended a cabinet meeting.[4] This
arrangement was mainly due to the long predominance of Sir Robert
Walpole and to the overwhelming political influence of a few great whig
houses. The strife among the whigs which followed Walpole's retirement
and the critical character of foreign affairs tended to increase the
number of councillors who commonly took part in cabinet business.

[Sidenote: _THE CABINET._]

The first cabinet of George III. as settled with reference to a meeting
held on November 17, consisted of the keeper of the great seal (Lord
Henley), the president of the council (Lord Granville), the two
secretaries of state (Pitt and Holdernesse), the Duke of Newcastle
(first lord of the treasury), Lord Hardwicke (ex-chancellor), Lord Anson
(first lord of the admiralty), Lord Ligonier (master-general of the
ordnance), Lord Mansfield (lord chief-justice), the Duke of Bedford
(lord-lieutenant of Ireland) and the Duke of Devonshire (lord
chamberlain). If Lord Halifax (president of the board of trade) pleased,
he might attend to give information on American affairs; and Newcastle
suggested that Legge (the chancellor of the exchequer, whose office, as
finance was then largely managed by the first lord of the treasury, was
of less importance than it soon became) and the "solicitor" (Charles
Yorke, solicitor-general) should also be summoned.[5] Soon afterwards
Bute was appointed groom of the stole to the king and entered the
cabinet.[6] After 1760 the cabinet began to assume its later form;
questions of the highest importance were debated and decided on in
meetings of eleven or twelve councillors, and in 1761 Hardwicke
complained that the king's "most serious affairs" were discussed by as
many as would in earlier days have formed a whole cabinet.[7] From 1765
the existence of an inner circle becomes less distinct, though at all
times a prime minister naturally takes counsel privately with the most
prominent or most trusted members of his government. Non-efficient
members of a cabinet appear more rarely until, in 1783, they disappear
altogether. The old inner cabinet becomes expanded into a council
consisting generally of high political officers, and the members, ten or
twelve in number, discuss and settle the weightiest affairs of state.
With the critical negotiations with France in 1796 came a new
development; the prime minister, the younger Pitt, and Lord Grenville,
the foreign secretary, arranged that the British ambassador should write
private despatches for their information, and others of a less
confidential character which might be read by the cabinet at large.[8]
Here a new inner cabinet is foreshadowed. It differed from the old one:
that arose from the small number who were entrusted with an actual share
in the government; this, from the fact that the number of the king's
confidential servants was so large that it was advisable that certain
matters of special secrecy should only be made known to and discussed by
two or three. The subsequent increase of the council promoted the
development of an inner cabinet, and such a body is understood to have
existed for many years during which cabinets have been of a size
undreamt of by ministers of George III.

The solidarity of the cabinet is now secured by the peculiar functions
and powers of a prime minister.[9] It was not so at the accession of
George III. That there should be an avowed prime minister possessing the
chief weight in the council and the principal place in the confidence of
the king is a doctrine which was not established until the first
administration of the younger Pitt; and though the title of prime
minister had come into use by 1760, it was still regarded as invidious
by constitutional purists. According to George's system he was himself
to be the only element of coherence in a ministry; it was to be formed
by the prime minister in accordance with his instructions, and each
member of it was to be guided by his will. The factious spirit of the
whigs, the extent to which they monopolised power, and the humiliating
position to which they had reduced the crown, afford a measure of
defence for his scheme of government. Yet it was in itself
unconstitutional, for it would have made the ministers who were
responsible to parliament mere agents of the king who was not personally
responsible for his public acts. And it was not, nor indeed could it be,
carried out except by adopting means which were unconstitutional and
disastrous. It necessarily made the king the head of a party. He needed
votes in parliament, and he obtained them, as the whig leaders had done,
by discreditable means. If his ministers did not please him he sought
support from the members of his party, "the king's friends," as they
were called; and so there arose an influence behind the throne distinct
from and often opposed to that of his responsible advisers.

[Sidenote: _THE KING'S SCHEME._]

Since 1757 the strife of the whig factions had been stilled by
coalition. At the king's accession the administration was strong. It
owed its strength to the co-operation of the Duke of Newcastle, the
first lord of the treasury, and Pitt, secretary of state.[10] Newcastle,
the most prominent figure among the great whig nobles, derived his power
from influence; he had an unrivalled experience in party management and
as a dispenser of patronage, and though personally above accepting a
bribe of any kind, he was an adept at corrupt practices. He would have
been incapable of conducting the war, for he was ignorant, timid, and
vacillating, but he knew how to gain the support of parliament and how
to find the supplies which the war demanded. Pitt was strong in the
popular favour which he had gained by his management of the war; he was
supremely fitted to guide the country in time of war, but he was too
haughty and imperious to be successful in the management of a party. He
did not care to concern himself about applications for bishoprics,
excisorships, titles, and pensions, or the purchase of seats in
parliament. All such work was done by Newcastle. For his attack on the
whig party George needed a scheme and a man--some one to act for him in
matters in which as king he could not appear personally to interfere.
The man was ready to his hand, his friend and teacher, Bute. His scheme
of attack was to create a division between Newcastle and Pitt, to make
peace with France, and force Pitt to leave the ministry, Pitt's
resignation would weaken the whigs, and the king would be in a position
to give office to Bute and any other ministers he might choose.
Newcastle and Pitt were not really in accord, for not only was Newcastle
jealous of Pitt, but he was anxious to bring the war to an end while
Pitt wished to continue it. George therefore started on his work of
sowing dissension between them with something in his favour. He disliked
Pitt's war policy. He and Bute desired peace, no doubt for its own sake,
as well as because it would forward their plan, for when the war ended
the great war minister would no longer be necessary to the whigs.

On the day of his accession George privately offered to make Bute a
secretary of state.[11] He refused the offer, for to have stepped into
the place of Holdernesse while the whig party was still united would
have been premature. The council was immediately summoned to Carlton
house, a residence of the princess-dowager. George at once showed that
he would take a line of his own. After a few gracious words to Newcastle
in private audience, he closed the interview by saying, "My lord Bute is
your very good friend and will tell you my thoughts at large". The duke,
Pitt, and Holdernesse were called into the closet to hear the
declaration he was about to make to the privy council; it is said to
have been written by the king himself with the help of Bute. When it had
been read George merely asked if anything was "wrong in point of form".
Pitt could scarcely believe his ears; the war was described as "bloody
and expensive". He had an interview with Bute in the evening and
insisted on a change in the sentence. He carried his point, and the
words in the council-book with reference to the war are: "As I mount the
throne in the midst of an expensive, but just and necessary war, I shall
endeavour to prosecute it in a manner most likely to bring about an
honourable and lasting peace in concert with my allies". The last five
words were dictated by Pitt.[12] Bute having been sworn of the privy
council, and having entered the cabinet as groom of the stole, assumed
"a magisterial air of authority," and was universally recognised as the
king's confidant and mouthpiece.

The king opened parliament on November 19, wearing his crown. His speech
was settled by his ministers, and was sent to Bute for his perusal,
Newcastle intending himself to lay it before the king, as it was his
right to do.[13] Bute, however, took it to the king, and Newcastle to
his amazement received it back from the earl with an additional clause
written by the king's hand, and a message that the king would have it
inserted in the speech which was to be laid before him next day in
cabinet council.[14] The clause began: "Born and educated in this
country, I glory in the name of Britain" [_sic_], and went on to express
the king's confidence in the loyalty of his people and his desire to
promote their welfare.[15] The words were unexceptionable, but the
absolute command to insert them in the speech for which the ministers,
not the king, were responsible, was unwise. The use of the word Britain
was attributed to the Scotsman Bute. In later life the king declared
that he had written the clause without suggestion from any one.[16] His
command was obeyed, and the manner in which his words were received
illustrates the adulation then customarily rendered to the sovereign.
Hardwicke, who was in the habit of composing addresses for his
colleagues, seems to have taken "Britain" for "Briton," as indeed it
usually appears in print, and inserted a clause in the lords' address
ending with--"What a lustre does it cast on the name of Briton when you,
Sir, are pleased to esteem it among your glories!" When whig lords could
adopt such words as these, a young king might well be encouraged to
think over-highly of the royal prerogative. The incident has a special
interest. The cabinet council of the 17th, in which the speech was read
in its final form, was held by the king in person. By the end of the
last reign it had become unusual that the king should preside at cabinet
meetings. With one doubtful exception, George III. never again presided
at a meeting, and so the absence of the sovereign from the deliberations
of the cabinet became an established constitutional usage. Thus at the
time when the king was preparing to assume a preponderance in the
government, the crown finally abandoned one of the few remaining customs
which indicated a right to govern as well as to reign.

[Sidenote: _THE CIVIL LIST._]

A like contrast is afforded by the arrangement of the civil list. George
was the first sovereign who entirely surrendered his interest in the
hereditary revenues of the crown in England, and placed them at the
disposal of parliament. In return parliament voted him a civil list, or
fixed revenue, "for the support of his household and the dignity of the
crown". The sum voted was £800,000 a year, which was at first charged
with some pensions to members of the royal family. By this arrangement
the control of parliament over the king's expenditure was asserted at a
time when the king was relying on his prerogative to enable him to
become independent of ministerial control. Besides this income George
had the hereditary revenues from Scotland, a civil list in Ireland, the
duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and certain admiralty and other dues,
the whole amounting to "certainly not much short of a million
annually".[17] If the value of money at the time is considered, it may
be allowed that the crown was amply provided for, and that so thrifty a
king as George would always have found his revenues sufficient for his
needs, if he had not spent large sums in supplying pensions and places
of profit for his political adherents, and in other methods of
corruption. The good impression made by the young king was heightened by
a speech from the throne on March 3, 1761, recommending that in order to
complete the independence of judges, their commission should not for the
future be terminated by the demise of the crown, and that sufficient
salaries should be assigned to them. An act to that effect was
accordingly passed. On the 19th the king closed the session, and
parliament was dissolved shortly afterwards.

The war was going on gloriously under Pitt's direction. Our ally,
Frederick of Prussia, was, indeed, in distress in spite of his
hard-earned victory at Torgau, for his resources were exhausted, and
half his dominions were occupied by his enemies. During 1761 Prince
Henry made no progress in Saxony. Frederick himself lost Schweidnitz,
and, with it, half Silesia, while the fall of Colberg left the Russians
free either to besiege Stettin in the following spring, or to seize on
Brandenburg. In Western Germany, however, where a British army was
serving under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick in the defence of Hanover
against the French, a signal success was gained. Early in the year the
allies entered Hesse, and forced the French to retreat almost to the
Main. Nevertheless they failed to take Cassel, the chief object of the
campaign, and were obliged to retire from Hesse. In June two French
armies, under Marshal de Broglie and Prince Soubise, effected a junction
at Paderborn, advanced to Soest, and threatened Lippstadt. Ferdinand
took up a position between the Lippe and the Ahse at Vellinghausen. On
July 15 he was attacked by the French. The enemy engaged his left wing,
formed by the British troops under their commander, the gallant Marquis
of Granby. The attack was splendidly met and finally repulsed. The
battle was renewed the next morning at daybreak, and the allies gained a
complete victory. The British troops, who formed about a fourth part of
the allied army, highly distinguished themselves; Maxwell's grenadiers
alone captured four French battalions. This victory, won against heavy
odds, foiled the most serious attempt of the French against Hanover; it
saved Lippstadt, which would have been exceedingly useful to them as a
depôt; and, more than that, it caused a quarrel between Broglie and
Soubise, which ended in the recall of Broglie, by far the abler of the
two generals. Meanwhile they parted company; Soubise did much mischief
in Westphalia, and Broglie campaigned to the east of the Weser. The
French kept their hold on Göttingen and Cassel, and were therefore in a
position to renew their attacks on Hanover the following year.

[Sidenote: _CAPTURE OF BELLE ILE._]

News came from India of the fall of Pondicherry on January 15, 1761, and
this was the end of the French power in that land. Few were the French
ships which put out to sea during the year, and they were all taken. In
the West Indies Dominica, one of the so-called neutral islands, of which
the French had taken possession, was reduced by Lord Rollo, then holding
a command in New York. About the same time the French received a more
galling blow. On March 29 a fleet under the command of Keppel, carrying
a land force of about 9,000 men under General Hodgson, sailed for Belle
Ile, a small and barren island with a population of 5,000, mostly
fisher-folk. It was fortified and well garrisoned. A first attempt to
land was repulsed with nearly 500 casualties. Tidings of the repulse
were brought to Pitt; he sent reinforcements and ordered the commander
to persevere. A second attempt, carried out with remarkable daring, was
successful, and siege was laid to Palais, the strong place of the
island. It was gallantly defended by the governor, who in a night attack
surprised the British in their trenches and inflicted a heavy loss upon
them. The lines which covered the town were taken by storm and the place
was abandoned, but the fortress still held out. As, however, the British
ships cut off all supplies, the garrison was at last, on June 7, forced
to capitulate. They marched out with the honours of war and were
conveyed to the mainland. By the capture of Belle Ile England gained far
more than the barren island; it was French soil, and France would be
prepared to surrender possessions of greater value in exchange for it.
For Pitt the success of the expedition was a special triumph, for he had
insisted upon it in spite of the opposition of Newcastle and the adverse
opinion of the admirals Hawke and Boscawen.

While Pitt was laying down and carrying out plans of victory, the king
and Bute were exciting discord between him and Newcastle. For a few days
after the accession Newcastle seemed more in favour than Pitt, who was
justly displeased because Lord George Sackville, one of Bute's friends,
was received at court in spite of his recent disgrace. Before long,
however, Newcastle found himself slighted and became violently jealous
of Pitt. If Bute were to ally himself with Pitt and adopt his policy,
the old minister knew that his own day would soon be over. He received a
hint that a change was contemplated. At the end of six months, Bute
said, the king "will declare whom he will call to his cabinet
council".[18] The alliance between Pitt and Bute seemed complete. In
January, 1761, the Spanish ambassador wrote: "there is no better voice
in council than his [Pitt's], which joined to that of my Lord Bute seems
to decide matters".[19] Pitt could work well with the rising star so
long as Bute did not oppose the continuance of the war, for he heartily
approved of breaking down party distinctions, and, like the king, hated
government by connexion. While, however, the king desired to destroy
factions in order to establish personal government, Pitt desired that
they should give place to a system of government by the best men,
supported by the king and the nation. Tories were graciously received at
court, and among them many of Bute's fellow-countrymen. In November,
1760, six tory lords and grooms of the bed-chamber were appointed
without any intimation having been given to Newcastle.[20] The whigs
were amazed, and the duke's mortification was keen.

The king's determination to break down the system which had so long
secured the whig power was set forth and commended in a remarkable
pamphlet written by Douglas, afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, and
probably inspired by his patron, Lord Bath.[21] It urged the king to be
on his guard against "the pretensions of a confederacy of ministers,"
and to exercise the full extent of power allowed him by the
constitution. He must not let his patronage go by the advice of
ministers. Let him rely on his people; let him be master. Proscription,
the writer says, is ended, and he expresses his belief that if the king
will pursue the line marked out in his pamphlet, corruption also will
disappear; for so long as a minister disposes of places, he has the
means of corrupting parliament, whereas if the crown dispenses its own
patronage it will gain strength, and the independence of parliament will
be restored. For Newcastle, the veteran dispenser of the royal
patronage, such a system meant political extinction. Its meaning was
already brought home to him by an intimation that he was not to have
"the choice of parliament," the management of the coming general
election in boroughs under government influence, nor to purchase seats
with the treasury money. Anson was reproved by Bute for having,
according to custom, provided members for the admiralty boroughs.
Newcastle believed, with good reason, that Pitt and Bute were agreed on
this matter. He was deeply distressed, and told his friend Hardwicke
that he thought he must resign office.[22] That, however, was the last
thing he was likely to do.

[Sidenote: _OPPOSING VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO THE WAR._]

While Pitt may have welcomed the co-operation of his new ally from a
belief that they had a common policy as regards government by connexion,
and as a means of checking the opposition with which his plans were
often received by Newcastle and his friends, it is certain from later
events that the king and Bute were not sincere in their dealings with
him. They designed to raise dissension between him and his
fellow-ministers, and so prepare a way for Bute's assumption of office
and for the termination of the war. As early as January 18, 1761, when
Newcastle was sufficiently frightened and humbled, the Sardinian
minister, Count de Viri, one of Bute's tools, had a secret interview
with him, and proposed that the earl should be made a secretary of
state. Newcastle, who was mortally afraid of Pitt, said that the
appointment must be made with his concurrence, for otherwise Pitt might
blame him, and might perhaps resign office and leave him and Bute
saddled with the conduct of the war.[23]

Bute intended when in office to make a peace which would immortalise his
name. He saw that this would soonest be obtained if England withdrew
from the war on the continent and confined her operations to the sea.
France would then be induced by the loss of her colonies to make a
separate peace. Pitt was determined not to assent to any peace which was
not made in concert with our allies and did not insure England a full
return for her victories. Bute would have had the country stand apart
from continental politics; Pitt desired that it should have continental
allies and make itself felt in the politics of Europe. The two opposing
views are characteristic of the two men. Pitt maintained that the
continental war was profitable because it had hindered France from
putting forth her full strength in defence of her colonies.
Statesmanlike as his position was, there was much to be said on the side
of the tories and others, who held that England should confine herself
to a naval war. We have, they argued, no interest in a war for Silesia.
Why should we pay Frederick £670,000 a year, the amount of the subsidy
again granted to him soon after the accession, for fighting in his own
quarrel? What profit do we derive from the £340,000 paid to the
Landgrave of Hesse for the hire of troops? The naval war has brought a
rich return; on the continent we have nothing to gain by victory. As for
the argument that the German war is one of diversion, why should we
divert a war from the sea, where we are supreme, to land, where we must
necessarily be inferior to France? To fight in Germany for Hanover is to
surrender the advantages of an insular position. Better let France
overrun Hanover, for, as we shall possess her colonies, we can force her
to surrender it again.

These arguments are ably stated in a pamphlet entitled _Considerations
on the German War_, written by one Israel Mauduit, and published at the
end of 1760. It had a strong effect on public opinion, and was followed
by other pamphlets more or less on the same lines, and probably written
at the instigation of Bute, for he employed and largely rewarded the
services of pamphleteers. Their arguments were enforced by the growing
expenses of the war and the difficulty of obtaining men for the army.
The supplies granted for the year 1760 were £15,503,563; for 1761 they
amounted to £19,616,119, the interest on which was to be paid by the
continuance of the old taxes and a new tax of three shillings per barrel
on beer and ale. The national debt of Great Britain and Ireland, which
in 1755 was £72,505,572, entailing a charge for interest and expenses of
a little over £2,500,000, amounted in 1760 to £102,000,000, with a
charge of £3,500,000.[24] In 1761 the British troops serving abroad were
thirty-nine regiments of foot and thirty-one of horse and dragoons; in
all, 110,000 men, besides 60,000 German auxiliaries in British pay. In
Germany we had about 25,000 men. At the same time sea-pay was drawn for
288 ships of various kinds and 80,675 men, the navy then consisting of
378 vessels, of which 285 were first to sixth rates.[25] Of these, 121
ships of the line with about 70,000 men were in active service. The call
for men was very heavy in proportion to the population, and high
bounties were offered for enlistment. Balloting for the new militia
caused some riots in the north, specially at Hexham, where the miners
fiercely attacked the militia, and forty-two men were killed and
forty-eight wounded.

[Sidenote: _A GENERAL ELECTION._]

Before the king and Bute opened their campaign they insured support in
parliament. Early in 1761 preparations were made for the general
election. The court spread the idea that it was for purity of election;
it was known that Newcastle's hands were tied, and it was expected that
no money would be issued from the treasury. Nothing was less true.
Corruption was rampant and the treasury issued large sums. George
personally named candidates for boroughs belonging to the crown, to
which the ministry had hitherto appointed, and otherwise took an active
share in the arrangements. For the most part he worked through Bute, to
whom Newcastle was forced to submit his lists of candidates that he
might compare them with his own and decide who should be brought in.
This was galling to the old minister, but he had already done much to
forward the whig interest in the coming election, and flattered himself
that "they [the court] had left matters too late for them to do any
mischief".[26] In former elections the whigs used the resources of the
crown to secure power for themselves; in this election the crown itself
used its own means of corrupt influence. Private men followed its
example. A new class of candidates appeared, men without party connexion
or local interest, who had lately become rich, West India merchants,
"nabobs" gorged with the spoils of the East, shareholders of the East
India Company, admirals and others who had reaped a splendid harvest
from the destruction of the commerce and shipping of France. The
competition for seats was extraordinary; at Andover there were nine
candidates. Constituencies which had long obeyed the orders of great
landlords were no longer to be reckoned upon. No political question was
exciting public interest, and the borough elections were decided rather
by money than by measures. Bribery was carried to a preposterous height,
and the new-rich bought seats as openly as they bought their horses. The
borough of Sudbury went so far as to advertise itself for sale. Those
who without political aims or connexions forced themselves into
parliament by their wealth were peculiarly open to court influence.
Newcastle's belief that the elections would secure his position was
ill-founded; many members on whom he relied were ready to desert him at
the bidding of the court. By the beginning of March, before the
elections were over, the king and Bute were sure of the support they
desired.

Bute was in a position which enabled him to take office and to begin to
carry out the designs cherished by his master and himself, to bring the
war to an end and to encourage the jealousy of Pitt's colleagues to such
an extent that they would force him to leave them. He could be dispensed
with as soon as peace was made, and without him the whig ranks could
easily be broken up, for Newcastle could be crushed at any time. With
Bute as an ally Pitt dominated over his fellow-ministers, who bore his
yoke with rebellious feelings. If Bute came over to their side they
could make a stand against him. Viri's secret negotiations on Bute's
behalf gave them a chance not to be neglected. Newcastle, Hardwicke, and
the Duke of Devonshire took counsel together, and Newcastle went to the
king with a proposal that Bute should accept office. To this George, of
course, readily assented. Pitt knew nothing of all this until the matter
was settled.[27] On March 12 Holdernesse was dismissed. It was not a
creditable business; four months before he had signified his readiness
to make room for Bute,[28] and he received a present pension of £4,000 a
year and the reversion of the wardenship of the Cinque Ports, which was
at least equally valuable, as a reward for his complaisance. He was
succeeded by Bute as secretary of state on the 25th.

At the same time Legge, the chancellor of the exchequer, who had refused
to accede to Bute's wishes with regard to two elections, and was much
disliked by the king,[29] was dismissed, and was succeeded by Lord
Barrington, an honest man, with no strong political convictions, who was
always ready to carry out the king's plans. Barrington was succeeded as
secretary-at-war by Charles Townshend, a brilliant wit and orator, "the
delight and ornament" of the house of commons,[30] a reckless and
unstable politician, who was destined to bring evil on his country. A
month earlier, one of Bute's adherents, George Grenville, the treasurer
of the navy, a brother of Earl Temple, lord privy seal, and a
brother-in-law of Pitt, was rewarded by a seat in the cabinet. He had
considerable ability, great aptitude for business, and a thorough
knowledge of parliamentary affairs, was a statesman of unsullied purity,
public-spirited, hard-working and ambitious;[31] he was deficient in
tact, had no generosity of mind, and was harsh, formal, and impatient of
opposition. Newcastle's perfidy increased the ill-feeling between him
and Pitt, against whom the new alliance was avowedly directed,[32] for
at the time that Newcastle sold himself to Bute in order to gain his
support, Pitt was becoming aware that the king was probably about to
oppose his policy with respect to the war. Newcastle was delighted with
the success of his trick, but he soon found that Bute slighted him, and
that his power was going from him, for he was no longer allowed to
control the patronage of the crown.[33] By treating him in this way the
king and Bute kept him subservient. Bute aggravated the division between
the ministers, and used Pitt's colleagues against him in the conflict
which was impending on the question of peace and war. The history of
that conflict is for convenience' sake deferred to the next chapter.

[Sidenote: _THE KING'S MARRIAGE._]

The satisfaction caused by the young king's gracious manners and
respectable life was increased by his marriage. In 1755 his grandfather
had proposed that he should marry a princess of the house of Brunswick,
but abandoned the project in consequence of the opposition of George's
mother. About a year before his accession George fell in love with Lady
Sarah Lennox, a daughter of the late Duke of Richmond and sister-in-law
of Henry Fox, a young lady of remarkable beauty. His attentions to her
were continued after his accession. Fox and his wife, Lady Caroline,
took care that he should have every opportunity of seeing her; and
George, as he rode through Kensington, was charmed to find her in a
fancy dress playing at hay-making in front of Fox's residence, Holland
House. He went so far as to signify plainly to her that he meant to make
her a formal offer of marriage.[34] Most inopportunely Lady Sarah broke
her leg, and while she was laid up, the princess-dowager and Bute
persuaded George to change his mind. They at once arranged a marriage
for him with the Princess Charlotte, a daughter of the Duke of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and the marriage took place on September 8. The
queen did not meddle in affairs of state; she bore fifteen children, and
had many domestic virtues. On the 22nd the king and queen were crowned.

George's popularity was impaired by the influence exercised over him by
his mother and Bute, which excited the ridicule of the higher class of
society and the bitter feelings of the London populace. Bystanders
sneered when they saw him on his way to visit his mother, and it is said
that on one occasion he was insulted with a coarse jest. In Bute's case
the idea that he was the royal favourite would alone have sufficed to
make him hated. The term was generally applied to him. Yet he was not a
favourite in the more odious sense of the word, for though the king
showed him signal favour, their relations were rather political than
personal. His nationality strengthened the dislike with which he was
regarded. The jacobite troubles had increased the prejudices of the
English against the Scots; they looked down upon them as a
half-barbarous people, poor, and greedy to enrich themselves with the
wealth of England. Scorn and indignation were aroused by the grants of
honours and employments made to Bute's Scottish followers who came in
great numbers to the court under his patronage. Bills were posted in
London with the words: "No petticoat government! No Scotch minister! No
Lord George Sackville!" Any unpopular measure was set down to Bute's
advice. The beer-tax was believed to have been suggested by him, and
provoked a disturbance in the theatre in the king's presence, which
caused Bute much annoyance. He was yet to rise higher in the state, and
to arouse more violent feelings of hatred and contempt.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Mahan, _The Influence of Sea Power upon History_, pp. 318-19.

[2] Earl Waldegrave's _Memoirs_, p. 36.

[3] See, for example, "Memorandum of what past at Sir R. Walpole's
house," Sept. 9, 1725, Add. MS. 32,687 (Duke of Newcastle's Papers), f.
155.

[4] _Engl. Historical Rev._, xvii. (1902), 678 _sqq._, an interesting
article by Mr. Winstanley to which I am indebted.

[5] Add. MS. 32,914, ff. 171, 189; the order in the text is that of the
manuscript, the names and offices within parentheses are supplied.

[6] His appointment about Nov. 16, Add. MS., _u.s._, f. 369; he appears
as a "lord of the cabinet," Jan. 8, 1761, Add. MS. 32,917, f. 180.

[7] Add. MS. 32,929, f. 143; see also _Engl. Hist. Rev._, _u.s._

[8] _Dropmore Papers_, iii., 337-38, 341-43 (Hist. MSS. Comm.); Earl of
Malmesbury, _Diaries_, etc., iii., 465.

[9] J. Morley, _Walpole_, p. 157.

[10] From the Revolution the two principal secretaries of state took one
the southern, the other the northern department. Both were responsible
for home affairs. Foreign affairs were divided between them, the
southern department including France, Spain, etc., the northern,
Germany, the Low Countries, Denmark, Sweden, and Russia. A third
secretaryship was established for the colonies in 1768, and abolished in
1782, when the distinction between northern and southern was
discontinued and the secretaryships were divided into home and foreign.

[11] Newcastle to Hardwicke, March 6, 1764, Add. MS. 32,919, f. 481.

[12] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Oct. 26, 1760, quoted in Harris's _Life of
Hardwicke_, iii., 215-16.

[13] Memoranda, Nov. 13, 1760, Add. MS. 32,914, f. 277.

[14] Bute to Newcastle, Nov. 16, _ibid._, f. 345.

[15] Add. MSS. 32,684 (Royal family), f. 121, and 32,914, f. 359.

[16] G. Rose, _Diaries and Correspondence_, ii., 189.

[17] Burke, "_Present Discontents_," _Works_, iii., 143, ed. 1852; May,
_Constitutional History_, i., 236.

[18] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Nov. 7, 1760, Add. MS. 32,914, ff. 171-72.

[19] _Chatham Correspondence_, ii., 90.

[20] Newcastle to Duke of Manchester, Dec. 14, 1760, Add. MS. 32,916, f.
173; see also f. 322.

[21] _Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man_, 1761.

[22] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Dec. 7, 1760, Add. MS. 32,915, f. 332.

[23] Secret Memorandum, C. V. [Count de Viri], Add. MS. 32,917, f. 461.

[24] Parliamentary Paper, xxxiii. (July, 1858), 165, National Debt.

[25] MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, The Progress of the Navy, R.O.

[26] Albemarle, _Memoirs of the Marquis of Rockingham_, i., 61-64.

[27] _Secret Memoranda_, C. V., Add. MS. 32,919, f. 285; see also ff.
314, 400, 402 _sq._, 477 _sq._, and 32,920, f. 66.

[28] Dodington's _Diary_, p. 416.

[29] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Feb. 10, 1761, Add. MS. 32,919, f. 43.

[30] Burke, "_On American Taxation_," Works, iii., 214.

[31] Burke, "_On American Taxation_," _Works_, iii., 197.

[32] Memoranda, Add. MS. 32,920, f. 65.

[33] Newcastle to Devonshire, July 11, 1761, Add. MS. 32,925, f. 10; see
also ff. 155-56, 185, 235, Add. MS. 32,926, ff. 189-93, 284, 352.

[34] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox_, i., 13, ed. Lady
Ilchester.




                               CHAPTER II.

                           THE PEACE OF PARIS.


By the beginning of 1761 France was anxious for peace, and in concert
with her allies, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Poland, invited Great
Britain and Prussia to negotiate, and suggested that a congress should
meet at Augsburg. England and Prussia assented, and plenipotentiaries
were appointed. In England the prospect of a peace was hailed with
satisfaction, and the funds rose 4 per cent. The congress never met, but
the plan was not abandoned for some months; and Choiseul, the minister
of Louis XV., sent a memorial to England proposing that, as difficulties
would arise at the congress if the questions in dispute between England
and France were debated along with the affairs of their respective
allies, the two courts should enter on a separate negotiation. He
offered to treat on the basis of _uti possidetis_, that is, that the
possessions of both countries should be acknowledged as regards the
conquests made by the one from the other, and that certain dates in the
current year should be fixed upon as those on which the conquests should
be ascertained. The offer was large; for at that time England had
conquered from France Cape Breton, Canada, Guadeloupe, Mariegalante,
Goree, and Senegal, and had also gained great advantages in India,
though the fall of Pondicherry was not yet known; while France had only
conquered Minorca from England. She had also, it will be remembered,
gained insecure possession of Hesse, Hanau, and Göttingen. England
agreed to a separate negotiation on the basis of _uti possidetis_, but
Pitt would not commit himself as to the dates, for he was preparing the
expedition against Belle Ile, and intended that England should not lose
the advantage which would accrue from its success. He also declared that
his court would not desert the King of Prussia. Choiseul replied that
neither would France desert her allies, and that the negotiation only
concerned the interests of the two powers. On this understanding the two
courts sent representatives the one to the other; the English
representative chosen by Pitt was Hans Stanley, and M. de Bussy was sent
to London by Choiseul.

Soon after they arrived at their destinations Belle Ile was conquered.
Pitt knew how deeply the national spirit of France would be wounded by
this blow; he promised to restore the island if adequate compensation
were made, and Choiseul professed himself willing to make important
concessions. On July 15, however, he made proposals of a less favourable
kind than might have been expected. They were, briefly, that France
should cede Canada on certain conditions, one of which was that she
should have liberty to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and dry cod on
the Newfoundland shore, and should have Cape Breton in sovereignty for a
shelter for her ships, though she should not erect fortifications. She
would restore Minorca, and should receive back Guadeloupe and
Mariegalante; two of the neutral islands, Dominica and St. Vincent,
should be under her protection, and of the other two she should keep St.
Lucia and England should have Tobago. The rival claims in India were to
be settled on the basis of a treaty of 1755, before the late English
victories. England should restore either Senegal or Goree, for unless
France had one of them, her West India possessions would be useless, as
she would have no port for the shipment of negroes. Belle Ile was to be
restored, and France would evacuate Hesse and Hanau. After preliminaries
were signed England was not to help Prussia, nor France Austria, but
France would not surrender the territories conquered from the King of
Prussia, for they were conquered and held in the name of the
Empress-queen. This stipulation was made in favour of Austria which had
assented to the separate negotiation on condition that her interests
were guarded. The proposals were of a kind to suggest doubts as to
Choiseul's sincerity. As a matter of fact he was secretly arranging a
strict alliance with Spain as a means of forcing England to make
favourable terms.

[Sidenote: _SPANISH AND FRENCH MEMORIALS._]

Spain had three grievances against Great Britain. She complained that
her ships had wrongfully been made prizes, that she was shut out from
the Newfoundland fishery, and that British settlements had been made on
the bay of Honduras. Charles III, of Spain had a strong leaning towards
a French alliance; he was much influenced by the family tie between
himself and the other Bourbon powers, and he considered that the
destruction of the French navy by Great Britain deprived Spain of a
guarantee for the safety of her possessions in the western hemisphere.
He believed that by identifying the interests of Spain with those of
France, he would gain a satisfactory settlement of his own claims and
also better terms for France than she could otherwise obtain. As early
as September, 1760, the Count de Fuentes, the Spanish minister in
London, presented to Pitt a memorial on the Newfoundland fishery, in
which it was stated that a copy had been communicated to the court of
France. Indignant at the implied threat, Pitt replied that he was at a
loss to understand the meaning of such a communication, and that France
had nothing to do with the question.[35] A month later Dutens, secretary
to the British embassy at Turin, sent him information which proved that
the King of Spain would not long remain a passive spectator of the
war.[36] Pitt was thus fully aware of the necessity for watchfulness as
to the relations between France and Spain; the correspondence between
Fuentes and the Marquis Grimaldi, the Spanish minister at Paris, was
regularly intercepted and its contents communicated by Pitt to his
colleagues. The two ambassadors were endeavouring to bring about an
alliance between their king and Louis, and, on March 10, 1761, Fuentes
wrote that "if this is done, at the end of the year we shall have a
peace to our liking and France's," and that England would be compelled
by "force and fear" to do justice to Spain. Pitt soon showed him and
Choiseul how unsafe it was to reckon on English fear.

Along with the French proposals of July 15, Bussy presented Pitt with a
memorial on the grievances of Spain, proposing that England should
terminate her differences with that court, and declaring that the French
king "cannot disguise the danger he apprehends, and of which he must
necessarily partake if these objects which seem nearly to concern his
Catholic majesty shall be the occasion of a war". Pitt was furious at
this insult to his country and at once addressed Bussy in terms
different from the ordinary language of diplomacy. He declared in plain
words that the king would not allow the dispute with Spain to be
blended in any manner whatever in the negotiation, and that any further
attempt to blend them would be considered an affront. He returned the
memorial as "wholly inadmissible".[37] In answer to the French articles
he replied that Canada must be ceded unconditionally, and refused to
surrender Cape Breton or to allow France any part in the fisheries. Both
Pitt and Choiseul held the fisheries question to be of prime importance.
If France were shut out from them, she would, Pitt believed, permanently
be crippled as a maritime power, for apart from the value of the fish
both for victualling ships and in commerce the fisheries were a nursery
for a race of hardy seamen, and Pitt wished to prevent France from ever
restoring either her merchant marine or her naval strength. The second
crucial question in the negotiation concerned our allies. Pitt insisted
that Frederick should receive back the territories conquered from him by
France, and that both England and France should be free to help their
allies. Determined to give France no commercial advantage, he refused to
cede either Senegal or Goree. England must have Minorca, but would agree
to an equal partition of the neutral islands, and would restore Belle
Ile, Guadeloupe, and Mariegalante. He further rejected the date proposed
as a basis for a peace in India.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S ULTIMATUM._]

Pitt kept the negotiation with Bussy in his own hands, and met
opposition in the cabinet with haughty determination. Newcastle and his
party were eager for peace, and, equally with Bussy, complained that the
tone of his despatches was too peremptory. Bute resented what he
described as Pitt's insolence.[38] Nevertheless the king and he
considered the French proposals unsatisfactory and were annoyed by the
memorial concerning the Spanish grievances, but Bute believed that
patient negotiation would induce France to yield all that was in
dispute. Accordingly, to Newcastle's consternation, he supported Pitt's
demands. Pitt's strongest opponent was the Duke of Bedford, who was
urgently summoned to the council by Bute and Newcastle when they wanted
a champion against him. Upright and fairly able, Bedford owed his
political prominence mainly to his rank and vast wealth; he was much
addicted to sport and other pleasures, and allowed himself to be guided
by a gang of greedy adherents of whom Rigby, a coarse and shameless
place-hunter, was the chief. Pitt laid his ultimatum to France before
the council on August 15. He had so far yielded to pressure as to offer
France a limited right of fishing, and the island of St. Pierre as a
shelter and port, provided it was kept unfortified. On the other crucial
question his demand was unchanged; the Westphalian lands were to be
restored to Frederick, and both parties were to remain free to help
their allies. His despatch was considered needlessly irritating, but he
would not allow a word to be altered. Bute would give no help against
him. Bedford, who had a violent temper, was so angry at being overborne,
that he declared that he would attend no more councils, and Newcastle
was reduced to whining despair. By the 18th, however, Bute came to an
agreement with the Newcastle faction and promised to help them against
Pitt.[39]

Lord Bristol, our ambassador at Madrid, was instructed to remonstrate
energetically with General Wall, the Spanish minister, on the subject of
Bussy's memorial. He was to say that as regards the prizes there were
courts whose business it was to decide such matters, that England would
not allow Spain any share in the fishery, but was willing to receive
representations as to the Honduras settlements, provided they were not
sent through France, and that any union of counsels with France would
hinder an amicable arrangement. He was, further, to demand an
explanation of the naval preparations which Spain was making. He could
obtain no satisfaction, and on August 31 sent Pitt a paper in which Wall
declared that his master concurred in Bussy's memorial, and, while he
protested that no offence was intended, maintained that Spain and France
had a right to mix in the affairs each of the other "for mutual
assistance". A declaration of war from Spain was, Bristol thought, not
far off.[40] On September 2 Stanley sent Pitt a copy of what he believed
to be an article of a secret treaty between France and Spain, and wrote
that he was assured in Paris that Spain would immediately declare war,
and that a treaty between the two powers only needed signature.[41]
Intercepted letters between Fuentes and Grimaldi proved that a treaty
had been signed between them on August 15. This was the famous family
compact, the purport of which was not yet known in England. A fresh set
of proposals was made by Choiseul, and Stanley was led to believe one
day that peace was unlikely, and another that France would agree to
terms and that "the affair of Spain would be dropped".[42] It became
evident that Choiseul was trifling with England, and on September 15 the
cabinet decided to recall Stanley forthwith.

Choiseul was anxious to avoid an immediate breach between England and
Spain, both because Spain was expecting the arrival of her
treasure-ships from America,[43] and also because her naval preparations
were incomplete. Pitt, who was convinced that Spain was intending to
declare war, was anxious to strike while so grand an opportunity lasted.
A cabinet council was held on the 19th. He was not present, but sent in
a paper signed by himself and Temple, urging that, in view of Wall's
avowal of "a total union of counsels and interests" between the two
Bourbon monarchies, Bristol should be ordered to return to England
without taking leave, in fact, that war with Spain should at once be
declared.[44] Unfortunately we had no _casus belli_ against Spain, and
could not found one on secret information. The council made a point of
this, and voted that a declaration of war would neither be just nor
expedient, but that Bristol should demand further and distinct
assurances of the intentions of Spain. They knew that their decision
would probably lead to Pitt's resignation, and held anxious discussion,
for they were in great perplexity. Bute had hoped that peace would be
made, and then Pitt might be got rid of. Things were turning out
awkwardly. "If," he said, "we had any view of peace, he should be less
solicitous what part Mr. Pitt took, but that, as the continuance of the
war seemed unavoidable, he thought that we should do what we could to
hinder Mr. Pitt from going out, and thereby leaving the
impracticability of his own war upon us."[45] He and the rest of the
council knew that Pitt could conduct the war, and that they could not.
They agreed that peace with France might still be hoped for.

[Sidenote: _PITT AND HIS COLLEAGUES._]

That belief was strongly held by the king, and he was delighted by a
letter from Stanley holding out hope of peace.[46] George believed
Choiseul's assurances, and was angry with Pitt for treating them as mere
amusements. At a council on the 21st, Pitt, in an eloquent speech,
pointed out "the almost certainty" of success against the united forces
of the Bourbon monarchies, but, said he, "there is not an hour to lose".
He regretted the concessions which he had been persuaded to make to
France, and "was determined _now_ to abide by his own opinion". The
council adhered to its decision of the 19th. It was plain that Pitt and
Temple would retire, and their colleagues discussed who should succeed
Pitt.[47] George's spirits were dashed by another letter from Stanley
expressing his belief that Spain was contemplating an attack on our ally
the King of Portugal.[48] He could not conceal his ill-temper, and let
it be known that he wished to get rid of Pitt "in all events".[49] He
was soon gratified. Another cabinet meeting was held on October 2 to
decide what orders should be sent to Bristol. Pitt took the same ground
as before, and declared that his opinion had been strengthened by one of
Grimaldi's intercepted letters. Granville, the president of the council,
said that he was convinced that a declaration of war with Spain would
neither be just nor expedient. Newcastle, Devonshire, and Hardwicke
concurred. Bute said that such a war would be dangerous, and in any case
should be put off as long as possible. Anson thought that our ships were
not in a condition for it.[50] Mansfield feared that if England
declared war against Spain the other maritime powers would think that
she was set on destroying them all. Ligonier believed that Spain could
put 70,000 men in the field; she had made "a great figure" in Queen
Anne's reign, and might do so again, and she would be joined by Naples
with an army of 20,000. Temple spoke on Pitt's side, and then appears to
have left the council-room in anger.

Pitt spoke again. He had, he said, "been called by the sovereign, and in
some degree by the voice of the people, to assist the state when others
had abdicated". He had succeeded in spite of opposition, for hardly an
expedition he had proposed, "though most probable and attended with the
greatest success, had not beforehand been treated as chimerical and
ridiculous". He knew the little interest he had either in council or
parliament, but, said he, "the papers which I have in my bag" (meaning a
letter from Bristol, and the paper which he sent from Wall) "fix an
eternal stain on the crown of England, if proper measures are not taken
upon them"; and he would not acquiesce in sending no answer to Spain. He
was responsible, and he "would not continue without having the
direction". No one could be surprised at his going on no longer, for he
would be responsible for nothing but what he directed. Granville spoke
some words of compliment to him, but protested against his claim to
direct; when the king referred a matter to the council "the opinion of
the majority must decide". The council rejected Pitt's proposal.[51]

[Sidenote: _PITT RESIGNS OFFICE._]

It must not be supposed that Pitt had information as to the relations
between France and Spain which he did not lay before his colleagues;
indeed it is fairly certain that this was not the case. They knew that a
treaty was made, and that Spain had entered into it with hostile
intentions. Pitt, with the insight of a statesman, was sure that war
with Spain was certain, and desired to strike before she was ready. His
colleagues, anxious for peace and fretting under his predominance,
allowed themselves to be blinded by their hopes. They believed that
France might yet shake off her engagement to Spain, and be willing to
make peace on terms to which Great Britain could agree; and they
determined in any case to put off a declaration of war against Spain as
long as possible. Pitt resigned the seals on the 5th. So ended the
ministry of that great man who alone, at a critical time, had justly
rated the strength and spirit of England, and had dared to rely upon
them, who had taught his fellow-countrymen how great things they might
do, had sent them forth, confident in that knowledge, to victory after
victory, and had laid broad and deep the foundations of Britain's
colonial empire.

The king's petulant wish was fulfilled, but though he and Bute approved
of the decision of the council, Bute thought that Pitt's resignation was
"not favourable in the present minute to the king's affairs". He would
have been well pleased if George could have found in Pitt a minister
subservient to his royal will; he could not endure that he should give
strength to a whig cabinet. Pitt took a line which the king disliked,
yet Bute knew that he could ill be spared so long as the war lasted, and
was annoyed that his intrigues against him had been successful at an
inopportune time. The leaders of the whig oligarchy, and specially
Newcastle, Devonshire, and Bedford, sometimes inspired by Bute, and
sometimes urging him on, had succeeded in driving Pitt out of office.
What was to be their reward? They were to fall back into disunion, and
were consequently to find themselves unable to resist the growth of the
royal power. As for Pitt himself, his resignation dissolved the
unnatural alliance between him and them. His position was tolerable only
so long as he was their master, for in feeling he was not one of them.
As heartily as George himself he hated government by connexion, and like
him desired to break up all parties. He despised the corrupt practices
by which the whigs strengthened themselves, and he had a deep reverence
for the crown. Yet his aims were totally different from those of the
king. He would have broken party ties in order to form a strong
administration; he would have destroyed corruption and looked to the
king and nation for the support of government, and relying on their
support would have crushed the enemies of England. George, on the other
hand, wanted ministers who would carry out his will; he was led to
imitate and, indeed, to surpass the whigs in corrupt practices; he
desired that England should be at peace, and should take no part in
continental politics. Pitt at last stood alone and unconnected. Which
would gain his support, the king or the whigs? The question runs through
the history of the party politics of England during the next eight
years.

When Pitt went to the king to give up the seals of his office, George
spoke graciously to him. Always intoxicated by a peep into the royal
closet, Pitt burst into tears and replied in words of absurd
self-abasement. The tidings of his resignation were received with
general indignation. For a moment his popularity was overclouded. He
accepted a pension of £3,000 a year for three lives, and the dignity of
Baroness of Chatham for his wife. With mean and studied[52] adroitness
it was contrived that the _Gazette_ announcing his resignation should
publish with it a notification of these grants, and a letter from
Stanley again holding out hope of a peace with France. For the grants it
is, as Burke wrote, "a shame that any defence should be necessary".[53]
Pitt addressed a dignified letter to alderman Beckford, his chief
follower in the city, on the cause of his resignation and the
"unsolicited" marks of royal favour which he had received. His
popularity rose as high as ever. The city was specially strong for him,
for its merchants and traders owed him a deep debt of gratitude. At the
lord mayor's feast on November 9, which was attended by the king, he had
the bad taste to draw off the cheers in the street to himself; he was
loudly applauded, and the king coldly received. Bute's coach was
escorted by hired bruisers; it was attacked amid cries of "Damn all
Scotch rogues!" "No Bute!" "No Newcastle salmon!" and Bute was rescued
from the mob by constables. In parliament Pitt adopted a noble line; he
justified his own conduct without blaming his late colleagues,
disregarded attacks upon himself, and urged the ministers to act firmly,
and the house to give them its united support.

[Sidenote: _WAR DECLARED AGAINST SPAIN._]

He was succeeded as secretary of state by Lord Egremont, a man of small
ability; the leadership of the commons was committed to Grenville, and
Bedford took Temple's place as privy seal. Events soon vindicated the
wisdom of Pitt's demand for instant war with Spain. Bristol in vain
demanded satisfactory assurances from that court. At first Wall's
answers were conciliatory, but naval preparations still went on. By
November 2 all the treasure-ships had arrived safely. Their arrival
caused a marked change in Wall's tone; he no longer disguised the
hostile feeling of his court. At Christmas the Family Compact was
published. It was of the same character as the compacts of 1733 and
1743, and arranged a strict alliance between the sovereigns of the house
of Bourbon. It was formed between the Kings of France and Spain, the
King of Spain also engaging for the King of the Two Sicilies, and it
guaranteed the dominions of the three kings and of the Duke of Parma.
Each sovereign was to send specified assistance to any of the others who
might require it, but wars undertaken by France in consequence of
engagements to German or northern states were not to be cases in which
Spain should be bound to send help, "unless some maritime power should
take part in them". These words pointed directly to Great Britain. On
January 2, 1762, war was declared against Spain. France and Spain forced
our ally, the King of Portugal, to declare war, and in the spring Spain
invaded his kingdom.

This new war afforded Bedford an opportunity for moving in parliament
for the recall of the British troops from Germany. Bute, though equally
desirous for their recall, opposed the motion as inopportune;
circumstances, he said, had arisen which promised to enable us to lessen
expenses and reduce the war. The motion was lost. The declaration of
disagreement between two cabinet ministers on so serious a question
illustrates the difference between the cabinet system of the time and
that of to-day. The circumstances to which Bute referred were the death
of Frederick's enemy, Elizabeth of Russia, on January 5, and the
accession of Peter III., who was his ardent admirer. Peter restored East
Prussia to Frederick, ordered Tchernitchev and his 20,000 men to
withdraw from Glatz, and entered into negotiations for an alliance with
Prussia, which was concluded later. Frederick's position was totally
changed. Bute hoped that he would use this change of fortune to make
peace; it naturally caused him to be more eager to prosecute the war for
Silesia. When he applied for the renewal of the English subsidy of
£670,000, Bute informed him that it would only be granted on condition
that he gave assurances that he was ready to make peace. This Frederick
would not do. Other difficulties arose between the two courts. Bute
complained that Frederick was secretly negotiating with Russia for a
separate treaty which would hinder a general peace, and thwart our
policy in the north by encouraging Russia to enforce the surrender of
Schleswig. Frederick also had his complaints. Early in the year Bute
made certain efforts for a general peace, and Frederick asserted that
Bute had suggested that Russia should force him to surrender Silesia to
Austria. Bute was deceived as regards the tsar's intentions, and his
words were spoken in the interest of Prussia. Nevertheless, Frederick
would not be pacified, and he further accused Bute of trying to dissuade
Peter from making an alliance with him. This charge was flatly denied by
Bute. It rests solely on the assertion of Prince Galitzin, the Russian
ambassador in London, and there is no reason for doubting Bute's
word.[54] As Frederick refused to give any pledge as to the terms on
which he would make peace, the British government refused the subsidy.

Pitt having been driven from office, the king and Bute turned upon
Newcastle. Bute and Grenville treated him with discourtesy; he found
himself deprived of the power of dispensing patronage; the king did not
even consult him as to the new peerages granted in the spring. As an old
whig he set a high value on the continental connexion formed by the
alliance with Frederick, and cared more for the war in Europe than for
naval expeditions. He was deeply annoyed by the desire of Bute,
Grenville, and Bedford to withdraw our troops from Germany and by the
refusal of the subsidy. He would not, he declared, "be Grenville's tool
and load the nation with four or five millions to carry on a ridiculous,
destructive maritime war".[55] Nevertheless he clung to office.
Devonshire and Hardwicke agreed with him, and attached themselves to a
section of the whigs who acknowledged the Duke of Cumberland as their
head. Newcastle proposed that a vote of £2,000,000 should be asked for,
£1,000,000 as usual for the German war and £1,000,000 for the war in
Portugal. Bute and Grenville maintained that only £1,000,000 was wanted.
That, he said, implied the abandonment of the German war. The question
was decided against him in a cabinet meeting on May 4. Bitterly as he
felt this defeat on a matter concerning his own office, the treasury, he
would not do more than threaten to resign, and found an excuse for
retaining office for the present. George and Bute were determined that
he should go; George was ungracious, Bute uncivil. His friends urged him
to resign. At last he brought himself to the point and resigned on the
25th.[56]

[Sidenote: _BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION._]

On his resignation the king spoke kindly to the old man, as indeed he
well might, for the duke had spent a long life and a vast fortune in the
service of his house; he had, it is said, reduced his income from
£25,000 to £6,000 a year in securing support for government by means
which, whatever we may esteem them now, were then considered becoming to
a man of his wealth and station. George pressed him to accept a pension.
He refused, declaring that the gracious sense which the king expressed
of the sacrifices he had made for his royal house was all the recompense
he desired.[57] If Pitt's acceptance of rewards needs no defence,
Newcastle's refusal of them demands admiration. Bute succeeded him as
first lord of the treasury. Several other changes were made in the
administration. George Grenville became secretary of state in Bute's
place, and Sir Francis Dashwood chancellor of the exchequer in
succession to Barrington, who took Grenville's office as treasurer of
the navy. Dashwood was utterly ignorant of the rudiments of finance, and
was scandalously immoral; his house, Medmenham abbey, was the
meeting-place of the Hell-fire club, of which he was the founder, and he
took a foremost part in the childish mummery, the debauchery, and
blasphemy of the "Franciscans," as his companions called themselves.
Lord Halifax, a man of popular manners, loose morals, and small ability,
succeeded Anson at the admiralty; Henley remained lord chancellor,
Bedford privy seal, and Fox paymaster. Devonshire had ceased to attend
meetings of the cabinet but was still lord chamberlain. The king and
Bute had won a signal success; the whig administration was broken up and
Bute was virtually master of the government.

The Russian alliance more than made up to Frederick for the loss of the
English subsidy; Tchernitchev and his army were at his disposal.
Suddenly his hopes were clouded over. On July 10 Peter was deposed and
soon afterwards was murdered. He was succeeded by his wife Catherine,
who did not share his admiration for the Prussian king. Frederick was
facing the Austrians in Silesia when orders came to Tchernitchev to lead
his army home. Tchernitchev delayed his departure, remaining merely as
an onlooker, to give the Prussians the support of his presence. On the
21st Frederick won the decisive battle of Burkersdorf, and a few weeks
later was master of Silesia. In western Germany, where the war more
immediately concerned England, Prince Ferdinand showed consummate skill
in forcing the French to act on the defensive. On June 24 the allies
defeated them at Wilhelmsthal. The victory was decided by Granby, who,
after a fierce engagement, destroyed the pick of the French army under
Stainville. A series of successes followed; Göttingen was evacuated, the
larger part of Hesse reconquered, and Cassel and some other places which
remained to the French were blockaded. The French army of reserve under
Condé marched from the Lower Rhine to help Soubise; a junction was
effected to the north of Frankfort, and the French attempted to open up
communications with Cassel. After much manoeuvring about the Lahn, no
way seemed possible for them save by crossing the Ohm. The passage at
Brückenmühle, near Amöneburg, was held by the allies. The French
attacked on September 21. During the last four hours of the conflict,
which lasted the whole day, the defence was taken up by Granby, and was
maintained with splendid determination until at last the French retired.
Cassel surrendered on November 1, and the war ended.

[Sidenote: _BRITISH SUCCESSES._]

Success attended the arms of Great Britain in other quarters. Pitt's
spirit still animated her efforts. How far the government adopted his
plans and arrangements cannot, perhaps, be decided with certainty. He
had large ideas, which probably included not merely the conquest of
Martinique and Havana, but also an attack on Louisiana. The enemies of
the government attributed to him the victories which followed his
resignation.[58] The ministers naturally claimed the credit of them and
certainly made arrangements for them,[59] probably following lines
already marked out by Pitt. Rodney, who was in command on the Leeward
islands station, acting in co-operation with General Monckton, reduced
Martinique in February. The fall of that island, the seat of the
government of France in the West Indies, the centre of her privateering
expeditions, and her chief mart in those parts, was followed by the
surrender of Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent, and England became
mistress of all the Windward islands. Against these losses France could
set only a momentary possession of St. John's, Newfoundland, which was
speedily retaken. Spain had to pay heavily for her rashness in espousing
the French cause. Her troops, indeed, entered Portugal, overran
Traz-os-Montes, and threatened Oporto, while south of the Douro they
advanced as far as Almeida and took it. But the aspect of affairs
changed when 8,000 British soldiers landed at Lisbon and the Count of
Lippe-Bückeburg took the command. He was ably seconded by General
Burgoyne, and the Spaniards were forced to retreat within their own
frontier.

So far as England was concerned the war in Portugal was a small matter.
It was through her power on the sea that she was able to reap a rich
harvest from her war with Spain. In March a fleet under Pocock, carrying
10,000 men under the command of the Earl of Albemarle, sailed for
Havana. Off Cape St. Nicholas, Pocock was joined by a reinforcement sent
by Rodney. There was no time to lose, for the hurricane season was near;
and he therefore took his ships through the shoals of the Bahama channel
instead of to the south of Cuba, and brought them out safely on June 5,
a notable piece of seamanship, for the channel was little known. The
troops laid siege to Fort Moro, which commanded Havana. The Spaniards
made a vigorous defence, and the British suffered terribly from disease;
at one time 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 seamen were incapacitated by
sickness. Much-needed reinforcements arrived from New York, and, on July
30, the fort was taken by storm after a siege of forty-five days. The
town capitulated on August 12. The reduction of the island deprived
Spain of a rich colony, an important centre of trade, and, more, of a
port which commanded the route of her treasure-ships from the Gulf of
Mexico. An immense booty was secured, £3,000,000 in money besides
merchandise.

About the same time England dealt Spain a heavy blow on the other side
of the world. An expedition under General Draper sailed from Madras in a
fleet commanded by Admiral Cornish, and on September 25 landed at
Manila. The Spaniards, though unprepared, refused to surrender, and the
place was taken by storm. Large government stores were seized by the
victors, but the British commanders allowed the inhabitants to ransom
their property for 4,000,000 dollars. Half this sum was paid in bills on
the Spanish treasury which were rejected at Madrid, and the money was
never paid. With Manila the whole of the Philippines passed to Great
Britain. Though a privateering expedition undertaken with the Portuguese
against Buenos Ayres was beaten off with heavy loss, Spain was unable to
defend the sources of her wealth against the British navy. In May the
capture of the _Hermione_, from Lima, brought over £500,000 to the
captains and crews of the frigate and sloop engaged in the business. A
glorious procession passed through London, carrying the treasure to the
Tower, on August 12, when people were rejoicing at an event scarcely to
be remembered with equal satisfaction, the birth of the future king,
George IV. Two of the ships belonging to the Manila expedition also made
a prize of an Acapulco ship with a cargo worth 3,000,000 dollars.

During the summer Bute treated with France through the Count de Viri.
Bedford urged concessions upon him, and his fear lest the negotiations
should be broken off made him willing to agree to Choiseul's demands. He
would, indeed, have yielded more than he did, if Grenville had not
checked him in the cabinet. In September Bedford was sent to Paris to
settle the preliminaries. Peace was by no means desired by the English
people; they were proud of their victories and were disgusted that Bute
should have the management of affairs. Bedford was hooted in the streets
of London as he set out for Paris. Both Bute and his enemies prepared
for a struggle. Bute, as usual, employed the press to fight for him, and
engaged the services of a number of pamphleteers and newspaper-writers.
His character as a patron of men of letters rests chiefly on the money
which he spent in this way, though it must be set to his credit that he
procured a pension for Samuel Johnson without stipulating for any
return. Among his hired scribes was Smollett, who edited a paper for him
called _The Briton_. The other side, too, was active. In obedience to
Frederick's instructions the Prussian ambassadors took part in exciting
popular discontent with the government; and were justly reproved by
Grenville for their preposterous conduct. Bute was vigorously assailed
in print. The publication of _The Briton_ called forth the ironically
named _North Briton_, of which the first number appeared in June. It was
brought out by John Wilkes, member for Aylesbury, a clever and
dissipated man of fashion, with literary tastes, great courage, an
excellent wit, too often employed in obscenity, and a remarkably ugly
face. He was incorrupt and his political professions were probably
sincere. Behind him stood Temple, ever ready to instigate others to stab
the objects of his hate. The court party was strengthened by grants of
peerages, preferments, and other good things, and "the king's friends,"
as they began to call themselves, became a recognised body. Yet Bute
feared that parliament would be hostile, and made overtures to Newcastle
and Hardwicke, hoping to secure the duke's influence; but they would not
be cajoled.

[Sidenote: _SECURING A MAJORITY._]

A majority for the peace had to be insured before the preliminaries came
before parliament. Grenville was dissatisfied with some of the articles,
and would in any case have been too scrupulous for the work which had to
be done. Bute was driven to apply to Henry Fox, whom both the king and
he cordially disliked. Fox, who had previously sold his support to Bute
at the price of a peerage for his wife, was offered Grenville's place as
secretary of state and a peerage for himself, if he would take the
management of the commons. "We must," George said, "call in bad men to
govern bad men." Fox at once broke with the whigs and accepted the
leadership, but he refused the seals, for he preferred to continue in
the more lucrative office of paymaster of the forces, which he had used
during the last six years as a means of amassing a great fortune. As
paymaster he had large sums of public money in his hands to meet calls
at fixed periods. Holders of the office were wont to employ such sums
for their own benefit. Pitt would not do so, and left the office a poor
man. Fox had no such scruples. During the war the government often
obtained ready money by issuing bills at 20 per cent discount. Fox
bought these bills with the public money which lay in his hands. He
also used the public money in operating in government stock and gained
immense profits from the fluctuations of the funds, for as a minister he
of course knew more about the chances of peace than the public.[60]
Grenville was forced to resign the leadership to him, and the office of
secretary to Halifax, and take the admiralty in exchange. Fox set about
the business of securing a majority in the commons by bribing members.
In one day £25,000 was paid out of the treasury, and it is said even so
small a sum as £200 was not refused.

Encouraged by Fox's success, George gave the whigs a lesson on the
fruits of opposition. The king, so the court party said, would be king;
the prerogative was to shine out. Devonshire, the "prince of the whigs,"
was forced to resign the chamberlain's staff; the king treated him
uncivilly and with his own hand struck his name from the list of privy
councillors. The whigs were enraged at this high-handed proceeding. The
Marquis of Rockingham resigned the bed-chamber, and George received his
resignation with indifference. Worse was yet to come. Overtures were
made to Pitt by the whigs who gathered round Cumberland, but he would
not connect himself with them. They had defeated his policy, and though
he desired Bute's removal, he would not help to turn him out in order to
put Newcastle back in power.

[Sidenote: _THE TERMS OF PEACE._]

The preliminaries of peace were signed on November 3, and laid before
parliament on the 29th. France agreed to restore Minorca and to evacuate
the territories of Hanover, Hesse, Brunswick, and Prussia. Both parties
were to withdraw their troops from Germany. Dunkirk was to be
dismantled. France resigned Canada, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton,
together with some territory hitherto claimed as part of Louisiana.
Spain ceded Florida and received back Havana and Manila. Portugal was
restored to its position as before the war. Great Britain restored to
France Belle Ile, Guadeloupe, Mariegalante, Martinique, and St. Lucia,
and retained Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, and Tobago. France was
allowed a right of fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the
Newfoundland coast, and received the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon
as shelters, covenanting not to fortify them. Spain gave up its claim
to the Newfoundland fishery, agreed that the dispute concerning prizes
should be settled by the courts, and acknowledged the right to cut
logwood on the Bay of Honduras. In Africa England restored Goree to
France and kept Senegal. In India France abandoned her pretensions to
conquests since 1749, and received back the factories which she had at
that date. As a compensation to Spain for the loss of Florida, France
ceded to her Louisiana; a Spanish governor arrived there in 1766, but
though Spain had posts and settlements in the province, she can scarcely
be said to have ever had any effective hold upon it.

It was a glorious peace for Great Britain; it marks a signal epoch in
her imperial history. But it was not so advantageous as she had a right
to expect. Financially peace was desirable, for the national debt of
Great Britain and Ireland, which before the war stood, as has already
been stated, at £72,505,572, had risen to £132,716,049, but her
resources were by no means exhausted; she could have continued the war
without distress. It is fairly certain that better terms might have been
obtained if the government had carried on the negotiations in a
different spirit. Martinique, specially valuable to a maritime power,
was surrendered without compensation; Manila was simply thrown away
through careless haste; Goree, on which the French slave trade depended,
might easily have been retained. Grenville protested against the
surrender of Guadeloupe, and it was decided on when he was too ill to
attend the council. Florida was a poor exchange for Havana, the richest
of our conquests. Whether Pitt's policy of obtaining commercial
monopolies by force of arms was economically sound, and whether the
restoration of the French navy would have been impeded so materially by
exclusion from the fishery as he believed, are questions on which we
need not dwell here. The treaty must be judged according to the beliefs
of the time. As it ceded valuable conquests without adequate
compensation, and encouraged France again to enter on a naval and
commercial policy by restoring to her Goree, colonies in the West
Indies, and her factories in India, and by granting her a share in the
fisheries, it was justly condemned as unsatisfactory. As regards the
continental war, the change in Frederick's position was sufficient
reason for our withdrawal from a quarrel which did not concern us. Yet
he had some cause of complaint, for though the treaty provided that the
French should evacuate his territories, it did not provide that the
territories should be handed over to him. He gained possession of them
without difficulty, but for that he owed no thanks to England. He
believed that he had been betrayed and deserted, and adopted an
unfriendly attitude, which was a hindrance to England's foreign policy
in later years.

At home the peace was widely condemned. When parliament met on November
25, Bute's coach was attacked and he was in some danger. In the lords
the address approving the preliminaries was passed without a division.
In the commons the debate had begun when Pitt entered the house. He was
suffering from gout, and was carried by his servants within the bar.
Dressed in black velvet, and leaning on a crutch, he advanced slowly to
his seat, his limbs swathed in wrappings, and his face pale with
suffering. Yet he spoke for three hours and forty minutes. After
declaring that he was unconnected with any party, he criticised the
various articles of the treaty, pointing out that they surrendered
maritime and commercial advantages which would have been doubly valuable
because our gain would have been the loss of France. The treatment of
Frederick he denounced as base and treacherous. The address was carried
by 319 to 65. The definitive treaty was signed at Paris on February 10,
1763, and on the 15th Prussia and Austria made peace at Hubertsburg. The
majority was largely obtained by corruption. Many members, however, no
doubt welcomed the peace, even though they were not fully satisfied with
its terms. The rout of the whigs was completed by their disunion; some
who would have voted against the address were discouraged by Pitt's
attitude of solitary independence.[61] The king had succeeded in
breaking up the whig party, and there was no organised opposition. The
court was triumphant. On hearing the result of the division, the
princess-dowager is said to have exclaimed, "Now my son is King of
England!" The victory was followed up by a general proscription of the
whigs; Newcastle, Grafton, and Rockingham were dismissed from their
lord-lieutenancies. Nor was vengeance confined to the great. All whigs
who held places were deprived of them, and even poor clerks and
excisemen lost the employments bestowed on them by whig ministers. Fox
urged on the execution of this shameful business. Every effort was made
to obtain congratulatory addresses on the peace from municipal bodies,
and money was offered for them. London and several other places refused
to be won over by any means.

[Sidenote: _THE CIDER TAX._]

The unpopularity of the administration was heightened by its finance.
Dashwood's scheme for the supplies included a loan of £3,000,000, which
was negotiated on such extravagant terms that the scrip soon rose to a
premium of 11 per cent. The loan was not open to public competition, it
was distributed among the chief supporters of the government; nine of
them, it is said, cleared each £20,000, Fox £10,000, and so on, while
the nation lost £385,000 by the transaction. It was a new form of
corruption, specially dangerous because indirect.[62] More general
indignation was excited by the proposal of a tax of four shillings a
hogshead on cider, to be paid by the maker and collected as an excise.
The tax was excessive in amount, onerous in its conditions, and unfair
in its incidence, for it fell equally on the poorest and the most
valuable cider, and pressed solely on particular districts. It was,
however, as an extension of the excise laws that it was specially
offensive to public feeling. That was a matter on which Englishmen were
extremely jealous. Thirty years before a proposal for an extended excise
nearly wrecked the power of Sir Robert Walpole, who wisely yielded to
the storm. By Dashwood's scheme farmers were liable to have the privacy
of their homes invaded by the visits of excisemen. Disturbances broke
out in the cider counties, and troops were moved into them. The
excitement was general. London petitioned against the tax, and its
example was followed by many other corporations and counties. Bute was
violently assailed in print, by Wilkes in prose and by his friend
Churchill in verse. A parliamentary opposition was organised; it was
joined by Pitt and Temple, and had its headquarters at Wildman's tavern
in Albemarle Street. Pitt spoke strongly against the tax in the commons.
It was defended by Grenville, who in the course of his speech constantly
demanded where another tax could be laid. Mimicking his querulous tone,
Pitt repeated aloud the words of an old ditty, "Gentle shepherd, tell me
where". The nickname, Gentle shepherd, stuck by Grenville. The bill
passed the commons and was sent up to the lords. For the first time
since the revolution the lords divided on a money-bill, and voted 49
against, to 83 for its committal.

A few days later, on April 7, Bute announced that ill-health compelled
him to retire from office. The announcement caused general surprise, but
he had for some weeks determined to retire, and had arranged with the
king that Grenville should succeed him. That he should have taken office
was, Pitt wrote, more astonishing than his departing from it.[63] He
took office with the intention of carrying out the king's policy of
breaking up the whig phalanx and bringing about a peace. Both objects
were accomplished. Though still strong in votes in the commons, he had
few allies of any weight, for Bedford was offended with him. The newly
formed opposition caused him uneasiness, specially as it included Pitt
and Temple; it was strong in the lords, and he feared its influence in
their chamber.[64] Though his health was not materially affected, he was
doubtless weary of a task which he must have learned was too great for
his abilities. He knew that he was generally hated by the people, and
feared that if he remained longer in office, his unpopularity would
become injurious to the king. Before his resignation he provided
handsomely for his relations and friends at the expense of the nation;
reversions of £52,000 a year were distributed among them. Fox was
rewarded by his creation as Baron Holland, and managed to keep the pay
office for two years longer.

FOOTNOTES:

[35] _Chatham Correspondence_, ii., 69 _n._

[36] Dutens, _Mémoires d'un voyageur_, i., 178-79.

[37] _Parliamentary Hist._, xv., 1044-47.

[38] Newcastle to Bedford, July 2, 1761; _Bedford Correspondence_, iii.,
19.

[39] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Aug. 17, 1761, Add. MS. 32,927, f. 68;
_Bedford Correspondence_, iii., 36-42.

[40] Bristol to Pitt, Aug. 31, 1761, Add. MS. 32,927, ff. 285-87.

[41] Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 2, 1761, Add. MS. 32,928, f. 14.

[42] Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 6, 1761, _ibid._, ff. 1, 148, 179.

[43] Stanley to Pitt, Sept. 8, 1761, _ibid._, f. 40.

[44] _Ibid._, f. 225, printed in _The Grenville Papers_, i., 386-87.

[45] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Sept. 20, 1761, Add. MS. 32,928, f. 260.

[46] Stanley to Pitt, dated Sept. 14, 1761, received the 21st, _ibid._,
f. 148.

[47] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Sept. 21, 1761, _ibid._, ff. 303-6.

[48] Stanley to Pitt, dated Sept. 19, 1761, received the 25th, _ibid._,
f. 245.

[49] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Sept. 26, 1761, _ibid._, f. 362.

[50] The disposition of the naval force fit for service on Sept. 15,
1761, was: At home and within call, 54 ships of the line and 58
frigates; with Saunders, 11 of the line and 12 frigates; East Indies, 14
of the line; Jamaica, 6; Leeward islands, 8; North America, 6; other
plantations, 2; convoys and cruisers, 4; total, 105 of the line. Men
wanting to complete ships at home, 15,490 (Add. MS. 32,928, f. 185).
France could not have had more than 42 ships of the line (Mahan,
_Influence of Sea Power_, p. 312). Spain had 49 of the line fit for
service, but insufficiently manned (Coxe, _Bourbon Kings of Spain_,
iii., 245, ed. 1813).

[51] Minutes of Council, Oct. 2, 1761, Add. MS. 32,929, ff. 18-28.

[52] Newcastle to Hardwicke, Nov. 9, 1761, Add. MS. 32,929, f. 143.

[53] _Annual Register_, iv. (1761), 48.

[54] Bisset, _Memoirs of Sir A. Mitchell_, ii., 283, 286, 294 _sq._;
_Buckinghamshire Correspondence_, i., 47-52; Adolphus, _Hist. of the
Reign of George III._, i., App. 5, 79-83.

[55] Newcastle to Devonshire, April 10, 1762, Add. MS. 32,937, ff. 11,
87.

[56] Add. MS. 32,938, ff. 18, 50, 105 _sq._, 239, 262, 304, 425.

[57] Newcastle to Cumberland, May 26, 1762, Add. MS. 32,939 f. 5.

[58] Newcastle to Pitt, 1762, MS. Pitt Papers, 25, R.O.; Temple to Pitt,
Oct. 3, 1762, _ibid._, 61.

[59] As regards Manila, see _Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep._, vii., 316 _sq._

[60] Fox's Memoir in _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox_, i., 72-73.

[61] A. von Ruville, _William Pitt und Graf Bute_, pp. 55-56.

[62] _Parl. Hist._, xv., 1305; _History of the Late Minority_, p. 96;
May, _Constitutional History_, i., 382-83.

[63] Pitt to Newcastle, April 9, 1763, Add. MS. 32,948, f. 84. Bute
resigned on the 11th.

[64] Newcastle to Lord Kinnoul, June 3, 1763, Add. MS. 32,949, f. 15.




                               CHAPTER III.

                      THE GRENVILLE ADMINISTRATION.


The king appears to have received Bute's resignation without regret;
indeed it was remarked that the day before it was announced he was in
unusually good spirits, "like a person just emancipated".[65] Bute had
done all that he could do for him as prime minister; he had cleared the
ground for the establishment of the king's system of government; the
whig oligarchy was disorganised and overthrown, and the war was at an
end. George could not have wished to keep a minister in office who was
hated by his people; that would have been contrary to the idea of a
patriot king, and would in time have made him unpopular. Nor was he
perhaps altogether satisfied with Bute's conduct in office; for in later
life he observed that he was "deficient in political firmness".[66] Bute
was to continue to be useful to him in another capacity in which
political firmness was not so important; he was to be the king's private
adviser, and help him to select and manage his responsible ministers.
Through his instrumentality, George had already secured a set of
ministers who would, they both believed, be content to carry out the
king's will. Grenville, though he had opposed Bute in the cabinet with
reference to the negotiations with France, professed that as prime
minister he would try to win his complete approval, and with only one
exception allowed Bute to form his administration for him. Bute and his
master thought they had secured a useful tool, a subservient and
hard-working drudge. They were mistaken in their man; Grenville was
independent and self-confident. He took the two offices of first lord of
the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. Dashwood retired with Bute
and the barony of Despencer was called out of abeyance in his favour.
Halifax and Egremont remained secretaries of state and Henley lord
chancellor. Bedford distrusted Bute and refused to take office. The new
administration promised to exercise economy, and Grenville took care
that the pledge should be redeemed. Its frugality did not make it
popular; it did not command the confidence of the nation, and was
generally considered a feeble continuation of its predecessor.

The king prorogued parliament on April 19, 1763; his speech described
the peace as honourable to his crown, and claimed, or at least implied,
that it had induced the enemies of the Prussian king "to agree to a
peace which he had approved". On the 23rd appeared No. 45 of the _North
Briton_ with a violent denunciation of the speech. It declared that the
king had given "the sanction of his sacred name to the most odious
measures and to the most unjustifiable public declarations from a throne
ever renowned for truth, honour, and unsullied virtue". That the
ministers were responsible for the king's speech was well understood,
and was clearly recognised in the article. George took the article as
conveying an accusation of falsehood against himself personally, and
there was some excuse for this interpretation of it. Other numbers of
the paper had been violent, and had been passed by without notice. His
present ministers were not deficient in political firmness; he ordered
them to prosecute the writer. Halifax thereupon issued a general
warrant, that is a warrant directed against persons not named, ordering
the king's messengers to search for the authors, printers, and
publishers of the _North Briton_, arrest them and seize their papers.
Warrants of this kind to be executed on persons not named, without
evidence of their identity or guilt, had hitherto been held lawful, but
they were subversive of the liberty of the subject and contrary to the
spirit of the constitution. During three days forty-nine persons were
arrested under this warrant. Among them were the avowed publisher of the
_North Briton_, the printer, and his workmen. They declared that Wilkes
was the author.

[Sidenote: _PROCEEDINGS IN WILKES'S CASE._]

Wilkes was arrested under the general warrant on the 30th, and carried
before the secretaries of state; his house was searched and his papers
seized. He was committed to the Tower. He hoped, he said, that he might
have the room in which Egremont's father had been confined as a rebel,
and, referring to the popular belief as to the consequences of the
dirty habits of Bute's fellow-countrymen, in any case, one which had not
been tenanted by a Scot. Temple at once applied on his behalf for a writ
of _habeas corpus_, which was granted by Pratt, chief justice of the
common pleas, but as Wilkes was no longer in the custody of the
messengers, they could not produce him. He was kept in close
confinement; Temple and the Duke of Grafton who went to see him were not
admitted, and even his solicitor was denied access to him. A new writ
was issued, and on May 3 he was brought before the court of common
pleas. He pleaded his privilege as a member of parliament. Pratt
delivered judgment on the 6th and decided that he was entitled to the
privilege of parliament, which extended to all offences save treason,
felony, and breach of the peace. The other judges concurred, and he was
set at liberty. The crowd which had collected in Westminster Hall
received the result of the trial with loud applause, and escorted Wilkes
to his house in Great George Street. Meanwhile Egremont had in the
king's name ordered Temple, the lord lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, to
deprive Wilkes of his commission as colonel of the Bucks militia. In
forwarding this order to Wilkes, Temple added some complimentary
expressions, and on the 7th the earl was dismissed both from his
lieutenancy and the privy council.

Several persons who were arrested on the general warrant brought actions
against the messengers. In the first of these suits Pratt, setting aside
evil precedents, declared general warrants to be illegal. A
master-printer obtained £400 damages, one journeyman £300, and others
£200. Wilkes sued Wood, the under-secretary of state, for ransacking his
house, and the jury awarded him £1,000 damages. He also began actions
for false imprisonment against the two secretaries of state. His suit
against Egremont was cut short by the earl's death on August 20. Halifax
took advantage of various legal devices to delay the hearing of the suit
against himself, and it was not decided until six years later. Temple,
who had paid Wilkes's law expenses, wished him to avoid giving further
cause of offence. Wilkes, however, set up a press in his own house,
reprinted the _North Briton_ in volumes, and printed other matter also.
The arbitrary proceedings of the government in this case excited much
adverse feeling, especially in London, and gave a fresh impetus to the
discontent in the cider districts. They were attributed to Bute's
influence. In some western villages a man in Scottish dress led about an
ass decorated with a blue ribbon and wearing a paper crown; and at
Exeter an effigy of Bute remained hanging on a gibbet for a fortnight,
no one daring to remove it.

[Sidenote: _MINISTERIAL CHANGES._]

George, though at first well pleased with the new administration, soon
saw that it lacked strength. He made an attempt to enlist Hardwicke and
Newcastle, but they would not take office without their party. Bute
advised an offer to Bedford, who declared that he would not join the
government unless Bute would undertake to retire, not only from the
court, but from London. Negotiations were also carried on with Pitt,
whom Bute was most anxious to secure for the king. Pitt made it clearly
understood that he would not take office with Bedford, the man most
responsible for the peace, nor would he come in alone. In spite of
Pitt's objection to him, Bedford, who did not care for office, advised
the king to take him. George was dissatisfied with his ministers; he was
annoyed by their unpopularity and by the growth of a spirit of
turbulence among the lower classes, and personally was wearied by the
constant interviews and the long harangues which Grenville inflicted
upon him. Bute, too, was not finding Grenville so anxious to win his
approval as he expected, and on Egremont's death had an interview with
Pitt. The result was satisfactory; and George, much to Grenville's
disgust, told him that he meant to ask Pitt to enter the administration,
and would "do it as cheap as he could," with as few changes as possible.
Pitt had an interview with the king on August 27. Both evidently thought
that there was nothing to prevent him from taking office, and he
communicated with Devonshire, Newcastle, and Rockingham. The next day
George seems to have changed his mind; he told Grenville that Pitt's
terms were too hard. Bute is said to have instigated this change, and it
is probable that both he and the king were disappointed at finding that
Pitt meant to bring in with him several of the whig leaders. Pitt had a
second interview with the king on the 29th, and George is said to have
closed it with the words: "Well, Mr. Pitt, I see this will not do. My
honour is concerned and I must support it." Pitt's proposals were
probably exaggerated by the ministerial party. It is certain that he
proposed several changes, and the admission of some of the leading
whigs, and that either he or the king suggested Temple for the treasury.
George had made up his mind before the interview that it would probably
be useless. Both he and Bute would gladly have secured Pitt's support,
but they wanted him to take office alone, or at least not with a party.
George had no mind for another whig administration with Pitt as its
master-spirit.

He again turned to Bedford and told him that Pitt had stipulated that he
was to have no office, even about the court, at that time, though in
future years he might be permitted to hold a court appointment, and that
no favour should be shown to any one concerned in the peace. George may
well have believed that this was the meaning of Pitt's words. Even so,
he should not have divulged anything which took place in his closet,
specially if it was likely to make mischief; he was, however, in serious
difficulties. His device succeeded. Though Bedford was already aware
that Pitt would not act with him, he was piqued at this fresh
declaration of hostility; he agreed to take office, and, on September 9,
was appointed president of the council in succession to Lord Granville
who died in the previous January. He was considered head of the
administration. The Earl of Sandwich became secretary of state and took
the northern department, and Lord Hillsborough succeeded Lord Shelburne
as president of the board of trade. Sandwich had official experience,
and was neither idle nor incapable, though unprincipled and extremely
profligate; Hillsborough was deficient in tact and judgment. Shelburne
had been one of Bute's followers, and arranged his bargains with Fox,
who accused him of having deceived him. He was employed in the late
negotiations with Pitt, resigned office on their failure, and attached
himself to Pitt. The king was completely in the hands of Bedford and
Grenville, his only defence against an administration composed of whig
magnates. They used their power to force him to send Bute out of London.
This insolent conduct was specially reprehensible in the case of
Grenville, who owed his advancement to Bute's recommendation. Grenville
continued to weary the king with interviews; he worried him with his
disputes with his colleagues, and irritated him beyond endurance by
suggestions, which were not ill-founded, that he was still under Bute's
influence. "Good God, Mr. Grenville," the poor king exclaimed, "am I to
be suspected after all I have done?"

Parliament met on November 15, and the government at once made an attack
on Wilkes. In the lords, Sandwich complained of two profane and obscene
pieces printed in his private press, _An Essay on Woman_ and a
paraphrase of the _Veni Creator_. There was no evidence of publication;
a few copies only were printed, evidently for private circulation, and
one of them was obtained by tampering with a workman. Even if
publication had been proved, there would still have been no reason for
the lords' interference; for obscene and profane publications were
punishable by law. But the ministers were anxious to obtain support for
their measures of revenge. The name of Bishop Warburton of Gloucester
was attached in mockery to notes in the _Essay on Woman_, and with his
concurrence the case was brought before the house as a breach of
privilege. The lords lent themselves to this transparent device; they
petitioned the king to command the prosecution of Wilkes and, later,
when he was out of their reach, ordered that he should be confined for
his offence against themselves. Their proceedings excited public
ridicule. That Sandwich should complain of obscenity and profanity, and
should censure Wilkes, a fellow-monk of Dashwood's debauched fraternity,
for indulging in them was, indeed, a case of Satan rebuking sin. At a
performance of the "Beggar's Opera" at Covent Garden theatre the
audience caught up with delight Macheath's words, "That Jemmy Twitcher
should peach me I own surprised me," and Sandwich became generally known
as Jemmy Twitcher.

[Sidenote: _WILKES EXPELLED FROM PARLIAMENT._]

On the same day as the proceedings in the lords, Grenville brought a
message from the king to the commons informing them of what had been
done in Wilkes's case. They voted, 273 to 111, that the _North Briton_,
No. 45, was a false and seditious libel, and ordered that it should be
burnt by the common hangman. In the course of the debate, Martin, who
had lately been secretary to the treasury, called Wilkes a cowardly and
malignant scoundrel. The next day, the 16th, they fought a duel with
pistols in the ring in Hyde Park; they had no seconds and each fired
twice. Martin's second shot wounded Wilkes dangerously. In his absence
the commons discussed his plea of privilege. Pitt strongly urged the
house to maintain its privileges. Parliament, he said, had no right to
surrender them; if it did so it would endanger its own freedom and
infringe upon the rights of the people. As for Wilkes personally, Pitt
was anxious to show that he did not approve of Temple's support of him,
and called him "the blasphemer of his God and the libeller of his king".
The house voted by 258 to 133 that privilege of parliament does not
extend to seditious libels, and ought not to obstruct the ordinary
course of the law in such cases. In itself this was an excellent
decision. Parliamentary privileges had increased to a mischievous
extent. By the abandonment of many of them, such as certain invidious
exemptions from the course of law which it claimed for its members, the
exclusion of strangers from its debates, and the prohibition of
reporting, parliament has gained in dignity and purity, and has
confirmed the liberties of the people. Nevertheless, though the
abandonment of privilege was in itself a step in a right direction, it
was reprehensible in Wilkes's case, because it was an _ex post facto_
measure, designed to meet a special case, and vindictive in its
intention.

The lords agreed in the decision of the commons, though a protest
against the surrender of privilege was signed by seventeen peers. On
December 3, the day fixed for the burning of No. 45 in front of the
Royal Exchange, a large mob broke the windows of the sheriff's coach and
pelted the constables. Encouraged by gentlemen at the windows of
neighbouring houses, they tore a large part of the paper from the
executioner with shouts of "Wilkes and liberty," carried it in triumph
outside Temple Bar, the boundary of the city, and there made a bonfire
into which they threw a jack-boot and a petticoat, the popular emblems
of Bute and the Princess of Wales. Yet Wilkes was in an unpleasant
position. A Scot went to his house intending to murder him; was arrested
and found insane. A summons was sent to him to appear at the bar of the
house of commons; his surgeons stated that he was too ill to attend, and
a later day was fixed. Before it came he went off secretly to Paris, and
while there excused himself from obedience to the order of the house by
sending a medical certificate. The commons refused to give any weight to
it, declared him in contempt, and guilty of a seditious libel, and on
January 19, 1764, expelled him the house. An information was laid
against him in the court of king's bench for reprinting and publishing
No. 45; he was convicted and, as he did not appear to receive sentence,
was outlawed.

While little sympathy seems to have been felt for Wilkes personally,
except among the lower classes, the attack upon him was widely resented
because it was regarded as an encroachment on national liberty.
Parliament was not in accord with public feeling. A strong effort was
made to induce the commons to declare that general warrants were
illegal. Pitt acknowledged that he had issued them during the war, when
it was necessary to find out and remove suspected persons; but no such
necessity existed at present, and he urged the house to do justice to
the nation, the constitution, and the law, by condemning them. The
ministers managed to shelve the question, but carried the adjournment
only by 234 to 218. Though on other matters they commanded a large
majority, several members from whom they expected support voted against
them in the debates arising out of Wilkes's arrest. Among these were
General Conway and Colonel Barré. Conway, the brother of the Earl of
Hertford, had gained much credit in the war in Germany; he was a dashing
officer and a respectable general, a man of refined tastes and high
principles. As a politician he was thoroughly honest, of small ability
and utterly wanting in decision of character. He was the dearest friend
of Horace Walpole; and Walpole, who regarded politics in a personal
light, exercised an unfortunate influence upon him. Barré, who had
served with distinction in Canada, was a coarse man, eloquent, and
feared by his opponents on account of his remarkable power of invective.
He sat for one of Shelburne's boroughs, and believing himself slighted
by Pitt, attacked him vehemently in the house on his resignation of
office. As a supporter of Bute he was appointed adjutant-general and
governor of Stirling, posts worth £4,000 a year. George, who regarded a
vote against the ministers in this matter as a personal affront to
himself, was determined that all who held either military or civil
appointments should clearly understand that they could not continue to
serve him if they opposed his policy in parliament. With Bedford's
approval, Conway, Barré, and with them General A'Court, who had also
voted in the minority, were deprived of their commands, and Shelburne,
Barré's patron, was dismissed from his office as aide-de-camp to the
king. Barré followed Shelburne's example in attaching himself to Pitt.

[Sidenote: _GRENVILLE'S ECONOMY._]

These dismissals violated the most valuable of the privileges of
parliament, freedom of speech and immunity from royal coercion. It was a
well-established constitutional rule that the king should not take
notice of anything which passed in parliament and that no member should
suffer for his speeches or votes. This rule had been broken in the last
reign when, in 1733, two officers lost their commands and, in 1735, Pitt
his cornetcy for acting with the opposition. On the present occasion the
responsibility for its violation rests on Grenville at least as much as
on the king himself. Parliament took little notice of this infringement
upon its privileges, though on the first day of the session, 1765,
Granby pleased the army by some sharp remarks on the dismission of
officers on account of their votes in parliament.[67] Encouraged by
their success against Wilkes, the ministers waged war on political
libels. A large number of _ex officio_ informations, or accusations
presented by the attorney-general on which the person accused was
brought to trial without the previous finding of a grand jury, were laid
against printers and others during the course of the year. As this
looked like persecution, it excited popular anger. One bookseller who
was sentenced to stand in the pillory in New-palace-yard, Westminster,
drove thither in a hackney coach numbered 45, and was cheered by a crowd
estimated at 10,000 persons. Two hundred guineas was collected for him,
and the mob hung a jack-boot and a "Scotch bonnet" on a gibbet and then
burnt them.

Grenville insisted on economy in the national expenditure; it was
needful, for during the late war the public debt had risen from
£72,500,000 to £132,700,000, and the country was heavily taxed. His
budget stood in honourable contrast to the finance of the late
administration; it did not propose lotteries or a private loan, and it
included an advantageous bargain with the Bank of England for the
renewal of its charter. Yet in some matters his economy was
short-sighted and peddling. He starved the naval estimates. During the
war many ships were built hastily of timber insufficiently seasoned, and
had fallen into so bad a condition that half their original cost was
needed for the repair of their hulls; there were too few workmen in the
dockyards, and the stores were empty of sails, rigging, and cordage.
Lord Egmont, the first lord of the admiralty, represented the necessity
for a large expenditure on the navy, but Grenville would not hear of it.
So, too, in less important matters, he grudged spending money on the
police of London, and highway robbery and other crimes of violence were
insufficiently checked, and he even refused so small a sum as £20,000
which the king wanted for the purchase of some land at the back of
Buckingham House, the site of part of the present Grosvenor Place, in
order that the garden which he was then making might not be overlooked.

The expenditure on the American colonies and the irregularities by which
they evaded their legal obligations, were offensive to his frugal and
orderly temperament; he proposed to enforce their obligations, and to
draw from the colonies some part of their cost to the mother-country.
The colonies occupied a long and comparatively narrow tract of country
stretching for seventeen hundred miles along the Atlantic. They differed
in character. In the northern colonies the puritan element was strong,
and the chief sources of wealth were commerce and farming. The southern
colonies had cavalier traditions, and their wealth was chiefly derived
from plantations which were cultivated by slave labour. Though
puritanism as a religious force was well-nigh extinct in the New England
provinces, it affected the temper of the people; they set a high value
on speech-making and fine words, and were litigious and obstinate;
lawyers were plentiful among them, and had much influence. As a whole
the colonies were impatient of control and jealous of interference.
Their constitutions differed in various points; in some the governor was
appointed by the crown, in others by the proprietary. All alike enjoyed
a large measure of personal and political freedom: they had the form and
substance of the British constitution; they had representative
assemblies in which they taxed themselves for their domestic purposes,
chose most of their own magistrates, and paid them all; and it was
seldom that their legislation was interfered with except with respect to
commerce.

[Sidenote: _RESTRICTIONS ON COLONIAL TRADE._]

The freedom which they enjoyed did not extend to commerce and
manufactures. In those matters the policy of Great Britain was founded
on the "mercantile theory," then universally accepted, and was directed
towards securing a monopoly of trade. Other countries pursued a like
policy towards their colonies, though they treated them with far less
liberality. The restrictions placed by Great Britain on colonial trade
were based on the Navigation acts of 1660 and later years, which were
originally aimed at the maritime power of the Dutch. Briefly, they
confined trade with the colonies to English or colonial ships; the
Americans were debarred from exporting a number of the most important
products of their country, their tobacco, grain, sugar, hides, and
timber for masts, except to Great Britain; no foreign ship might enter
their harbours, nor, with certain exceptions, could they import foreign
merchandise, except in ships sailing directly from England. Various acts
debarred them from manufactures which would have entered into
competition with English goods; they depended on the mother-country for
the commonest and most necessary things, for their cloth, hardware, and
a host of manufactured articles. Port duties were imposed by England,
and were collected by officers of the customs, whose business it was to
prevent contraband trading. These duties were not imposed for the sake
of revenue, but for the regulation of trade; and the whole system of
restrictions was founded on the idea that colonies should be made to
serve the interest of the mother-country by giving its merchants and
manufacturers the monopoly of the colonial market.

The colonies received some compensations for the restrictions placed
upon their industry and commerce. With certain exceptions their trade
was free. While some of their products were confined to the British
market, they had the monopoly of that market; no Englishman, for
example, might buy tobacco which did not come from America or Bermuda.
Their export trade to England was encouraged by bounties, and, though
their foreign imports generally had to come to them through England, a
system of drawbacks, by which the duties were remitted on exportation to
America, enabled them to buy continental goods more cheaply than they
could be bought in England. Nothing indeed can be further from the truth
than the idea that England's treatment of her colonies was harsh or
illiberal. Unfortunately the mercantile theory set up an opposition
between the interests of a mother-country and her colonies. A far more
important mitigation of the restrictions imposed on the colonies than
any that came from English liberality, was derived from the constant
violation of them. Few English statesmen knew or cared to know anything
about colonial affairs. Left to themselves the American colonies grew
rich. Their merchants, especially in New England, carried on a brisk and
extremely profitable contraband trade. In exchange for lumber, fish, and
cattle the New England merchants obtained sugar and molasses, and
bullion from the French and Spanish colonies; and vast quantities of rum
were distilled in Boston and exported to Africa to be used in the slave
trade.

England was not altogether a loser by these transactions. The richer a
Boston merchant became, the more British goods did he import, and as he
had to pay for them in bullion, his contraband trade enabled him to meet
his obligations. These advantages were indirect, the loss to the English
West India merchants was obvious and heavy. In order to protect them an
attempt was made in 1733 to stop this contraband trade by the imposition
of heavy duties; but the profits of the trade were so large that the
revenue officers found it to their interest to be careless or actually
conniving, and scarcely any duties were paid. On an average the American
customs cost England from £7,000 to £8,000 a year and did not bring in
quite £2,000. During the war the contraband trade afforded the French
useful supplies, and in 1760 Pitt ordered the colonial governors to
punish those who traded with the enemy. More power was placed in the
hands of the revenue officers by the issue of writs of assistance
enabling them to search for dutiable articles in any place without
alleging specific information. These writs were lawful and were
specially justifiable in time of war. Their lawfulness was
unsuccessfully disputed before the superior court of Massachusetts by a
lawyer named Otis, an eloquent speaker, singularly devoid of moderation.
His speech, in which rhetoric is more conspicuous than a knowledge of
law, attacked the commercial legislation of parliament generally; it was
much admired, and has been regarded by some Americans as the first step
towards revolution.

[Sidenote: _ENGLAND AND HER COLONIES._]

A system which cramped the trade and industry of a self-reliant people,
growing in wealth and intent on gain, for the benefit of a country
separated from them by 3,000 miles of ocean, then only crossed by
sailing ships, must sooner or later have led to revolt. The Americans
were impatient of control and apt to quarrel with their governors, who
often found their office an unenviable one. "Such wrong-headed people,"
said one of them, "I thank God I had never to do with before." They were
not a people patiently to submit to restrictions. Two causes had
contributed to bind them to Great Britain. One of these was their fear
of the French in Canada. So long as the French and their Indian allies
threatened their homes, even the most turbulent of them knew that they
gained by being subjects of the English king. The war with France called
forth a feeling of loyalty. The triumph of England freed them from the
fear of French aggression and their protestations of gratitude were
exuberant. Yet there were many who saw that the conquest of Canada
loosened the tie which bound the American colonies to the mother-country
and would probably lead to an assertion of independence. Separation
would, however, have been impossible without union. The jealousies
between the colonies were so strong that revolt seemed improbable. Were
they left to themselves, Otis declared in 1765, "America would be a mere
shambles of blood and confusion". A common cause alone could bring about
union, and such a cause was soon to be found. The termination of the war
enabled the ministers to direct their attention to the contraband trade
which had assisted the common enemy, defrauded the government, and
annoyed the commercial class. During Bute's administration, in 1763,
revenue cutters were sent to cruise off the American coast, the officers
of the king's ships were sworn to act as revenue officers, and revenue
cases were heard in the admiralty courts. Smuggling was more effectually
checked, and the irritation caused by the loss of trade was aggravated
by the roughness with which the seamen enforced the law.

Grenville adopted a new policy apparently contemplated by Bute's ministry.
Hitherto parliament had imposed customs duties on the colonies solely for
the purpose of regulating trade; he designed to raise revenue from them.
The idea was suggested to Walpole as a means of obtaining money on the
failure of his excise scheme, and that wary statesman promptly rejected
it. The money, however, which Grenville hoped to raise from the colonies
was not to swell the revenues of England; it was to be applied to their
own defence. His design was reasonable. The war had enormously increased
the public debt. It is true that it was not undertaken only for the
defence of the colonies; it is not less true that it was not a merely
insular war. The war concerned the empire at large, and Great Britain's
lavish sacrifices of blood and treasure delivered her children across the
ocean from the fear of French conquest. Her expenditure on their defence
could not end with the war; a small standing army had to be maintained for
their protection. It seemed not unlikely that France would attempt to
regain her lost dominions; it would have been fatal to leave the American
colonies undefended. And another foe was always at hand, for the Indians
regretted the overthrow of the French and were exasperated by the
ill-treatment they received from the British colonists. In 1763 Pontiac,
head-chief of the Ottawas, formed a confederation against the English.
Along the borders of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland the Indians
massacred outlying settlers, surprised many forts and slew their
garrisons. Three provinces might have been overrun before the inhabitants
had organised any defence, had not Sir Jeffrey (later Lord) Amherst, the
commander-in-chief, had a small British force at his disposal, consisting
mainly of companies of the 7th, 42nd, and 77th regiments of the line, and
of the Royal American regiment (later the 60th Rifles), formed in 1755 for
service in America. A little army composed largely of men of the 42nd
Highlanders, and commanded by Colonel Bouquet, defeated the Indians at
Bushy Run on August 5. Fort Pitt was relieved and, the victory having
encouraged the provincials to make a stand, the war virtually ended in
November, 1764.

[Sidenote: _THE STAMP ACT PROPOSED._]

The provincials disliked the idea of a standing army, and would have
preferred that their defence should have been left to themselves. That
was impossible. They were largely farmers and traders, peaceful folk
unwilling to leave their profitable pursuits. There was no central
authority to dictate the proportion of troops which each of the colonies
should contribute to a common force, and their selfishness and
jealousies made them grudge help one to another. The Americans behaved
shabbily to the troops sent to defend them, but Pontiac's war proved
that in times of pressing danger their safety might depend upon the
presence of a British force. Was it right or just that the colonies
should be defended by England and should contribute nothing towards the
cost of their defence? Grenville thought that it was not. On March 10,
1764, he laid before parliament a list of port dues; some of them were
higher than before, and to counterbalance the increase he proposed to
give several new advantages to colonial trade. Payment was no longer to
be evaded so easily as in past times, and smuggling would be attended
with greater risk. The money was to be paid into the English treasury
and was to be used only for colonial defence. More would be wanted for
that purpose, and he proposed to raise it by an act requiring that all
legal documents should bear stamps. This measure he deferred for a year
in order to ascertain the feeling of the colonies and to give them an
opportunity of raising the money in some other way if they preferred it.
The force to be kept in America was twenty regiments, or about 10,000
men, which, with the maintenance of fortifications, would cost £350,000
a year. Of this sum the proposed stamp act would, it was calculated,
bring in about £100,000. The bill passed without remark.

In an interview with the agents of the colonies Grenville pointed out
that the tax was reasonable, and was an easy and equitable way of
raising the required money, but promised that if the colonies disliked
it, and would raise the money themselves in some other way, he would be
content. Before the year was out they met him again and, acting on
instructions from their colonies, tried to dissuade him from his
purpose. Chief among them was Benjamin Franklin, then agent for
Pennsylvania, a New Englander by birth, not a puritan either in religion
or morals, a wise politician, shrewd, public-spirited, inventive, and
full of schemes of practical usefulness. He proposed that the money
should be voted by the provincial assemblies, but could not say that the
colonies would agree as to the amount which each should contribute. On
that of course the whole matter depended. When Grenville brought in his
stamp bill the debate, Burke says, was extremely languid. Parliament had
no idea that the act would lead to serious consequences. Nor were the
American agents much better informed, for Franklin, who considered that
a small standing army might be useful, believed that the colonies had no
choice but to submit to the tax. Pitt was absent from parliament,
suffering from gout. Conway and Barré opposed the bill, and Barré, in a
speech of fervid eloquence, described the Americans as "sons of
liberty," driven from their country by tyranny and treated by her with
neglect. In the commons the bill was carried with only forty
dissentients, and in the lords apparently without a division. It
received the royal assent on March 22, 1765, and was to come into
operation on November 1. In April the mutiny act was extended to
America, binding the colonies to provide the king's troops with quarters
and certain necessaries, such as fuel and candles.

[Sidenote: _AMERICAN RESISTANCE._]

The stamp act raised a storm of indignation in the American colonies.
Some of them, and especially the New England colonies, already had a
substantial grievance in the heavy blow dealt to their prosperity by the
repression of their contraband trade. Their discontent was increased by
a suspicion that England was about to establish episcopacy among them at
their expense, for Archbishop Secker and other English churchmen were
anxious to introduce bishops into America. A more sentimental, though an
efficient cause of irritation also existed in the affectation of
superiority adopted by Englishmen towards their colonial
fellow-subjects. The stamp tax brought their discontent to a head, and
gave the party hostile to government an opportunity for stirring up
opposition. During the year unwisely allowed by Grenville for
considering the proposed tax, they busily agitated against it. While at
that time the Americans allowed that parliament had a right to impose
duties for the regulation of trade, they denied its right to levy an
internal tax for the purpose of revenue, because they were not
represented in parliament.

Opposition to the ministerial policy naturally began in Boston, where
the repression of contraband trade weighed most heavily and
where--though that was a smaller matter--the dislike to episcopacy was
specially strong. The town-meeting promptly passed resolutions denying
the right of parliament to tax the colonies without their consent. The
meeting was led by Samuel Adams, a man of frugal life and austere
character, who, after failing as a brewer and as a tax collector,
adopted the career most congenial to his tastes and talents of political
agitator. The resolutions were adopted by the provincial assembly, and
on its invitation five other colonies joined with Massachusetts in
sending memorials and petitions to England against the proposed tax. The
assembly of Virginia was in session when the news came that the tax was
enacted, and Patrick Henry, a lawyer, brought forward some defiant
resolutions, of which four were carried, though only by a small
majority. His speech, which contained an insolent reference to the king,
was much admired. A general congress of the colonies was proposed by
Massachusetts and met at New York on November 7. Representatives of nine
colonies attended and others sent expressions of good-will. The members
drew up a statement of their claims and grievances in moderate terms,
and further expressed them in an address to the king, a memorial to the
lords, and a petition to the commons.

These orderly proceedings were accompanied by outbursts of lawless
violence. Societies for resistance were organised. The "sons of
liberty," as they called themselves in reference to Barré's speech, were
active in Boston, and in August, 1765, a mob plundered the house of a
man who was nominated as a distributor of stamps, destroyed a building
on his land which they believed was to be used as a stamp-office, hanged
him in effigy, and forced him to renounce his appointment. A sermon
preached by Jonathan Mayhew, a popular unitarian minister, on the words
"I would that they were even cut off which trouble you," was followed by
a more serious riot. Public buildings were attacked, the records of the
admiralty court were burnt, and the rioters forced their way into the
custom-house and got at the liquor in the cellars. Maddened by drink
they wrecked the stately mansion of Hutchinson, the lieutenant-governor,
and destroyed his fine collection of books and manuscripts. Persons of
good position more or less openly encouraged these excesses and no one
was punished for them. Outbreaks of mob violence, though of a less
riotous kind, took place in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and elsewhere. On
November 1, the day on which the stamp act came into operation, copies
of it were offered for sale headed, "The folly of England and the ruin
of America," bells were tolled, and mock funerals passed through the
streets.

Everywhere the new stamps were seized and destroyed. At New York the
lieutenant-governor, encouraged by the presence of the king's troops,
tried to secure the stamps sent to the town. A riot ensued. General
Gage, the commander-in-chief, declined to interfere at the risk of
beginning a civil war, and the stamps were surrendered and locked up in
the town hall. Besides these not a parcel of stamps was left in the
colonies. For a time this put an end to legal business, and the courts
were closed. Then lawyers agreed to take no notice of the lack of stamps
on documents, and at last the governors declared that the operation of
the act was to be reckoned as suspended. Retaliatory measures were
concerted. Merchants combined to stop all importation from England,
cancelled their orders and delayed sending remittances. Associations
were formed for abandoning the use of English goods, and the richest
citizens either wore old clothes or rough material of colonial
production. Manufactories of linen, cloth, and hardware were started,
and in order to insure a supply of wool, butchers were forbidden by
their customers to kill lambs.

The distinction made by the party of resistance between external and
internal taxation was in accordance with previous practice. Though
parliament had frequently imposed port-duties on the colonies, it had
abstained from imposing taxes within them. The stamp act was a new
departure. English history afforded ground for the distinction, which
was alleged in Bate's case, in the reign of James I., in support of the
claim of the crown. Yet it is clearly artificial, for a division of
taxes, such as into external and internal, only concerns their
incidence; it is a matter which belongs to economics and does not affect
political right. The colonists' claim of exemption from parliamentary
taxation on the ground of non-representation appeals to the sympathy of
Englishmen. Both in England and America there were some who desired that
the colonies should be represented in parliament, but their distance
from England and the ignorance of both peoples as regards the
circumstances and needs of each other would have been fatal objections
to any such scheme. The claim of the colonists seems to imply a
misapprehension of the character of parliament; for parliament is not a
mere meeting of delegates, it is an imperial assembly, and its
sovereignty is neither derived from the perfection of its constitution
nor lessened by its imperfection. Taxation is an attribute of
sovereignty, and parliament had a right to tax the colonies because the
sovereign power resided in it. Where else could it reside? To deny the
right to tax and to admit the right to legislate was inconsistent. How
could parliament, in virtue of its sovereign authority, have a right to
pass a bill ensuring personal freedom in the colonies, and yet have no
right to pass another bill imposing a tax on them? The logical outcome
of the American contention was that all parliamentary legislation
concerning the colonies was null, except so far as they chose to admit
it. Under all their arguments lay the germ of independence, though as
yet the leaders of the agitation loudly professed loyalty.

[Sidenote: _UNSTATESMANLIKE POLICY._]

That the tax was reasonable in intention, equitable in incidence, and in
itself tolerable, few probably will now deny. Nor will any one surely
deny that the act was foolish and unstatesmanlike. Strict definitions of
legal right are not safe guides in practical politics: sentiment and
circumstances should be held to be of far greater account. The Americans
maintained that there was an important difference between external and
internal taxation, and, in common with all other Englishmen, they highly
valued the right expressed in the maxim, "No taxation without
representation". It was a fatal mistake to disregard their belief and,
for the sake of avoiding a not very serious expenditure, to seem to deny
what they claimed as their heritage as Englishmen. Heavy as its expenses
were, Great Britain could have afforded to take upon itself the sum
required for the defence of the colonies. Grenville could not see the
matter in this light. Well-meaning and wishing to act fairly both
towards England and the colonies, he brought trouble on both alike by
his insistence on legal right. His administration was fruitful in evil.
He permitted parliament to enter on a disastrous struggle with Wilkes in
order to gratify the king; he raised up discord between England and her
most important colonies; he allowed the strength of England to decay by
grudging to spend the money needed for the maintenance of the navy, and
its dignity to be impaired by neglecting to insist on the payment of the
Manila ransom, though for that he was not individually responsible. One
judicious act of his administration may be recorded here. The Isle of
Man, though under the allegiance of the king, was not fully under the
royal authority; the king had no courts and no officers there, and it
was, as Burke said, "the very citadel of smuggling". In 1765 the crown
bought the rights of the Duke and Duchess of Atholl over the island for
£70,000, and it became thenceforward an integral part of the realm of
England.

FOOTNOTES:

[65] Hardwicke to Newcastle, Add. MS. 32,948, f. 54.

[66] G. Rose, _Diaries_, ii., 192.

[67] James Grenville to Lady Chatham, Jan. 12, 1765, MS. Pitt Papers,
35.




                               CHAPTER IV.

                    THE KING, THE WHIGS, AND CHATHAM.


Both for public and personal reasons George was anxious to get rid of
his ministers. Unlike them, he appears as early as the spring of 1765 to
have considered the discontent of his American subjects a serious
matter, and he blamed them for it.[68] In other respects, too, he was
dissatisfied with their public conduct, and he complained bitterly of
their behaviour towards himself. In spite of some outward agreement in
action, he and Grenville, who without the name retained nearly all the
authority of prime minister, pursued fundamentally different systems.
Grenville, though not less ready than the king to meet opposition with
violent measures, was imbued with whig theories. While George sought to
rule by securing the support of parliament, Grenville tried to use that
support to enable him to rule the king. He was a pedant, and lectured
the king on his duty like a schoolmaster. Bute stood in his way as the
king's ally and secret counsellor. His victory over him was partial and
short-lived. While Bute was in the country the king corresponded with
him, and he returned to London in the spring of 1764. His return made
the ministers uneasy, and Grenville's lectures became intolerable. "When
he has wearied me for two hours," George complained, "he looks at his
watch to see if he may not tire me for an hour more." Bad as their
public conduct was, he and his colleagues owed their fall chiefly to
their unbecoming behaviour to their sovereign.

[Sidenote: _THE REGENCY BILL._]

Early in 1765 the king had a severe illness and showed signs of the
insanity from which he suffered later. He recovered in March, and as he
believed that his life was not likely to be prolonged, he was anxious to
provide for a possible regency. Constitutional usage pointed to the
queen as the proper person to be regent during the infancy of her son.
George, however, wished to have the power to nominate a regent by an
instrument revocable at pleasure. Grenville dissuaded him from this
idea, and, with his ministers' consent, he announced from the throne
that a bill would be laid before parliament restricting the regency to
the queen and other members of the royal family usually residing in
England. When the bill was proposed in the lords the question was raised
whether the king's mother was a member of the royal family, or only
those in the order of succession. If the Princess of Wales became
regent, Bute would probably regain power. In order to prevent this dire
possibility, Bedford sacrificed decency and common sense by successfully
opposing a motion that the princess's name should expressly be included
in the bill. While the matter was pending, on May 3, Halifax and
Sandwich went to the king and persuaded him that the bill would not pass
the commons unless the princess was excluded. Anxious to save his mother
from insult, George authorised Halifax to move an amendment that only
the queen and those descended from George II. should be capable of the
regency. Halifax, in moving the amendment, announced that he did so with
the king's sanction, and it was adopted by the lords.

George soon learnt that he had been deceived, that people were
scandalised at his appearing to cast a slur upon his mother, and that
the opposition in the commons would move to include her name. In great
agitation he appealed to Grenville to help him by announcing a message
from the crown to the commons recommending the inclusion of the
princess. Grenville, though he had had no part in the trick of the two
secretaries, refused his request on the ground that it would stultify
the ministers, nor would he give way though the king actually wept with
mortification. An amendment to insert the princess's name was proposed
in the commons, was carried by 167 votes to 37, and was accepted by the
lords. George determined to shake off Grenville's yoke. He called on his
uncle, Cumberland, to find him new ministers, and the duke, though he
had been treated unkindly by his nephew, loyally came to his help.
Evidently by Bute's advice, the king authorised him to treat with Pitt
and Temple. Pitt was living in retirement, and in October, 1764, told
Newcastle that he intended to remain unconnected. He was willing to
accept office in a comprehensive administration on the understanding
that the officers who had been dismissed for their votes in parliament
should be restored, that the new ministers should be at liberty to
propose a resolution declaring general warrants illegal, and that a
continental alliance should be formed against the Bourbon powers.

Temple, however, refused office, and Pitt would not come in without him.
As Temple was on the eve of a reconciliation with his brother Grenville,
with whom he had quarrelled over the Wilkes affair, it was thought that
his refusal was due to an ambitious idea of a family administration of
himself, his brothers, and Pitt. Be this as it may, he probably
suspected that Bute would have an influence in the proposed
administration. Pitt allowed himself to be swayed by gratitude for help
which Temple had given him in the days of his poverty. During this
negotiation a riot broke out in London. The silk manufacture was
depressed owing to foreign competition, and thousands were consequently
almost starving. A bill to check the importation of silk by the
imposition of fresh duties was laid before the lords; it was opposed by
Bedford, who was averse from restraints on commerce, and it was
rejected. On this a large number of Spitalfields weavers went to
Richmond, on May 14, to seek help from the king in person. They met him
on Wimbledon common. He received them kindly, but could not, of course,
give them the help they wanted. The next day many thousands gathered in
Spitalfields and Moorfields at beat of drum, marched to St. James's and
Westminster, and stopped members on their way to parliament. Bedford was
assaulted and wounded, and on the 17th a determined attack was made upon
his house on the north side of Bloomsbury Square. It was garrisoned by
soldiers and others, but the attack was only defeated by the arrival of
fresh troops. When the disturbances were at last quelled, a large
collection was made for the relief of the immediate distress, which was
further mitigated by a sudden fall in the price of bread.[69] The affair
increased the king's discontent with his ministers and embittered the
feelings of anger between the Bute and Bedford factions.[70]

[Sidenote: _THE FIRST ROCKINGHAM MINISTRY._]

On Pitt's refusal to take office, Cumberland tried Lord Lyttelton and
Charles Townshend, but they declined the king's offer because they
believed that no strong administration was possible without Pitt. George
was forced to beg his ministers to continue. They took full advantage of
his humiliation. Pitt had asked for assurances on matters of public
policy; they made stipulations which chiefly concerned persons. The king
must promise never again to consult Bute, and must deprive his brother
Mackenzie of the office of privy seal of Scotland. As regards Bute,
George at once gave the required promise, and though he was afterwards
constantly suspected of consulting with him, there is good reason to
believe that he loyally kept his word, and that Bute never again offered
him any advice.[71] He had promised Mackenzie his office for life, and
declared "that he should disgrace himself" if he took it from him.
Nevertheless Grenville forced him to give way. His relations with his
ministers were naturally strained; they complained that he did not
support them, and on one occasion Bedford remonstrated with him in
insolent terms. Again George requested Cumberland to treat with Pitt,
who had two interviews with the king and was anxious to accept his
offer, but Temple peremptorily refused to take any office, even the
treasury, and Pitt with deep regret again followed his lead. The king
found no way of escape, save by authorising Cumberland to turn to the
great whig families. Grenville was dismissed, and an administration
formed under the leadership of the Marquis of Rockingham took office on
July 16. It must have been a bitter humiliation to George after all that
had passed. Yet, though for the moment he was defeated, he did not mean
to give over the rule of his kingdom to the whigs, and for the present
anything was better than Grenville's tyranny. George respected his
character, but said he, "I would rather see the devil in my closet than
Mr. Grenville".

The weakness of the Rockingham administration was patent from the first.
Charles Townshend, who succeeded Holland as paymaster, called it "a
lutestring ministry, fit only for summer wear"; Pitt was expected to
supply one of more durable material before the winter. The old phalanx
of the whigs, tried hands at political business, was broken up by death
and desertion; their successors lacked experience and authority.
Rockingham, a man of thirty-five, a prominent figure on the turf, of
vast wealth and irreproachable character, was a wretched speaker, and
had neither genius, knowledge, nor industry. The Duke of Grafton, the
secretary of state for the northern department, was even younger, and,
like Rockingham, a great racing man. His public spirit made him a
politician, but he cared so much more for pleasure than for politics
that he was apt to be content so long as any immediate difficulty was
tided over, and he suffered in public estimation from the scandal caused
by his dissolute life. The southern department was taken by Conway.
Dowdeswell, the chancellor of the exchequer, was a sound financier, but
a dull man. Newcastle, who was privy seal and again had charge of church
patronage, was no longer so powerful as in earlier days. Nor were the
ministers unanimous in feeling. Grafton was far more at one with Pitt
than with the Rockingham party; and the chancellor (Henley) Lord
Northington, Egmont the first lord of the admiralty, and Barrington the
secretary-at-war were included to please the king. Another cause of
weakness was George's notorious dislike of his new ministers, which
encouraged his "friends," the court party, to intrigue against them.

[Sidenote: _PITT ON COLONIAL TAXATION._]

Most serious of all was the attitude of Pitt. He was pressed to join the
government; its policy was in many respects such as he could approve,
and in other matters he could almost have made his own terms.
Nevertheless he refused to take office and openly declared his lack of
confidence in the ministers, though they tried to satisfy him in various
ways, such as by obtaining a peerage for Pratt, who was created Baron
Camden. Magnificent as he had shown himself as a dictator, he was
unfitted by temperament to work with others, and his natural defects
were aggravated by his constant attacks of gout. At the same time his
present attitude was to a large extent also a matter of principle. He
would willingly have taken office if he could have simply been the
king's minister, unconnected, without belonging to any party. The
Rockinghams, as they were called, were a party connexion, and under
Rockingham's leadership would remain so, and their character was
emphasised by the inclusion of Newcastle, the chief representative of a
system which Pitt hated, government based on the influence of the whig
houses and not on the good-will of the crown and the people. Pitt
plainly declared that he would not sit at council with Newcastle. Nor
would he take office under Rockingham. Without him the ministry had
neither an original policy nor a chance of permanence. Called into
existence by Cumberland, it leant on him for support; he was present at
all cabinet meetings, and they were sometimes held at his house. His
sudden death on October 31 was a severe shock to the stability of the
government. Pitt would not advise the ministers. Grafton urged that he
should again be invited to take office, but the king would not enter on
a fresh negotiation with him, for he had refused his former overtures
and held very different views from his regarding the American stamp act.

For months the ministers paid no heed to American discontent, save that
Conway wrote rather feebly to some of the colonial governors with
reference to the disorders. Parliament was not summoned until December
17, and though the king's speech directed attention to the late
occurrences in the colonies, the ministers had not decided on a policy.
They ascertained Pitt's opinion, and so gained a lead. When parliament
assembled in January, 1766, after the recess, Pitt spoke warmly against
any attempt to enforce the stamp act. He avowed his distrust of the
government in a characteristic fashion: "Pardon me, gentlemen," said he,
bowing towards the ministers, "confidence is a plant of slow growth in
an aged bosom; youth is the season of credulity". He thought that he saw
"traces of an overruling influence," a dark saying which probably
referred to Newcastle.[72] While he asserted the sovereignty of Great
Britain over the colonies in legislation, he maintained that parliament
had no right to tax them; taxation, according to him, was "no part of
the governing or legislative power". He regarded the tax as an
infringement of constitutional liberty, and rejoiced that the Americans
had resisted it. Such a matter, he urged, was not to be decided by
text-books; he had not come down to the house "armed with the
statute-book, doubled down with dog's-ears, to defend the cause of
liberty". America might be crushed, but if she fell, she would fall like
Samson, embracing and pulling down the pillars of the state, the
constitution, along with her. Let them bind her commerce and restrict
her manufactures, but abstain from demanding money without the consent
of her people. His words had a great effect; they put enforcement out of
the question.

A few days later Edmund Burke made his first speech in parliament,
recommending the house to receive a petition from the colonies, and was
at once recognised as a new power. He was an Irishman, and was already
known as a writer. He became Rockingham's secretary in 1765, and a seat
was provided for him. Unsurpassed in his mastery of English prose, he
exhibits to the full the splendour of the English language in his
speeches and pamphlets. Nor is his thought unworthy of the gorgeous
attire with which it is invested. His power and constant habit of
discerning and expounding the principles which were involved in
questions of the moment, give him a supreme place as a teacher of
political wisdom. In character he was pure, generous, and
tender-hearted. His fervid imagination extended the area of his
sympathies, and sometimes prejudiced his opinions. As a speaker he was
eloquent, and now and again carried his audience completely with him,
but he never caught the tone of the house of commons; his longer
speeches were too much of the nature of exhaustive treatises to be
acceptable to its members; he had little tact, an impatient temper, and
often spoke with execrable taste. The chief article in his political
creed was his belief in the excellence of the constitution. He was an
ardent reformer of abuses, but with the constitution itself he would
have no meddling. Unlike Pitt, he saw that the only effectual check to
corrupt influence was to be found in government by a party united for
the promotion of national interests upon some common principle. Such a
party might, he believed, be based on the whig families, if only they
would keep themselves free from court intrigue and selfish jealousies.
He was a whig of a different type from Newcastle and Bedford; he built
his hopes on the Rockinghams and inspired their policy. That he never
sat in a cabinet was chiefly because in those days such a distinction
was confined to men of higher birth.

[Sidenote: _REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT._]

Decided action with regard to America was a pressing necessity. The
measures of retaliation adopted by the colonists were depressing trade
at home. Petitions against the stamp act were presented from the
merchants of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and other towns, setting forth
the loss inflicted on manufacturers and their work-people by the
stoppage of the American trade, and the difficulties arising from the
non-payment of debts due from America, which amounted to £4,000,000. The
ministers resolved on the repeal of the act, and on a bill declaring the
right of parliament to legislate for the colonies on all matters
whatsoever. Some of the king's household having voted against the
government, Rockingham went to the king to remonstrate with him. George
told him that he was for repeal, and that Rockingham might say so. Two
days later the ministers heard that Lord Strange, one of the court
party, was saying that the king was against repeal, and wished it to be
known. This made a great stir, and the "ministerial lives were thought
not worth three days' purchase". Rockingham went to the king for an
explanation. George acknowledged that he had told him that he was for
repeal, but said that they had been speaking only of the choice between
the repeal and the enforcement of the act, that of the two he was for
repeal, but that he desired that the act should be modified and not
repealed. The ministers had therefore "to carry on a great public
measure against the king's declared sentiments, and with a great number
of his servants acting against them".[73] Nevertheless the bill for the
repeal of the act was carried in the commons on March 11 by 275 votes to
167, and a week later in the lords by 105 to 71. It was a signal
victory; but, apart from the interests of commerce, it was due rather to
Pitt than to the government. The declaratory bill also passed; its chief
opponents being Pitt and, in the upper house, Lord Camden, who on this
question, as well as on that of repeal, talked much trash about a
fundamental law of nature and the limits of the power of parliament,
more in place in the mouth of an American demagogue than of an English
judge. An address was also carried recommending that the colonial
governors should be instructed to require compensation to be made to
those who had suffered during the late disturbances.

Both in England and America the repeal of the stamp act was hailed with
rejoicing. American discontent was hushed, and the public manifestations
of gladness were accompanied by expressions of loyalty and affection for
the mother-country. The colonists, however, knew that they had won a
victory over parliament, and they did not forget it. Their substantial
grievance, the commercial regulations, still remained; they soon saw
that they must go further, and that Pitt's distinction between a direct
money-tax and duties on merchandise, though it had served their
immediate purpose, would no longer be useful. The declaratory act was
regarded as a menace, and kept alive their feelings of suspicion and
irritation. Their temper was shown by the delay of many of the colonies
to vote the required compensation. In Massachusetts, where the vote was
passed in December, it was insolently accompanied by a vote of indemnity
to all concerned in the riots. The repeal of the stamp act needs no
defence; a mistake had been made which was leading to serious
consequences, and in such a case it is a statesmanlike policy to retrace
the false step. The declaratory act was passed to save the dignity of
parliament. In spite of Burke's admiration for this act, it may be
suggested that the assertion of a right by a party which at the same
time declines to enforce it, is neither a dignified nor a wise
proceeding. Its only, and sufficient defence is that without it the
repeal of the tax would have been impossible. The Americans' denial of
the right of parliament, accompanied as it was by violence of word and
action, roused much indignation in England and involved every supporter
of the repeal in the imputation of betraying its dignity. If repeal was
to be carried it was necessary to satisfy men's minds by a declaration
of the right of parliament to tax the colonies.

[Sidenote: _THE CHATHAM MINISTRY._]

Some good work was done in other directions; the cider-tax was repealed,
a commercial treaty was made with Russia, and the house of commons came
into agreement with the judges on the question of general warrants by
resolving that general warrants being illegal, except in the cases
provided for by act of parliament, the arrest of any of its members on
such a warrant would be a breach of privilege. The administration,
however, was enfeebled by the unconcealed dislike of the king, the
hostility of Pitt, and the general belief that it was keeping him out of
office. Pitt was extremely anxious for office, but would not accept it
unless a "transposition of offices" was made; unless, in fact,
Rockingham was got rid of. To this Rockingham would not consent; he
wanted Pitt to take office as his ally, not as his successor. There were
differences in the cabinet on the matter. The king's section wished to
gain Pitt for their master; Rockingham was upheld by his friends;
Grafton wanted Pitt as prime minister, and Conway, though less decided,
agreed with him. Pitt became querulous and unreasonable, and in April
violently attacked the ministers, specially excepting Grafton and
Conway.[74] All attempts at negotiation having failed, Grafton made his
choice for Pitt and resigned office. It was not easy to fill his place,
for the ministry was regarded as moribund, and finally the king was
forced to give the seals to Rockingham's friend, the young Duke of
Richmond. The chancellor, Northington, a strong supporter of the king,
saw that the end was not far off, and apparently determined to make sure
of a place in the next administration by sacrificing his colleagues. He
quarrelled with them in the cabinet on a question relating to the
administration of law in Canada, and early in July told the king that he
must resign office, and that the ministry was too weak to go on. George
eagerly seized the opportunity for getting rid of it and replacing it by
a more comprehensive ministry with Pitt at its head. The difficulties
which had stood in Pitt's way were removed; the American question seemed
to be settled; he had made it known that he would not again be guided by
Temple, and he was delighted to be the king's minister, avowing his
determination "to defend the closet against every contending
party"--against, that is, the great whig houses and their connexions.

The satisfaction consequent on Pitt's accession to power faded at the
news that he had accepted a peerage as Earl of Chatham. It was unjustly
considered as a bribe, and lost him much of his popularity. A more
serious consequence was that it left the leadership of the house of
commons to weaker hands. Though prime minister, he took for himself the
unimportant office of privy seal. His course was probably determined by
a consciousness of failing health. Conway became northern secretary of
state, with the leadership of the commons, and Shelburne secretary for
the southern department. In spite of Temple's opposition to the repeal
of the stamp act, Pitt offered him the treasury, but that vain man
would not enter the cabinet except as Pitt's equal, and a quarrel ensued
between them. The treasury was then accepted by Grafton; and,
unfortunately, by his advice, Charles Townshend was made chancellor of
the exchequer. Camden was appointed chancellor, Northington president of
the council, and they, with Granby as commander-in-chief, and Sir
Charles Saunders, who succeeded Egmont at the admiralty, completed the
cabinet. Besides Conway and Saunders, some other Rockinghams had
inferior offices, but Rockingham himself and most of his party
considered that Chatham had treated them badly, and repelled his
advances. The ministry was unfortunate in being represented in the house
of commons by the irresolute Conway and the unprincipled Townshend.
Worse still, Chatham, whose arrogance increased with his disease,
alienated adherents, and treated his colleagues with reserve and
disdain.

Chatham at once pursued the foreign policy which he had consistently
recommended by seeking a continental alliance to counterbalance the
alliance of the Bourbon powers. The family compact did not lose its
importance at the peace of Paris. Choiseul in France and Grimaldi, who
succeeded Wall in Spain, worked together heartily in promoting a Bourbon
policy, and looked forward to the reconquest of the lost possessions of
France and Spain. The allies were strengthened by the good-will of
Austria. Schemes of aggrandisement were formed, which included the
acquisition of Corsica by France and of Portugal by Spain. There were
unsettled causes of dispute between them and England touching the
fortification of Dunkirk and the Manila ransom, and Spain was also
aggrieved by a British settlement in the Falkland islands. Against
France the natural ally of England was Russia, for she had a strong
interest in opposing French influence in Denmark and Sweden; while on
the side of England a Russian alliance would, in the event of war,
secure her Baltic trade and enable her fleet to act elsewhere, and would
be a defence for Hanover. An alliance with Russia had already been
discussed, but Catherine II. had far less interest in the matter than
England, and insisted that any alliance should include her Turkish war,
to which England would not consent. Catherine was in alliance with
Frederick of Prussia, and Chatham, hoping that the adhesion of England
would be welcomed, designed a defensive alliance between Great Britain,
Prussia, and Russia, which might take in Denmark, Sweden, the
States-General, and any other power interested in withstanding Bourbon
aggrandisement. To Catherine her alliance with Prussia was much more
important than anything which she could obtain from England, and
Chatham's design therefore depended on Frederick's good-will. He
declined the proposal of Great Britain: he had not forgiven the
ill-treatment which he believed he had received from Bute; he admired
Chatham, but had no assurance that he would remain in power; and he
considered any possible danger to himself from the Bourbon alliance to
be too remote to make it advisable for him to join in a concert to
prevent it. He was already meditating the partition of Poland, and the
proposed combination would have been contrary to his policy. Chatham's
great design was consequently defeated.

[Sidenote: _CHATHAM'S DIFFICULTIES._]

His arbitrary temper soon brought him into difficulties. He desired to
reward a new adherent with the office of treasurer of the household,
then held by Lord Edgcumbe, and on Edgcumbe's refusal to vacate the
office, he deprived him of it. Edgcumbe was connected with the
Rockingham party, and, with the exception of Conway, all the more
important members of it who had joined the new ministry, the Duke of
Portland, Saunders, and others, resigned office. Conway was almost
persuaded to follow their example, for Chatham treated him with haughty
coldness, but he yielded to the urgent advice of his friend Horace
Walpole, and remained in the ministry, uneasy and vacillating. Any
alliance with the Rockinghams being out of the question, Chatham was
driven to make overtures to the Bedford party, which failed because they
asked more than he would grant. Finally, Saunders's place at the
admiralty was supplied by the famous admiral, Sir Edward Hawke, and the
other vacancies were filled by tories and courtiers.

The harvest of 1765 was bad, and that of the present year promised to be
no better. The price of wheat rose rapidly, and in July reached 44s. a
quarter. The poor were distressed, worse times seemed to be ahead, and
the dealers were believed to be keeping back supplies in the expectation
of higher prices. Riots of a more or less serious character broke out in
some fifty places; bakers' shops were pillaged, mills and barns were
fired, and dealers and tradesmen were forced to sell provisions at
prices fixed by the people. It was not until September 10, when wheat
had again risen, that the ministers, in accordance with the economic
ideas of the time, issued a proclamation against forestalling and
engrossing. It had no effect; the price reached 49s., and on the 26th
the council laid an embargo on exportation. By law the ministers had no
right to take such a step until wheat was at 53s. 4d. As, however,
prices were rising, all parties agreed that the embargo was in itself a
justifiable measure. It was, however, objected that the ministers should
have summoned parliament to meet at an earlier date, and have acted with
its authority. When parliament met on November 11, the opposition
insisted that the ministers needed a bill of indemnity for having set
aside the law by a proclamation of council. Chatham defended their
action on the constitutional ground of necessity. His colleagues and
supporters were not all equally wise. Northington declared that the
proclamation was legally, as well as morally, justifiable; and the
chancellor, Camden, the assertor of popular liberties, that "it was at
most a forty days' tyranny". His foolish speech was severely handled by
Mansfield. In the commons Alderman Beckford, a hot-headed admirer of
Chatham, said that "if the public was in danger the king had a
dispensing power," and was forced by Grenville to retract his words. The
debates on this matter injured the reputation of the ministry though
they did not endanger its stability.

[Sidenote: _REVOLT IN BENGAL._]

When parliament rose in December Chatham went to Bath for the sake of
his health. In February, 1767, he had a severe attack of gout, and in
March the disease began to affect his mental powers. For the next two
years he was unable to take any part in politics. His effacement left
the ministry without a head. Before his retirement a difference arose in
the cabinet on the affairs of the East India Company. From a simple
trading company it had been raised by the victories of Clive and his
generals to the position of a territorial power. Its affairs were
managed by a court of directors elected annually, and consequently under
the control of the court of proprietors in which every holder of £500
stock had a vote. It proved itself unequal to its new position. Clive
returned to England in 1760, the possessor of a princely fortune, and in
1762 was created Baron Clive of Plassey in the Irish peerage. He was
opposed in the court of directors by a party headed by Sullivan. In
India he was succeeded by Vansittart, and there troubles soon arose,
chiefly from the greed of the company's servants. Mír Jafar, the Nawáb
of Bengal, a self-indulgent and unpopular ruler, was deposed by the
council in 1761, and his son-in-law, Mír Kásim, was made nawáb in his
place. It was a profitable business, for Mír Kásim spent £200,000 in
presents to the council and ceded to the company the revenues of three
districts, amounting to some £500,000 a year. Yet the exchange of nawábs
proved an unwise step, for Mír Kásim was able and active. He moved his
court from Murshidábád to Monghyr, at a greater distance from Calcutta,
organised an army, and showed that he was ready to resist oppression.

The revenues of the Indian princes were largely derived from tolls on
the transit of merchandise. The company, which had the right of free
exportation and importation, passed its goods free inland under the
certificate of the head of a factory. The system was abused. The company
paid its servants insufficient salaries, and they made up for it by
engaging in private inland trade, using the company's passes to cover
their goods. Armed with its power, they forced the natives to deal with
their native agents, to buy dear and sell cheap; they monopolised the
trade in the necessaries of life, and grew rich upon the miseries of the
helpless people. Private trade and extorted presents enabled many a man
who as a mere youth had obtained a writer's place to return to England
after a few years with a handsome income. Mír Kásim saw his people
starving, his officers ill-treated, and his treasury robbed, and
prepared for revolt. Conscious of the impending danger, Vansittart made
an agreement with him as to tolls. The council at Calcutta indignantly
repudiated the agreement, and Mír Kásim was furious. Open hostilities
began in June, 1763. One of the council, who was sent on an embassy to
Kásim, was killed by his troops. Patná was seized by the English; it was
retaken, and some 200 English were made prisoners. A little army under
Major Adams, routed the nawáb's forces, and on October 11 Monghyr was
taken. Mír Kásim caused all his prisoners, save five, to be massacred,
and fled for refuge to Shujá-ud-Daulá the nawáb wazír of Oudh. Patná was
taken by storm and Bengal was completely subdued.

Mír Jafar was again made nawáb, and paid large sums both to the company
and its servants as compensation for their losses. The war, however, was
not over, for the nawáb wazír espoused the cause of Mír Kásim, and, in
conjunction with the Mughal emperor, Sháh Alam, threatened Bengal. Major
Hector Munro took command of the British army, and found it in a
mutinous condition; desertions to the enemy were frequent. He captured a
large body of deserters, caused twenty-four of the ringleaders to be
blown from guns, and by his dauntless conduct restored discipline among
the troops. With about 7,000 men, of whom only some 1,000 were
Europeans, he inflicted a crushing defeat on the allied forces, 50,000
strong, at Baxár on October 23, 1764. The enemy lost 6,000 men and 167
guns. Oudh lay at the disposal of the English, and Sháh Alam sought
refuge with the conquerors. Early in 1765 Mír Jafar died, and the
council at Calcutta, without consulting the emperor, appointed his son
to succeed him, receiving in presents from him £139,357, besides money
unaccounted for. These revolutions and wars cost the company much money,
and, while its servants were enriching themselves, it incurred heavy
debts. Clive was called upon to put an end to the maladministration of
Bengal. He refused to return to India while Sullivan was chairman of the
court of directors. After a sharp contest, in which large sums were
spent, the proprietors put his party in power. He was invested with full
authority as commander-in-chief and governor of Bengal to act in
conjunction with a select committee.

He landed in India in May, 1765. During his administration of about
eighteen months he secured for the company the virtual sovereignty over
its conquests without dispossessing the nominal rulers, and he took
measures for the reformation of the company's service. Averse from a
forward policy of conquest, he restored Oudh to the nawáb wazír on
payment of £500,000. Allahábád and Kora were assigned to the emperor,
together with a tribute from Bengal, and in return Sháh Alam granted to
the company the right of levying and administering the revenues of
Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, together with jurisdiction in the Northern
Circars. The nawáb of Bengal received an annual pension of £600,000, and
surrendered all his power to the company, except the right of criminal
jurisdiction. Clive reorganised the army, and stopped the double
_batta_, or allowance, granted by Mír Jafar after the battle of Plassey.
He forbade illicit trade and the receipt of presents, and secured the
company's servants increased salaries. These reforms were effected in
the face of violent opposition, both in civil and military quarters. Two
hundred officers conspired to resign their commissions on the same day.
Clive faced the mutiny successfully; he cashiered the leaders and
accepted the submission of the younger men. Ill-health obliged him to
return to England in January, 1767.

[Sidenote: _AFFAIRS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY._]

The enormous private fortunes made in India led people to believe that
the company was far richer than it really was. During the late wars the
dividend was 6 per cent. In 1766 the proprietors urged an increase. To
this the directors objected that the debts of the company were heavy,
and that a premature increase would raise the price of stock to a point
at which it could not be maintained, and might end in a disaster like
that of the South Sea Company. The ministers sent a message of warning,
announcing that the affairs of the company would probably be considered
in parliament. They concerned the public, for the company enjoyed
protection and privileges granted by the nation. Nevertheless the
proprietors carried their point, and a dividend of 10 per cent. was
declared. Chatham held that the time had come for parliament to inquire
by what right the company administered its territorial revenues. He
considered that it had no right to its new position of a virtually
sovereign power, that the sovereignty of the crown should be asserted,
and that in return for the privileges which it enjoyed it should
contribute a portion of its revenues to the national treasury. The
company should apply to parliament to make good its defective title, and
parliament should then settle what portion of its revenues should be
assigned to it by way of favour. His ideas were based on an imperial
policy. As early as 1759 he held that the territorial acquisitions of
the company should be claimed for the nation. With him it was a matter
not merely of revenue but of government, and though his ideas are
indistinctly indicated, and were perhaps vaguely formed, it is probable
that he had in his mind some idea of making the government of India an
imperial matter. Yet, sharing as he did the general belief as to the
wealth of the company, he certainly attached much importance to the
possibility of obtaining from it an increase of the public revenue.

A special reason may be discerned for his desire to obtain such an
increase at the end of 1766. The government wanted money; there was a
heavy debt on the civil list, and the navy needed a large grant. An
increase of taxation was inadvisable, for corn was dear. Various schemes
for the increase of revenue were in the air. Many members of parliament,
the court party, the country interest, and the Grenville and Bedford
connexions were regretting the repeal of the stamp act. "We must look to
the East and not to the West," wrote Beckford to Chatham,[75] and he
spoke the mind of his leader. The cabinet was divided. Grafton and
Shelburne agreed with Chatham that the question of the company's rights
should be decided by parliament. Townshend declared that it would be
"absurd" to force the company to share its power with the crown, and
both he and Conway desired that the question of right should be waived
and that its relations with the government should be settled by amicable
arrangement. In May, 1767, the proprietors insisted on a dividend at the
rate of 12-1/2 per cent. A motion was carried to bring the affairs of
the company before parliament. Townshend, as Chatham said, "marred the
business"; he managed to open the door for negotiation, and to make it a
mere matter of money. In June, 1767, a bill was passed, based on an
agreement with the company, which in return for the confirmation of its
territorial revenues, bound itself to pay the government £400,000 a year
for two years; and parliament prohibited a higher dividend than 10 per
cent. The bill was violently opposed, specially by the Rockingham party,
on the ground that it was an unjustifiable interference with the rights
of property. In 1769 the agreement with the company was renewed, and
permission was given for a dividend of 12-1/2 per cent, on certain
conditions. The company was then in debt over £6,000,000.

[Sidenote: _HAIDAR ALÍ._]

A new and formidable enemy had arisen in Southern India. In 1767 Haidar
(Hyder) Alí, the ruler of Mysore, made war upon the English in
conjunction with the Nizám of Haidarábád. The allies were defeated, and
the nizám made peace. Haidar, however, continued the war. He had a large
force of cavalry which he brought to great perfection, and, as the
English were deficient in that arm, he was able to do much mischief in
the Karnatic. In April, 1769, having previously drawn the English army
away from Madras by skilful manoeuvres, he suddenly appeared in the
immediate neighbourhood of the town. The English were forced to make a
treaty with him on his own terms. The news sent the company's stock down
60 per cent. The same year the crops failed in Bengal, and in 1770 there
was a grievous famine which is said to have carried off a third of the
inhabitants. Yet in spite of the decreasing revenue and the heavy debts
of the company, the proprietors were receiving dividends of 12 and
12-1/2 per cent.

FOOTNOTES:

[68] _Newcastle's Narrative_, p. 11.

[69] _Annual Register_, viii. (1765), 92.

[70] _Bedford Correspondence_, iii., 281; Walpole, _Letters_, iv.,
365-66.

[71] _Annual Register_, xxi. (1778), 256.

[72] Lord Charlemont to Flood, Jan. 8, 1766, _Letters to Flood_, p. 5.

[73] Conway to Lord Hertford, Feb. 12, 1766, in a MS. collection of
Conway's letters, to which Messrs. Sotheran kindly gave me access.

[74] Conway to Hertford, April 29, 1766, MS. Sotheran, _u.s._

[75] Beckford to Chatham, Oct. 15, 1766, MS. Pitt Papers, 19; _Grenville
Papers_, iii., 336.




                               CHAPTER V.

                      GROWTH OF THE KING'S POWER.


While Chatham was suffering from gout and Conway from indecision,
Townshend had opportunities for mischief. His brilliant wit and oratory
gave him extraordinary influence in the house of commons, which he used
merely for his own ends, for he was unprincipled and greedy for
popularity. Whatever it might be that the majority in the house wished
to have done, he was anxious to be the doer of it. This desire to lead
the house by carrying out its wishes was probably the true reason of his
opposition to Chatham's Indian policy. It led him to take a more
disastrous line with reference to America. The colonies were irritated
and suspicious. Massachusetts was encroaching on the royal prerogative
by passing an amnesty bill, and was quarrelling over it with its
governor, Bernard, and the New York assembly was defying the authority
of parliament by refusing to provide the troops with certain articles
specified in the mutiny act. An equally unconciliatory spirit prevailed
in England, where the repeal of the stamp act had become unpopular. It
was necessary to keep a permanent force in America, and the colonists
should have been willing to contribute to the defence of the empire by
paying for it. Their refusal was attributed to a desire to save their
pockets, which to some extent was the case, and Englishmen were angry at
the prospect of being called upon to meet expenses which should have
been borne by others. Even warm friends of the colonies held that a
military establishment should be paid for out of colonial revenues, and
Shelburne was considering how a fund might be raised without
taxation.[76] Unfortunately, Townshend chose to pander to the feelings
of the majority of the commons. In a debate on the army supplies on
January 26, 1767, he boasted, without any previous consultation with his
fellow-ministers, that he could raise a revenue from America nearly
sufficient to maintain the troops there. The house received his words
with applause, his colleagues with dumb dismay. Grenville and Lord
George Sackville took them up and forced him to pledge himself to make
them good.

[Sidenote: _AMERICAN REVENUE ACTS._]

Money was wanted for the service of the country, and specially for the
maintenance of the navy, and a month later Townshend proposed that the
land tax should be continued at four shillings in the pound. A strong
opposition was expected, for the country gentlemen reasonably contended
that the tax had been raised from three to four shillings as a war-tax,
that it was time to lower it, and that if the stamp act had not been
repealed it might be reduced to its normal amount.[77] The whigs, whose
economic policy was directed by their desire to increase the wealth and
power of the nation by promoting trade, held that the larger share of
taxation should be drawn from the land, and fostered the agricultural
interest in order to enable it to bear the disproportionate burden they
laid upon it. Nevertheless, the Rockingham and Grenville parties took
advantage of the dissatisfaction of the landed gentry, acted together in
a factious spirit, and defeated the government proposal by 206 votes to
188. This was a serious blow to the government, and was the first
occasion on which a minister had been defeated on a money-bill since the
revolution. The defeat was due to Townshend's neglect. Chatham would no
longer bear with him, and one of his last acts before his retirement was
to invite Lord North, the eldest son of the Earl of Guilford, to take
his place as chancellor of the exchequer. North refused, and Townshend
remained in office. He had to raise money somehow, and he was kept in
mind of his pledge with regard to America; for parliament was indignant
at the conduct of the New York assembly, and the court party urged him
on by representing that the king was humiliated by the repeal of the
stamp act. In June he carried two bills affecting the colonies, one
providing for the execution of the trade laws, the other imposing duties
on the importation of glass, paper, paints, and tea. The produce of
these duties was to be applied, first, to the cost of administering
justice and of the civil government, and the surplus was to be paid into
the exchequer and appropriated by parliament to the defence of the
colonies. The bills passed without opposition and the acts came into
operation on November 20. A bill was also passed suspending the
legislative power of the New York assembly, until it should comply with
the mutiny act.

The new duties were external taxes, taxes on trade, such as the
colonists had professed themselves prepared to pay, and they were
trifling in amount, their produce being estimated at less than £40,000.
But they were imposed for purposes of revenue, not for the regulation of
trade, which would in Chatham's eyes have rendered them a rightful
imposition. And the colonists' position had changed. They demanded to be
taxed only by their own assemblies, and regarded the new acts as laying
the foundation of a fiscal system which would probably be as liable to
abuse as the Irish civil list. A renewal of the rumour concerning a
colonial episcopate increased their suspicion as to the height to which
demands on their purse might grow. Their discontent was originally
founded on their impatience of control and on the restraints placed upon
their industry and commerce; their resistance was roused by the fear of
future ill-government rather than by actual grievances. The quarrel
became embittered by faults on both sides. By denying the authority of
parliament and contemning the prerogative, the Americans took up a
position which could not be conceded to them without national
humiliation; they irritated the English by violent words and actions,
and treated the loyalists with injustice and cruelty. On the other hand,
England, besides imposing restrictions on their industry and commerce,
made demands upon them which, though just, were galling to their spirit.
As they had representative assemblies, they argued that they should be
taxed only by their authority. The king and the nation generally had no
sympathy with their complaints and were unconciliatory.

[Sidenote: _CHATHAM'S ILLNESS._]

Yet while there were faults on both sides, both alike showed a spirit
worthy of their common stock, the colonists by their insistence on
self-government, the mother-country by its steadfast adherence to the
imperial idea as it then existed. Massachusetts again took the lead in
resistance; the merchants renewed the non-importation agreements, and
the assembly sent a petition to the king, and on February 11, 1768, a
circular letter to the other provincial assemblies condemning the late
acts and inviting co-operation. This letter, the work of Samuel Adams,
did much to remove the jealousies between the provinces and to arouse a
spirit of union. It evoked expressions of sympathy from Virginia and
other colonies, and the merchants of New York at once joined the
Bostonians in a system of non-importation. Of almost equal importance
were _The Farmer's Letters_ by Dickinson, which appeared in a
Pennsylvania paper in 1767-68, and contained an able statement of the
claims of colonies, recommending a firm but peaceable attitude of
resistance. Meanwhile the condition of the ministry was unfavourable
alike to any chance of conciliation or to a consistently vigorous
policy.

George was grievously disappointed by Chatham's illness. Between them
they had put together an administration which Burke aptly compared to a
piece of mosaic, formed of men of various parties; and with it George
not unreasonably hoped to be able to carry out his ideal system of
government, to destroy party distinctions and establish his rule over
his people for their benefit and with their good-will.[78] In Chatham's
absence, Grafton became his principal minister, though he had no
authority in the cabinet. For a time Chatham's speedy recovery was
expected, and both the king and Grafton made constant appeals to him at
least to express his opinion on public affairs. No help was to be had
from him; he would only entreat Grafton to remain in office. The
disorganised ministry was confronted by a strong opposition composed of
the Rockingham, Bedford, and Grenville connexions. Chatham became
incapable of transacting any business; and when it was evident that his
illness would be prolonged, Grafton advised the king to enter into
negotiations with them. In July, 1767, George invited Rockingham to draw
up a plan for an administration. He did not intend to admit the
Rockinghams to office; he wanted a ministry, formed on non-party lines,
which would be strong enough to hold its ground in parliament, and all
he wished Rockingham to do was to submit a scheme of such a ministry for
his approval, including in it some of the present ministers.
Rockingham, however, held the modern doctrine that a prime minister
should form his own administration, and assumed that the existing
ministry was at an end.

He yielded to the king's wish, but was determined not to take office
except with a comprehensive ministry united on the basis of opposition
to that court influence which had wrecked his former government. With
this idea he attempted to form a union with the Bedford party. The
negotiation failed, for Grenville and Temple, who were then united to
the Bedfords, represented to their allies that no union was possible
without agreement as to American policy. This ended the matter, for the
Grenville and Bedford parties were strongly in favour of American
taxation. Rockingham therefore told the king that he was unable to act
upon his invitation. Grafton remained in office. A man of pleasure and
of culture, in some points a true descendant of Charles II., he was out
of his proper element in political life. He grudged leaving his kennels
at Wakefield Lodge or the heath at Newmarket to transact public business
in London, and preferred reading a play of Euripides at Euston to being
bored by a debate at Westminster. On no other English minister have the
responsibilities of office had so little effect; he would put off a
cabinet meeting for a race meeting, and even in the presence of the king
and queen appeared at the opera by the side of his mistress, Nancy
Dawson, afterwards Lady Maynard.

[Sidenote: _ACCESSIONS TO THE MINISTRY._]

Yet, uncongenial as official work was to him, Grafton was unwilling to
desert the king and disappoint Chatham. He fully intended to carry out
Chatham's policy. He failed to do so, for he allowed himself to be
swayed by the king; and he let things slide in a wrong direction,
because he would not take the trouble to make any strenuous effort to
check their course. In Chatham's absence the king gradually gained
complete control of the ministry, and on every important question the
ministers followed a line wholly contrary to that which Chatham would
have adopted. Townshend died in September and North became chancellor of
the exchequer. North was an able financier, personally popular, and a
successful leader of the house of commons. He was a strong tory and was
prepared to uphold the king's policy whether he approved it or not. At
the end of the year an agreement was made with the Bedford party. The
duke, whose sight was failing and who was mourning the loss of his only
surviving son, would not himself take office, but bade his followers do
as they pleased. Lord Gower became president of the council in place of
Northington; Conway resigned the seals of secretary, though he remained
in the cabinet, and Lord Weymouth was made secretary of state for the
northern department. Lord Hillsborough was appointed as a third
secretary of state for the colonies which, in consequence of the
increase of colonial business, were removed from Shelburne's department,
and other members of the "Bloomsbury gang" received minor offices. These
changes were held to amount to the formation of a fresh administration.
George did not at first like the junction with the Bedfords, which
seemed contrary to his policy of destroying connexions, but the new
ministers were so ready to carry out all his wishes that he was soon
delighted with them.

The ministry showed its bias by its action with reference to a dispute
between the two chief magnates in Cumberland and Westmorland, the Duke
of Portland, a prominent member of the Rockingham party, and Sir James
Lowther, Bute's son-in-law, who commanded nine seats in the house of
commons. The duke's estate in the north came to him by a grant from
William III. to the first Earl of Portland, in virtue of which he held
the forest of Inglewood and the socage of Carlisle, valued at about
£30,000, as appurtenances to the estate expressly granted. Lowther
contended that the grant did not convey these appurtenances and applied
to the treasury for a lease of them. Without officially informing the
duke of his claim, the treasury granted the lease. As between subject
and subject the duke's title would have been indisputable, for his house
had had undisturbed possession for over sixty years, but as regards
claims of the crown there was an ancient maxim: _Nullum tempus occurrit
regi_--"Time does not bar the king's rights". The attempt of the
treasury to revive this maxim was considered oppressive, and was
generally attributed to the influence of Bute and the court, and to a
desire to injure a political opponent and gratify a powerful supporter.
The feeling was strengthened by the characters of the two disputants,
for Portland was a man of high reputation, Lowther a cynical tyrant. On
February 17, 1768, Sir George Savile, a great Yorkshire landowner and a
member of the Rockingham party, whose integrity and wealth gave him
weight in the house, brought in a bill called the _Nullum tempus_ bill,
to make sixty years' possession a bar to claims of the crown. It was
opposed by the ministry, and North succeeded in adjourning the motion,
though only by 134 to 114. Parliament was dissolved in March, and the
new parliament passed the bill.

The union with the Bedford party lessened any chance of American
conciliation. Hillsborough ordered the Massachusetts assembly to rescind
its circular letter. It refused, and, acting on Hillsborough's
instructions, Bernard dissolved the assembly. Other colonies rejected
the command to disregard the letter; they would stand or fall with
Massachusetts. In New York, however, the "whig party" was defeated at
the elections, the assembly complied with the mutiny act, and its
legislative authority was restored. Bernard sent home disquieting
reports; the revenue laws were openly defied, and the officers forcibly
prevented from executing them; he was himself insulted by the mob, and
had not, he wrote, "the shadow of authority". There were no troops
nearer than New York. Bernard, an upright and fairly able man, though
too apt to dispute with his disputatious opponents, was extremely
unpopular, for it was known that he advised the ministers to take strong
measures. It was his duty to represent the royal authority and to
maintain the laws, and he told them that he could do nothing unless he
was supported. He was right. Between a frank surrender and a vigorous
and consistent policy there should have been no middle way. The
ministers found one. They irritated the Americans without attempting to
crush the fomenters of disturbance; they threatened and retreated, made
a demonstration of force and shrank from employing it; their threats
made the British government hated, their lenity brought it into
contempt.[79] Bernard, of course, wrote as a partisan, but with this
allowance his reports may be accepted as trustworthy.

Acting on these reports, Hillsborough, early in June, 1768, ordered Gage
to send troops to Boston to protect the king's officers. It was full
time. On the 10th a sloop belonging to Hancock, a merchant of Boston,
arrived in the harbour laden with wine from Madeira. The tide-waiter
who boarded her was forcibly detained, and an attempt was made to
defraud the revenue by a false declaration. On this the commissioners
seized the sloop and laid her under the stem of the _Romney_, a
man-of-war, in the harbour. A riot ensued; the revenue officers were
mobbed, one of their boats was burned, and they were forced to take
refuge in the castle. On September 29 seven ships carrying the 14th and
29th regiments, and a company of artillery, in all about 1,000 men,
arrived in the harbour. The Bostonians refused to assign quarters for
the troops, and they suffered some hardships. On receiving the news of
the riot in June the ministers despatched the 64th and 65th regiments to
Boston. These reinforcements arrived in January, 1769. The people were
indignant; but in the face of so large a force remained quiet.

[Sidenote: _CHATHAM RESIGNS OFFICE._]

On American, as well as on other measures, Shelburne, who desired
conciliation, differed from his colleagues. In the autumn of 1768 the
king and the Bedford party urged his dismissal, and Grafton acquiesced.
Chatham was annoyed by this decision, and still more by the dismissal of
Sir Jeffrey Amherst, governor of Virginia. He resigned the privy seal in
October, and Grafton was thenceforward considered as head of the
ministry. A few days later Shelburne resigned. He was generally disliked
and distrusted. He had acted as a go-between in the early days of his
career, and while in office was believed to be false to his colleagues;
his face answered to the popular idea of a Jesuit, and his manners were
artificial. He was given the nickname of Malagrida, a Portuguese Jesuit
who had been executed for conspiracy in 1761. Weymouth took his place in
the southern, and Lord Rochford became secretary of state for the
northern department. When parliament met in December, Bedford moved a
petition to the crown to apply to Massachusetts an act of 35 Henry
VIII., by which offenders outside the kingdom were liable to be brought
to England for trial. This motion and eight resolutions on American
affairs moved by Hillsborough passed both houses without a division,
though not without opposition, the cause of the colonists being
advocated in the commons by Pownall, an ex-governor of Massachusetts,
Burke, and others.

To recommend the revival of an obsolete statute, made in a tyrannical
reign and to meet different circumstances, in order to enable a
government to deport offenders from a distant colony and try them by
juries certain to be prejudiced against them, was so contrary to the
spirit of the constitution as to be defensible only on the ground of
necessity. That it would have been impossible to secure a verdict in the
province against a rioter can scarcely be doubted. The government,
however, advocated this measure, not because it was necessary, but
merely to frighten the colonists. This became known in America, and the
colonists learned that England had made an empty threat, and was about
to adopt a conciliatory policy. The only effect of the threat was to
excite Virginia and North Carolina to non-importation. The
non-importation agreements, which were enforced by advertising the names
of offending tradesmen, caused heavy loss to British trade. Between
Christmas 1767 and 1769 the value of exports to America decreased by
about £700,000. The cabinet inclined to conciliatory measures, and the
Massachusetts assembly was again summoned, though it professed no regret
for its past conduct. On May 1, 1769, the cabinet resolved to bring in a
bill during the next session for taking off all the new duties except
that on tea. Grafton proposed to give them all up, and was supported by
Camden, Conway, and Granby. North was inclined to a total repeal, but
yielded to the king's influence, and declared for retaining the tea duty
as a manifestation of right; Gower, Hillsborough, Weymouth and Rochford
voted with him. Grafton, though outvoted in the cabinet, remained in
office; he desired to resign, but found no "good ground for retirement,"
for though the king henceforward dictated his orders to him rather than
asked his advice, he did not, so Grafton writes, withdraw his personal
favour. So completely was the position of a prime minister of our own
day unknown at that time.

Hillsborough informed the colonies of the partial repeal of the duties,
and of the intention of the government not to lay any further taxes on
America for the purpose of revenue. In its amount, namely, threepence on
the pound, the tea duty was not a grievance, for the duty of one
shilling paid in England was returned on re-exportation, so that the
Americans could buy their tea ninepence per pound cheaper than in
England. The colonial agitators, however, denied the right of taxation
and the authority of parliament, and these the king and the English
people generally were determined to maintain. Hillsborough's letter was
ungracious, but its tone was probably of no consequence; the quarrel was
not of a sort to be allayed by smooth words. Further attempts at
conciliation were made. In compliance with a petition from
Massachusetts, Bernard was recalled, and his place was taken by
Hutchinson. Boston complained bitterly of the presence of the troops,
and half of them were moved away. So long as the British force was
strong the town was fairly quiet. When it was reduced the people began
to abuse and irritate the soldiers, until the insults heaped upon them
led, as we shall see, to an untoward encounter. Thus did the ministry
strengthen the spirit of resistance and bring contempt upon Great
Britain. For its refusal to make its concessions complete, the king is
mainly responsible. A complete surrender would have humiliated him and
his realm in the eyes of the world. Whether such humiliation, surely not
tamely to be accepted by a great nation, would in the end have prevented
the Americans from finding cause for quarrel and separation may possibly
be matter for discussion. It is certainly not so with the policy of the
ministers, that, if it can be called a policy at all, was clearly the
worst they could have adopted.

[Sidenote: _THE CONDITION OF IRELAND._]

In Irish, not less than in American, affairs the policy of the ministry
was decided by the king. Ireland was governed as a subject country. Shut
out from the benefits of the navigation laws, she was only allowed such
commerce as would not bring her into rivalry with England. Since the
beginning of the century the condition of her people had slightly
improved, but in Munster and Connaught there was much terrible misery.
Though the severest provisions of the penal code were obsolete, the
protestants still remained a dominant caste. Roman catholics were shut
out from the bar and the army, and the sons of catholic squires for the
most part either spent their youth in idleness or served in foreign
armies. The great landowners were generally absentees and their estates
were rented by middle-men; the lands were let three or four deep, and
the peasants were crushed by exorbitant rents and unjust dealing. Their
burdens were increased by the tithe paid to an alien Church which was
still rather a secular than a religious power and, though more Irishmen
held preferments in it than formerly, had no place in the affections of
the people and neglected its duty, while the catholic priests, mostly
poor and ignorant men, were active, were adored by their flocks, and
ruled them with benevolent despotism. The tithe was specially burdensome
to the poor, both because the rich pasture-lands of the wealthy were
exempt from payment, while it was levied on little plots worked by the
plough or spade of the peasant, and because it was constantly farmed out
to men who made their bargains profitable by oppressing the needy with
unfair exactions. Chief among the causes of the misery of the peasants
was the extent to which arable land was converted into pasture. Commons
were unjustly enclosed, villages were depopulated, the starving peasants
were forced to flee to the mountains, and black cattle roamed at will
round the ruins of their deserted dwellings.

The despair of the wretched found expression in violence. In 1761 a
secret society called the Whiteboys was organised in Munster and parts
of Leinster to resist, or exact vengeance for, the enclosure of commons,
and unjust rents or tithe. The movement was agrarian, not religious,
though the Whiteboys were catholics, nor political. It was formidable,
for there was no Irish constabulary or militia. The Whiteboys would
gather in obedience to some secret mandate, march by night in large and
ordered companies, some to the land of one offender, others to that of
another, and, making the darkness hideous with their white smocks, fall
to houghing cattle, destroying fences, and spoiling pastures. Many cruel
deeds were done, though the murders were few. Stern acts were passed
against Whiteboyism; volunteers put themselves at the disposal of the
magistrates, and the rising was at last crushed, not without cruelty and
an unfair administration of the criminal law. The outbreak is a notable
event in Irish history, for from that time until now secret societies
which have attempted to gain their objects by lawless and bloody means
have constantly existed in Ireland. In protestant Ulster the Oakboys, as
they called themselves, rose in 1763 against an increase in the demands
for tithe and the burdens laid upon them for making and repairing roads.
Their rising was not accompanied by the cruelties which disgraced
Whiteboyism, and was speedily pacified. Some years later the greediness
of Lord Donegal, who for the sake of gain evicted over 6,000 protestant
families and replaced them by new tenants, many of them catholics,
caused a rising in Antrim and Down. Already numerous presbyterians of
Ulster, men of Scottish and English descent, had been driven by the
destruction of the woollen trade and the disabilities imposed by the
test act to emigrate to America, and many of Donegal's evicted tenantry
followed their example. Ireland lost men who should have defended
British interests, and America gained some of her best soldiers in the
revolutionary war. The feud between the protestants and catholics of
Ulster arising out of Donegal's evictions bore bitter fruit in later
troubles.

[Sidenote: _THE IRISH PARLIAMENT._]

The Irish house of commons was composed exclusively of protestants,
elected exclusively by protestants. Of its 300 members sixty-four were
returned for counties and were in some measure elected by the people.
Two were returned for Trinity College, Dublin. The remainder sat for
cities and boroughs, and of these 172 were nominated by borough-owners.
The duration of parliament was only terminated by the demise of the
crown. The house was the representative of the protestant aristocracy
and was completely out of touch with the mass of the people. It had
little control of finance, for the Irish establishments were large. The
civil list was burdened with pensions and sinecures, distributed either
as a means of parliamentary corruption, or among the supporters of the
castle policy and the hangers-on of the English court. By Poyning's law
the Irish parliament was subordinated to the English privy council, and
could not be summoned until the bills which it was called upon to pass
had received the assent of the council. A desire for greater
independence was growing up in parliament, and a patriotic party eagerly
pressed for reforms, for the extension of the _habeas corpus_ act to
Ireland, for securing the judges in office, and for shorter parliaments.
The government was in the hands of a party called the "Irish interest"
which worked harmoniously with the English ministers. Its chiefs, the
"undertakers," undertook the king's business in parliament, administered
the country, and dispensed patronage, for the lord-lieutenant only
resided in Ireland during the session of parliament, that is for six
months every other year. They answered roughly to the whig oligarchy in
England at the beginning of the reign, and in spite of some extravagance
and corruption used their power not altogether ill.

George, who was sincerely anxious for the good government of the
country, desired, as a matter of general policy, to break down the power
of the undertakers, as he had broken down the power of the whigs in
England. He also had a special point to carry; he wanted to obtain the
consent of parliament to an augmentation of the Irish army from 12,000
to 15,000 men. As the peace establishment of Great Britain was only
about 17,000 men, the crown certainly needed a larger force, but it was
unfair to lay the burden of providing it on Ireland. With these objects
the ministry sent the Marquis Townshend, Charles Townshend's brother, to
Ireland as viceroy in 1767, ordering him to reside there throughout his
term of office. After much difficulty Townshend obtained the
augmentation, with the proviso that 12,000 troops should be kept in the
country, and the patriotic party, Lord Charlemont, Lucas, Flood, and
others, were gratified by the octennial act limiting the duration of
parliament to eight years. When the new parliament met, the commons
acting under the influence of the undertakers, renewed an attempt made
at the beginning of the reign to establish their authority over supply
by rejecting a money bill which, according to custom, had been prepared
by the government and returned by the English privy council. Townshend
prorogued parliament; and before its next meeting secured a majority by
wholesale corruption, such as had been employed in England by Fox and
Bute, and overthrew the power of the undertakers. His want of tact and
his indecorous conduct rendered his victory fruitless, and he was
recalled in 1772.

The general election of 1768 was even more corrupt than that of 1761.
Again both the court and the nabobs came well to the front.
Borough-mongers did a business in seats much as house-agents did in
houses. One of them laughed when Lord Chesterfield offered £2,500 for a
seat for his son; the nabobs, he said, had raised prices to at least
£3,000; some seats had fetched £4,000, two as much as £5,000. George
Selwyn took £9,000 for the two seats for Ludgershall. The city of Oxford
offered to return its two sitting members if they would pay the city's
debts, £5,670. They informed the house of commons of the offer, and ten
of the leading citizens were confined for five days in Newgate, and
afterwards knelt at the bar of the house and were reprimanded by the
speaker--a solemn farce, for they sold the seats to two neighbouring
magnates, and are said to have arranged the transaction while they were
in prison. Holland bought a seat for his second son, Charles James Fox,
then a youth of nineteen. As was natural in his father's son, Fox
supported the ministers, and was soon distinguished in parliament by his
opposition to all liberal measures, and outside it by reckless gambling
and extravagance.

[Sidenote: _WILKES RETURNED FOR MIDDLESEX._]

Wilkes, who made a short visit to England in 1766, when he remained
quiet and was not disturbed, was brought back again by the election. He
stood for the city of London, was at the bottom of the poll, and
announced that he would stand for Middlesex. His proceedings caused much
excitement, for the country was discontented and disturbed. The price of
bread was high, and during the early part of the year there were many
strikes and much rioting, especially in London. The Spitalfields weavers
made several riots and broke the looms of those who refused to join in
their demands. The sailors struck, and detained all outward-bound
vessels in the Thames. The coal-heavers also struck, and fought fierce
battles with the sailors in which many lives were lost. Though some of
these riots broke out a little later, they explain the excitement and
enthusiasm with which Wilkes was received by the London mob. He was
returned for Middlesex by a large majority. The mob which had passed out
from London to Brentford, the polling-place, came back in triumph,
forced people to illuminate their houses, and smashed many windows. If
on Wilkes's return to England George had granted him a free pardon, the
demagogue would probably have subsided into a peaceable member of
parliament. Unfortunately he could not overlook Wilkes's insults to
himself and to his mother. Grafton came to London as seldom as possible,
but George found a willing instrument in Weymouth. On April 17 Wilkes
surrendered to his outlawry. In anticipation of disturbances Weymouth
wrote to the Lambeth magistrates, bidding them, if need arose, to be
prompt in calling in the aid of the military.

On the 26th Wilkes was committed to the king's bench prison. The
populace drew him along in a coach to Spitalfields, where he escaped
their further attentions and voluntarily went to the prison. An excited
crowd daily assembled outside the prison, and the riots of the sailors,
coal-heavers, and sawyers grew formidable. Parliament was to meet on
May 10, and the king, believing that a serious riot would probably take
place on that day, recommended firmness and a prompt employment of
troops. The tone of his letters at this crisis is unpleasant and shows
personal animosity; yet neither he nor Weymouth can justly be blamed for
urging prompt and decided measures, for they were necessary for the
preservation of order and for the protection of life and property. As
George had foreseen, a riot broke out on the 10th. A vast mob gathered
round the king's bench prison and in St. George's Fields, and demanded
that Wilkes should be liberated in order to take his place in
parliament. The riot act was read, the troops were severely pelted, and
some soldiers killed a young man named Allen, whom they mistook for a
ringleader of the rioters. The order to fire was given; five of the mob
were killed and several wounded. Though for the moment the mob was
mastered, this untoward event exasperated the malcontents, and much
indignation was excited by an order signed by Barrington, which assured
the troops that they would be protected if "any disagreeable
circumstance" should arise in the execution of their duty. On June 8
Lord Mansfield, the lord chief-justice, reversed Wilkes's outlawry and
sentenced him on the verdicts brought against him in 1764 to fines of
£1,000, and twenty-two months further imprisonment.

While in prison Wilkes obtained Weymouth's letter of April 17, and
published it with libellous comments, charging him with having
deliberately planned "the massacre" of St. George's Fields. These
comments were voted a seditious libel by the commons. Wilkes's petition
for redress of grievances was rejected; he was brought to the bar of the
house and avowed the authorship of the comments on Weymouth's "bloody
scroll," as he called it. On the next day, February 3, 1769, Barrington
proposed his expulsion from the house, and supported his motion by
recapitulating his various misdeeds. Grenville, Burke, and others urged
that it was unfair to go back to past offences and accumulate the
charges against him, and Grenville warned the house that the course on
which it was embarking would probably lead it into a violation of the
rights of the electorate. Nevertheless, the house lent itself to the
wishes of the king and voted the expulsion by 219 to 137. Grenville's
warning was justified. Wilkes was re-elected on the 16th, and the next
day the house annulled the election and declared him incapable of being
elected to serve in the present parliament. That the house, whether
acting justly or not, has a right to expel any member whom it judges
unworthy to sit, is indisputable, but to declare an incapacity unknown
to the law was an unconstitutional and arbitrary proceeding. In spite of
this declaration Wilkes was again returned on March 16. The election was
again annulled. An address in support of the king was prepared by the
court party in the city, and on the 22nd hundreds set out in coaches for
St. James's to deliver it. They were pelted by a vast mob, and only a
third of them reached the palace. Meanwhile another mob gathered at St.
James's and tried to force a hearse bearing a picture of Allen's death
into the court-yard. They were foiled by the courage of Talbot, the
lord-steward, and were dispersed after some scuffling. Throughout the
whole day the king exhibited perfect composure, though the riot was
serious and might easily have become formidable.

[Sidenote: _THE RIGHTS OF ELECTORS VIOLATED._]

A new writ was issued for Middlesex, and Colonel Luttrell, one of the
court party, resigned his Cornish seat in order to oppose Wilkes. In the
previous December at the election of Serjeant Glynn, Wilkes's counsel,
to the other seat for the county, one of his supporters lost his life.
Two men were found guilty of murdering him, and received a royal pardon,
for, though they assaulted him, the man's death was due to natural
causes. Luttrell was believed to be risking his life, and bets were
freely made as to his probable fate. The election, however, passed off
quietly on April 13, when Wilkes polled 1,143 votes and Luttrell 296. On
the 15th, the house, after a hot debate, carried by 197 to 143 a motion
that Luttrell "ought to have been returned". This decision, which set at
nought the rights of electors, was the inevitable outcome of the vote of
expulsion. The king was victorious, and was delighted at his victory.
His satisfaction was soon alloyed, for the means which he had employed
to gain his end roused widespread indignation. He had brought himself
into conflict with his people and had blunted his weapons. He had
gradually got together a set of ministers through whom he could rule;
for some of them were his willing instruments, and the rest, though
uneasy at their position, forbore to oppose him. At great cost to
himself and the nation he had secured a majority in the house of
commons, and he had strengthened his cause by enlisting on his side the
jealousy with which the house regarded all matters of privilege. Neither
his ministers nor the house failed him, not even when called upon to
violate the constitution, but his policy rendered both alike odious to
the nation. Wilkes was a gainer by his own defeat. Thousands who had
little or no sympathy with him personally espoused his cause when they
found it justly associated with liberty. A large subscription was made
for him: £17,000 was spent in paying his debts; his long-deferred suit
against Halifax was at last heard, and he obtained £4,000 damages; he
was again enabled to live in comfort, and while still in prison was
elected an alderman of London.

Other causes contributed to the unpopularity of the ministers, among
them the French annexation of Corsica. The island rebelled against the
Genoese; and they, finding themselves unable to subdue it, agreed to
sell it to France. The bravery of the insurgents excited sympathy in
England; and there was a strong feeling that the acquisition of the
island by France would increase her naval strength, which was reasonably
regarded with jealousy. "Corsica," said Burke, "as a province of France
is terrible to me;" and Sir Charles Saunders, who had commanded in the
Mediterranean, held that to prevent the proposed annexation would be
well worth a war. There was, however, something to be said on the other
side. The ministers might have pursued either one of two courses. They
might have given France to understand that they would make the
annexation of the island a cause of war, and in that case France would
probably have drawn back; or they might, without loss of dignity, have
passed the matter by as no concern of theirs. Unfortunately, a decided
course was impossible to the divided cabinet. They remonstrated
vigorously, and France wavered. Then the Bedford section made it known
that England would not in any case go to war, and France despised their
remonstrance. Grafton allowed the Corsicans to hope for British help,
and secretly sent them arms. This was worse than useless. The Corsican
general, Paoli, was forced to flee; the island was annexed to France in
1769, and, as Burke said, "British policy was brought into derision".

[Sidenote: _ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST._]

Again, in the midst of the struggle with the Middlesex electorate,
parliament was asked for £513,500 to pay the debts on the civil list.
The civil list was sufficient to meet the legitimate expenses of the
crown; the king was personally frugal; how had the deficiency arisen?
Beyond all question the money had been spent in augmenting the influence
of the crown by multiplying offices and pensions, by the purchase of
votes at elections, and other corrupt means. The ministers were
responsible to the nation for the way in which the public money had been
spent. The opposition, and specially Grenville, Burke, and Dowdeswell,
urged that before the house made the grant, it should inquire into the
causes which rendered it necessary. Their demand was resisted: the house
decided not to consider the causes of the debts, and the ministers
carried the grant without inquiry. By this evil precedent the commons
abandoned the constitutional means of checking the expenditure of the
public money by the crown, and proved themselves unfaithful to their
duty towards the nation.

Violent attacks were made on the ministers by the press. The most famous
of these are the letters signed "Junius," and others attributed, some of
them with little probability, to the same author, which appeared first
in the _Public Advertizer_, a London daily paper. Their fame is partly
due to the mystery of their authorship. For that doubtful honour more
than thirty names have been suggested. On strong, if not perfectly
convincing grounds, Junius is now generally believed to have been Philip
Francis, then a clerk in the war office and later a member of the East
India council and a knight, though, if he was the author, he probably
received help from some one of higher social position, possibly from
Temple.[80] As literature the letters are remarkable for clearness of
expression and for a polish of style so high as to be artificial and
monotonous; their chief literary defect is violence of language.
Occupied almost exclusively with personal vituperation, they deal with
events as opportunities for abuse rather than for thoughtful comment,
with constitutional doctrines as weapons of attack rather than as
bulwarks of liberty. The writer's political opinions are based on narrow
grounds; he exhibits no power of generalisation or philosophic thought.
Sheltered by his carefully guarded anonymity, he exercised a vile
ingenuity in devising how he might wound most deeply persons whom he
dared not attack in his own name. Without regard to decency or truth he
mocks with devilish glee at the vices, failings, and misfortunes of the
objects of his hatred. His attacks on the chief ministers of the crown,
on Grafton, Bedford, North, Weymouth, and Sandwich, on Mansfield, and on
the king himself, excited intense curiosity. Before long their violence
defeated their purpose and the disgraceful "Letter to the King,"
published in December, 1769, excited general disgust.

The anger caused by the issue of the struggle with the Middlesex
electors found voice in petitions to the throne. Middlesex sent up a
manifesto, which was virtually adopted by London, accusing the ministers
of treason; Westminster prayed for a dissolution of parliament, and some
counties and boroughs followed its example, arguing that the presence of
Luttrell, who had not been duly elected, invalidated every act of the
existing parliament. London further declared itself against the court
party by electing Beckford, a prime mover in promoting the Surrey
petition, as lord mayor. The country, however, was not all on the same
side; the petitions were not, as a rule, signed by many of the larger
freeholders, and by the end of the year the movement seemed at a
stand.[81] In July Chatham appeared at court restored to health. The
king received him kindly, but must have been vexed to hear that he
disapproved of the policy of the ministers, specially with regard to the
Middlesex election. He treated Grafton with extreme coldness, and
Camden, who had sneered at him in his absence, at once followed his
lead. He allied himself with the opposition, with Temple, Grenville, and
their following, and with the Rockingham party, so far as measures were
concerned. With the Rockinghams, however, he was never wholly at one;
his violence, and habit of looking beyond parliament to the people
itself, and of seeking political strength in popular good-will,
separated him from them in feeling and methods of action. Yet his
alliance with them was never formally broken. He entered into it
because, he said, former differences should be forgotten when the
struggle was _pro aris et focis_. He was eager for the fray. Parliament,
said he, "must, it shall, be dissolved". With him as leader and with a
united opposition, backed by a large part of the nation, victory seemed
almost certain. He reckoned without the king. An ostensible minister
might be forced to resign; but the king was a permanent official, and
George was hard to beat.

[Sidenote: _CHATHAM IN OPPOSITION._]

Parliament met on January 9, 1770. It was a critical time: at home
discontent was widespread; the American colonies were disaffected; war
with France and Spain seemed not far off. The king's speech recommended
attention to American affairs and hinted at the unfriendly attitude of
foreign courts, but took no notice of domestic discontents, and gave
prominence to an outbreak of distemper among "horned cattle". The cattle
plague was a matter of serious national concern; yet the speech was
insufficient for the occasion; it was, Junius declared, the speech of "a
ruined grazier". It showed that the ministers intended to ignore the
signs of popular indignation. Chatham moved, as an amendment to the
address, that the lords would inquire into the causes of the prevailing
discontents and specially into the matter of the Middlesex election.
"The people," he said, "demand redress, and depend upon it, my lords,
that one way or other they will have redress;" and he attributed their
discontent to the action of the commons in Wilkes's case. Camden
followed, and declared that he had beheld the arbitrary acts of the
ministry with silent indignation, that he would no longer keep silence,
and was of the same opinion as Chatham. Mansfield opposed the amendment
on the ground that it infringed upon the right of the commons to be sole
judges of elections and might lead to a quarrel between the two houses.
Chatham said that he reverenced the constitutional authority of the
commons, but they had gone beyond it, they had betrayed their
constituents and violated the constitution. He ended with a declamation
exhorting the peers to act as became descendants of the barons of Magna
Charta (how many of them could trace descent from so noble a source?)
and like "those iron barons, for so," said he, "I may call them when
compared with the silken barons of modern days," to defend the rights
of the people at large. His amendment was negatived. The address was
carried in the lords by 203 to 36, and in the commons after a hot debate
by 254 to 138.

Camden's conduct was discreditable. It is true that the maxim that a
member of the cabinet should either acquiesce in the decision of the
majority or resign his seat in it, was not then universally accepted,
and that Camden had made it plain that he disapproved of the policy of
his colleagues with respect to the vote of incapacity. He had not,
however, opposed it with any show of determination. His alliance with
Chatham made it certain that he could not retain the chancellorship, yet
he would not resign it, because he could inflict a harder blow on the
ministry as a member of it than he could when out of office. Decency
demanded that he should resign before he appealed to the lords against a
decision made by the cabinet in which he sat. He was dismissed from
office on the 17th. Granby at once threw up the ordnance and the command
of the army, and Dunning, the solicitor-general, and some others also
resigned. It was difficult to find a new chancellor, for the ministry
was believed to be moribund. Grafton offered the great seal to Charles
Yorke, the second son of the famous chancellor, Hardwicke, who died in
1764. He had twice been attorney-general, and was an ambitious man. His
brother, Lord Hardwicke, and Rockingham, to whose party he had attached
himself, urged him not to accept the offer, and he declined it. On the
17th, George told him that if he did not accept the great seal then, it
should never be offered to him again. He yielded, and his brother and
Rockingham reproached him bitterly for his compliance. He was in
ill-health and his malady may well have been increased by his agitation.
In any case, he died on the 20th, perhaps by his own hand. His death
defeated Grafton's one hope of strengthening the administration; he had
no one in the cabinet on whose support he could rely except Conway; for
Weymouth and the rest constantly acted contrary to his opinions. He
resigned office on the 28th.

[Sidenote: _THE KING'S POLICY SUCCESSFUL._]

George was undaunted; he turned to the one man of eminence among his
remaining ministers and appointed North to the treasury, to be held
along with the chancellorship of the exchequer. Few changes were made in
the ministry; the great seal was put in commission, and Mansfield, who
remained in the cabinet, took the speakership of the house of lords.
Conway retired from the cabinet. Thurlow, a strong advocate of
prerogative, coarse, blunt, yet insincere, became solicitor-general, and
the other vacant places were filled. Yet these changes mark an important
epoch. During Grafton's administration the king became master of the
government, but was forced to employ unsatisfactory instruments for the
exercise of his power. Though differences of opinion still arose in the
cabinet, the ministry gained in solidarity and strength by the loss of
its dissentient members. Above all, George at last found a first
minister after his own heart. North had ability, tact, knowledge, and an
unfailing good temper; he was well educated and of high moral character.
Though ungainly in appearance and with no oratorical talent, he was
witty and formidable in debate. In intellect he was the king's superior,
but he allowed George's prejudices to override his convictions. He would
never be called prime minister. George was his own prime minister, and
he merely his manager and representative. His submission to the king at
the cost of his duty to the country did not proceed from selfish
motives; it was the result partly of personal attachment and partly of
the action of the stronger upon the weaker will. George repaid his
devotion by giving him his full confidence and constant support. North
was lazy, yet this defect added strength to the combination of king and
minister. Behind the scenes George was active and anxious, while in
parliament the weapons of indignation and sarcasm with which North was
assailed failed to pierce the impenetrable wall of his amiable
insouciance. The king's policy was triumphant. The combination between
the obedient responsible minister and the imperious irresponsible king
lasted for twelve years, during which George ruled as well as reigned.

Again, the point we have reached marks an epoch, because the rise of
modern radicalism has with fair reason been traced to the struggle over
the Middlesex election in 1769, though in accepting this judgment we
must not forget that the radicalism of 1819 was affected by events of
later dates. In 1769, however, as in 1819, the representatives of the
people were opposed to the will of the people. Where was sovereignty to
reside? In the nation as represented in parliament, or in the nation
external to it? When this question arises it can only be set at rest by
making parliament truly representative of the nation. Accordingly
popular discontent in 1769 was not merely directed against ministers and
measures, it demanded radical changes in the constitutional machinery,
and its demands were expressed by means which, though not
unconstitutional, were not recognised by the constitution, such as
public meetings and associations. Meetings to express discontent and
urge reforms were constantly held, and an association for promoting the
popular demands, called the Bill of Rights Society, was formed by a
clerical demagogue named Horne (afterwards Horne Tooke), Wilkes, Glynn,
and others. Among the changes which they demanded as remedies for the
unsatisfactory state of the representation were annual parliaments, the
exaction of an oath against bribery, and the exclusion from parliament
of holders of places and pensions. At this time, too, constituencies
began to assert a right to control their representatives by sending them
instructions as to their conduct in parliament.

[Sidenote: _CHATHAM AND BURKE AS REFORMERS._]

The movement found support in parliament. A few of the minority were
among its leaders; and others, though not disposed to go so far,
maintained the necessity for constitutional reforms. Whig tactics were
changed since the beginning of the reign. Beaten by the king and his
friends at the game of corruption, the whigs had become the advocates of
purity of election. The fact need not reflect on personal characters.
Some of the whigs of 1769 were consistent in their opposition to
corruption. As regards others, it must be remembered that abuses seldom
shock a man who gains by them; they become intolerable if they are
turned against him. Chatham himself once sat for Old Sarum, was elected
for Seaford apparently through bribery, and as minister was content that
Newcastle should gain him support by corruption. Chief among the abuses
which prevented the house of commons from representing the people were
the defects in its constitution. While the elections in counties and
some large boroughs were comparatively pure, the representation of the
smaller boroughs was a matter of nomination or corruption. Out of the
513 members for England and Wales, 254 sat for constituencies which,
taken together, numbered only 11,500 voters, and fifty-six boroughs had
each less than forty voters. Forty-four members sat for Cornish seats;
Middlesex, London and Westminster together only returned eight. Chatham
at one time seemed to think that the corrupt boroughs might be got rid
of, but finally feared that such a change would cause a "public
convulsion," and proposed to counteract their effects by adding one
member to each of the county constituencies. After much hesitation he
also advocated a return to triennial parliaments.

Burke, on the other hand, and the Rockingham party generally were
opposed to any change in the constitutional machinery. The constitution
was altogether admirable in Burke's eyes; all that was wanted was the
removal of abuses, which hindered it from working well. Shorter
parliaments would, he argued, only lead to more frequent disorders and
increase the opportunities for corruption; he would have no change in
the system of representation, and held that a place bill would lower the
character of parliament by excluding from it many men of wealth, weight,
and talent. He strongly objected to the growing custom of sending
instructions to members, pointing out that members of parliament should
not be regarded as mere local delegates, but as representatives of the
nation, chosen by various constituent bodies. While he was opposed to
changes in the constitution, he laboured to bring parliament into a
sound state by reforms which allowed the publication of its proceedings,
improved the system of deciding the lawfulness of elections, and checked
the multiplication of places and pensions, as well as by other measures
of a like tendency. The opposition then differed amongst themselves:
Chatham and his followers held that some organic changes in the
constitution were necessary, and more or less sympathised with what
(though the name was not yet invented) may be called the radical party;
Burke and those under his influence railed at the bill of rights men,
deprecated organic changes, and advocated conservative reforms.

FOOTNOTES:

[76] Lord E. Fitzmaurice, _Life of Shelburne_, ii., 31-37.

[77] James Grenville to Lady Chatham, Feb. 23, 1767, MS. Pitt Papers,
35.

[78] _Chatham Corr._, iii., 21, 134, 229-30.

[79] Burke's speeches on Jan. 9 and May 8, 1770, _Parl. Hist._, xvii.,
674, 1004-5.

[80] The ablest advocacy of the Franciscan authorship is in Sir L.
Stephen's article on "Francis" in the _Dictionary of National
Biography_; see also _English Historical Review_, iii. (1888), 233 _sq._
A claim is advanced for Temple in the _Grenville Papers_, iii.; his
co-operation is suggested by Sir W. Anson, _Grafton Memoirs_, Introd.
xxxi.-xxxiii. It may be noted that Temple's letters in the Pitt Papers
show that he had a peculiarly coarse mind.

[81] _Annual Register_, xiii. (1770), 58.




                               CHAPTER VI.

                            THE KING'S RULE.


It was generally thought that North's administration would be
short-lived. The opposition was strong and apparently united, and it had
a large part of the people at its back. The public expectation was
ill-grounded. The king's influence in parliament was not to be
overborne; as many as 192 members of the house of commons held office
under government.[82] North was a first-rate leader and the king was
industrious and determined. Yet the strength of the ministry was largely
derived from the conduct of their opponents. The violence of the extreme
section of the popular party led to a revulsion of feeling in the
country. In parliament Chatham was not effective, for his declamatory
speeches and dictatorial manner were out of place in the lords; and in
the commons Burke was apt to weary the house, and lost ground through
constant breaches of good taste. Above all, the two parties in the
opposition, the extreme section, with which Chatham had much sympathy,
and the Rockingham whigs, did not work well together. In the spring of
1770 Burke published his _Thoughts on the Causes of the Present
Discontents_, a masterly exposition of the existing political abuses and
of the remedies appropriate to them. Its rejection of proposals for
organic changes in the constitution annoyed Chatham, who declared that
it had done much harm to the cause. He was soon irritated with the whigs
generally. "Moderation, moderation," said he, "is the burthen of their
song;" he would be "a scarecrow of violence to the gentle warblers of
the grove, the moderate whigs and temperate statesmen". He tried to
force the whigs to follow his lead, but Rockingham had no mind to court
Chatham's loud-voiced supporters in the city, or to adopt violent
measures in order to assure the people that he was true to their cause.
Chatham thought it possible that it might be expedient to separate
himself from "so unorthodox a congregation" as the whig party, and
accused Burke and the Rockinghams of a spirit of connexion. So bitter
were his feelings, that he and his friends rejoiced when Dowdeswell and
Burke, "those positive gentlemen," were defeated in an attempt to
vindicate the rights of juries, because they adopted a method of
procedure of which he did not approve; they were, his friend Calcraft
wrote to him, "completely disgraced," and Chatham styled their bill "a
compound of connexion, tyranny and absurdity".[83] While the opposition
was in this distracted state the ministerial party was united. In three
years' time at most opposition in parliament was practically dead, and
the ministry was thoroughly popular in the country.[84]

[Sidenote: _A DIVIDED OPPOSITION._]

During the remainder of the session of 1769-70 the opposition made a
good fight. In the lords Chatham and Rockingham co-operated in attempts
to persuade the house to condemn the action of the commons with
reference to the Middlesex election, and in debates on American affairs;
but Rockingham refused to join in moving an address to the king to
dissolve parliament. Chatham's motion was avowedly made in order to
stimulate popularity out of doors, and Rockingham, who disliked his
demagogic arts, thought it uncalled for and refused "to be sworn every
day to keep his word" to the people. Chatham persevered, and the motion
received little support. In the commons George Grenville, Dowdeswell,
who as Grenville's health declined became virtually leader of the
opposition, Burke, Barré, Wedderburn, an able and ambitious Scottish
lawyer, and others, aided by the extreme section of which Beckford and
Alderman Sawbridge were conspicuous members, caused the ministry much
trouble. North was the chief speaker on the ministerial side. The court
party, or king's friends, so far as they may in any degree be regarded
as distinct from the rest of his supporters, seem to have been headed by
Rigby, who since 1768 had lived in luxury on the vast profits of the
paymaster's office. Dowdeswell's motion that in matters of election the
house is bound to judge according to the law of the land was so
threatening an attack that North met it by tacking to it an amendment to
the effect that the declaration of Wilkes's incapacity was agreeable to
that law, and the minority reached 180 against 244. The king, anxiously
watching all that passed in parliament, felt that even this majority was
satisfactory. "A little spirit," he wrote to North, "will soon restore
order in my service."

The opposition were encouraged, and proceeded to attack two of the
sources from which the crown derived its influence. As the expenses of
the customs, amounting to nearly £600,000 a year, gave ministers a large
amount of patronage which was used for political purposes, Dowdeswell
proposed to disqualify the inferior revenue officers from voting at
elections. Again, Grenville urged that parliament had paid the debts of
the civil list without receiving any assurance that further demands of
the same kind would not be made upon the country, and moved for the
accounts of the past year as the only means of preventing the revenues
of the crown from being spent on corruption. On both these motions the
ministerial majority was substantially larger than on the Middlesex
question. Nevertheless, the opposition succeeded in carrying one measure
which removed an abuse of the representative system and raised the
character of the house of commons. The custom, which had lately become
usual, of trying the validity of controverted elections by the whole
house, and determining it by vote, placed the rights of electors in the
hands of the minister who commanded a majority. During the hearing of an
election petition the house would be thin, for the evidence was of
little consequence; the decision was a trial of strength between
political parties, each side would muster its full force, and a seat
would be secured or taken away merely in order to swell a triumphant
majority. Grenville proposed to transfer the right of hearing and
determining these cases from the whole house to a committee of fifteen
members, thirteen of whom were to be chosen by ballot, and the other two
nominated by the two candidates. The fifteen were to be sworn to decide
impartially, and to have power to examine witnesses on oath. An effort
to postpone the bill, though supported by North, was defeated by 185 to
123, the country gentlemen on this occasion voting with the opposition;
the bill was carried, passed the lords, and became law on April 12. The
measure reflects lustre on the memory of Grenville, who devised it and
carried it through when suffering from mortal sickness. The act, which
was limited in committee to seven years, was found so useful that it was
made perpetual in 1774.

[Sidenote: _THE "BOSTON MASSACRE"._]

The decision to abandon all the new duties levied in America, except
that on tea, was brought before the house of commons by North on March
6, 1770. The idea of making the Americans pay for their own defence was
dropped, and the tax, which brought in only a trifling sum, was to be
maintained as an assertion of right. Grenville pointed out that a
partial repeal would not conciliate the colonists, that the troubles in
America had been caused by vacillation, and that what was wanted was a
plan of government steadily pursued and enforced. The opposition desired
complete repeal, and the ministerial majority was only 62. On the
evening before this debate an event took place at Boston which
strengthened the spirit of resistance. The cowardly insults to which the
soldiers were exposed after the reduction of their number led to various
scuffles; but their discipline prevented them from effectually
retaliating on their persecutors, and baiting the soldiers became a
popular pastime. On the evening of the 5th Captain Preston of the 29th
regiment and about a dozen soldiers went to the rescue of a sentinel who
was being ill-treated by the mob. After some provocation his men fired
without orders, three of the mob were killed on the spot, two others
were mortally and several more slightly wounded. The next day the
townspeople, led by Samuel Adams, insisted on the removal of the troops.
Hutchinson yielded to their demand, and both regiments were withdrawn to
Castle William. Preston and his men were brought to trial, and were
treated with remarkable fairness. All were acquitted except two
soldiers, who were slightly punished. The decision of parliament with
reference to the new duties reached the colonies when the temper of the
people was excited by this untoward event, the "Boston massacre" as it
was called, and was regarded rather as a partial acknowledgment of
defeat than as an attempt at conciliation. Disputes, however, arose over
the non-importation agreements. Self-interest proved stronger than
political feeling: the agreements were constantly broken; indeed, the
imports to New England and Pennsylvania increased to one-half more than
their usual amount. In October the agreements were everywhere definitely
abandoned, and new agreements were made against the importation of tea
only. With that exception, commerce with England again revived.

Outside parliament a strong party in the city, led by Beckford and
supported by Chatham, was clamorous against the government. In spite of
the disapproval of nearly all the aldermen, Beckford held a meeting of
the livery to complain that the petition of the city with reference to
the Middlesex election had not been answered. The meeting adopted an
arrogantly worded remonstrance to the king, declaring that "a secret and
malign influence" deprived the people of their dearest rights, and
desiring the dissolution of parliament and the removal of evil
ministers. In accordance with a prescriptive right, this remonstrance
was received by the king in person on March 14. George replied to it
with a severe rebuke; the remonstrance was, he said, disrespectful to
himself, injurious to his parliament, and irreconcilable with the
principles of the constitution. The court party was much excited, and at
the Cocoa-tree Tavern, the meeting-place or club of the supporters of
the ministry, talked loudly of impeachments. North wisely held them
back.[85] The house of commons could not allow the insult to itself to
pass unnoticed, and a copy of the remonstrance was moved for. Beckford
and his friends in the house defended it, and Burke passionately urged
the folly and injustice of quarrelling with the city for exercising the
right of petition and remonstrance. North calmed down the heat of the
debate, and pointed out the unconstitutional character of the
remonstrance, which virtually denied the authority of the existing
parliament. The motion was carried, and further debates took place. The
whigs, though firm in asserting the right of petition, disliked the tone
that had been adopted by the city, and an address to the king condemning
the remonstrance was carried by 248 to 94. Chatham was furious. With his
warm approval a remonstrance to the king was sent from Westminster, and
Middlesex and Kent followed suit; but Rockingham's refusal to support
his motion in favour of a dissolution plainly showed him that he could
not force the whigs to adopt violent measures.

[Sidenote: _THE KING AND THE CITY OF LONDON._]

The city would not endure the king's rebuke in silence, and another
remonstrance was adopted to the same effect as the former, though it
addressed the king in more dutiful language. George received it on May
23, and replied that his sentiments on the subject of the first address
were unchanged. As soon as he ceased speaking, Beckford made a harangue
to which the king returned no answer. The words attributed to Beckford,
and afterwards inscribed in gilt letters in the Guildhall, were that
whoever alienated the king's mind from his people in general and the
city of London in particular was his majesty's enemy and "a betrayer of
our happy constitution as it was established at the glorious and
necessary revolution". Brave words which, as there is reason to believe,
were invented for him and never spoken.[86] Beckford's friends believed
that he had got the better of the king, and Chatham in a grandiose
letter to him declared that "the spirit of old England spoke that
never-to-be-forgotten day". Nevertheless, Beckford's conduct was highly
indecorous. The sovereign never performs a public act on his own
responsibility, and accordingly all addresses on public affairs which
are to be answered in person are sent beforehand to the proper officer
that the king may receive the advice of his ministers as to his reply.
Beckford tried to entrap the king into entering into a personal
altercation and replying without consultation with his constitutional
advisers. George, who in public never fell short of his kingly part,
defeated his purpose by silence and afterwards ordered that his
unexpected speech was not to be looked upon as precedent.

He prorogued parliament a few days before this incident. For some months
his mind had been tried severely. His power, which he loved so well and
conscientiously believed himself bound to maintain, was at stake in the
political conflict. His letters to North prove how eagerly and anxiously
he watched the progress of that conflict in which he was really, though
not ostensibly, engaged in person. If Chatham and the city had succeeded
in forcing him to dissolve parliament on the ground that its authority
was vitiated by the nomination of Luttrell as a member for Middlesex, he
would have suffered a defeat which even his dogged perseverance would
have failed to retrieve. Rather than that, "I will," he said to Conway,
"have recourse to this," and he laid his hand on his sword. The
opposition had a good cause, but, as we have seen, they played their
part badly. Among the reasons of their failure a conspicuous place must
be assigned to the displeasure excited by the attacks made on the king
by the more violent section, the vile letter of Junius, the rudeness of
the city, and the like. The constant references which were made to some
secret influence, presumably that of his mother or Bute, which was
supposed to guide him were as foolish as they were rude, for George's
policy was his own. His anxieties and troubles were almost more than he
could bear. "At the [royal] gardening (_sic_) party" on June 2 he burst
into tears and talked somewhat strangely; he had, it was believed, "for
some time been much agitated and lived (as usual when he is so) on
vegetables and fruit".[87] The symptoms happily passed away. He had,
indeed, cause for cheerfulness, for the ministry was in a far stronger
position at the end of the session than when North took office.

[Sidenote: _SPAIN AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS._]

The next session began early, on November 13, for a war with Spain
seemed imminent. Choiseul was anxious to make the Family Compact the
means of humbling England and of regaining for France the territories
she had lost. He patiently built up a new navy, until France had afloat
sixty-four ships of the line and fifty frigates; and he organised the
naval artillery. Grimaldi, the foreign minister of Spain, shared his
hopes and followed his example; the Spanish navy was increased, and the
dockyards well stocked, though as usual the seamen were few. For some
time both powers showed an inclination to treat England with contempt;
they believed her to be enfeebled by domestic discord, and her conduct
with reference to the Manila ransom, the annexation of Corsica, and some
other matters, strengthened this opinion. In 1770 the ministers of the
two Bourbon courts went a step too far. The Falkland islands, to the
east of the straits of Magellan, though in reality only fit for
sheep-farming, were generally believed to be fertile. Acting on this
belief, France took possession of the eastern island in 1764, and
shortly afterwards handed it over to Spain. Meanwhile, in 1765, England
took possession of the western island and formed a settlement on it,
which was named Port Egmont, after the first lord of the admiralty. In
November, 1769, Captain Hunt of the _Tamar_, sloop of war, observed a
Spanish schooner hovering off this settlement and warned her to depart.
The Spanish captain asserted that the island belonged to his master, and
two Spanish frigates arrived soon afterwards and repeated the claim.
Hunt gave them a decided answer, and as it was agreed that both parties
should refer the claim of right to their governments, sailed for England
leaving a small garrison in Port Egmont. During his absence Buccarelli,
the governor of Buenos Ayres, took forcible possession of the island,
and, in order to ensure being the first to send the news to Spain, had
the impudence to remove the rudder of a British ship of war, and
detained her for twenty days.

Harris, afterwards first Earl of Malmesbury, the British _chargé
d'affaires_ at Madrid, at once made a suitable remonstrance, but, as
Grimaldi expected support from France, received no satisfaction. The
British government, which had not bestirred itself on receiving Hunt's
report in June, at once prepared for war, and the king's speech declared
that proper reparation would be required. The navy in that year numbered
337 ships, only forty-two less than in 1763, of which three were
first-rates, fifteen second-rates, and 100 third-rates, besides
forty-four sloops.[88] Some of these, however, were thoroughly rotten,
and many more in bad repair, and the dockyards were short of seasoned
timber. For some years the navy had been neglected, and, though the
votes for the service had been large, much money had been eaten up by
abuses. Hawke, however, had done something in breaking-up worn-out
vessels, repairing, and building. Forty ships of the line besides
frigates were soon nearly ready for sea. There was some difficulty in
manning them, for the peace establishment was only 16,000 men. North
said that 9,000 additional seamen were wanted at once, and raised the
land tax to four shillings. Bounties were offered and press-gangs were
busy. The new lord mayor, Trecothick, one of the violent party in the
city, refused to sign the press-warrants. Chatham praised his
"firmness," but disapproved his action, for impressment was, he said,
constitutional and in times of emergency necessary. Grimaldi looked to
France in vain. Louis, who was then under the influence of Madame du
Barri, was determined not to go to war; "my minister," he wrote to
Charles of Spain, "would have war, but I will not". Choiseul was
dismissed in disgrace, and was succeeded by the Duc d'Aiguillon. Spain
had no choice but to yield to the demands of Great Britain, and on
January 22, 1771, disowned Buccarelli's action, and agreed to deliver up
Port Egmont as it was before it was seized. Throughout the whole
progress of the affair the opposition attacked the government, alleging
that it was careless of the honour of England, had exhibited a lack of
promptitude, and had made a secret agreement with Spain to abandon the
island; they even insinuated that the minister had truckled to France in
order to prevent her from taking part with Spain. Their attacks were
factious. The government had no desire to rush needlessly into war, but
it acted with vigour and decision, and carried the matter through with a
sufficiently high hand. The islands were soon afterwards deserted as
unprofitable, but the British right to them was not abandoned.

The dispute with Spain caused a temporary increase in the manning of the
navy, and in 1771 the number mustered was 25,836. Though the condition
of the navy was unsatisfactory, the sea-power of Great Britain was an
important factor in European politics. With regard to them the guiding
principle of England was the maintenance of a good understanding with
Russia. Commercially this was of first-rate importance, while
politically it counterbalanced the alliance of the Bourbon courts.
During the war between Catherine of Russia and the Turks which began in
1769, Russia owed much to the good-will of England; a Russian fleet was
allowed to refit at Spithead and soldiers to land for refreshment, an
English admiral and other officers were employed by the empress, and one
of her ships of war was docked and altered at Portsmouth. A Russian
fleet for the first time appeared in the Levant and inflicted a severe
defeat on the Turks. France was anxious to interfere on the side of the
Turks, but was held back by the declaration that the appearance of
French ships in the Archipelago would bring British ships thither also.
A revolution effected in Sweden by Gustavus III. in 1772 opened the way
for the increase of French influence in that kingdom. This displeased
Russia, and D'Aiguillon made naval preparations for the defence of
Sweden against any attack from Russia and Denmark. Lord Stormont, the
nephew and afterwards successor of the Earl of Mansfield, who was then
ambassador at Paris, insisted that if a French fleet sailed for the
Baltic, so too would a British fleet. The government was ready to
support his words. In view of the increasing signs of the desire of
France to push her interests in Europe, North in December, 1772,
obtained a vote for 20,000 men for the navy. In the end France
discontinued her preparations. Her attitude was closely connected with
the arrangement by which, in 1772, Austria, Russia, and Prussia divided
a large part of Poland between themselves. This act of spoliation, the
first partition of Poland, drew forth no remonstrance from England; in
itself it did not concern us, and its effect on the balance of power in
Europe was regarded with complacency as lowering to France and as an
aggrandisement of powers which would act as a counterpoise to the
Bourbon alliance.

[Sidenote: _MINISTERIAL CHANGES._]

During the winter of 1770-71 some changes took place in the ministry.
Weymouth, finding himself unequal to meet the Spanish crisis, resigned
the seals, and Rochford took the southern and Halifax the northern
department. Hawke was succeeded at the admiralty by Sandwich, who worked
hard, though he appears to have applied his industry and abilities too
largely to personal arrangements. Bathurst, an insignificant person,
became lord chancellor, Thurlow attorney-general, and Wedderburn,
hitherto a bitter opponent of the ministry, solicitor-general; he ratted
disgracefully, and was perhaps insincere from the first. Determined to
attain the chancellorship, he may have intended to force North to give
him office, by showing himself dangerous in opposition. George Grenville
died in November, 1770, and several of his friends, headed by the Earl
of Suffolk, a man of small ability, went over to the ministerial side.
Suffolk was made privy seal and, on the death of Halifax in the
following June, became secretary of state. He was succeeded as privy
seal by Grafton, who, in accepting the office, showed his lack of
confidence in his colleagues by stipulating that he should not be
summoned to cabinet meetings. Besides the serious blow which the
opposition at large sustained in the death of Grenville, Beckford's
death, soon after his egregious performance at St. James's, deprived
Chatham of an eager follower and the city party of its leader. Later in
the year, too, died Granby, who a few months before repented of the
support he had given to the ministry and had joined the opposition.

The violent language employed by the newspapers on the opposition side
laid them open to reprisals. Constant resort to indictments by the
attorney-general, and the exception of seditious libels from privilege
of parliament, indicate the desire of the king's party to treat press
offences in a special way. They were gratified by a ruling of
Chief-justice Mansfield in the case of Almon, a bookseller, who was
tried on an _ex officio_ indictment for selling Junius's _Letter to the
King_. Mansfield laid down that in cases of libel the jury could only
deal with the facts of printing and publishing; it belonged to the judge
to decide the character of the statement. This was not a new doctrine;
it had been declared and acted upon by many earlier judges. The
newspaper press, however, had by this time become important, and
Mansfield's ruling infringed on the liberties of those engaged upon it,
for, while that was the law, a man after being indicted by the
attorney-general, who held office by, and at the pleasure of the crown,
was deprived of his right to be judged by his peers on the substantial
point at issue. Indignant juries refused to convict in libel cases, and
Mansfield's ruling was attacked by the opposition in parliament. Chatham
and Camden denied its legality. In the commons, though a proposal to
abolish _ex officio_ informations received little support, a motion for
a committee of inquiry into the rights of juries was only defeated by
184 to 176. Dowdeswell and Burke believed that the question of law was
likely to hinder a satisfactory settlement, and in March, 1771,
Dowdeswell moved for an act to give juries the powers denied to them. A
section of the opposition, however, held with Chatham and Camden that
the matter should be settled by a bill declaring that the law gave them
these powers. They would not support the motion, which was lost by an
overwhelming majority; and Mansfield's ruling was received as law until
1792.

[Sidenote: _HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE PRINTERS._]

Another matter connected with the press engaged the house of commons for
the most part of the remainder of the session of 1771. Parliament, as
we have seen, was so constituted that occasions might and did arise on
which the will of the people was not fairly represented. This
constitutional difficulty was increased by the secrecy in which
parliament shrouded its proceedings. Once useful as a means of securing
freedom of debate, this secrecy was maintained as a matter of privilege
after it had become useless and, indeed, pernicious. It was carried to
an extreme point by the present parliament, the "unreported parliament"
as it was called. Strangers were constantly made to withdraw from both
houses, specially when a popular member of the opposition rose to speak.
This caused a silly quarrel between the two houses in 1770, and either
shut its doors against the members of the other. The publication of
reports, forbidden by a standing order of 1762, had for some time been
carried on under various disguises, and the reports, which were founded
on scanty information, were often unfair and scurrilous. In February,
1771, Colonel Onslow complained of two newspapers which misrepresented
his conduct in the house, and held him up to contempt by describing him
as "little cocking George". Disregarding a warning from Burke as to the
folly of entering into a quarrel with the press and attempting to keep
its proceedings from the public, the house ordered the printers, Wheble
and Thompson, to attend at the bar. The serjeant-at-arms failed to find
them, and was jeered at by their workmen. A proclamation was then issued
for their arrest. While this affair was pending several newspapers
commented on the proceedings of the house, and attacked various members,
and specially Onslow, describing him as "a paltry insignificant insect"
and so on. On March 12 he moved to proceed against six other printers.
The opposition, led by Dowdeswell, Burke, and Barré, made a determined
stand. They divided the house twenty-three times, and it sat till 5 A.M.
"Posterity," said Burke, "will bless the pertinaciousness of that day."
Onslow's motion was carried; some of the printers were reprimanded, one,
Miller, refused to attend.

The city reformers seized the opportunity of renewing their quarrel with
the house. Wheble and Thompson were collusively arrested and were
discharged, Wheble by alderman Wilkes and Thompson by alderman Oliver,
as not being accused of any crime. Worse was to come. Miller was
arrested by a messenger of the house, and gave the messenger in charge
for assaulting him. Both were brought before Brass Crosby, the lord
mayor, Wilkes, and Oliver; Miller was discharged, the messenger held to
bail. The house ordered Crosby and Oliver, who were both members of it,
to attend in their places, and Wilkes, who was at the bottom of the
affair, at the bar. Wilkes refused to attend unless as member for
Middlesex, and the house, with more discretion than valour, shrank from
another conflict with him. The king, who was deeply interested in the
quarrel, approved; he would, he said, "have nothing more to do with that
devil Wilkes". Crosby and Oliver defended their conduct, and were
committed to the Tower. During the proceedings an angry crowd
interrupted the business of the house, pelted several members, roughly
handled North and Charles Fox, who was conspicuous as a defender of
privilege, and broke their carriages. The lord mayor and Oliver were
visited in the Tower by Rockingham, Burke, and other members of the
opposition. On their release, at the end of the session, on May 8, they
were saluted by the cannon of the artillery company and by vociferous
applause, and the city was illuminated. Proceedings against the
messenger were stopped by the attorney-general. Though the house was
victorious, its dignity suffered so greatly in the conflict that it
forbore to follow up its victory. Burke's words proved true; for though
the publication of debates was still held to be a breach of privilege,
no further attempt was made to punish it. Soon after this dispute with
the house of commons the city reformers quarrelled amongst themselves,
and the party was split up.

[Sidenote: _THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT._]

Though political disputes dulled the interest excited by theological
questions in the earlier half of the century, the house of commons was
invited on February 6, 1772, to abolish the subscription to the
Thirty-nine Articles which was demanded of all clergymen and of all
students matriculating at Oxford and Cambridge. The movement was
connected with a tendency towards unitarianism, which, besides
attracting many dissenters, exercised an influence within the Church.
Some churchmen seceded; others, less decided, sought to be relieved of
an unwelcome obligation. An association which met at the Feathers
Tavern, in the Strand, sent a petition to the house signed by about two
hundred and fifty men, clergy, doctors, and lawyers, praying to be
relieved of subscription. The king was hostile to the petition, and
North opposed it in moderate terms. Burke spoke against it with
remarkable ability, pointing out that a standard of faith was necessary
to insure order in the Church, and that subscription to the Bible would
not, as the petitioners maintained, afford any criterion of belief. The
petition was rejected by a large majority, though several members on
both sides expressed a dislike to requiring subscription at the
universities from youths who were not of an age to judge of such
matters. The house, though it refused to allow clergymen to evade the
formularies of their Church, was not averse from toleration. A bill to
relieve dissenting ministers and teachers from subscription to certain
of the articles, which was indeed rarely exacted, was carried in the
commons with little opposition, but the king and the bishops were
strongly opposed to it; the royal influence was used against it in the
house of lords, which threw out the bill both in 1772 and 1773, and it
did not become law until six years later.

The opposition was moribund. An annual motion was made for shortening
the duration of parliaments; but it attracted little attention, and
other questions which had lately agitated men's minds fell equally out
of date. A momentary revival of political excitement was caused by a
bill which affected the king personally. George had family troubles. His
sister Caroline, Queen of Denmark, was accused of adultery and
imprisoned; she was allowed to retire to Hanover, and remained there
until her death. Soon after hearing of her daughter's disgrace the
king's mother died of cancer. She had long ceased to have any political
influence and was eminently charitable, yet the sufferings of her last
days were exulted over by scribblers opposed to the court, and her
funeral was hailed with the cheers of the city mob. About the same time
one of George's brothers, the Duke of Cumberland, after disgracing him
by his flagrant immorality, married Mrs. Horton, the widowed daughter of
Lord Irnham, and sister of Luttrell, the Middlesex member; and the
private marriage of another brother, the Duke of Gloucester, to the
widow of Lord Waldegrave, a bastard daughter of Horace Walpole's
brother, was publicly announced. George was deeply annoyed by these
marriages and forbade the offenders to appear at court. At his wish the
royal marriage bill was laid before parliament. By this act no
descendant of George II. under the age of twenty-six can enter into a
valid marriage without the sovereign's consent; nor above that age,
should the sovereign's consent be withheld, except by giving a year's
notice to the privy council, so that parliament may, if it chooses,
forbid the marriage. The doctrine implied in this act, that the whole
royal family forms a class apart from the rest of the nation, was
foreign to English ideas and smacked rather of German than English
royalty. Yet, whatever the effects of the act may have been on those
most nearly concerned, they have been beneficial to the nation.

The bill excited much disapproval and was vigorously opposed in
parliament. In the commons the preamble, which acknowledged the
prerogative asserted by the crown, was passed only by a majority of
thirty-six, and the bill was finally carried by 165 to 115. Among its
opponents were Burke and Charles Fox, by that time a power in the house.
No man probably has ever enjoyed greater popularity than Fox. His
disposition was amiable and generous, his good nature inexhaustible, his
heart full of warm and humane feelings. As a mere lad he had been
initiated into vice by his father's folly; he drank, lived loosely,
dressed extravagantly, and was an inveterate and most unlucky gambler;
his losses were indeed too constant to be wholly due to ill-luck. At
twenty-five he owed £140,000, which his father paid for him. He was a
keen sportsman, and he cared for higher things than sport. He was
accomplished, a lover of learning and art, and found unfailing pleasure
in the masterpieces of Greek, Latin, English, French, Italian, and, in
later days, Spanish literature. In parliament he had hitherto opposed
all popular measures, sometimes with insolent flippancy. He was
appointed a lord of the admiralty in 1770. He gradually came under
Burke's influence and showed signs of remarkable talents in debate. His
speeches were unprepared, his statement of a case was often made
confusedly, but he was splendid in reply. His career as a statesman was
marred, like his private character, by an utter lack of principle. His
opposition to the royal marriage bill seems to have been a matter of
private feeling. His father had united the plebeian family of Fox with a
house descended from a royal bastard by a runaway marriage with Lady
Caroline Lennox; and Charles was hot against a bill which annulled a
marriage made without legal consent, and must have derived special
satisfaction in opposing the wish to preserve the royal family from
derogatory marriages on the part of the faithless lover of his favourite
aunt, Lady Sarah. He resigned office, but re-entered the ministry the
following December.

[Sidenote: _NORTH'S REGULATING ACT._]

The strength of the ministry caused a stagnation in matters of domestic
policy, and parliament turned its attention towards a settlement of the
government of India. In 1772 the East India Company was on the verge of
bankruptcy, owing chiefly to expensive wars, large pensions to native
rulers, and the greed of the proprietors. The successes of Haidar in the
Karnatic and the famine in Bengal sent down the price of stock, as we
have seen, 60 per cent. The company applied to government for a loan of
at least £1,000,000. North, with statesmanlike decision, seized the
opportunity of asserting the right of the crown to the territorial
revenue and of placing the government under the control of its
ministers. The king upheld his policy. Select and secret committees were
appointed by the commons to inquire into the condition of the company
and of the British affairs in India. Acting on the recommendation of the
secret committee, North foiled an attempt of the company to keep its
affairs in its own hands by carrying a bill to restrain it from
appointing supervisors in India. Burke violently opposed this and every
step by which the territorial power of the company was brought into
subjection to parliament. It was, indeed, with some justice that he
urged that the violation of the royal charter held by the company was a
dangerous precedent, that the claim to the territorial revenue was
arbitrary, and that parliament had increased the company's distress by
extorting from it the payment of £400,000 a year, and had done nothing
for it in return. The case for the company was supported in both houses
by the Rockingham party generally.

North was supreme in both houses, and, in June 1773, carried his
regulating bill. The company received from government a loan of
£1,400,000 at 4 per cent., its annual payment of £400,000 was remitted
until the loan was repaid; its future dividends were restricted in
amount, and its authority in accepting bills from India curtailed; it
was to submit its accounts to the treasury, and to export British goods
to a certain yearly value. In order to assist the company which had a
large stock of tea on hand, it was agreed that it might export this tea
direct and duty free to America, a decision which proved of momentous
import. A court of supreme jurisdiction was created, consisting of a
chief justice and three puisne judges, appointed by the crown and with
fixed salaries. The governor of Bengal was made governor-general of
British India and was to act with a council of four. The first
governor-general, Warren Hastings, then governor of Bengal, and his
council were appointed by the act; their successors were to be appointed
by the directors and approved by the crown. All military and civil
matters which came before the directors were to be submitted to the
crown. No officer of the crown or of the company was to accept any
presents. The act transferred the government of India from a trading
company to the crown. Constitutionally, its weakest point was the
appointment of executive officers in parliament; for all officers should
be appointed by the crown, and its action should be subject to
parliamentary check. As regards the arrangement of government, the act
should have defined the relations between the supreme court and the
council, and between the governor-general, the directors, and the crown,
and should not have left the governor-general in a position to be
overruled by his council.

During the debates on these measures the publication of the report of
the select committee excited public feeling against the "nabobs," and
specially against Clive, and a parliamentary inquiry was held into his
conduct. Before the select committee he admitted and defended the deceit
which he had practised on Omichand in 1757, and declared that he was
justified in accepting enormous sums from Mír Jafar. They were as
nothing compared to what he might have had; "Mr. Chairman," said he, "at
this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation". Resolutions
condemning his conduct were moved by Burgoyne. He defended himself with
force and dignity. Finally, after many debates, the house voted that he
had through the power entrusted to him possessed himself of £234,000,
refused to vote that he had abused his power, and voted instead that "he
did at the same time render great and meritorious services to this
country". The matter was not made a party question, and the decision was
worthy of the assembly which pronounced it. The king, while fully
acknowledging Clive's services, thought him guilty of "rapine," and
disapproved of his virtual acquittal. Thurlow attacked, Wedderburn
zealously defended him. The court party voted different ways. Physical
suffering together with the strain of these proceedings affected Clive's
mind, and he died by his own hand on November 22, 1774.

[Sidenote: _THE KING'S POLITICAL PREDOMINANCE._]

In 1773 the king's political predominance was firmly established. His
will was law to his ministers, and they commanded overwhelming
majorities in both houses of parliament. The country was satisfied that
it should be so, for the quarrel between the people and parliament had
died out. It was a time of political apathy. The balance of power, which
during Walpole's administration had shifted from the lords to the
commons, was shifting from parliament to the crown. The house of commons
was losing its spirit of independence, and the control which it should
have exercised on the executive was endangered by the growth of the
king's personal authority. So long as George ruled the country
successfully this danger was likely to increase. He had so skilfully
strengthened his position that he had triumphed over domestic agitation.
The just working of the constitution was finally restored through
national calamity. American discontents were to lead to a revolt which
the enemies of England used as an opportunity for attacking her. Their
attacks were formidable in themselves, and had the humiliating result of
forcing Great Britain to give up the struggle with her revolted colonies
and acknowledge their independence. George had chosen to be his own
prime minister, and his policy was to suffer defeat. A period of storm
was ahead, and as the ship of state passed through it, the king's
personal rule, and much else besides, went overboard. All this was still
far off. From 1770 to 1774 the affairs of the American colonies excited
little attention in England, though, as we shall see in the next
chapter, they were tending towards open revolt.

FOOTNOTES:

[82] _Annual Register_, xiii. (1770), 72.

[83] _Life of Shelburne_, ii., 221; Calcraft to Chatham, March 8, 1771,
MS. Pitt Papers, 25.

[84] _Speeches of Barré_, March 23, and Burke, April 6, 1773, _Parl.
Hist._, xvii., 826, 836.

[85] Calcraft to Chatham, March 12, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.

[86] _Letters of H. Walpole_, v., 238-39 _n._; Mitford, _Gray and Mason
Correspondence_, pp. 438-39; Stephens, _Memoirs of J. H. Tooke_, i.,
157.

[87] Calcraft to Chatham, June 10, 1770, MS. Pitt Papers, 25.

[88] The State of the Navy, MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, R.O.




                               CHAPTER VII.

                        THE QUARREL WITH AMERICA.


The failure of the non-importation agreements in 1770 led Englishmen to
expect a peaceable end to the quarrel with America, and the colonists
were for the most part inclined to let it die out. Samuel Adams had no
such inclination, and did all in his power to fan the smouldering embers
of strife. For some time longer he and his friends professed loyalty,
but he at least was consciously working for separation. A rising in
North Carolina, called the regulators' war, because the insurgents
claimed to regulate their own police affairs, was smartly quelled by the
governor, Tryon, in 1771; it need not detain us, for it had no connexion
with the quarrel with England. There was much lawlessness elsewhere.
Mobs tyrannised over their more loyal neighbours, tarring and feathering
some of those who would not comply with their demands, and using other
barbarous modes of advancing the cause of liberty. In Boston the revenue
officers were exposed to insult and violence. Hutchinson held the
assembly of the province at Cambridge, and further disgusted his
opponents by informing them that he was no longer dependent on their
votes for his salary; it would thenceforward be paid by the king. The
more peaceable Americans were gratified in 1772 by the appointment of
the Earl of Dartmouth to succeed Hillsborough as secretary for the
colonies, for Dartmouth, a pious and amiable person of no political
ability, was known to be anxious for conciliation. Fresh cause of
offence, however, was found in a decision of the ministers that the
salaries of the Massachusetts judges should be paid by the crown instead
of by the colony. This change, which was designed to render the judges
independent of popular feeling, was resented as an attempt to make them
subservient to the crown, for they held office during the king's
pleasure.

[Sidenote: _HUTCHINSON'S LETTERS._]

Meanwhile the contempt with which the authority of the crown was
regarded, and the necessity for restraining the provincial judges from
political partisanship, were forcibly illustrated. Smuggling was carried
on freely, especially in Rhode Island. The duty of preventing it in
Narragansett Bay was discharged by Lieutenant Duddingston, in command of
the _Gaspee_ schooner. He was zealous, and, according to American
accounts, was guilty of illegal and oppressive acts. On June 9, while
engaged in a chase, the _Gaspee_ ran aground, and on the night of the
10th was boarded by eight boat-loads of men. Duddingston was
treacherously shot at and wounded; he and his men were set on shore, and
the schooner was burnt. This destruction of one of the king's ships, an
act alike of rebellion and piracy, and, as Thurlow said, "an event five
times the magnitude of the stamp act," was unpunished. A law, enacted in
the previous April, and evoked by a fire in an English dockyard,
provided that the setting on fire of a public dockyard or a king's ship
should be felony, and that those accused of such an offence should be
tried in England. Commissioners were appointed by the crown to inquire
into the destruction of the _Gaspee_, and send those concerned in it to
England for trial. On their applying for warrants to the chief justice
of the province, he declared that he would allow no one to be arrested
with a view to deportation, and the commission was fruitless. The
colonists were angered by this attempt to enforce the law; and in 1773
took an important step towards union and a future congress by
establishing committees of correspondence between the provinces.

Samuel Adams unexpectedly found an opportunity of rousing fresh
excitement in Massachusetts. A number of private letters written by
Hutchinson and Oliver, the deputy governor, to a gentleman of England,
named Whately, and stolen after his death, were sent over by Franklin to
the committee of correspondence at Boston, were read by Adams to the
assembly, and were subsequently published. Hutchinson, a patriotic
American, was a faithful servant of the crown and believed in the
supremacy of parliament. His letters contained no statements that were
not true and no comments discreditable to a man of honour, holding the
opinions on which he had consistently acted. They were declared to be
evidences of malice and bad faith; he and Oliver were, John Adams said,
"cool-thinking, deliberate villains," and the assembly sent a petition
to the king for their removal. The letters were industriously circulated
throughout the province, and were denounced by preachers in their Sunday
sermons. Such was the state of affairs when, in accordance with the act
of parliament authorising the East India Company to export its surplus
stock of tea direct to America, three ships laden with tea appeared in
Boston harbour. Other ships with like cargoes had also been despatched
to New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. At Boston, on the night of
December 16, a large body of men, disguised as Indians and encouraged by
Samuel Adams and his friends, boarded the ships and emptied their
cargoes, 340 chests of tea valued at £18,000, into the sea. The ships
for Philadelphia and New York returned to London without discharging
their cargoes. At Charleston the tea was landed, but the consignees were
forced to renounce their engagement, and the tea rotted in the cellars
of the custom-house.

In England the Boston riot caused much irritation. The news came when
the publication of Hutchinson's letters was exciting strong feelings.
Who was responsible for their abstraction from Whately's correspondence
was for some time a mystery. Franklin kept his counsel, and a duel took
place between Whately's brother and a Bostonian who was suspected of
stealing them. Then Franklin declared that he alone had obtained them
and sent them to Boston. As agent for Massachusetts he appeared before a
committee of the privy council on January 29, 1774, in support of the
petition against Hutchinson and Oliver. Both sides were heard by
counsel. Wedderburn, who spoke against the petition, made a violent
attack on Franklin; he described him as a thief and accused him of
acting from the meanest motives. The temper of his audience was
irritated by the news from Boston, and his speech was received with
manifestations of delight, indecent on the part of men sitting as judges
in that august court. The petition was rejected as groundless and
scandalous, and men went away "almost ready to throw up their hats for
joy," as though a lawyer's bitter tongue had given England a victory.
Franklin was at once dismissed from his office of deputy postmaster.
Wedderburn's speech and the spirit in which it was received were
impolitic as well as discreditable. While strongly opposed to the
ministerial policy in America, Franklin had shown himself anxious to
maintain the tie between Great Britain and her colonies. This attack
upon his character made him one of England's enemies, and, as it proved,
one of the most dangerous of them. His conduct is not palliated by the
indecency of his opponents. It has been urged in his defence that, as
Whately had shown the letters to certain English politicians, it was
fair that Boston politicians should also see them, that as agent he was
bound to do the best for his province, and that governments did
intercept and use correspondence which was believed to contain important
political information.[89] Conduct befitting a man of honour needs no
defence.

[Sidenote: _FOX DISMISSED FROM OFFICE._]

The general opinion in England was that Boston should be punished, and
that if the government made an example of that rebellious town, the
Americans would learn a wholesome lesson. The king held this opinion,
and was delighted when General Gage told him that the Americans "would
be lions whilst we are lambs, but if we take the resolute part they will
undoubtedly prove very meek". He determined to force Boston to
submission, and his ministers were at his command. A junior lord of the
treasury was insubordinate, and was promptly dismissed. It seemed a
small matter, but it had important consequences, for the rebel was
Charles Fox. He had more than one grudge against the king, and he was
perhaps growing impatient of serving under a minister who was virtually
the king's representative, though his actual revolt may have been an
unpremeditated ebullition of youthful vanity. A libel on the speaker, of
which the turbulent parson, Horne, was the author, gave him an
opportunity for self-display; he usurped the functions of leader of the
house, persuaded it to enter on proceedings which might have ended in
another awkward quarrel with a printer, and placed North in a most
embarrassing position. The king, whom he had already offended by his
opposition to the royal marriage bill, heartily disliked him, and urged
North to get rid of him. He was curtly dismissed from office on February
24. He at once went into opposition, and acted generally with the
Rockingham party, though he did not distinctly join it until a later
period. He was already intimate with Burke, who soon gained much
influence over him. On almost every question he combated the opinions
which he had previously supported, and constantly attacked his former
chief with great bitterness. In debate the opposition gained enormously
by his alliance, but it was in the end injurious to their cause. His
sympathy with the enemies of his country in time of war strengthened the
king and his ministers in their efforts to maintain the honour of
England by persevering in the struggle, for it revolted the patriotic
feelings of the nation and kept it steadfast in its support of the
government.

[Sidenote: _THE PENAL ACTS._]

On March 14 North began to lay before the commons the measures by which
the government hoped to bring the Americans to submission. By the first
of these penal laws, as they are called, Boston was to be punished by
the transference of the seat of government to Salem, and by the closing
of its harbour, which entailed the suspension of its trade, until the
town had made good the loss inflicted on the East India Company, and the
king was satisfied that the laws would be observed. North spoke with
remarkable moderation. Both he and Dartmouth disliked violent measures,
and their tone with regard to America was so different from that of
their colleagues, that it indicated a division in the cabinet.[90] The
bill met with little opposition in the commons, though Dowdeswell and
Burke spoke against it. In the lords, Rockingham and Shelburne opposed
it, Chatham was absent through ill-health, and Mansfield strongly
advocated it, declaring that Boston had committed "the last overt act of
treason," and that it was a lucky event, for if the bill passed we
should have crossed the Rubicon, the Americans would see that we would
temporise no longer, and if it passed unanimously, Boston would submit
without bloodshed. The bill passed both houses without a division. The
next bill, "for regulating the government of Massachusetts Bay,"
overthrew the charter of the colony; it increased the power of the
governor, vested the nomination of the council in the crown, altered the
system by which juries were chosen, and prohibited town meetings, the
principal engine of democratic rule, from being held without the consent
of the governor. The abrogation of chartered rights excited strong,
though ineffectual, opposition; the bill was passed in the commons by
239 to 64, and in the lords by 92 to 20, eleven peers signing a protest
against it.

This measure was calculated to alarm and irritate the colonies
generally, for the alteration of the charter of one of them would be
taken as a menace to the constitutional liberties of all. In the hope of
counteracting this effect, the opposition wished the house of commons,
before it passed the bill, to conciliate the Americans by repealing the
tax on tea.[91] A motion was made for the repeal on April 19, and was
supported by Burke in a speech of remarkable power. He maintained that
the concession would be well received, and entreated the house to resort
to its old principles, to be content to bind the colonies by laws of
trade, to disregard the question of its right, and to refrain from
taxation. Only forty-nine voted for the motion. A third bill ordered
that any one accused of a capital offence should, if the act was done in
the execution of the law in Massachusetts, be tried in Nova Scotia or
Great Britain; and a fourth provided for the quartering of troops. When
the quartering bill was before the lords, Chatham returned to
parliament. He opposed the bill, declared his dislike of the Boston port
bill, which, he said, punished a whole town for the crime of a few; and
while he condemned the turbulence of the Americans, declared that their
discontent was due to the irritating treatment they had received, and
urged that England should act towards them as a fond and forgiving
parent, for the time was at hand when she would "need the help of her
most distant friends". On all these bills the numbers of the minority
were very low, and the king declared himself "infinitely pleased" with
the reception they met with. Meanwhile Hutchinson was recalled, and Gage
was appointed governor of Massachusetts as well as commander-in-chief.

[Sidenote: _THE QUEBEC ACT._]

Another bill, closely connected with the state of affairs in America,
though not devised merely with reference to it, provided for the
government of Canada, which had remained as it had been settled
temporarily by royal proclamation in 1763. The province of Quebec, as it
was called, only extended eastward to the St. John's river on the north
of the St. Lawrence, the territory beyond being annexed to the
jurisdiction of Newfoundland, while on the south the islands of Cape
Breton and St. John (Prince Edward's island) belonged to Nova Scotia.
No settlement was made as to the country west of the Appalachian range,
which was claimed by the old colonies, nor as to the vast tract between
Lake Nipissing and the Mississippi, the boundary of the Spanish land.
The government of Canada was in the hands of a military governor-general
and a council. In 1764 the English-speaking and protestant population
was a mere handful; in 1774 it numbered about 360, while the French
Roman catholics were at the least 80,000. In accordance with the treaty
of Paris the catholics had full liberty of worship. English was,
however, the only official language, and all offices were held by men of
British nationality. The administration of the law was confused, and,
though the king's proclamation held out a prospect that an assembly
might be called, it required oaths and declarations which would have
shut Roman catholics out from it. The French disliked the English law
with reference to land, and as far as possible evaded it. Constant
difficulties arose, and, in 1766, Charles Yorke, then attorney-general,
advised that English should cease to be the only official language, and
that French law should be recognised in cases which concerned land. On
the other hand the British minority, largely consisting of immigrants
from New England, pressed for an assembly, which would have strengthened
and perpetuated their supremacy over their French neighbours.

The discontent in the American colonies made the ministers specially
anxious to conciliate the French Canadians, and with the advice of Sir
Guy Carleton, the governor, they brought in a bill for the government of
the province. The Quebec act of 1774 included in Canada the territory
previously annexed to Newfoundland, and extended its boundaries to the
Ohio and the Mississippi. It confirmed freedom of worship to the Roman
catholics and secured to their priests, with the exception of the
religious orders, their former tithes and dues, so far as concerned
their own people only, for protestants were exempted from such payments.
Civil cases were to be decided according to the French law, criminal
cases according to the English law, by juries. It was declared
inexpedient to call an assembly; a legislative council was nominated by
the crown, and taxation was reserved to the parliament of Great Britain.
The bill was strenuously opposed, Chatham in the lords, and Burke and
Barré in the commons speaking strongly against it. The government, it
was urged, was setting up a despotism and was depressing the British
population to please the French _noblesse_, and the trial of civil cases
without juries and the withholding of the _habeas corpus_ were
represented as intolerable grievances.

The conflict was hottest on the religious question. The whigs, who
secured the support of the dissenters by posing as the protestant party,
had a hereditary claim to the popular cry of No popery. They denounced
the bill as establishing popery, while it merely permitted
protestantism. It was, Chatham declared, a breach of the reformation, of
the revolution, and of the king's coronation oath. The City petitioned
against the bill, and when, on June 22, the king went to give his assent
to it and to prorogue parliament, he was received in the streets with
angry cries of "No popery". The agitation soon died out, for the
government was popular. In America the act caused much irritation; New
York, Virginia, and other colonies complained that it deprived them of
the right to extend their territories; the revolutionary party saw with
uneasiness the establishment of the power of the crown over a vast
district on their borders, and religious prejudices were aroused by the
favour shown to the catholics. Strong protestant as he was, the king was
thoroughly in favour of the bill. It was a wise and a just measure. It
gave the French Canadians all that they really needed: they thought it
absurd that rights to land should be decided by juries; they had no
political ambitions, and only desired to enjoy in peace the
ministrations of their own priests and the right to deal with their
lands according to their ancient customs. They rejoiced that their
priests were satisfied, and in the coming struggle between Great Britain
and her colonies the priests were mindful of the justice with which they
were treated and used their boundless influence with good effect on the
British side.

The Rubicon, as Mansfield said, was passed, but the event was to be
different from the expectation of the king and the nation at large. When
Gage went out to enforce the repressive acts neither he nor those who
sent him thought that his task would be hard. Four regiments, he
believed, would be enough to settle the business. The Americans,
Sandwich said, were cowardly and undisciplined; they would not stand a
cannon-shot. That they would not fight was the firm opinion of all but
a very few. More than this, it was generally expected that Massachusetts
would not be supported by the other colonies, and no special military
preparation was thought necessary. On June 1, Boston harbour was closed.
The busy little town lay desolate, its wharfs were deserted, its
warehouses shut up, its streets silent; its merchants were threatened
with ruin, its seamen, shipwrights, and labourers and their families
with starvation. The act was enforced to the utmost, and small as Gage's
force was, it was sufficient to keep the town in subjection. Its
punishment was heavy, but surely not heavier than its offences. Be this
as it may, it was worse than ineffectual. The penal acts irritated the
Americans and did not intimidate them. Boston was regarded as suffering
for the common cause. Supplies poured in from the towns and villages of
New England, from the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland; and a
continental congress was decided on. Encouraged by the prospect of
support, the revolutionary party in Massachusetts defied Gage's
authority; gatherings of armed men took place, and warlike preparations
were set on foot. Gage began to fortify Boston Neck and brought in some
guns which might otherwise have been seized by the people.

On September 5 the continental congress met at Philadelphia. Of the
thirteen colonies only Georgia was unrepresented. Yet the delegates came
with different instructions and different intentions, and even among
delegates from the same province there was much difference of opinion.
As a body the congress did not meet with any predetermined revolutionary
purpose. Many loyalists and indeed moderate men of both parties believed
that it would be a means of arranging a reconciliation with Great
Britain, and though the most decided loyalists would have nothing to do
with it, even they hoped for a good result:[92] one-third of the
delegates, John Adams said, were whigs, one-third tories (loyalists),
and the rest mongrel. A proposal for a new constitution with a president
over all the colonies to be appointed by the crown, and a grand council
to be elected by the several assemblies and to act in connexion with
parliament, was only negatived by the votes of six colonies to five. Yet
the revolutionists gained a decided preponderance, largely through the
skilful management of Samuel Adams, who persuaded the congress to
approve the "resolves" passed at a meeting of Suffolk county,
Massachusetts. These "resolves" rejected the act for the government of
the province, required tax collectors not to pay money into the
governor's treasury, and advised towns to appoint their own officers of
militia. Besides endorsing a policy of armed resistance to government,
congress further demanded the revocation of a series of acts of
parliament, including the Quebec act and the late penal legislation,
drew up a declaration of rights, agreed on non-exportation and
non-importation, sent a petition to the king, and published an address
to the English people. It arranged that a new congress should meet the
following May, and invited the Canadians to join in it, suggesting
grounds of discontent with the English government and pretending a zeal
for religious equality. But the Canadians were not to be caught.

[Sidenote: _AMERICAN LOYALISM._]

Congress separated without having laid down any basis for conciliation
save complete surrender on the part of parliament, which was clearly
impossible. It professed loyalty to the crown, and it is probable that
certain eminent Americans, who, like George Washington, declared that
they knew of no wish for independence, really desired to maintain the
connexion with England, if they could bring affairs back to their
condition before 1763, and actually believed that by cutting off
commercial relations with her, they could compel her to assent to their
demands without an appeal to arms. Like the vast majority of Englishmen,
who did not believe that the Americans would fight, they failed to
understand the situation. In the case of others, like Patrick Henry and
the Adamses, it is useless to attach any weight to loyal expressions.
Too much, indeed, has been made of the American professions of loyalty,
for men's loyalty is better judged by their actions than by their words.
Thousands of Americans proved their loyalty by tremendous sacrifices.
Loyalism on its religious side was connected with the teaching of the
English Church; politically it was the outcome of attachment to law,
monarchy, and the unity of the empire as against revolution, democracy,
and separation.[93] The loyalists, however, included men of various
religious persuasions and of different shades of political opinion. As
Americans, they felt the British colonial system burdensome, and only
the more extreme among them approved of the stamp act and the Townshend
duties. Many took the American view of the rights of the colonies; they
desired reforms and redress of grievances, and some of them were not
averse from the milder forms of resistance. Yet all were loyal to the
crown and acknowledged the supremacy of parliament. The hopes of the
moderate section were disappointed by the congress of 1774; in common
with the more extreme loyalists they held that it exceeded its powers,
and their denial of its authority united the loyalist party.

The loyalists, or tories as they were called, comprised, in addition to
the royal officers, many of the best and most cultivated people in the
colonies, a majority of the larger landowners, by far the greater number
of the episcopal clergy together with some other religious teachers,
very many physicians, fewer lawyers, though some of the most eminent
among them, and many of the wealthier merchants, who disliked the
interruption of trade and believed that its prosperity depended on
British commerce. Among the lower classes some farmers, mechanics, and
labourers were loyalists. They were weakest in New England, though
fairly numerous in Connecticut. New York was throughout the loyalist
stronghold, and, of the other middle colonies, Pennsylvania was
disinclined to revolution and New Jersey contained a strong loyalist
minority. In the southern colonies they were about as numerous as the
whigs, and in South Carolina and Georgia perhaps outnumbered them. John
Adams, who would be inclined to underestimate their number, thought that
they were a third of the population of the thirteen colonies. The number
on each side fluctuated from time to time; the loyalists claimed to be
in a majority, and it is probable that at least half of the most
respected part of the population were throughout the struggle either
avowedly or secretly averse from revolution.[94] At the lowest
computation 20,000 loyalists joined the British army, and some thirty
regiments or battalions of them were regularly organised and paid. Most
of them were peaceable men, not more inclined for fighting than the
mass of their opponents who were forced into war by an active minority.
Through the skilful management of this minority the loyalists were
disarmed everywhere at the beginning of the struggle. They suffered
terrible persecution. A man suspected of loyalism would be summoned to a
meeting of the "sons of liberty," and ordered to take an oath to them.
If he refused he was tarred and feathered, or set to ride upon a rail,
and his house was defiled with filth. Loyalists were declared liable to
imprisonment, exile, and confiscation. These men were not less patriotic
than the revolutionists; they believed that the welfare of their country
depended on its remaining part of the British empire; and holding this
belief they suffered, fought, and died for their country's sake.

[Sidenote: _A GENERAL ELECTION._]

Although parliament had not lasted its full term of seven years, it was
dissolved on September 30. The king was probably anxious that a new
parliament should be elected before any event took place which might
suggest doubt as to the success of his American policy. Besides, he was
anxious to secure more men of landed property as members, and reckoned
that a sudden dissolution would foil "the nabobs, planters, and other
volunteers," who would not be ready for the battle.[95] His design was
successful, and the election as a whole was marked by the predominance
of the country gentlemen, at that period the best element in a house of
commons. Much to George's annoyance the Grenville election act had been
made perpetual during the last session. Its good effects were apparent
in the election of 1774; it made the bribery of borough electors
dangerous, and there was far less of it than before. Bargains, however,
could still be made with the owners and patrons of boroughs, and the
king made himself responsible for the money North expended. North
offered Lord Falmouth £2,500 a piece for three Cornish seats and had "to
make it guineas". Other bargains of the same kind were made. George, who
was great at electioneering manoeuvres, took much interest in the
proceedings. He was unable to find a candidate to stand against Wilkes,
then lord mayor elect, and Wilkes and Glynn were returned for Middlesex
without opposition. Wilkes took his seat without encountering any
difficulties and his political importance virtually ended with his
exclusion. Bristol returned Burke, who was recommended to that great
commercial city by his desire for conciliation with America, and his
knowledge of mercantile affairs. At the declaration of the poll he dwelt
on the relations which should exist between a member and his
constituents: he should, he said, as their representative in all cases
prefer their interests to his own, but he should not sacrifice his
mature judgment to their opinion, or be subservient to their mandates.
As a whole the election satisfied the king, for the ministers had a
large and indeed an increased majority.

"I am not sorry," George wrote on hearing of the proceedings of
congress, "that the line of conduct seems now chalked out; the New
England colonies are in a state of rebellion, blows must decide whether
they are to be subject to this country or independent." He expressed the
feeling of by far the larger part of his people. Not of all, for his
ministers North and Dartmouth and a few of their party, were averse from
violent measures; the merchants who traded with America were anxious for
conciliation; and the whigs as a body were opposed to the king's policy.
Chatham exulted in "the manly wisdom and calm resolution of congress".
The experience and sentiments of his great days led him to foresee that,
in case of war France and Spain would seize the opportunity of attacking
England. Unfortunately his theory that the colonies owed only a limited
obedience to the crown, that while parliament had a right to crush
disobedience and to pass acts regulating trade, it had no right to
impose taxes, his violence, his inveterate habit of "talking
fustian,"[96] and his friendship with Franklin, who was commonly
regarded as a rebel, deprived his warnings of the weight which they
deserved. The Rockingham party did not act cordially with him. It was
inspired by Burke who urged that parliament should disregard the
question of right, should act in accordance with the spirit rather than
the letter of the constitution, should respect a desire for free
institutions, and should be guided by what was practicable and what was
advisable, specially with reference to England's trade. His influence
was somewhat injured by the fact that since 1771 he had been the paid
agent of the province of New York. Equally with Chatham, he considered
that colonial trade and industry should be restrained in order to bring
wealth to the mother-country, nor does either of them seem to have
perceived that the root of American discontent lay in these
restrictions.

[Sidenote: _THE CRISIS UNDER-ESTIMATED._]

It was not until 1776 that Adam Smith in his famous _Wealth of Nations_
showed that such restrictions were actually injurious to the prosperity
of the country which imposed them, and combated the theories on which
the relations of England with her colonies had been built up. He desired
that the colonies should be represented in parliament, a proposal which
found some advocates both here and in America, but was condemned by
Burke and did not enter into practical politics. Meanwhile a pamphleteer
of originality and genius, Tucker, Dean of Gloucester, maintained that
separation was inevitable and advisable, that the Americans were a
turbulent and ill-conditioned people, a source of expense to which they
would not contribute, and that England would be better off without them.
She would not, he contended, lose commercially; for, like Adam Smith, he
pointed out that trade goes to the best market, and that so long as
England remained superior to other countries in capital and industry,
she would keep the American trade, and, as war was destructive of trade,
he would have had her separate herself peacefully from her rebellious
colonies. His proposal was denounced by Burke and found no acceptance
with either party in England.

Numerically weak as the opposition in parliament was, it made a vigorous
fight over American affairs. Parliament opened on November 30, and the
king's speech took note of the resistance to the law which prevailed in
Massachusetts, and the "unwarrantable combinations for the obstruction"
of trade. In both houses an amendment to the address was proposed. The
divisions illustrate the strength of the two parties; in the lords it
was defeated by 63 to 13, and in the commons by 264 to 73. The ministers
asserted that the force already in America was sufficient to bring the
colonies to obedience; the naval establishment was reduced to a peace
footing, and no extra soldiers were voted. Gage, however, who had only
some 3,000 troops, asked for a large reinforcement, and wrote that, if
matters came to an extremity, 20,000 men would be needed for the
conquest of New England, a number which, Dartmouth said, "the nation
would not be able to furnish in a twelvemonth".[97] The ministers
resolved to send a small reinforcement from Ireland, they were
encouraged to believe that the Americans would yield by tidings that the
New York assembly had rejected the decisions of congress and by more
hopeful news from Gage. After the recess the campaign opened in earnest.
On January 20, 1775, Chatham moved for the recall of the troops from
Boston, and declared that, if the ministers persisted in their policy,
they would mislead the king and the kingdom would be undone. He was
defeated by a large majority. Petitions against coercion were presented
from London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, and other trading towns, and
were virtually shelved. Meanwhile Lord Howe, encouraged by the dislike
of North and Dartmouth to coercive measures, made ineffectual attempts
to arrange terms of conciliation through Franklin.

[Sidenote: _CONCILIATORY RESOLUTIONS._]

On February 1 Chatham, who was in constant communication with Franklin,
brought in a conciliation bill. It was a strange composition, florid in
terms, embracing a multiplicity of subjects, and depending for its
operation on the good-will of the Americans. He proposed to assert the
supremacy of parliament, specially in matters of trade, to confine
taxation to the provincial assemblies, and to legalise the coming
congress in order that it might make a perpetual free grant to the
crown, which was to be appropriated by parliament to the reduction of
the national debt. Having obtained this grant, parliament was to reduce
the power of the admiralty courts, which checked illicit trading, and to
suspend all the acts, including the Quebec act, of which the Americans
complained. The bill was not allowed a second reading. Soon after its
ignominious rejection the gout laid hold on Chatham, and he did not
appear in parliament again for two years. Franklin returned to America
about this time; he disclaimed responsibility for Chatham's proposals,
which, he considered, would only have been useful as a basis for future
arrangement. North at last informed parliament of the threatening state
of affairs. Massachusetts was declared in rebellion; votes were passed
for 2,000 additional seamen and about 4,400 soldiers; it was resolved to
increase the force at Boston to 10,000 men; and a bill was passed
confining the commerce of the New England provinces to Great Britain
and the West Indies, and shutting them out from the Newfoundland
fishery. These restraints, which were evoked by the American
non-intercourse agreements, were soon extended to five other provinces.

While George promoted these strong measures, he willingly fell in with
North's desire to "hold out the olive-branch"; and on the 20th North
moved a resolution to the effect that if any colony provided what
parliament considered its fair proportion towards the common defence and
the expenses of its civil administration, no duty or tax should be
imposed upon it, except for the regulation of trade. His proposal
excited the indignation of the high prerogative party, who thought
themselves betrayed; his followers rose in revolt; "the treasury bench
seemed to totter". The storm was stilled at last, and then Barré, Burke,
and Dunning fell upon the bill, describing it as a mean attempt to
divide the Americans, and a plan for coercing each province separately.
The motion was, however, carried. As the opposition scorned North's
plan, which Burke called "a project of ransom by auction," it behoved
them to bring forward a plan of their own which would be acceptable to
the Americans. Accordingly, on March 22, Burke propounded a series of
conciliatory resolutions which he enforced in one of his most famous
speeches. He urged the house to return to its old policy, to respect the
Americans' love of freedom, to look to the colonial assemblies to supply
the expenses of their government and defence, to abandon the futile
attempt to impose taxation, and to extend to Americans the privileges of
Englishmen. His proposal was defeated. Nevertheless, by accepting
North's resolution parliament showed a desire for pacification. The
resolution proposed a compromise; while it maintained the authority of
parliament, it offered the Americans self-taxation. It was made with a
sincere desire to end the quarrel. At one time it might have led to
pacification, but it came too late.

Gage found the fortification of Boston Neck no easy matter; the people
would not sell him materials, and somehow his barges sank, his waggons
were bogged, and their loads caught fire. The work was finished at last,
and with his small force he could do little else. In Rhode Island the
people seized the cannon mounted for the defence of the harbour, and in
New Hampshire they surprised a small fort, and carried off ordnance and
stores. Manufactories of arms and powder-mills were set up in different
places. In February, 1775, the Massachusetts provincial congress met,
and urged the militia, and specially the "minute-men"--militiamen ready
to serve on the shortest notice--to perfect their discipline. Virginia,
Maryland, and the Carolinas were astir with warlike preparations; in
Massachusetts men were practising the use of arms on every village
green, a number of Stockbridge Indians were enlisted as minute-men, and
efforts were made to induce the Six Nations to "whet the hatchet"
against the English.[98] Express-riders kept the country people well
supplied with intelligence, in order that they might anticipate any
projected movement of the British troops. On the 26th Gage sent a
detachment to Salem to bring in some guns, but the people removed them
in time. Some opposition was offered to the troops, but they were kept
well in hand and no blood was shed.

[Sidenote: _SKIRMISH AT LEXINGTON._]

He determined to be beforehand at Concord, where the provincials had
gathered a quantity of military stores, and on April 18 sent some
companies of grenadiers and light infantry under Colonel Smith and Major
Pitcairn to destroy them. They went by night up the Charles river in
boats, landed, and began their march. The alarm had been given and the
country was aroused. When they arrived at Lexington at 5 in the morning
of the 19th they found a body of militia on the green. "Disperse, you
rebels!" shouted Pitcairn, and the troops advanced with a cheer. As the
militia dispersed some shots were fired. From which side the first shot
came is not clear. A soldier was hit and Pitcairn's horse was wounded.
The troops fired a volley, a few militiamen were killed and others
wounded, and the soldiers marched on. While the grenadiers were
destroying the stores at Concord a sharp engagement took place with the
militia, and several on both sides were killed and wounded. The troops,
having accomplished their purpose as far as was possible, for part of
the stores had already been removed, set out to return to Boston. As
they marched back, tired and impeded by their wounded, militiamen and
volunteers fired upon them from every hedge, and wall, and house, and
the shots told heavily on their close ranks. Forced on by the ceaseless
fire, like a driven flock of sheep, thick together and helpless, they
staggered back to Lexington, where they arrived completely exhausted.
There they were met by a large detachment under Lord Percy, which had
been sent to their relief. After a rest the whole body marched back,
harassed all the way by an incessant fire from cover, which they were
for the most part unable to return. The British loss was sixty-five
killed, about 157 wounded, and a few missing; the American casualties
are stated as ninety-three in all. Not, unhappily, for the last time did
our soldiers find that farmers and the like, who know their country, are
accustomed to shoot, and understand the importance of taking cover, may
be more than a match for brave and disciplined soldiers with no
knowledge of war save the drill of a parade ground. It was evident that
there was fighting stuff in the Americans, that they had some good
marksmen, and that, undisciplined as they were, like the Boers of our
own day, they knew how to use such advantages as they possessed.

Thus was the first blood shed in this long quarrel. The revolution was
begun. Sooner or later it must have come, though the date of its coming
and the violent means by which it was accomplished were decided by
individual action. The spirit which underlay it can be traced with
growing distinctness since 1690; it was a spirit of independence,
puritan in religion and republican in politics, impatient of control,
self-assertive, and disposed to opposition. It was irritated by
restraints on industry and commerce, and found opportunities for
expression in a system which gave the colonies representative assemblies
while it withheld rights of self-government. Great Britain has since
then adopted a more enlightened colonial policy; yet the statesmen of
past times are not to be condemned because they were men of their own
days and lacked the experience of a future age. And it is to be
remembered that England's colonial policy was then, as it is now, the
most liberal in the world. American discontent existed before the reign
of George III.; it was kept in check by the fear of French invasion. It
was when that fear was removed that England began to enforce the
restraints on commerce. This change in policy fell most heavily on the
New England provinces, where whig tendencies were strongest, and
specially on Massachusetts. A small and violent party in the province
fanned the flame of discontent, and the attempts at taxation, which
added to the grievances of the colonists, afforded a respectable cry to
the fomenters of resistance. Their work was aided by the apprehension
aroused in the minds of their fellow-countrymen, by the increase in the
part played by the prerogative, and by the predominance of the tories in
England. While men in other provinces, as Patrick Henry in Virginia,
worked in sympathy with Samuel Adams and his associates, the revolution
was at its outset engineered at Boston, and was immediately determined
by the quarrel between Great Britain and Massachusetts. In the events
which led to the revolution the British government appears to have shown
a short-sighted insistence on legal rights and a contemptuous disregard
of the sentiments and opinions of the colonists; the revolutionists
generally a turbulent, insolent, and unreasonable temper.

FOOTNOTES:

[89] Franklin, _Works_, v., 189-90, 205-7, 305-14, ed. Bigelow.

[90] _Chatham Corr._, iv. 339.

[91] _Parl. Hist._, xvii., 1197.

[92] Jones, _History of New York_, i., 34-35, 449, _sq._; Flick,
_Loyalism in New York_, pp. 24-25.

[93] Flick, _Loyalism in New York_, pp. 9-12.

[94] Sabine, _The American Loyalists_, pp. 51-55, 65.

[95] _Corr. with North_, i., 201.

[96] Burke to Flood, May 18, 1765, _Works_, i., 41.

[97] Dartmouth Papers, America, _Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep._, xiv., App. x.,
251.

[98] _The Border Warfare of the Revolution_, in _Narr. and Crit. Hist._,
vi., 612-14.




                               CHAPTER VIII.

                          THE COLONIAL REBELLION.


Scarcely had the night passed after the skirmish at Lexington before the
whole of Massachusetts was in arms. The provincial assembly voted that
an army of 30,000 men should be raised in New England, fixed on
Cambridge as its headquarters and sent to their neighbours for support.
From New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island the answer was prompt.
Numerous bands of volunteers marched to join the forces of
Massachusetts, and an army of 16,000 men soon invested Boston from the
Mystic river to Roxbury. It was an army without unity, for the troops of
each colony acted under their own leaders; and its numbers varied from
day to day, the Massachusetts volunteers, who formed its principal part,
taking leave of absence whenever they chose. Many of the provincials had
seen service against the French, and understood a soldier's work, and
many more had received some training in the militia, but the mass of the
volunteers had no military experience or discipline. Yet they were men
well used to shoot and to handle the spade and axe, implements of
first-rate importance in war; they belonged as a whole to a higher class
than the privates of the British army, they were more resourceful and
intelligent, and were able to obtain provisions and other supplies
without difficulty. Such as they were, Gage judged them too formidable
in number for him to attack. The neck of land which joins Boston to the
continent had been fortified so strongly that the provincials could not
hope to storm it, and he decided to remain behind it and await the
arrival of the reinforcements which were already on their way. He made
no effort to prevent the insurgents from shutting up his army on the
landward side, and early in May they began to form entrenchments. At the
same time they took measures to distress the beleaguered force by
clearing off the live-stock, hay, and other supplies from the islands in
the harbour. Gage tried in vain to stop them, and there were several
skirmishes in the harbour, in which the British suffered more heavily
than the provincials.

The insurgents were not content with fighting on their own ground. The
command of the line of the Hudson would prevent the British from cutting
off New England from the middle colonies, would secure New York from
attack from the north, and would open a way for an invasion of Canada.
On the north the approaches to the river were dominated by the forts of
Ticonderoga and Crown Point, which had played a conspicuous part in the
great war with France; and in them were laid up some 200 cannon, small
arms, and other military stores. Important as these forts were, no
adequate garrisons were maintained in them. Benedict Arnold, the leader
of a band of volunteers from New Haven, Connecticut, a druggist and West
India trader, was informed of their defenceless condition, and made an
offer to the Massachusetts committee of safety to capture them. His
offer was accepted, and he was authorised to raise a force. The same
plan had been formed in Connecticut; and Ethan Allen, the leader of an
association in Vermont, was sent with his followers to carry it out.
Arnold met him on the march; he refused to yield the command, and Arnold
joined his force, which included a body of Indians. At dawn on May 10
they surprised the garrison of Ticonderoga, consisting of less than
fifty men, and compelled the governor to surrender without striking a
blow. A detachment from the force seized Crown Point, and a few days
later Arnold sailed down Lake Champlain and captured St. John's, which
was recovered by the British in the course of the summer and garrisoned.

[Sidenote: _OPINION IN ENGLAND._]

In England the news of the fighting at Lexington and Concord was
received with astonishment. People were by no means distressed, for they
believed that Gage would soon take his revenge. Military men were
puzzled and provoked at the state of affairs at Boston. "How often,"
said a general at the war office to one who had held command in America,
"have I heard you American colonels boast that with four battalions you
would march through America, and now you think that Gage with 4,000 men
and forty pieces of cannon mayn't venture out of Boston."[99] However,
things would, it was expected, soon wear a different face, for about
5,500 men were on their way to Boston, and three new generals had
embarked on April 21 to serve under Gage. They were Howe, a younger
brother of Lord Howe, the admiral, a fine gentleman and a gallant
soldier, reputed to be a left-handed cousin of the king through his
mother, a daughter of the Countess of Darlington, a mistress of George
I., kindly, careless, and frivolous, who had distinguished himself at
the taking of Quebec; Clinton, who had served in Germany; and Burgoyne,
who had made a successful campaign in Portugal under Lippe Bückeburg, a
man of fashion, a dramatist, a politician, and a keen soldier, eager for
employment and promotion. North and Dartmouth were vexed at the news of
the encounter, for they had entertained strong hopes, expressed by the
king in closing parliament on May 26, that the conciliation bill would
lead to a pacification. Gage's attempt at Concord was, Dartmouth said,
fatal.

The whigs were dismayed, for they did not share the confidence of the
nation at large. Though Burke expected that the Americans would suffer
"some heavy blows," he did not believe that a war with them would be
ended quickly; and Richmond thought it probable that America would be
lost and "with it our trade and opulence".[100] In England every war
gives an opportunity to some vain and foolish persons for condemning
their own country and showing sympathy with its enemies. So it was in
1775. Wilkes, then lord mayor, and the livery of the city tried to force
the king to receive on the throne a petition which declared that an
attempt was being made to establish arbitrary power in America. They
were foiled by the king and adopted an address expressed in more decent
terms, to which he returned answer that so long as constitutional
authority was resisted he would continue to maintain it by force. The
constitutional society, of which Horne was the leading spirit, sent
Franklin £100 for, as Horne wrote in the _Evening Post_, "the widows and
orphans of our beloved American fellow-subjects inhumanly murdered by
the king's troops at or near Lexington and Concord". Horne was indicted
for this libel in 1777, and was sentenced to a year's imprisonment and a
fine of £200.

In America the news of the affair at Lexington called forth in every
colony a spirit of union, a determination to stand by their New England
brethren. No answers were sent to North's conciliatory proposals; all
alike agreed in referring them to the continental congress. This was
equivalent to a rejection of them, for it was well known that the
British government would hold no communication with that body. The
congress met for the second time at Philadelphia on May 10. It rejected
North's proposals and agreed that garrisons should be maintained at
Ticonderoga and Crown Point, a decision which implied an approval of the
offensive war levied against the king in the expedition against those
forts. As, however, it was expedient to lull the suspicions of the
French Canadians, who were not likely to have forgotten the religious
bitterness exhibited by the Americans with reference to the Quebec act,
it declared that no invasion of Canada would be made. The congress
assumed executive powers; in the name of the "United Colonies" it
adopted the army of New England then before Boston as the continental
army, took measures for its organisation and payment, authorised a loan,
and on June 15 chose George Washington, the colonel of the Virginia
militia, as commander-in-chief.

No wiser choice could have been made. Washington was a gentleman of
Virginia, of independent fortune, descended from an English family of
good position; he had served with distinction against the French, and as
aide-de-camp to Braddock had behaved with remarkable intrepidity in the
battle on the Monongahela river in 1755. Thoroughly unselfish, he
devoted himself with all his heart to public duty; his integrity was
above suspicion; he was free from personal ambition, and was never
swayed by jealousy. His education had been neglected, but his intellect
was clear and his judgment sound. He was naturally hot-tempered, and
when his anger was roused he was a terror to evil-doers, to the officer
who disobeyed his orders and to the rascally contractor who supplied his
army with inferior stores. Yet he habitually kept his temper under
control. Steadfast in purpose, he was never overwhelmed by misfortune
and never yielded to factious opposition. And strong as his will was, it
did not degenerate into obstinacy; he would gladly listen to the advice
of others, and in military matters was sometimes too ready to act upon
it. At first he made mistakes in generalship, but his military skill
grew with his experience. In army administration he was excellent; his
industry was unwearying; the smallest details received his personal
attention. He was conscious of the difficulties of the task which lay
before him; he believed, so he told Patrick Henry, that from the day of
his appointment his reputation would begin to decline. The congress was
an unorganised body without any constitutional status, conducting its
business by means of constantly changing and irresponsible committees,
and was utterly unfit to exercise executive functions; it had no means
of enforcing its decrees, no revenue, and no munitions of war. The army
which it adopted was little better than an assembly of armed men; many
were volunteers, and it was decided to enlist men only for seven months.
There was little discipline; the officers were for the most part
ignorant of their duties and were of the same social standing as their
men; and the New England privates, self-opiniated and obstinate, showed
little respect for their orders. Washington had not merely to command an
army in the field, he had to create one and, what was harder still, to
keep it together.

[Sidenote: _THE SIEGE OF BOSTON._]

Inside Boston life was by no means pleasant. All marketing from the
country was at an end, for the town was closely beset by land and the
islands were cleared of provisions; no fresh meat was to be had, and the
besieged lived alternately on salt beef and salt pork. Attacks from
fire-rafts and whale-boats were daily threatened, and fears were
entertained that the inhabitants might set fire to the town in order to
force the British to leave it.[101] On May 25 the three new generals
landed, and the arrival of the reinforcements raised the number of
Gage's army to about 10,000 men. Believing that the rebellion would soon
be quelled, he issued a foolish proclamation, offering pardon to all
rebels who laid down their arms, except Samuel Adams and Hancock, then
president of the congress, and threatening those who continued in arms
with punishment as traitors. As the insurgents had no ships, while the
British had floating batteries and ships of war in the harbour, they
could not hope to destroy Gage's army, or reduce it to surrender through
famine. Their object was to compel him to evacuate the place and sail
off. The peninsula on which the town stands was commanded by hills both
on the north and south-east. On the north were the hills of the
Charlestown peninsula, which was separated from Boston by the Charles
river; it had the Mystic river on its northern side, and was joined to
the mainland by a narrow neck. On the south-east it was commanded by the
hills of another peninsula called Dorchester Neck. A battery on either
the Charlestown hills or the Dorchester heights would have rendered
Gage's position untenable; for, independently of any loss which his
troops might sustain from bombardment, the British shipping would be
drawn from its anchorage, and if he remained he would be practically
imprisoned in the town and cut off from supplies. It should therefore
have been Gage's first care to shut the insurgents out from those
positions.

Hitherto he had not attempted to occupy the hills on either side, but
after the arrival of the new generals it was decided to include them
within the lines. On June 13 the insurgents heard that the British were
about to occupy Dorchester heights. They determined to frustrate this
move by occupying the ridge stretching along the Charlestown peninsula,
and called by the general name of Bunker hill. Accordingly on the
evening of the 16th a detachment of 1,200 men, with six field-pieces,
was sent from Cambridge for that purpose. When they arrived at the
summit their leaders determined to advance farther and to fortify a
lower eminence of the ridge nearer Boston, which was distinguished by
the name of Breeds hill. There during the night they formed a redoubt
and breastwork. At daybreak on the 17th they were discovered from the
sloop _Lively_, and her guns roused the British army. Before long a
battery in Boston and the guns of other ships opened fire, but did
little mischief. The insurgents received a small reinforcement, and
formed a line of defence, protected by a low wall and rail, from their
redoubt northward to the Mystic, in order to secure themselves from a
flank attack. If Gage had placed a floating battery on the Mystic, which
would have taken them on the left flank, and had landed troops to the
rear of the redoubt, held the neck, and so cut them off from their main
body, he would have had them at his mercy. This would have been easy,
for by taking up a more advanced position than was laid down in their
orders, they left their rear exposed to attack. He decided, however, to
storm their works.

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OF BUNKER HILL._]

Not till midday did a detachment of British troops, grenadiers and light
infantry, begin to land on the peninsula under the command of Howe and
Pigot. They waited for reinforcements, which brought their number up to
over 2,000 men, with artillery. Hot as the weather was, the men were
burdened with knapsacks containing provisions for three days. At 3 P.M.
they advanced in two divisions, the light infantry under Howe against
the line of defence, the grenadiers under Pigot against the redoubt. At
first their advance was covered by their artillery, but the guns stuck
in the mire, and it is said that a fresh supply of ball sent from Boston
was too large for the cannon. Even if this was the case, it could have
made no difference, for the supply taken with the guns was not
exhausted.[102] Up the steep hill, through long tangled grass, the
red-coats toiled on towards the redoubt, each burdened with a weight of
some 125 pounds. With admirable coolness the Americans held their fire
until the enemy was about fifty yards from them, and then poured a
volley into their ranks. For a few minutes the men stood steady and
returned the fire, then they turned and retreated in disorder. The
attack on the fence was equally unsuccessful. While the officers were
rallying their men, the battery on Cops hill burnt the wooden houses of
the almost deserted village of Charlestown, from which the troops had
been fired upon as they advanced. Then a second attack was made, and
again the British were sent staggering back by the enemy's fire. At this
crisis Clinton came over from Boston, took command of two battalions, a
body of marines, and the 47th, and did good service in helping to rally
the troops. With fine persistency they made ready for a third attack.
More rational orders were given; the force was not divided, and only a
feint was made against the line of defence, the men laid aside their
knapsacks, advanced in column against the redoubt, and attacked with the
bayonet. The Americans, who had received little support of any kind from
headquarters, were weary, and their ammunition was almost exhausted;
they were driven from their works and retreated across the neck. Their
retreat was covered with bravery and military skill[103] by the body
stationed along the line of defence on their left, but as they passed
over the neck they suffered severely from the guns of the _Glasgow_
sloop of war. Howe would not pursue them, and at once began to fortify
the peninsula.

The victory was decisive, for it gave the English the ground for which
they fought, and enabled them to hold Boston for nine months longer. It
was dearly purchased by the loss of 19 officers and 207 men killed, and
70 officers and 758 men wounded, making a total of 1,054 casualties, an
extraordinarily large proportion of the number engaged, apparently about
2,500. This was the natural result of sending troops up a hill to
deliver a frontal attack on an earthwork held by a body of men well used
to shoot. It will be observed that the loss of officers was extremely
heavy; they fearlessly exposed themselves, as the British officer always
does, in order to encourage their men. The Americans, who for the most
part fought behind cover, stated their loss at 449. After Bunker hill,
no one whose judgment was not warped by prejudice could believe that the
Americans were cowards. They were not, so Gage wrote, the disorderly
rabble too many have supposed; he had seen enough to convince him that
the conquest of the country could only be effected by perseverance and
strong armies.[104] The behaviour of the insurgent troops greatly
encouraged their party. When Washington heard how they had fought he
declared that the liberties of the country were safe.

[Sidenote: _THE INVASION OF CANADA._]

Already some colonies were making temporary arrangements for popular
government and issuing bills for the expenses of defence, and in July
Georgia expressed its adherence to the general policy of armed
resistance. For a while, however, royal governors still remained, and
government was everywhere in a chaotic state. In New York the mob
committed many outrages on the persons and property of loyalists, and
hostilities took place with crews of the king's ships in the bay. Yet
the town was not prepared to take a decided part; and it received Tryon,
the royal governor, and Washington with the same tokens of respect. A
like incongruity marked the proceedings of congress. Besides adopting
addresses to the people of Great Britain and Ireland, it sent a petition
to the king on whom it was levying war from his "faithful subjects,"
expressing attachment to his "person, family, and government" and
beseeching him to "settle peace". At the same time, in spite of its
declaration to the contrary, it ordered an invasion of Canada. The
Americans flattered themselves that the Canadians would rise against the
British, and Allen, puffed up by his recent success, made a dash at
Montreal with only 150 men. He was defeated and taken prisoner.
Meanwhile Montgomery started from Ticonderoga in August with over 2,000
men, captured Chamblée, where he found a good supply of military stores,
and laid siege to St. John's. Canada was practically defenceless, for
Carleton had only 900 regular troops; the English-speaking Canadians
were disaffected, the French for the most part either apathetic or
hostile. He sent to Gage for reinforcements, but the admiral, Samuel
Graves, declined to transport troops to Quebec, for as it was then late
in October the voyage from Boston would have been dangerous. Carleton's
efforts to relieve St. John's were unsuccessful, and after a stout
resistance the garrison surrendered on November 13. The fall of St.
John's involved the surrender of Montreal, which was defenceless, and
Carleton hastened to the defence of Quebec.

His presence was needed there, for on September 13 a detachment of about
1,500 men under the command of Arnold was sent from the army at
Cambridge to surprise and capture the city. It was to proceed by land
and water up the Kennebec, and down the Chaudière to the St. Lawrence.
The route, though used by trappers and Indians, was dimly traced, and
the equipment of the expedition was too cumbersome for the rough work
which lay before it.[105] Soon after leaving their transports at Fort
Western, where, fifty-eight miles from its mouth, the Kennebec ceased to
be navigable except by _bateaux_, the troops began to suffer great
hardships. Their stores were conveyed in _bateaux_, which they were
constantly forced to haul against currents and carry over land. Many of
them leaked, some were abandoned, and provisions ran short. The weather
became cold and rainy. The whole rear division, with its officers, lost
heart and turned back, taking with them a large share of food and
ammunition. The rest toiled on through swamps and mire, half-starved and
benumbed with cold. Many perished, some lost their way, and the men of
one company were reduced to eating their dogs and gnawing the leather of
their shoes. It was not until November 9 that Arnold's troops, a ragged
and shivering crowd of about 600 men, with some Indians who had joined
them, reached Point Levi. Montgomery, who was to have met them, was not
there; they crossed the St. Lawrence, and Arnold sent an absurd summons
to the garrison of Quebec. He then retreated to Pointe-aux-Trembles to
wait for Montgomery.

The defences of Quebec were in bad condition, the garrison was small,
and there was much disaffection among the inhabitants. The whole country
was in the power of the invaders, the people were on their side, and it
seemed as though the hopes of the Americans would be fulfilled. But
while Quebec remained untaken, Canada would still be unconquered, and
the defence was in good hands. The garrison was commanded by Colonel
Maclean of the 84th, or Royal Highland Emigrants, a regiment largely
raised by him from Frazer's Highlanders who had done good service under
Wolfe. Carleton soon entered the place, and while Arnold was waiting for
Montgomery, took vigorous measures for securing its safety. Montgomery
arrived at Pointe-aux-Trembles on December 1, and on the night of the
31st the rebels attempted to carry Quebec by storm. They were repulsed
with heavy loss, Montgomery was killed and Arnold wounded. They
continued the siege, but were too weak either to invest the city
completely or make any offensive movement. Carleton waited quietly until
the breaking up of the ice should allow reinforcements to come up the
river. Before long the French Canadians began to transfer their
sympathies to the British. Their priests were too well satisfied with
the Quebec act to desire change. Bishop Briand published a _mandement_,
reminding his people of the benefits they received from English rule and
calling upon them to defend their province. His exhortation had a
powerful effect, for priests refused to confess men who joined the
rebels.

[Sidenote: _PAUCITY OF THE BRITISH ARMY._]

The victory of Bunker hill made no change in the position of Gage's
army, which suffered from the want of wholesome food and from other
privations. As England had command of the sea the troops could have been
removed, and the generals wrote to the government suggesting that Boston
should be evacuated and the royal forces concentrated at New York,
which was more open to communication by sea, and in every respect a
better base for future operations. The government, however, was
unwilling to give up the town, and things remained as they were, for the
generals considered that nothing was to be gained by an attack on the
enemy's lines, because their army was not supplied with the materials
necessary to move at a distance. Plans were indeed proposed for
embarrassing the enemy by sending out a detachment to make a descent on
Rhode Island;[106] but Gage did nothing, and the government, convinced
of his incapacity, recalled him to England. He sailed from Boston in
October, and Howe was appointed to the chief command. By sea there was
as little done as by land, for the naval force under Graves was so
inefficient that he was unable even to prevent the whale-boats of the
rebels from intercepting supplies and destroying lighthouses. He was
unjustly blamed for inaction, both by the army in Boston and the
government. His removal was, the king thought, "as necessary as the mild
general's".[107] This and every other matter connected with the war was
directed by the king. His industry and his knowledge of details,
military and naval, were extraordinary, and North, Dartmouth, and
Barrington, whatever their own opinions were, had no choice but to carry
out his orders.

On the outbreak of the war the army of Great Britain was on its normal
peace establishment of about 17,000 men, besides the Irish army of
15,235, the garrison of Gibraltar 3,500, and of Minorca 2,500. It was an
amazingly small number, considering the accessions made to the empire by
the late war. George always wished for a larger permanent force; but his
ministers shrank from raising a storm by increasing the estimates or
provoking the popular jealousy of a standing army. Men were wanted at
once. The first reinforcements were obtained from Ireland, and the Irish
parliament agreed that 4,000 men should be drafted out of the country
beyond the number allowed by statute. It soon became evident that the
war required the immediate supply of a far greater number of men than
could be spared from the present establishment or could be raised
quickly. Parliament was not in session, and the king determined to
obtain the services of foreign troops. As Elector of Hanover he lent
2,355 Hanoverians to garrison Gibraltar and Minorca, and so set a
corresponding number of the British garrisons free to be employed in the
war. He sought to hire men from other sovereigns. A proposal made to
Catherine of Russia for the hire of 20,000 men was scornfully declined,
and the States-General refused to sell him their Scots brigade. With the
petty princes of Germany he was more lucky; the Duke of Brunswick, the
Landgrave and the hereditary Prince of Hesse Cassel, and the Prince of
Waldeck were happy to sell their subjects, and agreed to supply 17,742
in return for a liberal payment. These arrangements enraged the
Americans, who spoke of them as though the king was delivering a loyal
people to be massacred by foreign mercenaries. As a matter of fact they
were making war on the king, and he had as good a right to buy troops to
fight in his quarrel as he had to buy cannon. It is on the princes who
sold the blood of their subjects that the disgrace of these transactions
must rest. Frederick of Prussia expressed his disgust at their
greediness in bitter terms, and is said to have jeeringly declared that
when any of the unfortunate men whose lives they were selling passed
through his dominions he would levy toll on them at so much a head as
though they were cattle.

[Sidenote: _EVACUATION OF BOSTON._]

Nothing was gained by the recall of Gage, for Howe was equally
incompetent. Privateers were fitted out in great number in the New
England ports, which did mischief to English commerce and intercepted
the supplies sent out to the army. In order to check this privateering
business two ships-of-war sailed from Boston in October, under a
lieutenant named Mowat, with orders to burn the shipping along the
coast. Mowat exceeded his orders and destroyed the town of Falmouth.
This useless act of barbarity, which excited violent indignation among
the Americans, was reprehended by the British government. In Boston
sickness continued rife among the troops, and in November there was an
outbreak of small-pox. Washington, however, was not in a position to
attack; he had great difficulty in obtaining ammunition and not less in
raising men. The revolutionary spirit was spreading, but there was
little military ardour. In December the period of enlistment ended; his
army was disbanded, and he could not obtain quite 10,000 men to take
its place. Though Howe's army was weakened by sickness, such effective
troops as he had were well-trained soldiers. Yet he made no attempt to
force the American lines. By the beginning of March Washington was able
to take the offensive, and on the night of the 4th occupied Dorchester
heights and began to plant cannon there. It is amazing that Howe should
have neglected this important position. A storm prevented him from
sending a force across the bay to attack the Americans' works before
they were completed; their batteries rendered Boston untenable and
endangered the ships in the harbour. Howe was forced to abandon the
town, and on the 17th the British troops, about 7,600 in number,
together with nearly 1,000 loyalists, embarked for Halifax, where Howe
waited for reinforcements which would enable him to strike at New York.

If the English had abandoned Boston after the battle of Bunker hill, the
evacuation would have merely been a military movement, adopted for the
purpose of obtaining a more convenient base for future operations. The
government decided that the place should be held, and its enforced
evacuation was a moral defeat and a legitimate cause of triumph to the
Americans. Their exultation was dashed by the failure of their attempt
on Canada. Fresh troops were sent to support the invasion, but the
feelings of the people, English as well as French, were turning strongly
against the Americans. After the evacuation of Boston, congress ordered
Washington to send nearly half his effective force into Canada, and
despatched Franklin and other commissioners thither to allure the people
with promises. The Canadians turned a deaf ear to their offers. The
moment for which Carleton waited so patiently came at last. On May 6,
before the river was fully cleared of ice, three British ships made
their way to Quebec with reinforcements. He at once sallied out, and the
Americans fled in confusion, leaving their cannon and baggage behind,
and even their pots boiling, so that the king's troops sat down and ate
their dinners from them. Further reinforcements arrived from Halifax and
from Ireland, and in June Burgoyne, who had spent the winter at home,
brought over the Hessian and Brunswick troops, raising Carleton's army
to about 12,000 men. The Americans, under Sullivan, retreated from the
neighbourhood of Quebec to Sorel. A large detachment was routed at
Three Rivers, and Sullivan retreated to St. John's, leisurely pursued by
Burgoyne. There he was joined by Arnold, and the remnants of the army of
Canada, some 5,000 men, suffering severely from sickness and privation,
escaped to Isle-aux-Noix, and thence to Crown Point. Canada was
evacuated in June. Left almost defenceless by England, it was preserved
to her by Carleton's firmness and intrepidity.

By the beginning of 1776 the idea of separation from Great Britain was
daily gaining ground in the revolted colonies. It was strengthened by
the publication of a pamphlet entitled _Common Sense_ by Thomas Paine.
This Paine, a staymaker by trade, after he had failed in business in
England, and had been dismissed from employment as an exciseman for
neglect of duty, emigrated to America in 1774, and came into notice
through introductions given him by Franklin. He was bitterly hostile to
his own country, a violent advocate of revolutionary ideas, ignorant and
conceited; yet he had much shrewdness, and expressed his rude opinions
with a force and vivacity which appealed strongly to readers prepared to
assent to them. _Common Sense_ taught thousands of Americans to
recognise for the first time their own thoughts and wishes, and
encouraged others, who already knew what they wanted, to cease from
disguising their hopes by empty professions. Separation would, it was
expected in England, be opposed most vigorously in the southern
colonies. In them its cause was forwarded by violence. Lord Dunmore, the
governor of Virginia, took refuge on board a man-of-war in June, 1775,
manned a small flotilla, and attempted to reduce his province by making
descents upon the coast. He enraged the people by offering freedom to
slaves who would enlist under him, and by destroying the town of Norfolk
through setting fire to some wharfs from which his men had been shot at
while landing for water. He further engaged in a scheme for invading the
southern colonies from inland with the help of the Indians. It failed,
and the result of his proceedings was that Virginia was foremost in
urging congress to a declaration of independence.

[Sidenote: _THE ATTEMPT ON CHARLESTON._]

The governors of the two Carolinas assured the king that if a force were
sent to their provinces the loyalists would rise; the Carolinas might be
secured, Virginia coerced, and all the south recovered for the crown.
Both George and Dartmouth believed them, and, against the advice of
military men, an expedition was prepared to sail to Cape Fear. The
troops were conveyed in a squadron under Sir Peter Parker and were under
the command of Lord Cornwallis. Clinton left Boston in December to take
the command, but the expedition was long a-preparing: it did not leave
Cork until February 12, 1776; the ships met with storms; none arrived at
Cape Fear before May 3, some were even later. Meanwhile Martin, the
governor of North Carolina, stirred up the loyalist Scots settled in the
province to take arms; they marched towards the coast, expecting to meet
the royal troops, were intercepted, and utterly routed. When at last
Clinton's force was gathered together, his time for action was short,
for he was under orders to meet Howe at New York at an early date. He
and Parker decided to make an attempt on the harbour of Charleston, the
chief town of South Carolina, for the trade carried on there was an
important source of the insurgents' funds. It was not until June 4 that
the British force, about 2,000 troops, with Parker's squadron arrived at
Charleston harbour.

The entrance was commanded by Sullivan's island and there the insurgents
under Moultrie had erected a fort and mounted guns. Clinton landed his
troops on Long island, intending that at low tide they should wade
across to Sullivan's island and attack the garrison on their rear, while
the ships bombarded them in front. The attempt was made on the 28th. The
tide did not run out sufficiently to allow the troops to ford the shoals
and the engagement was simply an artillery duel. The British ships
suffered severely; one frigate which went aground was set on fire to
prevent the enemy from taking it, Parker's flagship the _Bristol_ and
the _Experiment_, both of fifty guns, were much knocked about, and some
200 men were killed or wounded. The attack failed, and on July 21
Clinton's force sailed for New York under convoy of a single frigate,
the rest of Parker's ships being forced to refit. The expedition
strengthened the party of separation and bound the south closely
together. Its failure depressed the loyalists, and for three years freed
the southern colonies from invasion, and enabled them to send help to
other quarters. Less than a week after the unsuccessful attempt on
Charleston, on July 4, the congress at Philadelphia, in which all the
thirteen colonies were represented, put forth a declaration of
independence; the colonies renounced their allegiance, and declared
themselves free and independent states, the United States of America.

The progress of the revolt during the summer of 1775 strengthened the
king's determination to subdue it by force. A proclamation was issued in
August against traitorous correspondence with the Americans, and in
September Penn, who brought over the petition of congress to the king,
was informed that no answer would be made to it. George could not have
received it without recognising congress, an unauthorised assemblage of
his subjects engaged in levying war against him. The government was
powerful in parliament, and the great majority of the nation warmly
approved the royal policy, of which the ministers were scarcely more
than the agents. Little doubt was felt as to the successful issue of the
war; public spirit was aroused, and the cause of England was generally
held to be just. The landed gentry and the professions of the Church,
the army, and the law were strongly on the king's side. Self-interest
largely decided the attitude of the mercantile class: some of its
members were opposed to the war because it injured their trade; others
were in favour of it; for trade generally was brisk and was increased by
the demands brought by war. In London and Bristol the opposition had
many supporters, but in both cities there was a strong party in favour
of the government. Among the labouring classes the war was not popular
and recruiting was difficult, for service in America entailed a long
voyage full of discomfort, and the prospect of fighting with men of the
same race and language was repellent. The evangelicals and methodists
sided with the government; the dissenters generally were against the war
and their preachers were active in encouraging their dislike to it.
Addresses approving of the king's policy were numerous and unsolicited;
they poured in from all quarters, from tory Oxford and whiggish
Cambridge, from country towns and great commercial centres like
Liverpool and Manchester. Rockingham observed that violent measures were
countenanced by a majority of persons "of all ranks, professions, or
occupations in this country". Scotland almost to a man was of the same
persuasion. In Ireland the nobles and the gentry generally upheld the
court, but with the majority of protestants, and specially with the
presbyterians of the north, the war was highly unpopular.[108]

[Sidenote: _CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY._]

The opponents of the government were not less resolute than the king.
Lord Effingham resigned his commission in the army lest he should be
called upon to serve against the Americans, and Chatham's eldest son
took the same course in obedience to the wishes of his parents. Grafton
wrote to North in August, 1775, expressing his desire for conciliation.
On October 20 North sent him a draft of the king's speech which showed
him that the government was determined to reduce the rebellion by force
of arms. He resigned the privy seal and went into opposition. The
changes which followed proved that a vigorous policy would be carried
out. Dartmouth took Grafton's place and was succeeded as secretary of
state for the colonies by Lord George Germain, previously known as Lord
George Sackville. Germain was at this time one of North's followers, and
was appointed in order that he might help him in the commons. Violent in
his feelings against the Americans, he was acceptable to the king and
acquired influence over him. His appointment was unpopular. He had fair
ability, but as minister allowed himself to be swayed by personal
motives, and he pursued a system already adopted by the king of
directing military operations in America from London which had
disastrous consequences. Rochford retired with a pension of £2,500 and
was succeeded by Weymouth as secretary of the southern department.

The king's speech at the opening of parliament on October 26, 1775,
stated that the Americans were in rebellion and were seeking to
"establish an independent empire". Eight months had yet to pass before
the colonies declared their independence, and the effect of events which
hastened their decision, such as the employment of German troops and the
refusal to answer the petition of congress, was not yet known in
England. It will, however, scarcely be denied that between the
proceedings of congress and a formal declaration of independence the
distance was not great. The strength of the king's position lay in his
recognition of this fact and of the course which alone might have
quelled the growing spirit of rebellion without humiliation to Great
Britain. The opposition did not see facts as they really were, and
called for remedies which were either vague, of various import,
insufficient, or such as would have placed the crown in a humiliating
position. In the lords' debate on the address, Rockingham urged a vague
undertaking to adopt measures of conciliation, Grafton the repeal of the
acts relating to America since 1763, and Shelburne that the petition of
congress proved that the colonies were not "planning independence". In
the commons Burke taunted the ministers with failure; and Fox, who was
coming to the front, praised the spirit of the Americans, denied that
they were aiming at independence, and bitterly attacked North, who, said
he, had lost more in one campaign than Chatham, Frederick of Prussia, or
Alexander the Great had ever gained--he had lost a whole continent. The
address was carried in the lords by 76 to 33, and in the commons by 176
to 72.

Motions were made in both houses declaring that the employment of
Hanoverian troops within the king's dominions, at Gibraltar and Minorca,
without previous consent of parliament was unconstitutional. It was, the
opposition maintained, a violation of the bill of rights, which declared
that "the keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace,
unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law". On the
government side it was pointed out that it was not a time of peace and
that the clause did not apply to the dependencies of the kingdom. North,
however, consented to a bill of indemnity which was thrown out by the
lords, the opposition objecting to it on the ground that it asserted the
legality of the measure, the government that it was totally unnecessary.
Numerically weak as the opposition was, it maintained the fight with
spirit. Motions more or less directly aimed at the war policy of the
government were made in the lords by Grafton and Richmond, and in the
commons by Luttrell, Fox, Burke, Oliver, Hartley, Lowther, and
Sawbridge. On none of these did the minority vote stronger than 33 in
the lords and 105 in the commons. Burke, in bringing in a bill on
November 16 for composing the troubles in America, urged that the right
way was by concessions to be followed by treaty. He would maintain the
declaratory act of 1766 as necessary to the authority of parliament, and
certain acts passed since 1763 as necessary to British trade; and he
desired that parliament should enact that no tax should be levied on
the colonies other than by their voluntary grant, and should repeal
coercive acts such as that closing Boston harbour. These concessions,
while greater than the government would make, would not, it was pointed
out, have satisfied the Americans; they did not go to the root of
American discontent, which lay in the revenue laws, and dated not from
the year 1766, but reached back to 1672. After a long debate, of which
we have virtually no record, for strangers were excluded from the house,
the bill was lost by 210 votes to 105.

[Sidenote: _THE STATE OF THE NAVY._]

The government was successful in its proposals for the maintenance of
the war. Only 15,230 seamen were in pay in 1775; for 1776 the number
voted was 28,000. In the debate serious charges were brought against the
administration of the navy. Sandwich was diligent; he constantly
inspected the dockyards, an excellent custom which he instituted when
first lord in 1749, and he kept the navy board to its duties.[109] At
his office early in the morning he got through an amount of work
surprising in the case of a man who habitually spent the later part of
his day and his nights in drinking, gambling, and debauchery. The effect
of his diligence was spoilt by corrupt practices. Many abuses prevailed
in the administration of the navy before his time; money voted for
repairs was applied to other purposes, stores were paid for which were
used for private gain, sea-pay was drawn for men who existed only on
paper. Under Sandwich abuses of all kinds seem to have been carried
further than before. The navy in 1776 consisted of 317 ships of various
sizes and 49 sloops.[110] Of these 123 ships were "of the line of
battle," a term then generally restricted to the first three rates,
ships of sixty-four guns and upwards. In spite of the large sums voted
for repairs, many of the king's ships were utterly unseaworthy, and it
was alleged with truth that ships, perfectly capable of repair, were
sold as useless, while others, for which much money had been voted, had
not had a penny spent upon them. On this matter more must be said later.

A bill enabling the king to embody the militia in times of rebellion met
with strong opposition on the ground that it would place a dangerous
power in the hands of the crown, and was subversive of the
constitutional idea of the militia as a purely local force to be used
only for domestic defence; it was, however, finally carried by large
majorities. On the other hand, North's proposal to extend the militia to
Scotland was defeated by 112 to 95, for the country gentlemen, who
regarded the militia system with extreme jealousy, voted against it. For
the army a vote was obtained for 55,000 men, of which 25,000 were to be
employed in America. It was easier to vote the money than to find the
men. The difficulty of recruiting was alleged by government to be a
result of the briskness of trade and such like causes. Already the Irish
army was reduced by drafts to less than the 12,000 men that by statute
were to be kept in that kingdom, and the government excited the
indignation of an independent section in the Irish parliament and of the
protestants of Ulster by obtaining leave to withdraw 4,000 men more. The
conduct of the government in this matter and in that of the hiring of
German troops was strenuously though ineffectually attacked in the
British parliament. The supplies voted for the year 1776 amounted to
£9,097,000. The land tax was raised to four shillings in the pound, and
that with other ordinary ways and means would, North calculated, bring
in £7,143,000. He proposed to make up the deficiency by borrowing
£2,000,000; the loan was to be funded, and the interest of the new stock
was provided for by new taxes on carriages and stage coaches, dice and
cards, by an additional stamp duty, and by raising the penny stamp on
newspapers to three-halfpence.

[Sidenote: _COMMISSIONERS FOR PACIFICATION._]

Acting on the ground taken up by the king's speech that the colonies
were waging a rebellious war, North, on November 20, 1775, brought in a
"prohibitory" bill, which forbade all trade and intercourse with the
Americans, provided that American ships and goods taken at sea should be
forfeited to the captors, being officers and crews of the king's ships,
and repealed certain acts as no longer appropriate in the present state
of war. It also empowered the crown to appoint commissioners to inquire
into grievances, to grant pardons to individuals, and to receive into
the king's peace any districts or colonies which would return to
obedience. North declared himself ready to repeal the tea duty and to
suspend all exercise of the right of taxation if the Americans would
bear their share of the burden of national defence. The bill was carried
after violent opposition in both houses. Fox described the war as unjust
and impracticable, and said that the bill exhibited the folly of the
ministers. It was, the opposition urged, cruel and indiscriminate in its
scope; it excited our seamen to "promiscuous rapine," and provided that
American sailors who were taken prisoners might be compelled to serve in
the British navy against their own people. Such severity, they said,
would drive the Americans to a permanent separation and would eventually
land us in a war with European powers. On the other hand it was
reasonably maintained that, as the Americans were already at war with
us, the war must be carried on as if against alien enemies. In April,
1776, the king appointed Admiral Richard Lord Howe, then about to take
the command in American waters, and his brother, General Howe, as
commissioners in pursuance of the act. Their appointment testifies to
the sincerity of the king's desire for peace, for the Howes were
friendly to the Americans and had already made efforts to bring the
quarrel to a peaceful ending; the admiral, indeed, declared in the lords
that if he were ordered to take part in the war, it would be painful to
him as a man, though he should obey as an officer. George, however, was
determined not to sacrifice any of the rights of his crown. Submission
would be rewarded with pardon, obstinacy in rebellion met by war. He
feared lest Lord Howe should concede too much, and wished that he would
decline the commission.[111] He did not decline, and sailed for America
with offers of pardon. The king's speech at the close of the session on
May 23 expressed the earnest hope that his rebellious subjects would
"voluntarily return to their duty". Peace was only to be obtained by
obedience.

FOOTNOTES:

[99] P. O. Hutchinson, _Hutchinson's Diary and Letters_, i., 461.

[100] _Burke's Correspondence_, i., 272, 274, 276.

[101] _Hutchinson's Diary and Letters_, i., 459, 469.

[102] Cp. Stedman, _History of the American War_, i., 129, and Duncan,
_History Of the Royal Artillery_, i., 303.

[103] Burgoyne to Rochfort, Fonblanque, _Burgoyne_, p. 147.

[104] Gage to Dartmouth, June 25, 1775, _Dartmouth Papers_, ii., 320.

[105] Codman, _Arnold's Expedition to Quebec_, pp. 22-25, 141.

[106] Fonblanque, _Burgoyne_, p. 195; _Dartmouth Papers_, ii., 357.

[107] The King to North, July 28, 1775, _Correspondence with North_, i.,
256.

[108] On national feeling generally see _Annual Reg._, xix. (1776),
38-39; Burke to Champion, Jan. 10, 1775, and Rockingham to Burke, Sept.
24, _Burke's Works_, i., 259 _sq._, 291-92; Lecky, _History_, iii.,
528-34.

[109] Barrow, _Life of Anson_, pp. 214-16.

[110] Progress of the Navy, MS. Admiralty, Miscell., 567, R.O.

[111] George to North, April 13, 1776, _Corr. with North_, ii., 18.




                               CHAPTER IX.

                                SARATOGA.


On June 11, 1776, Howe sailed from Halifax with his army of 9,000 men,
and on July 3 occupied Staten Island without opposition. There he was
joined by the reinforcements from England, conveyed by Lord Howe, and by
Clinton and his troops, so that in August he had with him some 25,000
men, English and German. Washington's army at New York numbered about
19,000 effectives.[112] Mindful of his commission to restore
tranquillity, Lord Howe wrote to him enclosing a copy of the king's
offers. Washington would not receive the letter because the address did
not acknowledge his military rank, and observed that the powers of the
commissioners extended only to granting pardons, and that his people had
done nothing for which they needed pardon. The pacific mission of the
Howes having so far failed, the general on August 22-25 landed an army
on Long Island, which is separated from New York by the East river.
Brooklyn heights on Long Island, opposite New York, were strongly
fortified and held by the Americans. Washington, believing that a larger
British force was left in Staten Island than was really the case,
thought it necessary to keep a numerous garrison in New York to meet a
direct attack on the place, and detached only some 9,000 men under
Putnam to Long Island. They were for the most part posted so as to hold
a belt of wooded hills lying between their lines and the royal army.
During the night of the 26th Howe outflanked them and brought his main
body to a position on their rear. The next day an attack was made on
their front; they were caught between two divisions of the king's troops
and were defeated. Howe put their loss at 3,300, which is certainly an
overestimate, though he made nearly 1,100 prisoners, among them the
generals Sullivan and Lord Stirling, as the Americans called him, an
unsuccessful claimant of that earldom.[113] The British casualties were
377. The Americans retreated within their inner lines. If Howe had
allowed his troops to storm their entrenchments he would probably have
destroyed or taken the whole force on the island. He considered,
however, that the lines could in a few days be taken "at a very cheap
rate" by regular approaches, and decided not to risk the loss of any
more men.[114] He let his opportunity slip, and on the night of the 29th
Washington, helped by a fog, cleverly withdrew his troops across the
river.

[Sidenote: _NEW YORK TAKEN._]

Lord Howe took advantage of the American defeat to invite congress to
send some of its members to confer with him unofficially as to possible
terms of peace. Congress, though it refused to sanction any unofficial
negotiations, sent commissioners from its own body to confer with him.
Nothing came of the conference, for the American commissioners would not
treat except on the basis of independence. On September 15 the British
army descended on Manhattan Island, on which New York stands, and the
American militia fled in disorder. The British took possession of New
York and of sixty-six of the enemy's guns. If Howe's movements had been
more prompt he might have cut off a large number of the enemy; he is
said to have wasted time by lingering over luncheon at the house of the
mother of Lindley Murray, the grammar-writer, who detained him by her
crafty hospitality. Washington drew off his troops to Haarlem heights,
in the northern part of the island. The next day there was some
skirmishing in which the Americans held their ground. The loyalists of
New York had been shamefully treated by the dominant faction, and the
British were received with joy.[115] A few days later a large part of
the city was destroyed by fires evidently kindled by incendiaries.
Washington and other generals had wished for military reasons to burn
the place. They were prevented by congress, but the idea was taken up
by some violent revolutionists. The Americans were disheartened by their
ill-success; Washington's troops deserted in large numbers, and the
greatest disorder prevailed in his army. In England the news of Howe's
victory and his occupation of New York was received with delight, and
the king rewarded him with the Order of the Bath.

The acquisition of New York gave the army an excellent base for
operations either in the northern or southern provinces; it was easily
accessible by sea, and lay in the midst of a district where loyalism was
strong. According to the ministerial plan, Howe should have been joined
by Carleton's army, which was to have taken Crown Point and Ticonderoga,
gained possession of the upper Hudson, and invaded the province of New
York from the north. After the Americans were chased out of Canada,
Carleton's operations were stopped by the lack of a fleet to wrest the
command of Lake Champlain from the rebels. During the summer he devoted
himself with extraordinary energy to collecting and building vessels.
Ships sent out from England were taken to pieces, carried overland to
St. John's and put together again, little gunboats and transports were
built, and by the beginning of October a larger and better fleet than
that of the Americans was afloat on the lake. It engaged the enemy's
fleet, under Arnold, off Valcour island, on the 11th and again on the
13th, and utterly destroyed it; only three of their vessels
escaped.[116] Carleton occupied Crown Point, but as the season was so
far advanced did not attack Ticonderoga, or stay long enough to put
Crown Point in a defensible condition; he placed his army in winter
quarters and returned to Quebec. He might have done more. His decision
disappointed the king, and was represented to him in an unfavourable
light, for Germain had a personal grudge against Carleton, and had
already, in August, sent an order, which failed to reach him, that
beyond his province the command was to be taken by Burgoyne. George,
conscious of Carleton's signal services, at first declared himself
satisfied that he had good reason for his decision; but Germain had the
royal ear, and when the news came that Carleton had actually closed the
campaign, the king accused him of slackness.

[Sidenote: _WASHINGTON'S RETREAT._]

An example of real slackness was being given by Howe at New York. He
should with the aid of the fleet have made a prompt effort to prevent
Washington from retreating from Manhattan island, and to cut off his
communications with Connecticut whence he was drawing supplies. Even
before occupying New York he might have conveyed his army by water to a
point from which White Plains, where the land begins to broaden out
rapidly, might have been reached with ease. He wasted four weeks of
precious time at New York, and did not embark his troops till October
12. Washington left his narrow position on Haarlem heights, gained White
Plains before him, and fortified his camp. Howe attacked him on the 28th
with the object of outflanking him. Although part of his army by a
frontal attack drove the American right from a strong position, this
success was fruitless as well as costly. The insurgents' centre was
weak, and if he had attacked it in force he might have crushed them
completely. He made no further attempt in that direction, and Washington
retreated to a good position behind Croton river. Howe returned to New
York. There, however, he dealt the Americans a serious blow. Fort
Washington, on Manhattan island, and Fort Lee, opposite to it on the
Jersey shore, were intended to bar the Hudson and so secure
communications with the country to the west of it. Congress, which often
interfered in military matters, ordered that Fort Washington should be
held, though in fact the forts did not prevent our ships from passing up
the river. On November 16 a well-planned attack was made upon the fort;
it was forced to surrender, and 2,858 prisoners, forty-three cannon, and
a large quantity of small arms were taken by the British.

Two days later Cornwallis took possession of Fort Lee, together with 140
cannon and stores of various kinds. He rapidly overran New Jersey.
Washington had been drawn down thither, and Lee, whom he left at the
Croton, failed to support him. He retreated hastily through New Jersey
with a force daily diminished by desertion. Cornwallis pressed upon him,
but was detained by Howe's orders for a week at Brunswick; and
Washington, who left Princeton only an hour before Cornwallis entered
it, had just time to convey his army, then reduced to some 3,300
men,[117] across the Delaware on December 8 before the British came up.
They were unable to follow him at once for no boats were left on the
eastern bank. Howe, who had joined Cornwallis, decided that no more
could be done and placed the army in winter quarters. He divided it into
small detachments, and for the sake of protecting and encouraging the
loyalists, extended his line of communication for eighty miles. The
fortunes of the insurgents were at low ebb. Not only were the loyalists
strong in New Jersey, but crowds of the rebel party, many of them men of
high standing, took advantage of the amnesty which Howe was empowered to
offer. The Delaware would soon be frozen over, and, if the British
crossed it, Washington had not a sufficient force to hinder them from
marching on Philadelphia. The town was panic-stricken, and congress
removed to Baltimore. Washington's army dwindled. The period for which
his regular troops were enlisted would end on January 1, and as for the
militia, that "destructive, expensive, and disorderly mob" as he called
them, they came and went as they pleased. "The game," he thought, "was
pretty well played out."[118] The Americans' distress was heightened by
the capture of Lee, who was on his way to join Washington. They reckoned
him their ablest general, though his insubordination and self-seeking
rendered the loss of him an actual gain. About the same time Clinton
sailed to Rhode Island with Sir Peter Parker, and occupied Newport
without opposition.

Washington's only chance lay in immediate action. The foolish
disposition of the British army gave him an opportunity. Their central
cantonments, nearest to the enemy, were weak. Trenton was held by only
1,200 Hessians; their discipline was relaxed, they were hindered by
difference of language from gaining intelligence, and they lived in
careless security. Washington was reinforced by Lee's troops and by
three regiments from Ticonderoga, which Carleton's inaction had rendered
available for service in the south. On the night of December 25 he
crossed the Delaware, and before daybreak took Trenton by surprise. The
startled garrison could make no resistance; about 200 escaped and 918
were taken prisoners. Of the Americans only two were killed and six
wounded. Cornwallis, who was on the point of embarking for England,
hastened back to the Jersey army. Washington avoided a general
engagement, defeated two regiments employed in an operation for the
defence of Princeton, and before the middle of January, 1777, compelled
the British by a series of well-conducted movements to evacuate West
Jersey and withdraw to Brunswick and Amboy, where they went into
quarters. The king's troops, British and German, committed many
excesses, plundering friends and foes alike; and the inhabitants,
indignant at their conduct, took advantage of Washington's success and
turned against them. Many joined Washington's army. The British were in
the midst of a hostile population, and though they had communication
with New York by water, were almost besieged by land, for their supplies
were constantly intercepted. The Jersey loyalists were left to the
vengeance of their neighbours and were mercilessly plundered. Many of
them fled to New York where several thousand provincial troops were
embodied. Howe remained inactive at New York until the spring, and
Washington also stayed quietly at his headquarters at Morristown.

[Sidenote: _A PARTIAL SECESSION FROM PARLIAMENT._]

Parliament was opened on October 31, 1776. An amendment to the address
referring to American affairs was defeated in the lords by 91 to 26 and
in the commons by 242 to 87. The news of the victory at Brooklyn--"the
terrible news," as Fox indecently called it--and of the occupation of
New York strengthened the ministers; and on a motion to revise the acts
by which the Americans considered themselves aggrieved, the minority in
the commons sank to 47. Depressed by the exhibition of their weakness,
the Rockingham section ceased to attend parliament except on the
occasion of private bills in which they were interested. Petulance and a
false notion of dignity led them to neglect their duty to their country
and their party. Their conduct was blamed by other whigs, and their
secession, though it occasioned discord in the opposition, did not
paralyse its efforts. Fox, by that time its most effective orator, went
off to Paris, and the king advised North to proceed with as much
business as possible in his absence.

The split in the opposition was specially manifested on the introduction
of a government bill in February, 1777, for a partial suspension of the
_habeas corpus_ act, in order to secure the detention of persons charged
with high treason in America or on the high seas; Rockingham, Burke, and
others adhered to their secession, while Dunning and Fox headed the
minority in the commons. Fox warned the house not to be deceived by the
amicable professions of the French ministers, who, he said, were holding
conferences with delegates from congress while he was in Paris, and were
only delaying to take part against England until the French navy was in
good order. He declared that our losses were far greater and our
successes far smaller than they were represented by government, and
inveighed against the inhumanity with which he asserted the war was
conducted on our side. He attacked the solicitor-general, who in
answering him pointed out that if, as he asserted, France was secretly
intriguing against us the bill was specially necessary. In a personal
encounter Wedderburn was a dangerous antagonist, and Fox met more than
his match. Dunning urged an amendment to prevent any abuse of the act;
and North, always averse from violent measures, accepted his proposal.
The bill was carried by 112 to 33. Public feeling had lately been
excited on the subject of treason by incendiary fires which did much
damage in the Portsmouth dockyard and destroyed some buildings on
Bristol quay. They were found to have been the work of one James Aitken,
commonly called John the painter, who had lately returned from America,
and who stated in his confession that he had acted at the instigation of
Silas Deane, one of the emissaries of congress in Paris.[119] He was
hanged at Portsmouth on March 10.

The expenses of the war were growing. For 1777 parliament voted 45,000
seamen, including 1,000 marines. The difficulty was to get them. A
seaman's service was not continuous; when his ship was paid off he could
go whither he would. The peace establishment of the navy was
ridiculously small, and when a war broke out it was always difficult to
get men in a hurry. Many of the best seamen would have taken service on
board merchant ships and would, perhaps, be at sea; and life on the
king's ships in time of war was often so rough that it is not surprising
that men should have avoided it. The usual difficulty of manning the
fleet at the beginning of a war was increased at the present time, for
it was calculated that the revolt of the colonies deprived England of
1,800 seamen. The navy in time of war was recruited by impressment, a
system which, though recognised by common law, entailed much hardship.
Seamen were kidnapped, often after a bloody struggle, and if caught
inland were sent to the ports ironed like criminals. Men who had been at
sea for years were liable, as soon as their ships neared home, to be
taken out of them, put into a press tender and sent to sea again.
Merchant ships were stripped of their best men, and were left to be
brought into port by the master and a few lads. The press gangs looked
for trained seamen, though when a war lasted for some years they took
what they could get; landsmen were impressed, and the press was
sometimes abused as a means of getting rid of a personal enemy, a rival
in love, or an inconvenient claimant. The system was expensive; it was
stated that from 4,000 to 5,000 seamen were employed on the business,
and that every pressed man who was found to be fit for sea cost the
nation £30. High bounties were offered, but they failed to entice men to
enter a service which the press might make practically continuous, and a
proposal for a limited term of service was rejected by the commons. The
supplies for the year amounted to £12,592,534. New taxes calculated to
yield £237,000 were laid on male servants, a guinea on each, stamps,
imported glass, auctioneers, and sales by auction; and the deficiency of
£5,500,000 was met by a loan, raised at 4 per cent., with a premium of
1/2 per cent. to meet the state of the stocks.

[Sidenote: _ARREARS OF THE CIVIL LIST._]

While war was thus increasing the burden of the nation, the king again
applied to parliament for payment of the arrears of the civil list,
amounting to £618,000. The ministers exhibited accounts which failed to
satisfy the opposition. Wilkes pointed out that payments since 1769 of
£171,000 and £114,000 for secret service were each noted in a single
line, and that there was a general charge of £438,000 for pensions. As
in 1769, the arrears must be traced to an expenditure which increased
the king's influence. Wilkes said this plainly, Burke in less broad
terms, and Fox taunted North with the pledge given when he was in office
in 1769 that no such demand should be made again. Besides money
deliberately spent in corruption, vast sums were wasted on abuses in the
royal household, on sinecures, and on other useless places of profit.
One of the king's turnspits was a member of the house of commons, and
paid £5 a year to a humble deputy, and no fewer than twenty-three
separate tables were kept up, eleven for the nurses. For such abuses
George was only partially responsible. Though he lived with a frugality
which was almost meanness, he was in dire distress for money; the wages
of his menial servants were six quarters in arrear, and he owed his
coal-merchant £6,000.[120] After much discussion the money was voted,
and the civil list was increased to £900,000 a year. In presenting the
bill to the king the speaker, Sir Fletcher Norton, dwelt on the
magnificence of the gift, and added that the commons were confident that
he would apply wisely what they had granted liberally. Though the court
party in the commons declared that he had not expressed the feeling of
the house, he received a vote of thanks for his speech. Towards the
close of the session Chatham was sufficiently recovered from his long
illness again to attend parliament, and moved an address to the crown to
put an end to the war. He pointed out the danger of foreign
intervention, and declared that France was already destroying our
commerce. The idea of conquering America was absurd; America would not
be conquered by the loss of ten pitched battles. He was against American
independence, but this country, he said, was the aggressor, and "instead
of exacting unconditional submission from the colonies, we should grant
them unconditional redress". His motion was negatived by 99 votes to 28.

[Sidenote: _THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN._]

A fresh plan for obtaining the mastery of the line of the Hudson was
already in course of preparation. Burgoyne, who returned home in
December, obtained the command of the northern army, and, on February
28, laid a project of campaign before the government. He proposed to
secure Ticonderoga and the lakes, and march down the Hudson to Albany,
where he was to effect a junction with Howe, previously detaching a
small force to create a diversion by advancing from Oswego and down the
Mohawk river to Albany. The object of this plan was to open
communication between New York and Canada, cut off New England from the
southern provinces, and enable Howe to operate in the south with an
overwhelming force. He pointed out the difficulties of the proposed
march and suggested alternative schemes; but his first project was
chosen by the king, and he was ordered to carry it out. The projected
campaign, if successful, would have been disastrous to the Americans.
Its success depended on Howe's co-operation. An invasion by distinct
armies, such as Burgoyne proposed, with bases far apart and acting on
converging lines, can only be undertaken with safety when
intercommunication is secure and co-operation assured. Otherwise one of
the invading armies is liable to be crushed before it can receive help
from another, specially when, as was the case here, the enemy can act on
lines interior to those on which the invaders move. Burgoyne fell into
the error, common throughout the war, of trusting too much to loyalist
help. Apart from that, however, his project assumed that Howe would be
advancing up the Hudson in time to get between him and any large force
which might advance against him, and it failed miserably, because Howe
did not co-operate with him. Germain informed Carleton of the plan and
ordered him to resign the command of the northern army to Burgoyne; he
was to command only within his own province, keeping 3,700 men with him,
and was to forward Burgoyne's expedition. Germain reproached him for his
retirement from Ticonderoga, which, he said, gave Washington the means
of breaking the British line at Trenton. Carleton was indignant at this
unworthy treatment, and though he did what he could to help Burgoyne, he
resigned the governor-generalship.[121]

During the winter Howe formed a plan for taking Philadelphia, and on
December 20, 1776, expounded it by letter to Germain, observing that the
northern army would not reach Albany before September. Germain wrote on
March 8 approving of his plan,[122] which might have been executed
without preventing the junction contemplated by the minister. After some
unimportant operations Howe took the field in June, and on the 5th
received a copy of Carleton's instructions relating to Burgoyne's
campaign. Washington's difficulties were then somewhat relieved; he
encamped at Middlebrook in a position too strong to be forced; he would
not be enticed to a general engagement, and Howe could not leave him in
his rear and push on to Philadelphia. Time was passing, yet Howe was
still set on prosecuting his design on Philadelphia. Finally he
embarked an army of 14,000 men at Sandy Hook, and instead of remaining
to be in readiness to co-operate with Burgoyne, left Clinton with 8,500
men to garrison New York and "act as circumstances may direct," and on
July 23 sailed for the Delaware, where he considered he would be
sufficiently near to New York to act with Burgoyne, if necessary, and
yet could carry out his own main design. The naval officers were
unwilling to risk disembarkation in the Delaware, and Howe, determined
not to give up his design, sailed for Chesapeake bay. The fleet met with
contrary winds, and it was not until August 25 that his army landed at
the head of Elk river. Washington with about an equal force marched to
the north of the Brandywine to defend Philadelphia. The two armies met
on September 11. Howe, who well knew how to handle an army in the field,
out-manoeuvred him, and after some sharp fighting the American army
was defeated with a loss of over 1,400 men, killed, wounded, and taken,
and eleven guns. Congress again decamped, and on the 27th Cornwallis
took possession of Philadelphia amid the acclamations of a large part of
the inhabitants, while Howe and the main army encamped at Germantown,
five miles to the north.

[Sidenote: _HOWE'S OBJECT ATTAINED._]

In order to secure communication with New York and to supply the army,
it was all-important that the fleet should be able to pass up the
Delaware, which was strongly defended by forts, a bar, and a fleet of
little vessels; and Howe detached troops to act against the forts.
Washington lay a few miles to the north; he was joined by strong
reinforcements, and determined to take advantage of the division of the
British troops. He formed a plan for surprising and driving in their
advanced posts, cutting their force in two, crushing their right wing,
and then doubling the whole army back on the Schuylkill river where it
would be at his mercy. He attacked at daybreak on October 4 under cover
of a fog. The head of the British position was insufficiently guarded
and the 40th regiment was driven back. At this critical moment its
commander, Musgrave, and a party of his men stopped the enemy's advance
by seizing a house which stood in their way and holding it against them
until the army had time to form. His gallant conduct saved the army. The
Americans fought well until, misled by the fog, one of their brigades
fired on another. This threw them into disorder, which was increased by
the drunkenness of some of their officers and men. Cornwallis came up
from Philadelphia in hot haste and pressed upon them. They retreated
with a loss of 673 killed and wounded, and 400 taken; on the British
side the casualties were 551. Both in this action and in the battle on
the Brandywine the Americans showed that they had learned to fight with
resolution and to retreat in good order. The two engagements proved that
though they might be defeated in the field, the war would not come to a
speedy end, and this enlisted foreign sympathy and encouraged France to
intervene on their side.

For a month Howe was engaged in opening the passage of the Delaware. He
sent for 4,000 men from New York. This reduction of the garrison was
most unfortunate, for, as we shall see, it put an end to Clinton's
attempt to co-operate with Burgoyne.[123] At last the defences of the
river were destroyed, and communication was established between the army
and the fleet. Washington retreated to Valley Forge, about twenty-five
miles from Philadelphia, and there put his army into quarters. During
the winter his troops suffered terribly from lack of clothing and
provisions. By Christmas nearly 3,000 were unfit for duty because they
were "barefoot or otherwise naked". They deserted in parties, a large
number came to the British quarters, and scarcely a day passed without
the resignation of an officer. In February, 1778, there was almost a
famine in the camp, and Washington feared a general mutiny and
dispersion.[124]

Meanwhile the British were in comfortable quarters in Philadelphia.
Howe's object was attained; but though the capture of their capital
discouraged the Americans, the loss of Philadelphia is not to be
compared with the loss of a capital of an organised state; it did not
paralyse an administrative machinery or lessen the means of resistance.
Howe's anxiety for its capture largely proceeded from his expectation
that it would be followed by a rising of the loyalists; he placed too
high a value on professions of loyalty and on loyalist support. In
itself the place was important; it was the largest of the American
towns, and it opened communication between the northern and southern
provinces, though so long as an insurgent army existed in Pennsylvania,
an invader could not safely take advantage of its position. British
officers marvelled that Howe did not attack Washington while his army
was in so miserable a state. His inactivity cannot be defended
satisfactorily. He was looking forward to be relieved of his command; he
was disgusted by the inadequate response made by the government to his
repeated demands for large reinforcements; he informed Germain that
without 10,000 more troops the war would not be ended in the next
campaign, and on October 22 wrote resigning his command. He allowed the
discipline of his army to become lax. The winter was spent in idleness
and dissipation. A bank at faro was opened, and many officers were
ruined by gambling. All ranks were demoralised, and sober townspeople
who had welcomed the arrival of the troops were disgusted by their
disorderly behaviour. The only fruit of Howe's victories during the
campaign of 1777 was the acquisition of good winter quarters at
Philadelphia, and that he purchased at the price of an appalling
disaster to a British army.[125]

Burgoyne took the field in June with 7,251 rank and file of regular
troops, of which 3,116 were Germans, 148 militia, and 503 Indians, in
all 7,902. Shortly before he left Canada a small force set out under
Colonel St. Leger to march from Lake Ontario, take Fort Stanwix, and
form a junction with him by an advance through the Mohawk valley.
Burgoyne's army was in fine order, but the arrangements for the carriage
of supplies and the making of roads were insufficient. His troops were
carried up Lake Champlain and landed at Crown Point, where he made a
speech to his Indian allies, commanding them to observe the customs of
civilised warfare and to behave with humanity. He was to find that such
orders could not be enforced. On July 6, almost as soon as he arrived at
Ticonderoga, the Americans hastily abandoned it, leaving their guns
behind them. They were promptly pursued and suffered heavy losses. The
fugitives joined Schuyler, the commander of the army in the north, at
Fort Edward; he evacuated the place and retreated southwards in the
direction of Albany. The news of Burgoyne's success caused much
rejoicing in England. George is said to have rushed into the queen's
room as soon as he heard of it crying, "I have beat them! beat all the
Americans!" For the moment the Americans were panic-struck. Men said
angrily that their troops would never hold a place until a general had
been shot, and Schuyler was superseded by Gates.

[Sidenote: _BURGOYNE IN DIFFICULTIES._]

On July 10 Burgoyne set out to march from Skenesborough to Fort Edward,
sending his artillery and stores by water to Fort George. His route,
though not more than twenty miles, was extremely difficult; it was
obstructed by trees felled by the enemy and lay through swamps and
forests, and at least forty bridges had to be constructed in its course.
He might have avoided these difficulties by returning to Ticonderoga and
conveying his army by water up Lake George; but he rejected that route
because he thought that a retrograde movement would discourage his
troops and abate the panic of the enemy. His army did not reach the
Hudson until the 30th. At Fort Edward his supplies ran short and he had
to wait there, for his means of transport were not sufficient to bring
his stores from Fort George. Garrisons had to be found for Ticonderoga
and for posts of communication, and this diminished his army. Meanwhile
the enemy was increasing in force. While at Ticonderoga he published a
foolish proclamation reminding those who persisted in rebellion that he
had it in his power to let loose the Indians upon them. Nothing would
have induced him to commit so hideous a crime, and his proclamation only
served to enrage the Americans and swell the number of their troops. The
Indians were offended by his efforts to restrain them, and deserted him;
they were no loss, for they caused more trouble than they were worth,
and some excesses which they committed, and specially the murder of a
Miss McCrae by an Indian who, it is said, was sent by her betrothed to
bring her into the British lines, excited widespread indignation.
Burgoyne was in sore need of supplies and made an attempt to seize the
insurgents' stores and horses collected at Bennington. He sent only some
500 men on this service, for he was assured that the district was
friendly. It was far otherwise. The party was surrounded on August 16,
and another detachment formed of German troops which was despatched to
help them marched so slowly that it did not come up in time. Both bodies
were defeated with a loss, perhaps, of about 500 men.

News came of the failure of St. Leger's expedition. On his arrival at
Oswego he was joined by Sir John Johnson and Butler with their loyalist
regiments, and by a force of Indians whom Johnson, one of their
superintendents, and the Mohawk leader, Brant, persuaded to march with
them. He besieged Fort Stanwix, and, on August 6, defeated a force sent
to relieve it. But his guns were too light for siege operations; the
garrison held out, and his Indians forced him to raise the siege. During
his retreat they mutinied; he was barely able to bring off his regular
troops, and lost his guns and stores. Burgoyne was in a dangerous
position; the country swarmed with enemies; "wherever the king's troops
point," he wrote, "militia to the number of three or four thousand
assemble in a few hours". He might have retreated to Fort Edward, where
he would have had communication with Lake George; but he held that he
was bound by his orders to advance, and on September 15, after
collecting provisions for about a month, he conveyed his force to the
western bank of the Hudson and cut himself off from communication with
the lakes. Besides artillery, he had then with him only 5,000 men under
arms.[126] On the 19th his force was partially engaged by Arnold at
Freeman's Farm. The British held their ground but lost over 500 men, and
Gates, the American commander, with 11,000 men, who did not take part in
the fight, occupied a strong position in front of them. A message came
from Clinton that he was about to attack the forts on the Hudson below
Albany, and Burgoyne sent answer that he hoped to be able to hold his
ground until October 20. He fortified his position and waited for
further news. None came to him. The insurgent forces grew to at least
16,000 men; Burgoyne's provisions were becoming exhausted and on October
3 he put his little army on half rations. Despite the overwhelming
number of the enemy, he moved forward on the 7th to ascertain whether he
could force a passage through their lines. He was defeated with heavy
loss and fell back on Saratoga.

[Sidenote: _SURRENDER OF BURGOYNE'S ARMY._]

A council of war held on the 12th decided on a retreat to Fort Edward.
It was too late; the Americans held the fords and had a strong force
encamped between Fort George and Fort Edward. Only 3,500 fighting men
were left with Burgoyne; he was completely surrounded, and on the 14th
he opened negotiations with Gates. Even then he refused to surrender
unconditionally, and the convention of Saratoga was concluded on the
17th. His troops marched out with the honours of war, and were to be
allowed to return to England on condition of not serving again in the
war. The whole number which surrendered, including camp-followers,
labourers, and detachments, was 5,762. Gates's behaviour at the
surrender was such as became an officer and a gentleman. Congress
shamefully broke the engagement. The captive troops were marched to
Boston, but when the transports called for them, they were not allowed
to embark. The paltry subterfuges by which congress defended its conduct
only throw a specially odious light on its sacrifice of honour to
policy. From the beginning of the war both sides made frequent
complaints as to the treatment of prisoners, and both apparently with
justice. Burgoyne's men were shamefully treated. He and his staff were
allowed to return home in the spring of 1778; others were exchanged from
time to time, but the mass of the army never came back. Clinton, who was
then unaware of Burgoyne's distress, did what he could to render his
position secure in case he arrived at Albany. As soon as he received
reinforcements from England, he pushed up the Hudson and on October 6
destroyed the forts which barred the passage of our ships. He could do
no more, for he was forced to send 4,000 men to Howe and could not leave
New York without a sufficient garrison. A messenger from Burgoyne at
last reached him. The way being cleared, the ships ascended the river
and burnt the batteries and town at Esopus creek. The news of Clinton's
activity doubtless secured Burgoyne more favourable terms than Gates was
at first inclined to grant.

The chief blame for this disaster must rest on Howe. His assertion that
Philadelphia was the prime object of his campaign made Germain uneasy,
and he wrote to him on May 18 that whatever he might meditate, he was
not to neglect to co-operate with the northern army.[127] This despatch
did not reach Howe until August 16, when he had made co-operation with
Burgoyne impossible. A few days later Germain wrote again; the despatch
was not ready for his signature at the time at which he wished to go
into the country, and when he came back it was forgotten. It was a piece
of gross carelessness, but an undue importance has been attached to
it.[128] Howe was well aware of Burgoyne's expedition. On June 5 he had
received a copy of a despatch from Germain which told him that Burgoyne
was ordered to "force his way to Albany" and join him with the utmost
speed.[129] Nevertheless, he persisted in pursuing his own plan. He must
have hesitated whether to reach Philadelphia by land or water. When in
June he at last made up his mind to move, he evidently tried to reach
Philadelphia by land. If he had succeeded and had swept Washington
before him, he might have kept in communication with Burgoyne and have
co-operated with him. Failing in this, he decided to go by sea, and when
he was told that he could not safely land in the Delaware, went on to
Chesapeake bay. When he gained his object by taking Philadelphia he did
so by a course which made it impossible for him to co-operate with
Burgoyne, and put Washington's army between them.

According to the government plan the chief object of his campaign should
have been his junction with Burgoyne. The government, that is Germain,
certainly erred in not giving him precise orders, while Burgoyne had
virtually no discretionary power. Yet it was for Howe, as
commander-in-chief on the spot, to judge of the situation without
explicit instructions. According to his own statements, his view of the
situation was that Burgoyne would march through a friendly country and
encounter no enemy except the army of 4,000 men under Schuyler, that
Clinton would be able to give him any assistance which he might require,
that his own expedition to Philadelphia would divert the enemy from
Burgoyne, that he would be able to "account for" Washington, and that if
Washington gave him the slip, he would be able to follow him up and
prevent him from annoying Burgoyne.[130] These considerations may be
supposed to have satisfied him that no direct co-operation with
Burgoyne was required of him. Burgoyne had to encounter foes whom
neither he nor Howe reckoned upon, and it was Howe's duty to be at hand
to prevent their crushing him. Burgoyne made some mistakes in preparing
for and prosecuting his campaign, but he and his men exhibited splendid
courage, and he is not to be blamed for trying his fortune to the
utmost. In view of his orders, and of the risk of leaving a co-operating
force unsupported, he was bound to ascertain whether he could force his
way through the enemy. The irregular character of the American force
rendered success possible, and justified his gallant attempt of October
7. He was a fine soldier, and was regarded with confidence and affection
by his subordinates. Clinton seems to have done all that was in his
power considering the small force left with him in New York.[131]

[Sidenote: _EFFECT OF THE SURRENDER._]

The surrender of Burgoyne's army could not in itself affect the issue of
the war. Its importance lies in its effect on the policy of foreign
nations and specially of France. So far as the Americans alone were
concerned, England had good reason to expect ultimate success. They
would neither enlist in sufficient numbers to keep up a regular army nor
provide for such troops as they had. The meddlesomeness and incapacity
of congress were destroying its army; generals were intriguing against
one another, soldiers were perishing for lack of necessaries, stores
were wasted. Money was scarce and public credit bad. Early in 1778
congress had 5,500,000 paper dollars in circulation, and the value of
its paper dollar was from half to a quarter of the silver dollar. Above
all, the Americans had no fleet, and were consequently unable to protect
their sea-board. Their alliance with France and subsequently with Spain
brought them, along with other help, the sea-power without which the
issue of the struggle might well have been adverse to them. France and
Spain hoped to recoup themselves for former losses, France by conquests
in the West Indies, Spain by regaining Gibraltar, Minorca, and Jamaica.
In 1775 an agent of the French court went over to America with offers of
help, and early in 1776 the Count de Vergennes, foreign minister of
Louis XVI., proposed as a system of policy that the Bourbon kings should
give secret aid to the Americans and strengthen their own forces,
taking care, however, to persuade England that their intentions were
pacific. About the same time congress sent Deane to France as a secret
agent.

In accordance with the proposal of Vergennes the French and Spanish
courts provided money for the Americans; and Beaumarchais, the
dramatist, who masqueraded as a firm of merchants in order to conceal
the participation of his government, spent it in purchasing military
stores for them. The young Marquis de Lafayette and other Frenchmen
entered their army. So too did the Poles, Kosciusko and Pulaski, and the
Germans, Kalb and Steuben. In December Franklin went over to Paris. The
philosophic movement was then at its height in France. The _philosophes_
desired freedom of thought in religion, constitutional liberty, and the
abolition of privilege of all kinds. They speculated as to the origins
of political and social institutions and the laws of human progress. The
works of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu were eagerly studied by the
nobles and fine ladies of the court with whom _philosophisme_ was
fashionable. America they regarded as a land of freedom and primitive
simplicity; and they hailed the crude assertions of the Declaration of
Independence, issued by a body largely composed of slave-owners, that
all men are created equal and with an inalienable right to liberty, as
bringing their theories within the range of practical politics. Franklin
was received with ludicrous adulation as an embodiment of republican
virtue and philosophic thought. He busied himself in stirring up
hostility to England. Another American envoy sought help from Prussia.
Frederick showed his hatred of England by forbidding some German troops
which George had hired to pass through his dominions; but his quarrel
with Austria with reference to the Bavarian succession rendered him
unwilling to provoke Great Britain: he had no sympathy with the
Americans and would not receive their envoy.

[Sidenote: _THE INTERVENTION OF FRANCE._]

Besides the stores sent by Beaumarchais and 1,000 livres in cash, France
helped the Americans by neglecting to prevent the violation of her
neutrality by their ships. Although the Americans could not dispute with
Great Britain on the sea, they had a few ships built by congress, more
belonging to the maritime provinces, and a vast number of privateers.
These ships did much damage to British trade. Already they hovered
about the coasts of England and Ireland, and were so dangerous to our
merchant vessels that merchants embarked their goods on foreign ships to
avoid the risk of capture. By the end of 1778 nearly 1,000 merchant
ships were taken by American privateers. Some of these privateers were
fitted out in French ports, brought their prizes into them, and sailed
from them again on fresh expeditions. Our ambassador, Lord Stormont,
complained vigorously of these open breaches of neutrality, and at last
the French government took some measures to stop them. The opposition in
parliament constantly insisted that, if the war went on, France and
Spain would certainly take part with the Americans. The government could
no longer ignore, though it still strove to discredit, the danger of
foreign intervention. The king's speech at the opening of parliament on
October 20, 1777, took note of the naval preparations of the two powers
and recommended an augmentation of the navy. Tidings of Burgoyne's
disaster reached Europe on December 2. Vergennes at once informed the
American agents that his master would make a treaty with them. The
alliance was concluded on February 6, 1778; it was agreed that, in the
event of war between France and England, neither of the contracting
parties should make peace without the consent of the other or until the
independence of the United States should be assured by treaty. France
renounced all claim to Canada. If taken from England, it was to belong
to the United States, while all conquests in the West Indies were to
belong to France. Spain at this time declined to join in the alliance.
That a treaty was signed was soon generally believed in England; it was
officially declared by France on March 13. War between Great Britain and
France began in the summer.

With the intervention of France the war enters on a new phase.
Thenceforward England had to deal with more powerful enemies than the
Americans. The war had lasted for three years and the rebellion was not
crushed. Was it too much for England to expect that she would subdue a
people of her own stock, as the Americans were then, separated from her
by 3,000 miles of sea, and spread over a vast and difficult country? Had
she trusted to her navy, as Barrington and others desired, shut the
American ports, and held the towns on the coast and the navigable
rivers, the insurgents might possibly have been driven to submission
without any severe struggle. Conquest by land was decided on. Was
Chatham right in declaring in May, 1777, that England could not conquer
the Americans? Six months later a capable French officer serving in
their army wrote to the French minister of war that, unless his country
declared war against England, the Americans would fail to obtain
independence; so little enthusiasm for the cause was there among them,
so keenly did they feel the privations of the war.[132] In our war in
South Africa of 1899-1902 the Boers showed themselves better soldiers
than the Americans, and were not less brave; they were akin to us in
race, and their country was at least as difficult as America. In both
wars our well-drilled troops constantly found their previous training
useless or worse; in both we received loyal support from numerous
colonials on the spot. While improved means of transport brought South
Africa far nearer to us than America was in the eighteenth century, the
Boers were better prepared for war than the Americans, and were a more
martial people. Yet England conquered them. So far, then, as the
Americans alone were concerned, Chatham's assertion must be denied.

[Sidenote: _ENGLAND'S CONDUCT OF THE WAR._]

Why then had England done so little in those three years? There was much
active loyalty on our side: thousands of colonials fought for the crown
during the course of the war; in the central provinces at least half the
population was for us. Everything depended on the vigour and judgment
with which force was applied. In these respects there was failure both
at home and on the spot. In the first place the effort required was
underestimated. In February, 1774, Gage thought four regiments would
keep things quiet; in 1775 it was believed that 10,000 men would be
enough; in January, 1776, Howe asked for 20,000, in November his
estimate for the next year was 35,000. Germain promised to raise his
army to that number, yet instead of 10,000 men he offered him only 7,800
rank and file. On March 26 he confessed that he could only send 2,900,
and on April 19 that he had to subtract 400 of these for Canada.[133]
The country was strong for coercion, but recruits were hard to raise; it
willed the end but not the means. The king and Germain interfered too
much with the plans of operations. To direct a war from the other side
of the Atlantic in days when letters between the secretary at war and
the commander-in-chief seem often to have been nearly two months on
their way, was to court failure.

At the outset of the war the enemy was unduly despised both by ministers
at home and soldiers in the field. As the British general in command at
Belmont is said to have rejected a proposal for turning the Boers'
position, declaring that he would "put the fear of God into them," so
Howe at Bunker hill delivered a frontal attack on the enemy's
entrenchments which cost him over 1,000 men. Then he went to the
opposite extreme of over-caution. It is needless to recapitulate the
occasions on which either from over-caution or supineness he allowed
great opportunities to slip, as notably on Long Island. He, indeed, in a
greater degree than any one else is responsible for the British failure
to bring the war to an end. Every month improved the fighting qualities
of the Americans, under the judicious handling of Washington, and at
last France and the other enemies of England saw that they might take
them seriously and might turn the war to their own profit.[134]

FOOTNOTES:

[112] Johnston, _Campaign of 1776_, p. 125.

[113] Mr. Johnston contends that the American casualties were about
1,000 (_op. cit._, pp. 202-6); they were probably about double that
number (Fortescue, _History of the British Army_, iii., 185).

[114] Howe, _Narrative of Conduct_, pp. 4-5.

[115] Johnston, _Campaign of 1776_, Documents, p. 117.

[116] Carleton to Douglas, Oct. 14, 1776, Add. MS. 21,699 (Haldimand
Papers), ff. 52-53.

[117] _Examination of Joseph Galloway_, p. 14.

[118] Washington, _Works_, iv., 203, 223, 231.

[119] _State Trials_, xx., 1365.

[120] _Parl. Hist._, xix., 103-86.

[121] Germain to Carleton, March 26, 1777, Add. MS. 21,697, f. 158; for
Carleton's reply (May 20) and Germain's rejoinder (July 25) see _Report
on Canadian Archives_ for 1885, pp. 132-37.

[122] _Hist. MSS. Comm._, _App. to Report_, vi. (Strachey Papers), p.
402.

[123] Jones, _History of New York_, i., 193, 219.

[124] Washington, _Works_, v., 193 _sqq._, 239; _Galloway's Evidence_,
pp. 21, 29.

[125] Stedman, i., 309-11, 317.

[126] Lieut. Hadden, _Journal and Orderly Books_, p. 153.

[127] Howe to Germain, Jan. 20; Germain to Howe, May 18, 1777; _Howe's
Narrative_, pp. 12-24.

[128] _Life of Shelburne_, i., 358-59.

[129] Germain to Carleton, March 26, 1777, Add. MS. 21,697, f. 161;
_Howe's Narrative_, p. 15.

[130] Howe to Carlton, April 2 and June 16, 1777, printed in _Fugitive
Pieces_, p. 126; Howe to Burgoyne, July 17, in _Evidence Concerning the
War_ (1779), pp. 77-78; _Howe's Narrative_, pp. 21-23; Howe's
_Observations on Letters_, etc., p. 61; Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, pp.
280-81.

[131] Clinton to Burgoyne, Dec. 16, 1777, Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, pp.
324-25; _Parl. Hist._, xix., 611.

[132] Du Portail to the Comte de St. Germain, Nov. 12, 1777, Stedman,
i., 386.

[133] Correspondence between Germain and Howe, _Hist. MSS. Comm.
Report_, vi., App., p. 402.

[134] Here, and in other passages treating of the American revolutionary
war, much valuable help has been given me by Colonel E. M. Lloyd, late
R.E.




                               CHAPTER X.

                       WAR WITH FRANCE AND SPAIN.


The surrender of Burgoyne's army was eagerly used by the opposition as
an opportunity for harassing the government. The nation at large showed
a worthier spirit by seeking to repair its loss. Manchester, Liverpool,
Edinburgh, and Glasgow each raised a regiment; and other regiments and
companies were raised in the Highlands and in Wales. In London and
Bristol the corporations refused to join the movement, but large sums
were subscribed by private persons for raising troops. The opposition
absurdly maintained that these levies were unconstitutional, and Fox
accounted for the zeal displayed by Manchester and Scotland by observing
that they were "accustomed to disgrace". The ministers were bitterly
reproached for employing Germans and Indians. "If," said Chatham, "I
were an American, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I
would never lay down my arms--never--never--never." He condemned the
employment of Indians in the war in words of fiery eloquence. It was
certainly deplorable that they should have been employed. In that
matter, however, England had no choice. They would have taken part in
the war on one side or the other. They had fought in every war between
the English and French in America, and while Pitt himself was conducting
the war in 1760 Amherst used them with the authority of government.[135]
In the present war the Americans were the first to employ them, and in
1776 congress resolved that it was expedient to do so and authorised
Washington to enlist 2,000 of them. They were more ready to fight for
the king than for the Americans, who had treated them badly; and as they
caused the insurgents trouble and committed many shocking acts of
barbarity, the Americans inveighed against us for employing them. If we
had not done so they would have fought for the Americans, as some of
them did. Otherwise we should have been better without them, for no
dependence could be placed upon them.

[Sidenote: _THE OPPOSITION DISUNITED._]

Energetic as the opposition was in attack, it was not united in policy.
Chatham, zealous for England's imperial position, declared that he would
never consent to American independence. There was yet time to make peace
with the people of our own blood and so be ready to meet our foreign
foes. He proposed a cessation of hostilities and an immediate offer of
terms. All that the Americans could demand as subjects should be
granted, and overtures made to them on the basis of political dependence
and the navigation act; that is, their trade should still be regulated
by duties. They would, he was sure, accept these terms. If not, they
must be compelled to obedience. The Americans would certainly not have
treated on his basis. Chatham had repeatedly declared that it was
impossible for us to conquer them; yet he proposed that if his basis
were rejected we should use coercion after putting ourselves at a
disadvantage by withdrawing our army. Still, as there were many
Americans besides the loyalists who would have welcomed conciliation,
and as the proposed French alliance was unpopular, it is just possible
that had Chatham himself been prime minister some way might have been
found which, while securing to America virtual independence such as
England's self-governing colonies now enjoy, might have prevented the
severance of the bond. On the other hand, the Rockingham party held that
we should prevent the alliance between France and America by
acknowledging American independence. This division between the two
sections of the opposition set them in hostile camps.

When people were convinced that the alliance was certain the nation
became uneasy, and a strong feeling prevailed, which was shared by some
of Chatham's opponents, that at such a crisis England needed him at the
head of affairs. In February, 1778, it was believed that he and Bute
were engaged on some scheme of coalition which might again put him in
power. The report was merely the outcome of the officious meddling of
his physician, Addington, and one of Bute's friends.[136] No one was
more anxious than North for a change of ministry. He begged the king in
vain to accept his resignation. On the 17th he brought in two bills for
a scheme of conciliation to which George had at last given his sanction.
He proposed an express repeal of the tea duty, the surrender of all
taxation except for the regulation of trade, and the appointment of
commissioners to be sent to America with full powers to put an end to
hostilities, grant pardons, and treat with congress on any terms short
of independence. His proposals did not materially differ from those made
by Burke three years before. He declared that he was not responsible for
American taxation, that it was the work of his predecessors, and that he
had always desired conciliation. He was heard with general
consternation: his own party felt that he was turning his back on the
policy which they had supported under his leadership; the opposition,
that he was, as it were, stealing their thunder. The bills were carried
and the king appointed the commissioners. They arrived in America in
June. Congress refused to listen to any offers short of independence;
the commissioners appealed to the American people, and their manifesto
was treated with contempt.

[Sidenote: _THE KING'S CONDUCT EXAMINED._]

When the Franco-American alliance was announced, North was urging the
king to invite Chatham to take office and to allow him to retire, and
Shelburne was sounded as to the terms on which Chatham would come in. He
replied that he would insist on "an entire new cabinet". George, who had
unwillingly agreed to this negotiation, was prepared to accept any men
of talent with a view of strengthening the existing ministry, but not of
forming another in its place, or of changing its measures. He would not
commission Chatham or any opposition leader to form a new ministry: "no
advantage to this country nor personal danger to himself" would, he
wrote to North, induce him to do so; he would rather "lose his crown".
"No consideration in life," he wrote again, "shall make me stoop to the
opposition;" he would not give himself up "to bondage". His
determination has been pronounced equally criminal with the acts which
brought Charles I. to the scaffold.[137] According to our present ideas
he should certainly have been guided by the assurance of his first
minister that the government was unequal to the situation, have
accepted his resignation, and allowed his new ministers to act as they
thought best. These duties, however, were not, as we have seen, so
clearly settled in those days. The prime minister of our time was not
then fully invented, and George's plan of personal government through
ministers was not yet rejected by the country. He could still rely on
the support of parliament. A proposal to request the king to dismiss his
ministers was defeated at that very time by 263 to 113 in the commons
and by 100 to 36 in the lords. Chatham's return to office would
doubtless have been hailed with satisfaction by the nation. Yet, though
a change in public sentiment with regard to the American war was
beginning, and was soon to spread rapidly, the king's policy was still
popular with the larger part of his subjects.[138] When therefore his
conduct in March, 1778, is compared with that of Charles I. it should be
remembered that George had parliament and the mass of the nation at his
back.

The personal light in which he regarded the question is inexcusable. He
had been disappointed and deeply offended by Chatham's political
conduct, and he had cause to fear that a whig government would rob him
of the power which he loved. As a king he had no right to allow his
private feelings to affect his public action. That he did so was the
result partly of his system of personal rule, partly of serious defects
in his character, his implacability of temper, and his habit of
regarding all things as they affected himself. North struggled in vain
against his determination, and gave way before it. It is a mistake,
however, to regard the king as solely responsible for the continuance of
the war. If he is to be blamed because, rather than submit to the loss
of the colonies, which nearly all men believed would be the end of
England's greatness and prosperity, he determined to carry on the
struggle, the blame must be shared by others. Had North been true to his
convictions George could not have formed another administration willing
to act on the same system. Had the majority of the commons refused to
support the king, the constitution afforded the means of over-ruling his
will.[139]

Questions as to Chatham's return to power were soon to be brought to an
end. On April 7 he appeared in the lords after a severe attack of
illness, and, in faltering sentences, though with some remains of his
peculiar fire, protested against the surrender of the sovereignty of
America, "the dismemberment of this ancient and most glorious monarchy".
He urged that England should refuse to bow before the house of Bourbon;
"if we fall let us fall like men". Richmond answered him by dwelling on
the expediency of acknowledging American independence; otherwise, said
he, "instead of Great Britain and America against France and Spain, as
in the last war, it will now be France, Spain, and America against Great
Britain". Chatham rose to reply and fell back in a fit. He died on May
11. Parliament voted him a public funeral, the stately statue which
stands in Westminster Abbey, £20,000 for the payment of his debts, and a
perpetual pension of £4,000 a year annexed to the earldom of Chatham.
Throughout his long career he was invariably courageous and
self-reliant; his genius was bold, his conceptions magnificent, his
political purity unsullied. His rhetoric was sublime. He did not excel
in debate or in prepared speeches. His spirit burned like fire, and his
speeches were the outpourings of his heart in words which, while they
owed something to art, came spontaneously to his lips, and were not less
lofty than his thoughts. As a statesman he had serious defects; he was
haughty, vain, and overbearing, his opinions were unsettled, his
far-reaching views often nebulous; his passion was stronger than his
judgment, and he was immoderately given to bombast. In spite of his true
greatness he lacked simplicity, and he imported the arts of a charlatan
into political life. Yet Englishmen must ever reverence his memory, for
he loved England with all the ardour of his soul, and, as Richmond said
as he praised him to his face on the day that he was stricken for death,
"he raised the glory of the nation to a higher pitch than had been known
at any former period".

In 1778 the losses and expenses of the war and disappointment at its
results began to work a change in the feeling of the country. In
parliament tories sometimes voted with the opposition. North continued
to strive in vain to be released from office. He made some overtures to
the opposition. Fox, in spite of the violence of his attacks, was
anxious for a coalition, which would have given him office, though he
held first that Germain only, and in 1779 that North himself and
Sandwich, must be excluded.[140] He was restrained by Rockingham, and
North's efforts failed. The death of Chatham, though it united the
opposition, on the whole strengthened the ministry, and in June, 1778,
it gained in ability by the appointment of Thurlow as chancellor and
Wedderburn as attorney-general. Burgoyne, who was unfairly treated by
Germain, was defended by Fox, and on his return joined the opposition.
The struggle in parliament had a constitutional importance not
overlooked by either party. On the issue of the American war, "the
king's war" as it was called, depended the question whether George would
be able to establish his system of government by influence. The
opposition reckoned on failure in America, and hoped that, by exposing
the errors and corrupt practices of the government, they would so rouse
public feeling that, when the war ended in national humiliation, the
king would be forced to accept a minister imposed on him by his people.
No party can reckon on national humiliation as a means of attaining its
ends, however praiseworthy they may be, without serious consequences to
its own character. When England was in extreme peril, the opposition,
and Fox above all, magnified her losses, encouraged her enemies by
exposing her weakness, and, not content with insisting on the
maladministration of the government, cavilled at every measure proposed
for the defence of her empire. Their conduct irritated their
fellow-countrymen, for the spirit of the nation was roused by the
intervention of France in the war with the colonies.

[Sidenote: _ADMIRALTY ABUSES._]

Ample grounds existed for dissatisfaction with the government.
Unfortunately, this was specially the case with respect to the navy. Its
expenses had greatly increased. During the eight years of the late war,
1755 to 1762, the money spent upon it, exclusive of ordnance and votes
for men, amounted to no more than £3,390,000; during eight years of
Sandwich's administration, 1771 to 1778, it was stated in parliament to
have been £6,472,000.[141] During the latter period there had been voted
for repairing and building ships £2,900,000, and for extra stores for
them £600,000, in all £3,500,000, enough, it was said, to build 100
men-of-war and as many frigates. Nothing is so destructive to efficiency
as corruption. Under Sandwich abuses of all kinds flourished. Many
existed before his time, and things grew worse under him. When in 1778
the naval estimates for the year were laid before the commons, it was
stated that though £27,000 had been voted between 1771 and 1775 for the
repair of the _Dragon_ (74), and £10,273 for her stores, the ship was
lying untouched and rotting at Portsmouth, and so in various degrees
with other ships. In reply, Welbore Ellis, the treasurer of the navy,
said that though estimates were the usual way of raising money, the
money once raised was spent at the discretion of the admiralty.
Indignant at this amazing statement, Burke flung the smart book of
estimates at the treasury bench. Ships were built of foreign oak of an
inferior kind and needed constant repair; contracts were jobbed; stores
were wasted, stolen, and sold. The country paid for many more seamen
than it got; for example, in September, 1777, the number returned as
victualled was 51,715, though the seamen actually serving were only
47,407. Greenwich hospital, with a revenue of £70,000, was a hot-bed of
abuses.

What was the result of this corrupt system? How did our navy stand in
1778 in comparison with the navies of France, then at war with us, and
Spain, which was on the eve of joining against us? Choiseul's policy of
naval reform was steadily pursued, and in 1778 France had eighty ships
of the line in good order and 67,000 seamen. Spain followed the lead of
France and, when she entered the war in 1779, had about sixty ships of
the line. In 1778 we had 119 first, second, and third rates; of this
number there were, on Sandwich's showing, in November, 1777, excluding
ships on foreign service, only thirty-five manned and ready for sea, and
seven which he said were nearly ready, but some of the thirty-five were
short of their full complement of men, and there was a great scarcity of
frigates. By July, 1778, the number ready was stated as forty-five. But
when Keppel put to sea in June, it was with difficulty that twenty-one
could be got ready to sail with him.[142]

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OFF USHANT._]

Keppel, though an opponent of the government, was appointed to command
the "grand," or, as it was called later, the channel fleet, apparently
at the king's wish. On July 27 he engaged the French fleet from Brest
under Count d'Orvilliers, westward of Ushant, both having thirty ships
of the line. An indecisive action took place, the two fleets passing
each other on opposite tacks and exchanging broadsides. Sir Hugh
Palliser, the third in command and one of the lords of the admiralty,
was blamed for the resultless issue of the engagement. A quarrel ensued
between him and Keppel, which was made a matter of party politics; the
government upheld Palliser, the opposition Keppel, and violent speeches
were made in parliament. A court-martial in 1779 honourably acquitted
Keppel of the charges which Palliser brought against him, and he
received the thanks of parliament. London was on his side; the mob
gutted Palliser's house and broke the windows of the admiralty and of
some official residences. Another court-martial acquitted Palliser
though with a slight censure. Keppel was annoyed by the position taken
up by the admiralty, notified his wish not to serve again under the
present ministry, and struck his flag. The rot of faction, which was
infecting political life, laid some hold on the navy. Other naval
officers declared that they would not serve under Sandwich; the spirit
of insubordination affected the seamen and symptoms of mutiny appeared
in the channel fleet.

The intervention of France forced England to contract her operations in
America. The project of isolating the northern provinces was dropped,
and thenceforward her efforts were mainly directed towards the recovery
of the southern colonies, in order to secure their trade, and the
suppression of privateering expeditions from the New England coast. Howe
was recalled at his own request, and the chief command was given to
Clinton, who was ordered to withdraw from Philadelphia and concentrate
upon New York, where a French attack was expected. Philadelphia was
evacuated on June 18, 1778. Of its loyalist citizens 3,000 embarked for
New York; those who remained behind were harshly treated and two quaker
gentlemen were hanged for adhering to the enemy. As Clinton's army was
marching through New Jersey, the Americans tried to cut off his
rear-guard near Monmouth, but after an indecisive engagement failed in
their attempt. Clinton reached New York without further molestation,
and soon afterwards Washington encamped at White Plains. The Toulon
fleet under Count d'Estaing arrived off Sandy Hook on July 11, and Lord
Howe with a far inferior force prepared to defend the entrance to the
port. While D'Estaing lay outside, the wind rose; he was afraid to risk
his ships by an attempt to cross the bar, and sailed away southwards,
for Washington persuaded him to attack Newport in conjunction with an
army under Sullivan. Lord Howe followed him, and arrived at Point Judith
on August 9, the day after the French ships passed the batteries.
D'Estaing stood out to sea to meet him. Howe's fleet, though reinforced,
was still much the weaker, but "Black Dick," as the sailors called him,
was master of his profession and out-manoeuvred D'Estaing who was a
cavalry officer turned admiral. A storm dispersed both fleets and
D'Estaing, after collecting his ships, sailed off to Boston to refit.
Sullivan retreated and got away from Rhode Island a day before Clinton
arrived with 4,000 men. Lord Howe soon afterwards resigned his command,
declaring that he would not serve again under the present ministers.
D'Estaing sailed from Boston to the West Indies, leaving the American
populace furious at his departure from Rhode Island.

Clinton was called upon to send 5,000 men to the West Indies, Washington
was badly supported by congress, and neither was in a position to act
against the other. Successful expeditions were made in the autumn
against the privateering haunts of the insurgents, Buzzard's bay,
Martha's Vineyard, and on the New Jersey coast; many ships were taken
and much damage was done. The western frontiers were raided by the tory
troops of Johnson and Butler and by our Indian allies. Shocking
barbarities were committed, specially in the Wyoming valley, where the
prisoners were massacred by the Indians, though there the women and
children were spared, and at Cherry Valley, where there was a general
massacre during the attack. In 1779 the Americans retaliated on the
Indians with fearful severity, and cruelly wasted the lands of the
Senecas and Cayugas and the settlements in the Alleghany.

[Sidenote: _MISTAKEN NAVAL POLICY._]

Neither the operations on the coast nor the border fighting had any
material influence on the progress of the war. By the end of 1778,
however, the war entered on a new and, as it proved, decisive phase; it
became a struggle for the southern provinces. In November Clinton sent
a small force by sea under Colonel Campbell to invade Georgia. Campbell
routed the Americans and took Savannah; and General Prevost, who joined
him from Florida, easily obtained possession of the province. Lincoln's
attempt to regain it was defeated at Briar creek on March 3, 1779, and
Prevost penetrated into South Carolina. He finally retired to Georgia,
leaving a garrison at Port Royal, which secured his access to the sea
and gave him a footing in South Carolina, as well as a base for covering
Georgia. The campaign was a promising opening of operations in the
south.

When news of the outbreak of the war reached the West Indies, the French
governor of Martinique seized Dominica, while Admiral Barrington, in
command of a small squadron at Barbadoes, was waiting for orders. As
soon as Barrington received the reinforcements sent by Clinton, he
attacked St. Lucia. D'Estaing came over from America with a fleet of
twice the size, but failed to engage our ships closely, and, after some
fighting on the island, in which the French lost heavily, sailed off to
Martinique. St. Lucia was surrendered on December 29. Nothing further of
importance took place in those parts until the summer of 1779, when
D'Estaing seized St. Vincent while Byron, who was then in command, was
engaged in guarding a convoy. D'Estaing then sailed with all his fleet
to Grenada and forced the garrison to surrender. Byron, though
encumbered by a number of transports and with a smaller fleet, engaged
him in the hope of relieving the island. Some of Byron's ships suffered
badly, and when he found that the garrison had surrendered, he sailed
off. D'Estaing did not press his advantage, for his sole object was to
secure his conquest, and only one transport ship was taken. England was
no longer supreme by sea. The fault lay not with her admirals, who were
still skilful, nor with her seamen, who were as bold as ever. Her
weakness was due to her government, which first allowed the navy to fall
into an inefficient condition and then adopted a wrong system of naval
warfare. She began the contest unprepared, and instead of preventing the
fleets of the enemy from reaching the ocean, had to fight in distant
parts with inferior forces. As the war went on strenuous efforts brought
her navy to a higher pitch; yet she still neglected her first line of
defence, did not concentrate her forces off the ports of the enemy, and
strove to defend the distant parts of her empire with fleets of
inadequate strength.[143]

After much hesitation Spain made alliance with France against England on
April 12. The treaty, which did not include the Americans, provided that
Spain should recognise their independence and that the two contracting
powers should invade England; and the reconquest of Gibraltar and
Minorca, the acquisition of the coast of Florida, and the expulsion of
the English from Honduras were mentioned among the objects which Spain
desired to effect. She did not declare war until June 16, in order that
the two fleets might have time to prepare for united action. England
received the news of the combination with spirit; volunteers enlisted
for defence and large sums were subscribed for raising troops, equipping
privateers, and other patriotic purposes. The Spaniards at once
blockaded Gibraltar, then under the command of General Eliott, and began
that three years' siege which is one of the most honourable incidents in
our military history. Though the home fleet, under the command of Sir
Charles Hardy, lay in the Bay of Biscay on the look out for the allied
fleets, they effected a junction, got between him and Plymouth, and in
August sixty French and Spanish ships of the line and a crowd of smaller
vessels paraded before the town. English pride was deeply wounded, and
the landing of the enemy was daily expected. But the vast fleet
accomplished nothing save the capture of one ship of the line. Its crews
were wasted by sickness, and when a change of wind enabled Hardy to
enter the Channel, the enemy did not follow him into its narrower waters
and early in September left our shores.

[Sidenote: _VARIOUS INCIDENTS OF NAVAL WARFARE._]

The war was carried on in many parts of the world, and was full of
incidents which, as they had little or no effect on its issue, must only
be noticed briefly. In October, 1778, Pondicherry was taken by the East
India Company's troops, and the French lost all their settlements in
India. One of them, Mahé, was claimed by Haidar as tributary to him, and
its capture afforded him a pretext for making war on us. He overran the
Karnatic in 1780, defeated a British force, took Arcot, and reduced
Madras to great straits. In the spring of 1779 the French made a feeble
attack on Jersey, and were repulsed by the 78th regiment and the
militia of the island. The British factories at Senegal were seized by
the French, and Goree by the English. The Spaniards expelled our logwood
cutters from Honduras in August, and about the same time the Spanish
governor of Louisiana reduced West Florida, which was thinly inhabited
and almost undefended. The enemies of England hoped to break her power
by destroying her commerce, but it was too large and various to be
ruined by casual losses, and too carefully protected to incur a series
of them. While the trade of France with the West Indies was almost
ruined, the English Jamaica fleet reached home in safety a few days
after the enemy left the Channel. Privateers and king's ships did so
much damage to the commerce of France and Spain in 1779 that it was held
to counterbalance the loss of St. Vincent and Grenada. American cruisers
were still troublesome. Paul Jones, a Scottish sailor, who held a
commission from congress, infested the coasts of Scotland and Ireland,
and in 1779 received a ship from the French government, which he called
the _Bonhomme Richard_. With her and four smaller vessels he sailed from
Brest, and fell in with the homeward-bound Baltic fleet convoyed by the
_Serapis_, Captain Pearson, and a sloop of war. Pearson engaged the
_Bonhomme Richard_, and after a desperate fight the two English ships
were forced to strike. His gallant conduct saved the convoy, and the
_Bonhomme Richard_ was so severely mauled that she sank the next day.
The Americans suffered at least as heavily as the English from this
desultory warfare, and their privateering ventures were checked by
operations on their coast.

While Washington was encamped in the high lands north of New York,
guarding his position by forts on the Hudson, and specially by the
fortification of West Point, Clinton took two posts which commanded the
passage of the river, and, in conjunction with Admiral Sir George
Collier, distressed the enemy by various expeditions. The New England
coast was thoroughly scoured by Collier's squadron, some towns on the
Chesapeake were invaded, a great quantity of stores seized, and about a
hundred and twenty vessels taken or destroyed. Partly in the vain hope
of drawing Washington down from his position, and partly in order to cut
off one of the main sources of his supply, a force from New York was
landed in Connecticut, some towns on the coast were destroyed, and
stores and shipping burnt or carried off. Further operations there were
stopped by an expedition from Boston against a British post established
in Penobscot bay, to check the incursions of the enemy into Nova Scotia.
As soon as Collier appeared in the Penobscot river the Americans burnt
most of their ships; he captured the rest, and the whole naval force of
Massachusetts was destroyed.

In the autumn Lincoln persuaded D'Estaing to bring his fleet from the
West Indies and join him in driving the British out of Georgia. The
French and Americans, about 10,000 strong, laid siege to Savannah, which
was defended by Prevost with a force of only 2,500 men. An assault was
made on the place on October 9, and was repulsed with heavy loss. The
siege was abandoned; D'Estaing with most of his ships sailed for France,
and the American army retreated into South Carolina. D'Estaing's arrival
on the coast warned Clinton of the necessity for concentration, and he
ordered the evacuation of Rhode Island. When the French fleet had
departed he prepared to attack Charleston, and on February 11, 1780,
landed his army on the coast of South Carolina. The town, which was
defended by Lincoln, was besieged on April 1, and surrendered on May 12.
More than 5,000 prisoners were taken, including seven general officers,
besides about 1,000 French and American seamen, 400 guns, and the whole
naval force in the harbour. Cornwallis obtained further successes in the
province; South Carolina was cleared of the enemy, and the inhabitants
generally professed submission. After striking this great blow Clinton
was forced to return to New York, for a French fleet was bringing over
troops to act with Washington, and Cornwallis was left with only 4,000
regulars, besides provincials, to carry on the war in the south.

[Sidenote: _FIGHTING IN LINE OF BATTLE._]

By the end of 1779 the garrison of Gibraltar was reduced to great
straits. The West India command had lately been given to Rodney, already
a distinguished officer and destined to take a high place among
England's sea-captains. Before he proceeded to his station he sailed
with a large convoy for Gibraltar and Minorca. On his way he captured a
Spanish convoy, sent the sixty-four-gun ship which protected it to
England with the merchandise, and carried the provisions destined for
the besiegers off Gibraltar to the besieged garrison. Off Cape St.
Vincent he came on a Spanish squadron of inferior strength under the
command of Don Juan de Lángara, cut the Spaniards off from Cadiz, took
six of their ships, and destroyed another. He carried out the relief of
Gibraltar and on February 13 sailed for the West Indies, where Count de
Guichen was commanding in place of D'Estaing. Down to this time the
naval battles of the century had generally been inconclusive, except
when one fleet was much stronger than the other. Admirals kept strictly
to the formation known as the line of battle in which one ship followed
another in regular order. If both the admirals of opposing fleets were
willing to bring matters to a decided issue, the fleet to windward would
attack, and the ships go at one another at close quarters all along the
line. English admirals, with sufficient force, always hoped to bring
this about. They were seldom successful, for the French admirals were
unwilling to fight at close quarters, not because they were afraid to
meet the British, but partly because they generally had some other
object in view than the destruction of the enemy's fleet, some conquest
to make or some place to protect, and partly because the French having
fewer ships were indisposed to make free use of them in battle.
Accordingly a French admiral preferred the leeward position. This
enabled him to avoid a decisive action, for when a British fleet bore
down on him, he could cripple our leading ships in their rigging, and
then break off the action by running before the wind.

Rodney made the destruction of the enemy's fleet his first aim. There
was only one way of accomplishing it. That was by deserting the old
system of fighting in line, van to van, centre to centre, rear to rear.
He sighted Guichen's fleet on April 16 as it was sailing northwards and
well to leeward of Dominica. Guichen was convoying merchantmen, and
intended ultimately to attack Barbadoes. The two fleets were nearly of
equal strength. Rodney gained the windward position, and engaged the
next morning. He planned to bring the whole of his force to bear on the
French centre and rear. After much manoeuvring the opportunity came.
Unfortunately his captains, accustomed to the old routine, did not
understand his signal. His well-devised plan was defeated and the battle
was as inconclusive as its predecessors. Rodney was bitterly
disappointed, for a decisive victory seemed within his grasp.[144] He
considered that some of his captains did not behave with sufficient
promptitude and set himself to bring his fleet to a high pitch of
efficiency. Guichen was joined by a Spanish fleet which gave him a great
numerical superiority. It was no profit to him; the Spanish ships were
hot-beds of disease and he had to convoy them to San Domingo. Then he
sailed off for France with the larger part of his force. By that time
the hurricane season was at hand and Rodney divided his fleet, leaving
about half in the West Indies, and sailing with the remainder to New
York, where he arrived on September 12. England had full command of the
sea in the American waters, and Rodney did little there and,
unfortunately, as we shall see in our next chapter, less than he might
have done. At New York his squadron escaped the hurricane which swept
over the West Indies on October 10. As Rodney was a tory his
distinguished services were peculiarly gratifying to the king and the
government. He was created a Knight of the Bath and received a pension
with remainder to his children.

[Sidenote: _RESTRAINTS ON IRISH TRADE._]

The war brought Ireland an opportunity for insisting on a redress of
grievances. By 1773 the prodigality of government raised the national
expenditure far above the revenue. Lord Harcourt, the viceroy,
recommended a tax of 10 per cent. on the rents of absentees. The
proposal was popular in Ireland, and North was willing to agree to it.
The great Irish landlords of the Rockingham party were strongly opposed
to the tax, and Burke argued that it would hinder Irishmen from taking
part in the political life of Great Britain and would imply that England
was a foreign land. A strong feeling against the tax was excited in
England. North gave way and, in obedience to instructions, Harcourt
procured the rejection of the bill. The grievances of the country
increased. The American war was unpopular with the presbyterians, the
peace and safety of the land were imperilled by the withdrawal of its
troops, its finances were burdened by pensions and by grants for the
war, and the public debt which in 1770 was £669,230, entailing a charge
of £26,631, stood in 1778 at £939,323, with a charge of £82,711. The
restrictions on Irish trade were rendered specially grievous by the war.
An embargo laid on the export of provisions from Ireland ruined her
trade in cattle. Debarred from the woollen manufacture in the interest
of English industry, she had been encouraged to manufacture linen, and
her trade in linen prospered. The war with America deprived her of her
principal market. The restraints placed upon her commerce with England
brought her into close commercial connexion with France, and that source
of profit was also cut off in 1778. Many of her people were driven
abroad by want; and the poor who remained were only kept alive by
charity.

In 1778 proposals were made in the English parliament to relax the
restrictions on Irish trade. North approved of the proposals, and they
were powerfully supported by Burke. Liverpool, Bristol, and other
English manufacturing towns protested loudly against admitting Ireland
to compete with them. North yielded to pressure, and the supporters of
the bills were forced to accept a measure which was wholly insufficient
to satisfy the needs of the Irish. The disappointment in Ireland was
bitter. Something, however, was gained; the system of restriction was no
longer intact. The same year saw the beginning of a relaxation of the
penal code. Common wrongs and common aspirations helped to subdue
religious animosity. The cause of the catholics was urged in the Irish
Parliament by the splendid oratory of Henry Grattan. A bill was passed
enabling them to take leases for 999 years and, except in the case of
converts, to inherit land as freely as protestants. The law was no
longer to offer an inducement to a man to abandon his father's faith for
the sake of gain; it was no longer to put the estate of a catholic
father under the power of a professedly protestant son.

The failure of the attempt to obtain relief from commercial restrictions
taught the Irish that England would not sacrifice her own interests to
relieve their distress, and that they must help themselves. Following
the example of the Americans, they formed associations for
non-importation. These associations showed the English manufacturers
that Ireland could retaliate upon them. England was, however, forced to
concession by another means. The assent of the Irish parliament to
England's proposal that drafts should be sent to the war from the 12,000
men who should have been kept for the defence of the country, reduced
the number of troops in Ireland to less than 5,000. The coasts were
infested by privateers and a French invasion was expected. England had
no troops to spare and her fleets were fully engaged. Abandoned by
government, the Irish protestants took up arms to defend their own
country. The Duke of Leinster and Lord Charlemont threw themselves
eagerly into the movement, which was supported by the majority of the
Irish gentry, catholics as well as protestants; though for some time the
catholics did not volunteer because they were disqualified from bearing
arms. Before long 42,000 volunteers were learning military discipline,
arms were purchased and officers chosen. The Irish government regarded
the movement with uneasiness, but took advantage of it as a protection
against invasion, and distributed 16,000 stands of arms among the corps.
The volunteers, while thoroughly loyal, adopted a distinctly national
policy. England was in difficulties and could not withstand the demands
of so powerful a body. In the session of 1779-80 parliament, at North's
instance, abandoned the system of restriction on Ireland's trade; threw
open to her trade with the colonies and repealed the acts restraining
the exportation of her woollens and glass. About the same time the
influence of the volunteers procured the assent of government to a bill
releasing Irish dissenters from the sacramental test. Great as these
gains were, Irish aspirations reached further. On April 19, 1780,
Grattan proposed a declaration of legislative independence. For that the
Irish parliament was not ready. Lord Buckinghamshire, the viceroy,
secured support by lavish promises of recommendations for peerages and
other good things, and parliament deserted the popular cause. In
December, Buckinghamshire was succeeded by Lord Carlisle.

[Sidenote: _AGITATION FOR ECONOMICAL REFORM._]

During 1779 North's government lost ground; the ministers were known to
be divided in opinion, and various parliamentary inquiries into the
conduct of the war revealed much maladministration. Even the king said
that Germain was "of no use in his department," and Fox's vote of
censure on the admiralty was supported by a minority of 170. Some
changes in the ministry failed to strengthen it. In 1778 Jenkinson
succeeded Barrington as secretary at war; he lived to prove himself a
man of ability, but in his new office he, like his predecessor, had
merely to carry out the orders of others. Gower, a strong advocate of
American coercion in 1775, changed his opinions, resigned the
presidentship of the council in November, 1779, and made a violent
attack on the government. He was succeeded by Lord Bathurst the
ex-chancellor. Suffolk died and was succeeded as southern secretary by
Lord Stormont, and Weymouth, the northern secretary, by Hillsborough.
North still urged the king to accept his resignation. George, conscious
of the shortcomings of the ministry, gave Thurlow authority to treat
with Shelburne, as head of the Chatham party, with a view to the
formation of a strong administration, composed of men of different
parties, to be formed without North, and independently of the existing
ministry. Grafton persuaded Shelburne not to act apart from the
Rockingham whigs. The united opposition would have insisted on a
complete change of measures as well as of men, which would have implied
the surrender of America. To this George would not consent, and North
was again persuaded to remain in office. On the meeting of parliament in
November, 1779, the ministers carried the address by 233 to 134, a
majority which bore out the assertion of the king's speech that
parliament was with him, and the speech added "my people at large".

Yet though the declaration of war by Spain called forth a loyal address,
unanimously voted by the commons, assuring the king of their help
against the Americans, many held that it would be well to withdraw the
troops from America and use the whole strength of the country against
its foreign enemies. The expenses of the war were heavy; additions were
made to the public debt of £6,000,000 in 1778, of £7,000,000 in 1779,
and of £12,000,000 in 1780, and many new taxes were imposed. At the same
time large sums were expended on maintaining useless offices, a crowd of
pensioners, and other abuses, the means by which the king kept his hold
on parliament. The whigs determined to take advantage of the demands
made on the nation to strike at the root of that corrupt influence by
insisting on public economy. The attack was begun unsuccessfully in the
lords by Richmond and Shelburne, and in December Burke gave notice that
he would lay a plan of economical reform before the commons. The whigs
sought to bring pressure to bear on parliament by an appeal to the
people and met with a ready response. A county meeting at York, presided
over by Sir George Savile, sent a petition to the commons for public
economy, and formed an association to promote that object and the
restoration of the independence of parliament. Twenty-five other
counties and some cities and towns sent similar petitions and most of
them formed associations. On February 11, 1780, Burke introduced his
plan in a speech of remarkable ability. He proposed a reform of the
king's civil establishment, the abolition of a crowd of court offices, a
reform of certain public departments, the limitation of pensions, the
sale of the crown lands, and the abolition of the jurisdictions of
Wales, Cornwall, Chester, and Lancaster. His bills were destroyed
piecemeal in committee, and the only result of his scheme which, if
fully carried out, would, he calculated, have saved the nation over
£1,000,000 a year, was the abolition of the board of trade.

Meanwhile a sharp struggle went on in the commons. A proposal for an
account of patent places was agreed to, but another for submitting a
list of pensions was lost by two votes. A crowded meeting was held at
Westminster on April 5 and was addressed by Fox who, with vehement
eloquence, recommended annual parliaments and an addition of 100 county
members as a means of freeing parliament from the influence of the
crown. Government apprehended an attempt to overawe parliament and
stationed soldiers in the neighbourhood of Westminster Hall. This step
enraged the opposition, and on the 6th Dunning proposed a resolution in
the commons that "the influence of the crown has increased, is
increasing, and ought to be diminished". This resolution was carried,
with a trifling addition, by 233 to 215, and another that the house was
competent to correct abuses in the civil list was adopted without a
division. On the 10th, however, a resolution that certain officers of
the household should be disqualified from sitting in the house of
commons was carried by two only. So far did pressure from without
combined with the near prospect of a general election carry the commons,
but the majority did not desire reform and would go no further than
general resolutions. An address to the king, praying that he would not
dissolve nor prorogue parliament until measures had been taken to
diminish the influence of the crown, was rejected by a majority of
fifty-one. The struggle was over, and Fox vented his rage and
disappointment in a speech of unmeasured invective. Throughout the
session much heated language was used in parliament, and both Shelburne
and Fox fought duels in consequence of words uttered by them in debate.
On June 2 Richmond, ultra-democratic as a democratic noble is wont to
be, specially on questions not affecting his own order, was urging
annual parliaments and manhood suffrage on the lords when he was
interrupted by an outbreak of mob violence, a bitter answer to his
arguments.

[Sidenote: _THE GORDON RIOTS._]

The earlier half of the reign saw an increase in religious tolerance.
Though the whig movement for relieving dissenting ministers from
subscription to the articles was defeated by the lords in 1772 and 1773,
a bill supported by both parties granted them relief in 1779, the year
in which the Irish dissenters were relieved from the test act. The
whigs, as we have seen with reference to the Quebec act, were opposed to
any measure of relief being granted to Roman catholics, who were by law
liable to cruel oppression. The judges, indeed, and specially the great
chief-justice, Mansfield, did all they could to mitigate the rigour of
the law, yet catholics lived in insecurity, and so late as 1767 a priest
was condemned to imprisonment for life, and was actually imprisoned for
four years, for exercising his office. Whig prejudices gave way, and in
1778 Sir George Savile brought in a bill enabling catholics who abjured
the temporal jurisdiction of the pope to purchase and inherit land, and
freeing their priests from liability to imprisonment. The bill, which
only affected England, was passed without a division in either house,
and the government proposed to bring in a like bill for Scotland the
next year. Violent protestant riots took place in Edinburgh and Glasgow,
and such strong feeling was generally manifested in Scotland against the
proposed measure that it was abandoned. The relief act excited
discontent in England, and protestant fanatics, encouraged by the
success of their party in Scotland, agitated for its repeal. A
protestant association was formed, a crack-brained member of parliament,
Lord George Gordon, was made president, and a petition for the repeal of
the act was signed by nearly 120,000 persons.

On June 2, 1780, some 60,000 persons marched under Gordon's leadership
to Westminster with their monster petition. They violently assaulted
many peers and compelled members of both houses to cry No popery! and to
put blue cockades in their hats. Gordon addressed them, and named Burke
and other members as specially hostile to their cause. The commons
refused to give the petition immediate consideration; the lobbies were
thronged by the mob, and North sent for the lifeguards to protect
parliament. On their arrival the mob left palace-yard and partially
destroyed the chapels of the Sardinian embassy in Duke street, Lincoln's
inn Fields and the Bavarian embassy in Warwick street, Golden square.
The next day was fairly quiet, but on Sunday, the 4th, finding that no
measures were taken to enforce order, they sacked other catholic chapels
and some houses. By Monday the riots assumed a more dangerous character;
the mob passed out of the leadership of religious fanatics and was bent
on plunder and destruction. East of Charing Cross London was almost at
its mercy. There was no efficient police force; military officers and
soldiers had learnt the risk they would incur by firing on a mob without
the order of the civil power, and the magistrates were for the most part
timid and inactive. Wilkes was an honourable exception, and showed
courage and firmness in dealing with the rioters. Virtually unchecked,
the mob sacked chapels and houses, plundered shops, and burnt Savile's
furniture before his door. During the next two days Newgate was partly
burnt and the prison broken open, the other principal prisons either
destroyed or damaged and the prisoners set at liberty. Some magistrates'
houses were plundered and burnt. Mansfield's house in Bloomsbury square
was sacked and his splendid library, pictures, plate, and furniture
destroyed. By Wednesday night thirty-six fires were blazing in different
parts; volumes of flame were rising from the King's bench and Fleet
prisons, the new Bridewell, and the toll gates on Blackfriars bridge,
and the lower end of Holborn was burning fiercely. A great distillery in
Holborn was wrecked; men and women killed themselves by drinking the
unrectified spirits which were brought into the streets, and others who
were drunk perished in the flames or were buried in the ruins. Attacks
were made on the Bank of England and the Pay Office. Both were guarded
by soldiers, and the rioters were repulsed with heavy loss.

[Sidenote: _THE KING'S PERSONAL INTERVENTION._]

By that time the general paralysis of authority was ended by the king's
personal intervention. As his ministers seemed afraid of incurring
responsibility, George summoned a meeting of the council by special
command on Wednesday morning. Finding that the council hesitated to
recommend the employment of troops, he said that if they would not give
him advice he would act without it, and that he could answer for one
magistrate who would do his duty. He bade Wedderburn, the
attorney-general, declare the law on the subject. Wedderburn replied
that the king in council could order soldiers to suppress a riot without
the authority of a magistrate. George at once ordered the military to
act, and by Thursday morning the riots were quelled. Seventy-two houses
and four gaols had been destroyed. Of the rioters, 285 were reported as
killed and 173 wounded, but many more lost their lives during the riots.
The trials of the rioters were conducted with moderation; of the 139 who
were tried, fifty-nine were capitally convicted, and of these only
twenty-one were executed. The Surrey prisoners were tried before
Wedderburn, who was made chief-justice of the common pleas and created
Lord Loughborough. Lord George Gordon was acquitted; he was imprisoned
for a libel in 1787, and died in Newgate after having become a jew. When
the lords, who adjourned on the 6th, again assembled, the great jurist
Mansfield, who in his seventy-sixth year retained his mastery of
constitutional law and his facility of expression, authoritatively
declared that soldiers equally with civil persons might, and if required
by a magistrate must, assist in suppressing riots and preventing acts of
treason and felony, and that the red coat of a soldier neither
disqualified him from performing the duty of a citizen nor would protect
him if he transgressed it. The riots seem to have improved the position
of the government, for the appeal to popular feeling and the formation
of associations by which the whigs brought pressure on parliament were
discredited by them, and for the moment common danger allayed political
animosity.

FOOTNOTES:

[135] _Parl. Hist._, xix., 368-70, 409, 411, 509-12.

[136] The Bute Transaction, MSS. Pitt Papers 14; Stanhope, _History_,
vi., 213.

[137] Lecky, _History_, iv., 83.

[138] Rockingham to Chatham, Jan. 21, 1778, _Chatham Corr._, iv., 488;
Burke to Rockingham, Nov. 5, 1777, _Works_, ii., 357.

[139] _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, i., 211-12; Sir G. C. Lewis,
_Administrations of Great Britain_, p. 16.

[140] _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, i., 180, 306-23.

[141] These figures present a difficulty. The votes 1771-78 appear to
have been, for ordinary expenses £3,303,233, for 'extraordinaries'
£2,232,694 = £5,535,927. Clowes, _Royal Navy_, iii., 327.

[142] On this subject generally see _Parl. Hist._, xix., 728-30, 818-34,
874-95, xx., 204-38, 372 _sqq._; Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp.
337-41; MS. Admiralty Miscell., 567, R.O.; Keppel, _Life of Keppel_,
ii., 15, 19, 21.

[143] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp. 421 _sqq._, 523 _sqq._

[144] Hannay, _Rodney_, pp. 117-31; Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp.
378-81.




                               CHAPTER XI.

                     YORKTOWN AND THE KING'S DEFEAT.


In 1780 England's enemies increased in number and her isolation was
complete. From early times all belligerent nations subjected to capture
the goods of an enemy in neutral ships. This usage was interrupted only
by treaties. It was specially disliked by the Dutch, as great carriers
by sea, and they made many treaties with different powers, stipulating
that goods carried in their ships, not being contraband, should be free.
In 1778 France, in order to injure England, declared its adoption of the
principle that neutral ships made neutral goods. The lesser Baltic
nations, which largely exported naval material, were anxious to protect
their commerce from England, specially as she was rigorous in her view
with regard to contraband goods; and they looked to Russia to help them.
Frederick of Prussia, always eager to do England a bad turn, used his
influence with the Empress Catherine in the cause of the freedom of
commerce in neutral ships, and was supported by her minister, Panin.
Catherine, though not unfriendly towards England, yielded to his
representations, and in March, 1780, notified England, France, and Spain
that, while in other respects she would maintain strict neutrality, she
would enforce by her fleets four propositions: (1) that neutral ships
may freely sail from port to port of a belligerent nation; (2) that
goods carried by them, not being contraband, should be free from
seizure; (3) that only certain specified goods were contraband; and (4)
that no blockade should be recognised which was not effectual. France,
Spain, and the Americans at once accepted these propositions; Denmark,
Sweden, Prussia, and the Emperor joined the league of "armed neutrality"
in the course of the year, and the accession of Holland was only
prevented by its becoming a belligerent. England did not accept these
new rules, which were detrimental to her as a naval power. The alliance
isolated her, threatened to increase the number of her enemies, and
forced her to be cautious in her dealings with neutral ships. War with
the Baltic powers would have ruined her, for since the American revolt
she was dependent on these countries for timber and other naval stores.
Happily, Catherine was by no means inclined to quarrel with her.

[Sidenote: _THE QUARREL WITH HOLLAND._]

The Dutch complained that England violated a treaty made with them in
1674, which provided that either power should hold all goods conveyed in
the ships of the other, not being contraband, as free from liability of
seizure, and that either should be free to trade with the enemies of the
other. Many Dutch ships were searched and their cargoes seized by
English ships, in some cases lawfully, because they were carrying
contraband of war, in others merely because they were carrying French
goods or were trading with our enemies. England contended that the
treaty of 1674 was superseded by the treaties of 1678 and 1716, which
provided that, when either power was attacked, the other should come to
its aid; and that, though the aid of the Dutch was not demanded, they
were at least bound to abstain from helping her enemies. The Dutch,
however, supplied the Americans with vast quantities of naval and
military stores, supplied naval stores also to France and Spain, and
allowed American privateers, and notably Paul Jones, to refit and equip
their ships and to sell their prizes in Dutch ports. The British
ambassador, Sir Joseph Yorke, remonstrated strongly against these
unfriendly acts on the part of a nation in close alliance with his
sovereign. He could gain no satisfaction; for though the party of the
stadholder was anxious to keep on friendly terms, the pensionary and the
city of Amsterdam were violently opposed to England, and the merchants
generally were on their side. Late in 1779 a fleet of Dutch merchantmen,
laden with timber and naval stores for France, and sailing under the
convoy of an admiral, was met by an English squadron. The Dutch fired on
the boats sent to search their ships; the English returned the fire,
captured some of the ships, and brought them into Spithead. Bitter
complaints were made on both sides, and the Dutch, encouraged by the
declaration of the armed neutrality and the influence of France and
Prussia, showed no inclination to yield to Yorke's remonstrances.

At last England had an opportunity of putting an end to this course of
unacknowledged hostility. In October, 1780, a British frigate captured
an American packet which was carrying Laurens, lately president of
congress, as ambassador to Holland. He threw his papers overboard, but a
British seaman promptly went after them and brought them back. Among
them was a draft of a proposed treaty of commerce and amity between
Holland and the United States of America, signed by the pensionary of
Amsterdam and Lee, an American envoy, in September, 1778, when Holland
was bound by treaty to a close alliance with Great Britain. England
demanded a disavowal of the treaty and the punishment of the pensionary.
The states-general voted to join the armed neutrality and, while
disavowing the treaty, did not proceed against the pensionary. England
declared war on December 20. The opposition maintained that the
government had behaved arrogantly and was actuated by a desire for
plunder, and that it was unjust to found a war on a mere proposal
emanating from the magistracy of a single city and not confirmed by the
states-general. Yet, if the conduct of Holland is viewed as a whole, it
will be found to justify the course pursued by the government. England,
then, in addition to the war with her rebellious colonies, had to meet
the forces of France, Spain, and Holland. Nevertheless, the new
accession to the number of her foes was of no detriment to her, for the
Dutch were no longer powerful: it was better to have them open enemies
than treacherous friends; England's geographical position enabled her to
prevent their fleet from joining those of her other enemies, and their
commerce and colonies fell an easy prey to her ships.

[Sidenote: _DEFENCE OF GIBRALTAR._]

The recovery of Gibraltar was the principal object for which Spain
fought. During some negotiations for peace carried on by unaccredited
British agents in 1780, the Spanish minister, Florida Blanca, avowed
that for the sake of Gibraltar his master would "break the family
compact and every other engagement with France". Germain was willing
that the question should be discussed, but North forbade the British
agents to let the word Gibraltar pass their lips, and Stormont declared
that the map of Spain's empire contained no equivalent for it, so the
negotiations were ineffectual.[145] The Spaniards made strenuous
efforts to take the fortress. On the night of June 6 they delivered a
sudden attack on the small squadron in the harbour with fire-ships and a
crowd of boats. They were foiled by the valour of the British seamen
who, under a heavy fire, grappled the blazing ships and towed them
ashore. Again Eliott found himself in urgent need of supplies; food and
ammunition alike ran short, and early in 1781 it became evident that the
place would have to be surrendered unless it was speedily relieved.
Admiral Darby, then in command of the channel fleet, took out a convoy
with supplies. The French were occupied with their own schemes of
conquest, the Spanish fleet did not dare to meet him, and the relief was
accomplished on April 12. The Spaniards then tried to reduce the place
by a continuous bombardment, and between the 10th of that month and the
end of June threw into it 75,000 shot and 25,000 shells. At first Eliott
replied even more fiercely; but, always careful of his ammunition, he
relaxed his fire on finding that the Spanish bombardment did him small
harm, for though the town was virtually destroyed, the garrison lost
only fifty-three killed and 260 wounded, and the fortifications were not
seriously damaged. While Spain was thus foiled in her principal effort,
she completed the reduction of West Florida, and her ships increased the
risks which attended the commerce of England. In August, 1780, a fleet
of East and West Indiamen, convoyed by Captain Moutray, was attacked by
the combined fleets of France and Spain, under Don Luis de Córdova;
fifty-five were taken and brought into Cadiz harbour, at a loss to Great
Britain of about £2,000,000, besides 1,800 soldiers who were on their
way to India.

Near home the enemies of England accomplished little. In January about
800 French soldiers landed in Jersey and surprised St. Heliers. The
island was saved by Major Pierson of the 95th, gallantly supported by
such troops and militia as he could gather at once. All the invaders
were either killed or taken prisoners, but Pierson fell at the moment of
victory. In July the combined fleets of France and Spain convoyed 14,000
troops on their way to Minorca, where they besieged Fort St. Philip,
which held out until the next year. They then sailed, forty-nine ships
of the line, into the mouth of the Channel and cruised about on the
look-out for convoys. Darby lay in Torbay with thirty ships of the
line, and they did not dare to attack him; many of their ships were
unseaworthy, and in September the fleets for a second time retreated
from the Channel without accomplishing anything. Meanwhile the Dutch
were rendered incapable of acting with them. As Admiral Hyde Parker, in
command of a squadron, was convoying the Baltic trade homeward on August
5, he met with a Dutch squadron on the Dogger Bank convoying their trade
to the north. The two squadrons were nominally nearly equal, but several
of the English ships were in bad condition. There was no manoeuvring;
both sides went at it in the old fashion, fighting ship with ship all
along the line. Both squadrons were desperately hammered, and at last
parted without definite result. The Dutch loss in men was heavy; one of
their best ships was sunk and two others totally ruined. They became
little more than spectators of the war, and their possessions in the
East, Sumatra, Negapatam, and Trincomali, fell into the hands of the
English. Parker was furious with Sandwich for sending him out with an
insufficient and badly found force. George went down to the Nore and
visited his ship in the hope of appeasing him, but the old admiral
insisted on resigning his command, and when pressed to remain, bluntly
told the king that he wished him "younger men and newer ships".

[Sidenote: _THE NEW PARLIAMENT._]

The temporary success of the opposition in the spring of 1780 showed the
king that he could no longer reckon with certainty on the support of the
house of commons. On September 1 he suddenly dissolved the parliament
elected in 1774, and writs were issued for a new parliament to meet on
October 31. The suddenness of the dissolution and the shortness of the
time allowed for the new elections were held to operate in favour of the
court. Nor did George neglect other means of securing his authority, for
he told North that the general election cost at least twice as much as
any other since his accession.[146] Rodney headed the poll for
Westminster, but Fox secured the second seat, defeating a ministerial
candidate. Bristol, doubly offended by Burke's efforts on behalf of
Irish trade and catholic relief, rejected him as its member, and he was
provided with a seat by Rockingham. Windsor refused to re-elect Keppel,
and it is asserted that George so far forgot his position as to go into
the shop of a silk-mercer of the borough, and say in his hurried way:
"The queen wants a gown, wants a gown. No Keppel! No Keppel!"[147] Among
the new members were Sheridan, the dramatist, and manager and part-owner
of Drury lane theatre, one of Fox's friends, who became famous as an
orator, and William Pitt, the second son of the great Chatham, who was
returned for Appleby on Sir James Lowther's nomination in January, 1781,
when he was in his twenty-second year. From early youth Pitt showed
signs of a remarkable genius which was carefully cultivated by his
father. Conscious of his ability, he was reserved in manner, though he
was warmly attached to his intimate friends and talked freely with them.
He lived wholly for the service of his country, and took no part in the
pleasures or vices of his contemporaries, save that he habitually drank
far too much port wine. He joined the opposition, and ranged himself
with his father's old followers who acted under Shelburne's leadership.
On all questions of importance he spoke with lofty eloquence, and his
speeches, often splendid as oratory, had the surpassing excellence of
appealing to his hearers by raising them to a higher level of thought
and feeling than that from which they had previously regarded the matter
in debate. His voice was rich, his words well chosen, and he was
singularly happy in sarcasm.

The king's influence was strong in the new parliament. Sir Fletcher
Norton, a bad-tempered and unprincipled man, who had deeply offended him
by his speech with reference to the civil list in 1777, was again
proposed as speaker by the opposition, and was rejected by 203 votes to
134 in favour of Cornwall, the ministerial candidate. The session opened
languidly and the attendance of the opposition was scanty. After the
Christmas recess the struggle with the government was carried on with
more energy. Little ground was gained. Burke's bill for a reform of the
civil list establishment was rejected by 233 to 190, and a like fate
attended other efforts to destroy the means by which parliament was
subjected to corrupt influences. Though the Dutch war was popular
specially with the mercantile class, which expected to benefit by it,
both the nation and the parliament were thoroughly weary of the
American war, and the opponents of it in the commons were strengthened
by the accession of Pitt who pronounced it "a most accursed, wicked,
barbarous, cruel, unnatural, unjust, and diabolical war".[148] Yet the
news of successes in the south, of a mutiny of the Pennsylvania troops
in January, 1781, and of the distress and financial difficulties of the
Americans encouraged the government party. Motions hostile to the war
were feebly supported, and Fox's jeers at British victories, and his
declarations that the money spent on the war was plundered from the
nation, that the cause of the Americans was "the cause of freedom, of
the constitution, and of whiggism, and that he had in its origin wished
it success," excited justifiable indignation.

The most serious attack on the government was caused by North's
disgraceful manipulation of a loan of £12,000,000. Though more than
three times the amount was offered, the loan was arranged on terms so
advantageous to the lenders that the price of the new stock rose at once
from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent. above par. The profits were calculated
by Fox to amount to £900,000, and, as in 1763, the loan was distributed
among the supporters of the government, half of it, so it was said,
going to members of the house of commons, whether as compensation for
election expenses or generally as a means of maintaining a corrupt
influence. North's conduct was severely reprehended in both chambers,
and in two divisions on the question in the commons the opposition voted
106 to 137 and 163 to 209. The life of the government depended on the
fortunes of the war in America; it was prolonged by gleams of success;
it was soon to be terminated by an overwhelming disaster.

In the summer of 1780 the Americans were, perhaps, more disheartened
than at any other period of the war. They were, as we shall see, losing
in the south, and their hope of decisive help from France was again
disappointed. Congress continued to issue paper money until its notes
became of so little value that ten paper dollars were exchanged for a
cent; there was no money and no credit, and Washington was forced to
levy contributions on the surrounding country to supply his army. The
people generally were sick of the war. France was almost bankrupt; even
Vergennes was weary of American demands for help, and suggested putting
an end to the war by a long truce, the English surrendering New York and
keeping Georgia and South Carolina. The idea was equally displeasing to
the king and to the Americans. It was not without reason that George
believed that "America was distressed to the greatest degree," and that
if his ministers persevered in the war they would wear down its power of
resistance.[149]

[Sidenote: _MAJOR ANDRÉ._]

The depression of the Americans was deepened by the treachery of Arnold.
Conspicuous among their generals for energy and dash, he was a
vulgar-minded, irritable man, ruined in fortune by his own extravagance,
and with many enemies. He had been treated badly by congress, and was
finally maddened by receiving a public reprimand ordered by a
court-martial which was held to examine charges affecting his probity.
Washington felt kindly towards him, and gave him the command of West
Point, a highland fortress which was the key of the line of the Hudson.
He had for some time contemplated deserting to the British, and was in
correspondence with Clinton, receiving replies through Major André, a
gallant and popular young officer, Clinton's adjutant-general, who wrote
under the name of John Anderson. Determined to avenge himself on
congress, he offered to betray West Point to the British. An attack was
to be made on September 25, and Arnold was to arrange the American
troops in such a way as to ensure its success. Had the plot succeeded,
the Americans would have lost communication between the northern and
southern provinces, and would probably have been forced to give up the
struggle. An interview was necessary, and André sailed up the river in
the _Vulture_ sloop, and met Arnold secretly on the night of the 21st.
After the interview Arnold persuaded him to take shelter in a house
which, though he was not aware of it, stood within the American lines,
and gave him papers containing arrangements for the attack. The next day
André could not find a boatman to take him to the _Vulture_, and was
forced to set out for New York by land. He had a pass from Arnold made
out for John Anderson, he changed his uniform for a civilian dress, and
passed the American lines in safety. On the 23rd he fell into the hands
of some American cattle-stealers; Arnold's papers were found in his
boots, and his captors handed him over to a militia officer. Arnold
received tidings of his capture and made his escape on board the
_Vulture_.

André was tried by a court-martial consisting of fourteen general
officers, and was sentenced to death as a spy. Clinton made every effort
to obtain his pardon; Washington was inexorable, and would not even
grant André's request that he might die a soldier's death. He was hanged
on October 2, and met his fate with dignity and courage. Inexpressibly
sad as his end was, he was not treated unjustly; he entered the enemy's
lines while attempting to assist their commander to betray his post, he
was within their lines in disguise, and he was taken with papers upon
him arranging the details of the betrayal. Washington would have been
held to have acted with generosity if he had treated him as a prisoner
of war, or even if he had granted his pathetic request that he might be
spared the ignominy of the gallows. But an officer in command should not
allow any consideration to hinder him from doing what he believes to be
best for his army, provided it is not contrary to the usages of
civilised warfare. That Washington was guided by this principle in
sending André to the gallows may fairly be inferred from all we know of
his character, and of the condition of the American army at the time.
His conduct needs no other defence.[150] The traitor Arnold received
£6,300 from the British government, and, it is painful to remember, a
commission in the army, which he entered with a brevet of
brigadier-general.

[Sidenote: _RODNEY AT ST. EUSTATIUS._]

As soon as war was declared with the Dutch, orders were sent to Rodney,
who returned from America to the Antilles at the end of 1780, to capture
St. Eustatius. From a mass of barren rock this Dutch island had suddenly
become a place of first-rate commercial importance. In order to supply
our West India planters with food for their slaves, parliament allowed
trade to be carried on there with the Americans. In St. Eustatius the
goods of all nations were bought and sold; and British and French
planters, American dealers and Dutch merchants traded with one another
as in a time of peace. English planters and merchants also used it as a
place of deposit, believing that their goods would be safer there than
in their own islands, which were open to attacks from the French. The
wealth of the island was prodigious; the rents of the dwellings and
warehouses hastily constructed on it amounted to a million a year; it
had, as Burke said, risen from the waters like another Tyre to become
the mart of the world. Like the British island of Nassau during the
American civil war, it carried on along with legitimate commerce a brisk
contraband trade, and its merchants supplied the Americans and French,
their principal and most favoured customers, with vast quantities of
naval stores and ammunition. It was practically undefended, and,
together with its dependencies, St. Martin and Saba, was surrendered to
Rodney without resistance on February 3, 1781. Over 150 vessels were
taken in the bay, besides a richly laden convoy of Dutch ships which had
lately put to sea. Rodney held that the island was a "nest of villains,"
and that its "infamous and deceitful inhabitants" owed their wealth to
their support of the king's enemies by contraband trading; they
"deserved scourging," and he vowed that they should get it. He
confiscated all the property on the island, private as well as public,
save what belonged to the French, who were open enemies. There was much
truth in his indictment, but his indiscriminate confiscation was
monstrously unjust.

The spoil of the island was estimated at £4,000,000. The king granted
his rights over the booty to the captors. Rodney was a poor man, and was
greedy for wealth; he seized more than the king could grant, or he could
lawfully hold, for part of the booty belonged to English merchants. His
conduct was severely and, though with some exaggeration, justly attacked
by Burke in parliament, and in after years he was harassed by suits
brought against him for unlawful spoliation. The booty sold on the spot
fetched far less than its value, and much that was sent home fell into
the hands of the French; for while Darby was engaged in the relief of
Gibraltar, a French squadron intercepted the convoy which was bringing
it to England, and carried off several ships laden with spoil. The
capture of the island proved disastrous to England. A French fleet under
Count de Grasse was unfortunately allowed to leave Brest in March, for
England was embarrassed by naval conflicts all over the world. Rodney
expected its coming, and sent Sir Samuel Hood, as fine a seaman as
himself, and with a more single eye to the king's service, to blockade
Fort Royal, in Martinique, in order to prevent four French ships which
lay there from joining Grasse. Hood wished to cruise to windward of the
island, which would have enabled him to force Grasse either to fight or
to give up his junction with the four ships. Rodney, who remained at St.
Eustatius looking after the loot, would not consent to this, because, so
Hood asserts, he was afraid that the ships would slip out and attack the
island.[151] Hood was forced to keep to leeward; Grasse got between him
and the island, was joined by the ships, and so gained the superiority
in force. Some distant and indecisive fighting took place on April 29
and 30, and finally Hood, being the inferior in force, and no longer
having any reason to risk his ships, sailed away from the enemy. The
French, though failing in an attack on St. Lucia, took Tobago, and, what
was of graver consequence, Grasse was enabled, apparently through
Rodney's anxiety concerning his booty, to maintain a strong fleet in the
West Indies, which before long helped to bring victory within reach of
the Americans. Grasse sailed for the American coast in August. Rodney
was obliged by ill-health to return to England, and left Hood with only
fourteen ships to follow the French fleet, directing him to join Admiral
Graves, then in command in the American waters, in the neighbourhood of
the Chesapeake.

[Sidenote: _CORNWALLIS IN SOUTH CAROLINA._]

As the British forces were divided between New York and the southern
provinces, it is obvious that the issue of the struggle depended on the
command of the sea. So long as the British held the ocean way, the
southern army would be able to receive reinforcements and supplies, and
could be aided by diversions, the French alliance would be of little
profit to the Americans, and the long land journey, expensive and open
to attacks, would cut off the southern provinces from succours from the
north. The navy, as both Clinton and Washington saw, "had the casting
vote in the contest".[152] In July, 1780, soon after Clinton returned to
New York from South Carolina, a French squadron brought nearly 6,000
men, commanded by Count de Rochambeau, to Rhode Island. A few days
after the arrival of Rochambeau, the British fleet under Arbuthnot
received reinforcements which made it stronger than the French. Clinton
took measures for attacking the French by land and sea, but was called
back to New York by a movement on the part of Washington, and a renewal
of the plan was defeated by a quarrel between him and Arbuthnot. The
seven French ships remained at Newport, blocked up by the British fleet,
and though Washington obtained some help from the land force, the
greater part stayed to guard the ships. Rodney should have attacked
these ships as soon as he arrived at New York in September. He probably
thought them of little importance, as they were thoroughly blockaded,
and did not care to risk his ships within reach of the French batteries
on the shore. The destruction of the squadron was within his power and
was well worth some risk. Great as he was on sea, he did not understand
the wide aspects of operations of war. The presence of the French
compelled the British to keep a large force in New York and so hindered
their operations in the south.

Before Clinton left South Carolina, he issued a proclamation which put
an end to all hopes of neutrality; those who would not fulfil the duties
of loyal subjects would be held to be rebels. This step caused many who
would willingly have remained neutral to join the revolutionists rather
than fight against them. The country soon became disturbed; the British
were forced to act with severity, and the Americans, both revolutionists
and loyalists, behaved with great cruelty towards their
fellow-countrymen of the opposite party.[153] Partisan leaders, among
whom Sumter and Marion were conspicuous, raised bands on their own
responsibility, and fought against the British, acting sometimes
independently and sometimes in conjunction with the forces of congress.
Cornwallis worked energetically at Charleston, enrolling militia and
providing for the administration, while Lord Rawdon with the main body
of the army kept the border at Camden. Anxious to press on, Cornwallis
desired Clinton to send a force to Chesapeake bay, to divert the enemy
while he invaded North Carolina; but before he could advance further he
had to fight for the southern province. Gates was appointed to the
supreme command in the south and was threatening Camden. Cornwallis
hastened thither with his staff and found Rawdon with 700 sick and less
than 2,000 fit for duty. The enemy was greatly superior in number,
without reckoning 1,000 men under Sumter, who was cutting the British
off from their supplies on the west side of the Wateree river.
Cornwallis met them on August 16, and began the engagement with a
vigorous attack on the American left, formed by the Virginia and North
Carolina militia who, as the British advanced, firing and cheering,
threw down their arms and fled. The British victory was complete; the
Americans lost about 1,000 killed and wounded, over 1,000 prisoners, and
their artillery and stores; the British casualties were 324. Two days
later Colonel Tarleton smartly surprised Sumter, and dispersed his band,
retaking a convoy which had fallen into his hands shortly before the
battle of Camden. The defeat of Gates's army drove the Americans almost
to despair.

Cornwallis was encouraged to pursue his grand plan of "conquest from
south to north". Clinton, though he did not approve of his forward
policy,[154] sent General Leslie with 3,200 men to Chesapeake bay to
co-operate with him, and Cornwallis entered North Carolina and advanced
as far as Charlotte. In spite of his brilliant victory he was beset by
difficulties. The loyalists did not give him the help which he expected;
as soon as he left South Carolina it broke into a ferment of
disaffection, and his troops were not suited for the guerilla warfare
largely adopted by the enemy, who were, Rawdon wrote, "mostly mounted
militia not to be overtaken by our infantry, nor to be safely pursued in
this strong country by our cavalry".[155] In this as in many other
respects, the experiences of the war were repeated in South Africa in
our own day. Before Cornwallis left South Carolina he detached a force
of 800 militia and 100 regulars under Major Ferguson to scour the border
and keep the country quiet in the rear of the army. They were met by a
partisan army of 3,000 men under different leaders at King's Mountain on
October 7; Ferguson was killed and all his men were either slain or
captured. So severe a loss, combined with the anxiety of Cornwallis lest
the important post called Ninety-six should be taken, put a stop to any
further advance. Cornwallis fell back on Winnsborough, and bade Leslie
convey his force to Charleston, which he was able to do as England had
command of the sea, and reinforce him. The safety of the border was his
first care. No sooner had Tarleton checked the inroads of Marion in the
east than he was summoned westwards to protect Ninety-six from Sumter.
He engaged Sumter's force at Blackstock on November 20, and claimed to
have defeated him. Tarleton was a dashing cavalry officer, given to
overrating his own achievements. His troops were few and weary, and at
best he escaped defeat; but Sumter's band dispersed, for its leader was
wounded and disabled for a while from further action.[156]

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OF THE COWPENS._]

In December Greene, a general of far greater ability than Gates, took
the chief command in the south. Cornwallis found the enemy on both his
flanks. On the east Marion, then in common with Sumter holding a
commission from congress, Henry Lee, and Greene himself endangered his
communications with the coast, and penetrated as far as Georgetown, and
on the west another division under Morgan threatened Ninety-six.
Disaffection was spreading rapidly through the province. Believing that
his one chance of conquering from south to north lay in pushing forward,
he determined to march into North Carolina. Leslie joined him in
January, 1781, and Clinton sent Arnold and Phillips with a large force
to take Leslie's place in Virginia. On setting out for North Carolina,
Cornwallis detached Tarleton to deal with Morgan. He brought him to bay
at the Cowpens, near King's Mountain, on the 17th. Tarleton's force,
numbering about 1,100, was slightly superior to that of the enemy, but
he engaged while his men were weary after a hard night-march. Some of
his troops behaved badly; he was utterly defeated, and lost nearly 800
men. This defeat was a severe blow to Cornwallis, for it deprived him of
the best part of his light troops, which were specially necessary for
his march through a wooded and thinly populated country where much
foraging had to be done. He determined to advance, hoping to get between
Greene and Virginia, and force him to fight before he received
reinforcements. He burnt his superfluous baggage and crossed the Catawba
river. The two divisions of the American army retreated hastily through
North Carolina, succeeded in forming a junction, and crossed the Dan
into Virginia before the British could come up with them. Having thus
cleared the province of the revolutionary troops, Cornwallis encamped at
Hillsborough, and on February 20 summoned the loyalists to join him.
Some were coming in when, on the 23rd, Greene, who had received
reinforcements, recrossed the Dan. Any further loyalist movement was
stopped by an act of revolting barbarity; 200 loyalists were caught by
Lee's horse on their way to the British quarters; they made no
resistance and asked for quarter, but were butchered by their
fellow-countrymen.

Cornwallis, finding it difficult to support his troops and being anxious
to encourage the loyalists by showing his superiority in the field,
accepted Greene's offer of battle at Guilford courthouse on March 15.
His force scarcely numbered 2,000, while the enemy, regulars and
militia, were 4,300 strong. The battle was begun by the British left,
consisting of the 22nd and 23rd regiments, supported by grenadiers and
guards, which charged and routed the first line of the enemy with the
bayonet. The second line, formed by Virginians, stood steady and was not
driven back without a severe struggle; so too the First Maryland
regiment, in the third line, repulsed the first attack upon it with
heavy loss. The Second Marylanders fell back before a battalion of
guards, who pressed heedlessly after them and were suddenly engaged by
the American dragoons. The guards fought fiercely, but were broken. For
a moment things looked awkward. Then the enemy was checked by the
British artillery and the guards were rallied by their brigadier O'Hara,
who, though severely wounded, was still able to do good service. The
British fought magnificently and won a brilliant victory. Yet it was
dearly bought, for the loss of over 500 rank and file, a full third of
his infantry, left Cornwallis powerless. His little army was in need of
supplies and he marched to Wilmington, where stores brought by sea were
laid up for him.

[Sidenote: _CORNWALLIS ADVANCES INTO VIRGINIA._]

Being too weak to do anything further without reinforcements, he decided
to leave the Carolinas, effect a junction with Arnold in Virginia, and
attempt the conquest of that province, reckoning that success there
would check disaffection in South Carolina and ultimately tend to the
conquest of North Carolina.[157] He wished Clinton to prosecute the war
in Virginia with all the strength at his command, even at the expense of
giving up New York. Clinton, however, was throughout opposed to his
forward policy; he would have had him attempt nothing beyond the power
of the force which he left with him, "the defence of South, and most
probably the reduction of North, Carolina," and he did not intend the
troops sent to Virginia to engage in "solid" operations, which he judged
to be inadvisable until he should himself take the field. The king and
the cabinet approved Cornwallis's line of action.[158] He advanced into
Virginia on his own responsibility. This step led to unfriendly
relations between the two commanders, and after the war was the subject
of a bitter controversy between them. Cornwallis effected a junction
with Arnold's army on May 20, and in command of over 5,000 troops
overran the province, Lafayette, with a far inferior force, retreating
before him. Meantime Rawdon struggled gallantly, though unsuccessfully,
against Greene in South Carolina. He defeated Greene at Hobskirk hill on
April 25, but was forced to retire from Camden. The loyalists saw that
the British could not protect them; the whole province was disaffected,
and post after post was taken by Greene, Lee, Sumter, Marion, and other
generals. At last, after Rawdon's return to England on account of
ill-health, a hard-fought battle at Eutaw springs on September 8, which
both sides claimed as a victory, so weakened the British force that it
remained in and about Charleston until it was withdrawn at the end of
the war.

To return to the spring of the year, Cornwallis's invasion of Virginia
and the destruction of property there seemed likely to bring the war to
a successful issue. Washington's army was in grievous want of supplies,
the American marine was annihilated, their finances were in a ruinous
state, and their resources generally almost exhausted. Powerful
co-operation with Cornwallis on the part of Clinton was urgently needed.
The issue of the struggle depended on the power of Great Britain to
prevent a French fleet and army from undertaking a joint enterprise with
the Americans. At this critical juncture England lost the superiority at
sea. In May, Washington and Rochambeau agreed that, as soon as Grasse
brought his fleet over, they would join forces, and either attack New
York or, perhaps, march into Virginia, as circumstances might direct.
Clinton discovered their design, would not spare any troops from New
York, and in June called on Cornwallis to send him part of the force
under his command, and ordered him to take up a defensive position.
Cornwallis retired down the James river to Portsmouth. Clinton withdrew
his demand for troops and directed him to fortify a station on the
Yorktown peninsula as a port for ships. He would there be able to take
up a defensive position secured by access to the sea. Cornwallis
concentrated all his forces, about 7,000 men, and fortified Yorktown and
Gloucester. On July 6 Rochambeau, in expectation of the arrival of
Grasse's fleet, brought his troops from Rhode Island (p. 219) and joined
Washington at White Plains. It was agreed between Grasse and Washington
that the united army, 4,000 French and 2,000 Americans, should march
into Virginia and act in co-operation with the French fleet. Clinton,
however, deceived by fictitious letters, written by Washington and
designed to be intercepted, believed that it would attack New York, and
remained quietly there while it marched half through New Jersey. Not
until September 2 did he discover that it was on its way to join in a
combined attack on Cornwallis. On the 5th it reached the head of
Chesapeake bay.

[Sidenote: _CAPITULATION OF CORNWALLIS._]

By that time the inferiority of the British fleet rendered Cornwallis's
situation extremely perilous. When Hood with the fourteen ships of the
line left by Rodney (p. 218) arrived off Cape Henry on August 25, Graves
was not there to meet him; he sailed to Sandy Hook and joined him. The
fleet, nineteen ships of the line, sailed under Graves to Chesapeake
bay, and found that during Hood's absence Grasse had entered the bay
with twenty-eight ships of the line. Grasse at once stood out to sea,
for he was anxious to secure a junction with the squadron from Newport,
under Count de Barras, which Rodney had failed to attack in the previous
September. Graves, who should have caught these ships instead of aiming
at the main fleet, engaged him on September 5, handled his fleet badly,
and got his ships knocked about. While he remained uselessly at sea the
squadron of Barras slipped into the bay. On the 14th the British fleet
returned to New York to refit, and Cornwallis was left without succour.
Lafayette with a large army of French and Americans was already blocking
the neck of the peninsula. Clinton attempted a perfectly useless
diversion in Connecticut under Arnold. Washington's army joined
Lafayette on the 18th, and Cornwallis was soon besieged by a force of
over 16,000 men. On October 19 he was forced to capitulate. Of the
garrison which surrendered at Yorktown and Gloucester, 6,950 men, only
4,017 remained fit for duty. On the day of the surrender, naval
reinforcements having arrived at New York and the fleet at last being
refitted, Clinton sailed with 7,000 troops to the relief of Cornwallis.
They found that they were too late and returned to New York.

With this disaster the war in America virtually ended. Cornwallis in his
attempt to recover the southern provinces showed a vigour and capacity
which might, perhaps, have brought matters to a different issue if he
had held the chief command. But his means were inadequate to meet the
wastage caused by battle and sickness; he found the loyalists a broken
reed, and his troops not well suited to the kind of warfare in which
they were engaged. "Had Lord Cornwallis staid in Carolina, as I had
ordered him," wrote Clinton, "and I had even assembled my forces at New
York, and remained there with my arms across without affront, negative
victory would have insured American Dependence."[159] "Arms across"
seems indeed to have been Clinton's favourite attitude.[160]
Cornwallis's advance into Virginia was certainly a risky movement, but
it was a choice of evils and did not in itself entail disaster. Clinton
reckoned, not without reason, that the Americans were too exhausted to
prolong the struggle; he was in favour of desultory operations on the
Chesapeake, against Baltimore and Philadelphia, with the view of gaining
loyalist support, and of waiting until he had received reinforcements
large enough to enable him to undertake a "solid" campaign in Virginia,
without leaving New York insufficiently defended. Cornwallis believed
that the best chance of success lay in securing a firm hold on Virginia.
Germain, who still persisted in directing operations in America from
London, considered Cornwallis's plan more promising than that of
Clinton. He treated Cornwallis as though he had an entirely independent
command, with the result that serious misunderstandings arose between
Cornwallis and Clinton, the commander-in-chief, which hindered their
co-operation; and while he approved of the plan adopted by Cornwallis he
did not discountenance Clinton's proposals, with the result that neither
course of action was vigorously pursued. It was by Clinton's order that
Cornwallis retired to the York peninsula, where his safety depended on
the continued command of the sea; the choice of Yorktown as his post was
his own. It was not a good choice; but he had little reason to expect
that he would have to hold it against an overwhelming force of French
and Americans, with a French fleet in command of the sea. Clinton should
not have been misled by Washington's simple trick into allowing the
combined force to advance beyond his reach on its way to crush
Cornwallis's army.

The true cause of the catastrophe, however, lay in naval mismanagement.
The mistaken policy of employing the British fleet in various and
distant enterprises instead of off the ports of the enemy enabled Grasse
to sail from Brest unopposed. Rodney let slip a grand opportunity of
baulking his plans off Fort Royal, and sent, perhaps was forced to send,
Hood after him to America with an insufficient fleet. Partly through
accident and partly through an error of judgment, Graves missed his
junction with Hood. Grasse was consequently allowed quietly to enter
Chesapeake bay, and Graves afterwards failed to use his ships to the
best advantage. The loss of the command at sea was fatal to Cornwallis.

[Sidenote: _THE MINISTRY LOSES GROUND._]

Tidings of the disaster reached London on November 25, two days before
the meeting of parliament. On receiving them North's habitual calmness
broke down; he threw up his arms as though he were shot, and repeatedly
exclaimed, "O God! it is all over!" The king's fortitude was unshaken,
and he showed no sign of agitation, save that, in acknowledging
Germain's letter informing him of the surrender, he omitted to note the
exact moment of his writing, as his custom was. The speech from the
throne at the opening of parliament, while acknowledging disaster,
contained no hint of giving way. Parliament for a while upheld the
ministers, and the address was carried in the lords by 75 to 31, and in
the commons by 218 to 129. Fox and Burke threatened the ministers with
impeachment and the scaffold; and Pitt condemned their policy in
speeches not less effective for being more moderate in tone. North
announced that the war would no longer be carried on with a design of
conquest, but only for the possession of posts on the coast which would
be useful in the war with France and Spain. Crowded meetings in London
and Westminster condemned the government. It was evident that there was
dissension in the cabinet; North was anxious for an acknowledgment of
American independence, Germain declared that he would never agree to it.
By Christmas the government lost many supporters in parliament.

Its position was further weakened by continued ill-success in war. The
Marquis de Bouillé retook St. Eustatius on October 25. Grasse returned
to Martinique, and in January, 1782, the two commanders landed a force
on St. Kitts and besieged the garrison. Hood followed Grasse with
twenty-two ships, out-manoeuvred him brilliantly, beat him off on the
26th, and held his station against a fleet of thirty-three ships of the
line until February 14, when, as he was unable to prevent the fall of
the island, he sailed away. The capture of St. Kitts and Nevis reduced
the British possessions in the West Indies to Jamaica, Antigua, and
Barbadoes. A joint attack on Jamaica was planned by France and Spain.
Rodney, however, again arrived at the Antilles with twelve ships, was
joined by Hood, and, as we shall see in the next chapter, restored the
British flag to its proper place at sea. Nearer home, Kempenfeldt, the
admiral whose tragic end is famous in Cowper's verse, dealt the enemy a
severe blow. He was sent, in December, 1781, with only twelve ships to
intercept a French fleet consisting, as the admiralty knew, or ought to
have known, of seventeen ships with a convoy bound for the West Indies.
Kempenfeldt took at least twenty of the convoy with troops and stores,
but, overmatched as he was, he was forced to let the fleet sail on. It
was dispersed by a storm shortly afterwards, and many of the ships
returned home. The loss of this convoy seriously crippled the French in
the West Indies.[161] In the Mediterranean, the garrison of St. Philips,
in Minorca, which had been besieged since August by a French and Spanish
army, was forced to surrender on February 5, after being reduced by
sickness and war from 2,692 to 600 men fit for duty, and eighty years
after its conquest the island was lost to England.

During the recess the ministers, convinced of the folly of prolonging
the war, arranged to go on without Germain. Carleton succeeded Clinton
at New York, and Germain was succeeded as third secretary of state by
the insignificant Welbore Ellis, and was created Viscount Sackville,
much to the wrath of the whig peers, who tried in vain to obtain a vote
that the presence of a cashiered officer was derogatory to the dignity
of their house. The opposition gathered strength. A powerful attack by
Fox on the administration of the navy failed by twenty-two votes, a
motion by Conway for putting an end to the American war only by one, and
a like motion was carried a few days later by a majority of nineteen.
The government then introduced a bill to enable the king to make peace,
and North sent envoys to Paris to sound Franklin as to terms. It was
evident that the end was near, and the new government was eagerly
discussed. Pitt, though acting with the opposition, took a somewhat
independent line, and announced in the house that he would not accept a
subordinate office. This from a young member not then twenty-three
excited some amazement, but his assumption soon proved to be well
founded. On March 11 George sent the chancellor, Thurlow, to negotiate
with Rockingham, but would not accept his terms. Three days later the
government escaped a vote of want of confidence only by nine votes, and
on the 20th North announced the resignation of the ministry. George was
in great distress, and talked of retiring to Hanover, for life would be
unendurable to him if he fell into the hands of the Rockingham party.

[Sidenote: _THE SECOND ROCKINGHAM MINISTRY._]

The two parties in the opposition, though acting together against the
government, held widely different views. The Rockinghams aimed at a
homogeneous ministry; they represented the aristocratic whig faction,
were the enemies of prerogative, and were strong advocates of American
independence. Shelburne, like his old chief, Chatham, was opposed to
government by party, held that the king should have an interest in the
government, and so far "be his own minister," and like Chatham had been
hostile to American independence.[162] For political reasons, then,
George was drawn to Shelburne, while personally he despised Rockingham
and hated Fox. He invited Shelburne first, and then Gower, to form a
ministry. Both declined. Shelburne could not afford to split with the
Rockinghams; he knew that they could not stand without him, and he
advised the king to send for Rockingham. George would not see Rockingham
himself, and negotiated with him through Shelburne on the basis of
freedom as regards men and measures, and as to the acknowledgment of
American independence.[163] Rockingham formed his cabinet on the 24th.
He took the treasury. Shelburne was secretary for home, Irish, and
colonial affairs; Fox for foreign affairs, the third secretaryship being
abolished; Keppel, who was created a viscount, first lord of the
admiralty; Richmond, master-general of the ordnance; Lord John
Cavendish, chancellor of the exchequer; Camden, president of the
council; Grafton, privy seal; Conway, commander-in-chief; Dunning, who
was created Baron Ashburton, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. To
please the king Thurlow was retained as chancellor. Pitt was offered,
and declined, a subordinate office. Burke was treated by his
aristocratic friends as unworthy of cabinet office, and was made
paymaster of the forces.

The king was defeated. His system of personal government through
ministers supported by his influence in parliament received its
death-blow from the ill-success of the American war. Before long he
adopted a better system; he found a prime minister who could command the
confidence of the nation, and he yielded himself, not always willingly,
to his guidance. Meanwhile the whigs were victorious. How long they were
to remain victors is yet to be seen. George was resolute, skilful in
intrigue, and by that time well versed in politics. He was aided by the
jealousies and mistakes of his opponents. Even in their hour of triumph
they found that he gained an advantage over them. The cabinet was
divided; its new members belonged half to the Rockingham and half to the
Shelburne party, while Thurlow was the king's trusted friend. Rockingham
acted unwisely in accepting office offered to him in a way which showed
that he was not to have the king's confidence. Though he was prime
minister, George gave his apparent confidence to another member of the
cabinet. Shelburne was not unreasonably believed to be ready to make
himself useful to the king with an eye to his own advancement. The seeds
of discord and distrust were at once sown among the new ministers. Even
while the ministry was in process of formation Fox sharply remarked to
Shelburne that he perceived that it "was to consist of two parts--one
belonging to the king, the other to the public".[164]

FOOTNOTES:

[145] Coxe, _Bourbon Kings of Spain_, iii., 424-37.

[146] George III. to North, April 18, 1782, _Corresp._, ii., 423.

[147] _Rockingham Memoirs_, ii., 425.

[148] _Parl. Hist._, xxii., 488.

[149] George to North, Sept. 26, 1780, _Corresp._, ii., 336.

[150] For the contrary view see _Engl. Hist. Rev._, v. (1890), 31 _sq._

[151] _Letters of Sir S. Hood_, Introd., xxxi.-xxxii., pp. 15-16, ed.
Hannay.

[152] Washington to Jefferson, June 8, 1780, _Works_, viii., 71; Clinton
to Germain, Oct. 29, 1780, _Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy_, i., 283.

[153] _Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy_, i., 238, 246, 261, 267.

[154] _Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy_, i., 104 n. 3a.

[155] Rawdon to Leslie, Oct. 24, 1780, _ibid._, p. 274; see also pp.
272, 278.

[156] Cornwallis to Clinton, Dec. 3, 1780, _op. cit._, pp. 304-7;
Tarleton, _Campaigns of 1780, 1781_, pp. 179-80; Stedman, ii., 229-31.

[157] Cornwallis to Germain, April 18, 1781, _Clinton-Cornwallis
Controv._, i., 417-18.

[158] Germain to Cornwallis, March 7, 1781, _ibid._, p. 338; see also
ii., 10.

[159] _Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy_, i., 43, n. 1b.

[160] Rodney to Germain, Dec. 22, 1780, _Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep._, ix.,
App., pp. 108-9.

[161] Chevalier, _Histoire de la Marine Française_ (_l'Indép. Amer._),
pp. 278, 280.

[162] _Parl. Hist._, xxii., 987, 1003.

[163] _Life of Shelburne_, iii., 125-32.

[164] _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, i., 292; see also p. 316.




                               CHAPTER XII.

                          THE ROUT OF THE WHIGS.


The new ministers at once attacked the sources from which the crown
derived its corrupt influence over parliament. They carried bills
preventing contractors from sitting in parliament and depriving revenue
officers of the franchise. As these officers, who were dependent on the
ministers of the crown, numbered according to one computation nearly
40,000, and to another 60,000, out of an electorate of about 300,000,
their disfranchisement was an important step towards freedom of
election. A message to parliament recommending economy was extorted from
the king as an introduction to a plan of economical reform which was
brought forward by Burke. It was not so drastic as his earlier plan, for
the king acting in the cabinet through Shelburne and Thurlow objected to
many of the proposed retrenchments. Nevertheless, in spite of
mutilations, the bill, which became law, effected a saving of £72,000 a
year, chiefly by abolishing useless offices. The act also again provided
for the payment of arrears of the civil list, amounting this time to
£296,000. Burke nobly continued his work by a bill for the reform of his
own office, preventing the paymaster from gaining the enormous profits
appropriated by nearly all his predecessors. Another declaration in
favour of freedom of election was made by the commons, for they at last
accepted Wilkes's annual motion for expunging from their journals the
resolution of February, 1769, declaring him incapable of re-election.
The corrupt influence of the crown would, Pitt declared, be checked most
effectually by a reform of parliament. Acting on his own account, he
proposed an inquiry into the state of the representation, without
bringing forward any scheme of reform. He pointed out that some boroughs
were in the hands of the treasury, that others had no actual existence,
and that many were merely the property of purchasers, the nawáb of
Arcot, for example, returning seven or eight members. His motion, though
supported by Fox, was rejected by 161 to 141.

[Sidenote: _IRISH INDEPENDENCE._]

Most memorable of the changes effected during the Rockingham
administration is the establishment of the legislative independence of
Ireland. When Carlisle went over as viceroy in December, 1780, he was
instructed that the government would not oppose the demand for a _habeas
corpus_ act, but that he was to prevent parliament from declaring for
legislative independence, or for a limitation of the perpetual mutiny
act which kept the army beyond its control. The Irish parliament for a
while steadily supported the government. The small party in opposition
included Flood, who, after holding a lucrative office for six years,
found himself unable to influence the government, adopted a hostile
line, and was dismissed, and, above all, Grattan who had become leader
of the party after Flood took office. But the force which was to enlist
parliament on the national side was outside its walls. The volunteers
grew in strength, and reviews of large bodies of them were held during
the summer of 1781. They remained loyal, and when in September the
fleets of France and Spain threatened the coast of Munster, they eagerly
prepared to meet the enemy. At the same time the impending success of
the American revolution encouraged them to demand independence for their
own country, and as they were nearly 100,000 armed and disciplined men,
while less than 5,000 regular troops were left in Ireland, their voice
could not be disregarded. It soon made itself heard. On the invitation
of Charlemont's regiment a meeting of delegates from the Ulster
volunteers assembled in the church of Dungannon on February 15, 1782.
They passed resolutions condemning the claim of the British parliament
to legislate for Ireland, and the control which, in accordance with
Poyning's act, the privy councils of England and Ireland exercised over
Irish legislation, and they demanded the limitation of the mutiny act,
and the independence of the judges.

Before the Irish parliament met after the Easter recess the Rockingham
ministry came into office; Carlisle was abruptly removed, and the Duke
of Portland was appointed to succeed him. Rockingham, Fox, and Burke
were anxious to satisfy Ireland, but the ministry seems not to have
determined its exact line of policy. An attempt was made to embarrass
the ministers by Eden, Carlisle's chief secretary, apparently in revenge
for their discourteous treatment of Carlisle. Without consultation with
them, he proposed the repeal of the act of 9 George I. which asserted
the right of the king and parliament of Great Britain to legislate for
Ireland. Fox opposed the motion and it was withdrawn. The next day,
April 9, the ministers brought a royal message to parliament
recommending to its consideration means of satisfying Irish discontent.
The spirit manifested in the Dungannon meeting overcame the resistance
of the Irish parliament, and the nation was united in its demands.
Rockingham and Fox tried in vain to persuade Grattan to give them time
for consideration.[165] On the 16th he moved an address to the king in
the Irish parliament asserting independence, and it was carried
unanimously. The ministers, misled by Portland, believed that the Irish
demands might be modified, and proposed negotiation. Grattan refused,
and they yielded everything. On May 17 resolutions, afterwards followed
by statutes, were carried without division in both houses, conceding
legislative independence to Ireland, restoring the appellate
jurisdiction of the Irish house of lords, and limiting the mutiny act.
Ireland thus became almost an independent state. It remained connected
with Great Britain by the tie of the crown, it had no executive
dependent on its parliament, and its legislation was subject to a
ministerial veto. The revolution of 1782, pressed on by Grattan, set up
relations between the two kingdoms which were anomalous and fraught with
danger.

[Sidenote: _THE "BATTLE OF THE SAINTS"._]

Negotiations for peace were in progress, but the war still went on, and
its last great events were glorious. The navy was far stronger than in
1778; the dockyards were busy during the war, and the number of ships
was much larger. Improvements of various kinds were adopted; ships were
coppered, the rapidity and accuracy of their fire was increased by new
inventions, and carronades--light guns with a large bore mounted on the
upper deck, for use at close quarters--not yet adopted by the French,
were added to their armament. The discipline and ardour of the
_personnel_ of the navy reached a high pitch. The British sailor was
keen to fight the Frenchman, and 93,168 seamen and marines are entered
as borne during the present year. We left the French and Spanish fleets
in the West Indies preparing to conquer Jamaica (p. 227). Grasse was at
Fort Royal, and was to join the Spaniards on the coast of San Domingo,
and Rodney, whose fleet was raised by his junction with Hood and the
arrival of reinforcements to thirty-seven ships of the line, lay on the
watch at St. Lucia. On April 8 the French stood out to sea, and the next
day Rodney found them off Dominica. An indecisive action took place in
which, owing to baffling calms, only the British van was engaged. Grasse
then beat to windward between Dominica and the Iles des Saintes, but in
consequence of various accidents made little way. The British followed
him, and early on the 12th Sir Charles Douglas, the captain of the
fleet, awakened Rodney with the stirring tidings that "God had given him
the enemy on the lee-bow".

The English fleet was numerically the stronger, but the French had finer
ships and heavier batteries. The action began about 7.30 A.M. At first
it seemed likely to be as indecisive as usual, the two fleets passing
each other on opposite tacks and cannonading, the French being to
windward. As they sailed slowly with a light breeze, and at a short
distance from each other, the British guns and especially the carronades
were highly effective, for the enemy's ships were crowded with soldiers
for the attack on Jamaica. Before long the battle took a form which
rendered it memorable in the annals of naval warfare, for Rodney,
without previous design, practised the manoeuvre known as breaking the
enemy's line, and by that means was enabled to bring the engagement to a
decisive issue, such as he hoped for in the battle of April 17, 1780.
This manoeuvre, afterwards deliberately adopted with triumphant
success by Howe, Nelson, and other great captains, though often
practised in the naval battles between the English and the Dutch in the
seventeenth century,[166] had fallen into complete oblivion, so firmly
did admirals believe in the necessity of keeping their line of battle.
By cutting through the enemy's line an admiral could concentrate his
attack on any portion of it which could least easily receive help from
the rest, and could throw the line into confusion; the ships to the rear
of the point of penetration would be stopped, massed up, and might be
caught together, while those ahead pursued their course. This mode of
attack was worked out by a landsman, Clerk of Eldin, and though his
_Essay_ was not fully printed until 1782, parts of it were privately
circulated in 1780.

As Rodney's flagship, the _Formidable_ (98), which was half way down the
British line, was coming up with the _Glorieux_ (74), the fourth from
Grasse's flagship, the _Ville de Paris_ (104), a slight change in the
wind opened a gap between the _Glorieux_ and the ship next astern of
her. Douglas urged Rodney to steer through the gap. He refused, then
yielded; and as the _Formidable_, firing right and left from every gun
at the ships on either side of her, passed round the stern of the
_Glorieux_, and within pistol-shot of her, the French _canonniers_ could
be seen throwing down their sponges and handspikes and running below to
escape the storm of shot which she poured upon them. This time Rodney's
captains were quick to understand what he was at. The next five ships
followed the _Formidable_, and like her engaged on the windward side of
the enemy. Almost at the same time the ship sixth astern of her also cut
the enemy's line, passing through a gap abreast of her. The French line
was thus cut into three divisions, and its central portion, consisting
of five ships, was thrown together and exposed to a deadly attack. By
noon the enemy was scattered in various groups, the English, who had
gained the wind, attacking at will and without any order. Grasse fought
his ship, the splendid offering of the city of Paris to its king, with
conspicuous gallantry, and the slaughter on board her was awful. At
last, about 6 P.M., he hauled down the flag of France with his own
hands, and surrendered himself to Hood on the _Barfleur_ (90). Rodney
then stopped the fight. Four other prizes were taken. Twenty more, Hood
declared, might have been taken if Rodney had followed up his victory.
He certainly lost a fine opportunity, probably because disease and
suffering had robbed him of some of his former vigour. As it was, the
"Battle of the Saints" saved Jamaica from invasion, seriously damaged
the French fleet, and shed glory on the navy of Britain.[167]

The concluding scenes of the siege of Gibraltar were not less glorious.
Vast preparations were made to take the fortress, which in September was
besieged on the land side by nearly 40,000 men, under the Duke de
Crillon. The combined fleets, forty-nine ships of the line, lay at
Algeciras, and ten floating batteries were constructed which, it was
believed, could neither be sunk nor burned. The garrison consisted of
7,000 men fit for duty. Lord Howe, who on the change of ministry was
appointed to command the channel fleet, sailed to its relief on the 11th
with thirty-four ships of the line and many store-ships and transports.
On the 8th, when the enemy's works were not completed, Eliott opened
fire upon them and did them much damage by using red-hot balls. During
the next four days the enemy replied by a terrific bombardment from
their heavy ordnance and gunboats. Early on the 13th a general attack
was made by land-batteries and sea-batteries, and a perpetual fire was
poured upon the fortress from over 300 pieces of the heaviest artillery.
Eliott directed his red-hot shot chiefly against the battering ships,
and at last during the night two of them caught fire. In the confusion
which ensued Captain Curtis, commanding a small naval brigade, brought
out his gunboats and completed the enemy's discomfiture. Nine of the
battering-ships blew up, and the tenth was burnt by Curtis's boats. Some
1,500 of the enemy perished, and 400 were saved from death by the
British seamen. After the failure of their great attempt, the enemy
could only hope to reduce the place by blockade. Howe's fleet had a
troublesome voyage, and did not come in sight until October 11. He
effected the relief of the garrison with admirable skill. As he repassed
the straits the combined fleet followed him, and on the 20th engaged him
at a distance, but he brought his fleet off with little damage. The
siege was raised on February 6, 1783, when the war had ceased. Eliott,
to whom the successful issue of the defence, one of the finest feats of
the British arms, was principally due, was created Baron Heathfield.

[Sidenote: _WAR IN INDIA AND INDIAN WATERS._]

In India the outbreak of war with France encouraged the Maráthás, who
dominated the country from Mysore to the Ganges, in the hope of
expelling the British, by acting in conjunction with Haidar Alí.
Hastings found that a French agent was intriguing with them, and took
prompt measures against them. An expedition from Bombay failed
miserably, but Colonel Goddard, who was sent by Hastings from Bengal,
captured Ahmadábád, and drove Sindhia over the Narbadá. His fortress,
Gwalior, was stormed by Major Popham in August, 1780. Nevertheless, the
war strained Hastings's resources. His difficulties were terribly
increased by the invasion of the Karnatic. Haidar and his son, Tipú,
practically took the English by surprise, overran the country with an
army of some 75,000 cavalry and 15,000 infantry, instructed by 400
Frenchmen; defeated the Madras troops, captured Arcot, and threatened
Madras. Sir Eyre Coote, who had come out to conduct the Maráthá war, was
despatched to Madras, and in 1781 negotiations were opened with Sindhia,
and his former possessions were restored to him. Peace was made with the
Maráthá confederacy in May, 1782, by the treaty of Salbái, which was
ratified seven months later. While Coote was forcing Haidar to raise the
siege of various British fortresses in January, 1781, a French fleet
appeared at Pondicherry. Haidar called upon it to help him, for his own
fleet had been destroyed by Admiral Hughes; but Coote prevented the
French from obtaining supplies, and they sailed away without effecting
anything. He gained a splendid victory over Haidar at Porto Novo on July
1, met him with doubtful success at Pollilúr, completely routed him at
Sholinghar, and, in January, 1782, though suffering from serious
illness, skilfully relieved Vellore.

Hughes had already taken the Dutch settlements, Negapatam and
Trincomali, when in February a French fleet appeared off Madras to
protect them. It was commanded by M. de Suffren, an admiral of
remarkable ability. Suffren sailed from France in March, 1781. He fell
on an English squadron, on its way to seize the Dutch colony at the
Cape, in the neutral water of Porto Praya harbour in the Cape de Verde
islands. The fight was indecisive, but he arrived first at the Cape and
prevented the projected attack. His fleet was superior to that of
Hughes, whose principal object was to prevent him from gaining a port as
a place of supply and for landing troops. Hughes fought four indecisive
battles with him, and was unable either to prevent the French from
acting with Haidar, or from taking Cuddalore, which gave them a good
naval and military station, or from reducing Trincomali. In this long
and famous naval duel Hughes, though a capable and gallant captain,
showed himself far inferior to Suffren in strategical and tactical
skill. The French admiral, however, was constantly thwarted by the
misconduct of his subordinates, while the English captains gave Hughes
loyal support.[168] Coote carried on the war with vigour, but his
victory over Haidar and his French allies at Arni was rendered fruitless
by his lack of cavalry and supplies. Haidar died in December, leaving a
message bidding his son make peace with the English, which Tipú did not
obey. Coote died in April, 1783. The peace with the Maráthás enabled the
English to invade Tipú's country on the Malabar side, where they met
with some success and one signal disaster. Meanwhile Coote's successor,
Stuart, was attacking the French in Cuddalore. A fifth indecisive battle
with Suffren on June 20 compelled Hughes to withdraw his fleet to Madras
to refit. Stuart's army, weakened by disease and in sore need of
supplies, was saved from probable disaster by the news of the treaty of
Versailles. Deprived of his French allies, Tipú was at last, March 11,
1784, persuaded by Lord Macartney, the governor of Madras, to make
peace. By this treaty, which Macartney made against the commands of
Hastings, both parties surrendered their conquests. A renewal of war was
certain, for Tipú's arrogance was unabated.

[Sidenote: _FOX AND SHELBURNE QUARREL._]

Although the government carried some highly beneficial measures it was
not free from the usual whig failings. Led astray by party spirit, the
ministers sent Admiral Pigot, a mere nonentity, to supersede Rodney.
Scarcely had they done so when the news of Rodney's victory reached
them. A messenger was at once despatched to stop Pigot, but it was too
late. Rodney was created a baron, a rank which some thought unequal to
his deserts. While the ministers virtuously curtailed the expenditure of
the civil list, they burdened the country with pensions of £4,000 a year
to Dunning and £3,200 to Barré, both members of Shelburne's party. And
they quarrelled amongst themselves. That was the inevitable result of
the existence of two parties in the cabinet. Between Shelburne and Fox
there was much ill-feeling, which came to a head over the negotiations
for peace. Until the independence of the American colonies was
acknowledged, negotiations with them belonged to Shelburne's
department. The arrangement of a peace with foreign enemies was Fox's
business, and he would also be responsible for negotiations with the
Americans as soon as the colonies were recognised as forming an
independent state. In addition to the difficulties naturally arising
from this division of responsibility, the two secretaries differed on
policy. Fox desired an immediate recognition of American independence,
in the hope of detaching the Americans from the French alliance, and so
putting England in a better position for dealing with her other enemies;
Shelburne agreed with the king that the acknowledgment should be a
condition of a joint treaty with France and America, for England would
then have a claim to receive some return for it.

Shelburne with, it is said,[169] the consent of the cabinet, sent one
Oswald to Paris to open informal negotiations with Franklin. Oswald, who
was wholly unfit for diplomatic work, favourably received Franklin's
monstrous proposition that England should cede Canada to the Americans,
though they had been driven out of the country, and the Canadians
themselves desired to remain attached to England. He gave Shelburne a
paper containing this proposition. Shelburne, who would certainly not
have assented to it, treated the paper as confidential and did not show
it to his colleagues. The cabinet agreed that Oswald should return to
treat with Franklin, and that Thomas Grenville, the second son of George
Grenville, who was nominated by Fox, should negotiate with Vergennes.
Rodney's victory gave the ministers ground for believing that, if they
could separate America from France, they would be in a good position to
resist French demands; and they therefore instructed Grenville to
propose to Vergennes that England should acknowledge American
independence directly, and not through France. This Fox held gave him
the whole conduct of the negotiations. As, however, Franklin was anxious
not to lose so pliant a negotiator as Oswald, the cabinet agreed that
Oswald should continue to confer with him. On June 4, Grenville
complained to Fox that the separate negotiation between Oswald and
Franklin rendered it impossible for him to make any progress, and
further told him that he had learned from Oswald that Shelburne had seen
the paper containing Franklin's proposition with respect to Canada. Fox
was indignant, for he considered that Shelburne was carrying on a
clandestine negotiation, and that the concealment of the Canada paper
was a proof of his duplicity. On the 30th he proposed in the cabinet
that the independence of America should be acknowledged without a
treaty, which would have given him the entire charge of the
negotiations. He was outvoted and declared that he would resign office.
In this matter Shelburne does not appear to have been guilty of
intrigue. The two secretaries mistrusted and were jealous of one
another, and Fox was too ready to believe that Shelburne was secretly
working in league with the king to counteract his negotiations, which
was not the case. In concealing the Canada paper from his colleagues,
Shelburne behaved with characteristic lack of openness, but as
Franklin's proposition was informal and required no answer, the matter
was trivial, and did not warrant the indignation which was expressed by
Fox and his friends.[170]

[Sidenote: _THE SHELBURNE MINISTRY._]

On July 1, the day after Fox declared his intention to resign,
Rockingham died. His death delivered George from the domination of the
whigs. He at once bade Shelburne propose a plan for a ministry. The
Rockingham party in the cabinet objected, declaring that they had a
right to advise the king as to his choice, and pressed him to send for
Portland, whose position as a whig magnate constituted his chief claim
to office. George refused to yield to their dictation. Fox would not
serve with Shelburne and resigned the seals. He was followed by only one
member of the cabinet, Lord John Cavendish, by Portland, Burke,
Sheridan, and a few more. Richmond, Keppel, and the rest of the party
remained in office. Shelburne took the treasury, Pitt became chancellor
of the exchequer, and Thomas Townshend succeeded Shelburne, and Lord
Grantham Fox, as secretaries of state. Barré was made paymaster of the
forces, and Lord Temple, afterwards Marquis of Buckingham, the eldest
son of George Grenville, lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Fox was
disappointed to find that so few followed him. Distrusting Shelburne as
he did, he could not do otherwise than resign rather than serve with
him. As, however, the new ministry was a whig ministry, as Shelburne
professed many of the Rockingham principles, and as Pitt, who virtually
had the leadership of the lower house, was at that time a whig, he
should have taken up a neutral position, supporting the government when
he approved of its measures and opposing it when he disapproved of them.
He took another course; at once went into opposition, declared the new
ministers could not be bound either by promises or honour, and
prophesied--after events make his words worth remembering--that they
would soon "be joined by those men whom the house had precipitated from
their seats".[171] Parliament was prorogued on July 11.

The chief business before the new ministry was to arrange terms of
peace. England wished to free the Americans from French influence and to
establish good relations with them by a separate negotiation. Vergennes
hoped to delay the acknowledgment of independence until a general peace,
intending that France should compensate Spain for her disappointment
with respect to Gibraltar by securing for her the sole navigation of the
Mississippi and that the United States should be enclosed by the
Alleghanies. The American commissioners found that France regarded the
success of the revolution, the result of her own work, with jealousy,
and wished to shut them out from the Newfoundland fishery and from
extension on the west and north. On the other hand, England acknowledged
American independence on September 27, and showed herself inclined to
meet their demands in a friendly spirit. Accordingly, without consulting
the French ministers, they signed preliminaries of peace on November 30,
the treaty to be concluded when terms were arranged between England and
France. England acknowledged the sovereignty of the United States; the
Mississippi was recognised as their boundary on the west, and on the
north a line passing through the great lakes; and they secured a right
to fish on the banks of Newfoundland and in the gulf of St. Lawrence.
The American revolution was accomplished. Englishmen of all parties
believed that the day of England's greatness was over. Yet the
separation, bitter and humiliating as it was, taught her a lesson in
colonial government which has rendered her empire strong as well as
vast, while in place of discontented colonies with cramped energies, it
laid the foundation of a mighty power bound to her by bonds which will
grow in strength so long as the affairs of both Great Britain and the
United States are wisely directed. It was a happy beginning of the
relations between the two powers that it was through England, and not
through their foreign allies, that the Americans obtained the
gratification of their legitimate ambitions, and that from the peace
with the United States England gained some advantage in treating with
her continental foes.

The treaty did not protect the loyalists. Shelburne did his best for
them, but Franklin was bitter against them, and his feelings were those
of the victorious party generally. The American commissioners would only
agree that there should be no further confiscations and prosecutions,
and that congress should recommend the several states to revise their
laws concerning them. These articles were nugatory. Nothing short of a
renewal of the war could have induced the Americans to forego their
revenge, and if the war had gone on longer, the loyalists' fate would
have been no better. Everywhere, with the exception of South Carolina,
they were treated with barbarity. Some 60,000 persons left the country
before Carleton evacuated New York, taking refuge either in Great
Britain or her colonies. At least 25,000 of both sexes settled in the
British maritime provinces of North America, and helped to establish the
province of New Brunswick which received representative institutions in
1784; 10,000 others, United Empire Loyalists as they were afterwards
called, in the valley of the St. Lawrence. England did what she could
for her unfortunate friends; liberal grants of land were made to them,
some had half-pay as military officers, and between 1783 and 1790
£3,112,455 was distributed among them, besides £25,785 granted in
pensions.[172] Relief, however, was slow in coming, and many, reduced
from wealth to penury, died in the utmost distress.

[Sidenote: _THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES._]

Preliminaries of peace with France and Spain were signed on January 20,
1783, and were followed by the definitive treaty of Versailles concluded
on September 3. The war brought France into financial difficulties, and
for that reason England, though forced to cede some of her conquests in
the last war, obtained as good terms as she had a right to expect. In
the West Indies she restored St. Lucia to France, ceded Tobago, and
received back Dominica, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Kitts, Nevis, and
Montserrat. In Africa Senegal and Goree went to France, and Gambia and
Fort St. James were guaranteed to England. France received back her
commercial establishments in India; her right to participate in the
Newfoundland fishery was clearly defined; England ceded to her the
islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre in sovereignty, and the old
stipulation for the demolition of the fortifications of Dunkirk was
given up. France and Spain pressed the government to agree to some
exchange for Gibraltar. The king, Shelburne, and the majority of the
cabinet would have let it go if a sufficient compensation had been
offered; Richmond and Keppel objected to its cession on any terms. The
signature of the American preliminaries strengthened the position of
Great Britain and the question was dropped.[173] Spain retained Minorca
and West Florida, and England ceded East Florida to her. On the other
hand, Spain restored by treaty Providence and the Bahama isles, which
were surrendered without bloodshed in 1782, and had already been
recovered not less easily by England; and she guaranteed the right of
the English to cut logwood in the bay of Honduras. A truce with Holland
led to a treaty providing for a mutual restoration of conquests, with
the exception of Negapatam which was retained by England.

When parliament met on December 5, it was evident that the terms of
peace would be sharply criticised by both the parties in opposition, the
followers of North and of Fox. Shelburne was disliked and distrusted by
his colleagues, who considered him secretive and inclined to act alone,
and the government soon showed signs of dissolution. Richmond retired
from the cabinet in January, 1783, though he kept his office; the next
day Keppel resigned the admiralty because he was dissatisfied with the
preliminaries, and Carlisle, the lord steward, also resigned for the
same reason. Shelburne was prevented by his colleagues from making
overtures to North, and Pitt, who stood by him, tried to persuade Fox to
re-enter the ministry. Fox asked if Shelburne would remain, and Pitt
having answered that he would, at once declined. On this Pitt closed the
interview with, it is said, the words: "I did not come here to betray
Lord Shelburne". From that time Pitt and Fox were political enemies. The
Duke of Rutland having succeeded Carlisle as lord steward with a seat in
the cabinet, Grafton declared that Shelburne had no right to make an
addition to the cabinet without consulting its members, and that he was
making himself a "prime minister," and he too resigned the privy seal.
According to the whigs the cabinet was to dictate to the king whom he
should direct to form a cabinet, and was then to control its own
composition. Their constitutional ideas were warped by their desire to
perpetuate their own power.

The government was not in a case to speak with its enemies in the gate.
In the commons 140 members were known to be supporters of Shelburne, 120
were followers of North, and 90 of Fox; the intentions of the rest were
unknown or uncertain. With this division of parties and with the
government in a state of dissolution, Fox, if he had exercised a little
patience, might soon have formed a strong and united whig party. He
chose another course, and, on February 14, formed an alliance with North
on the basis of "mutual good-will and confidence"; they agreed that
enough had been done to reduce the influence of the crown, that though
the king should be treated with respect, he should have only "the
appearance of power," and that on the question of parliamentary reform
each should act as he chose. This coalition decided the fate of the
government. The preliminaries of peace were discussed in parliament on
the 17th, and almost every article was adversely criticised. In the
lords the government address was carried by 13; in the commons it was
rejected by 224 to 208. Fox was reproached for his "unnatural junction"
with North, and his answer showed that he was prepared to act with him
further than in that night's debate. On the 21st a vote of censure on
the terms of the peace was carried by 207 to 190. The coalition was
avowed. Fox defended it with ability on the ground that the country
needed a broad and stable administration, and declared himself a
candidate for office in the future ministry. Pitt, in a speech of great
dignity, taunted "the self-made minister," contended that the objections
to the peace were simply an attack on Shelburne, and in a fine
peroration spoke of himself as caring more for his own honour than for
the emoluments of office. Shelburne resigned on the 24th.

[Sidenote: _THE COALITION MINISTRY._]

The coalition was triumphant. It was condemned by the public, and the
verdict has been endorsed by posterity. Though it is true that North
carried on the war with America only to please the king, that was not
then known, and his conduct in that, and almost every important matter,
was utterly opposed to the principles which Fox professed. What ground
was there for mutual confidence? For eight years Fox had reviled North
with extraordinary bitterness. If his words were just he had no business
to ally himself with him. "My friendships," he said, with a Latin
quotation, "are perpetual, my enmities are not so," a good reason for
reconciliation with a private enemy; but political quarrels should be
founded on differences of principle. Fox's words illustrate his
adherence to the whig notion that the politics of the nation might be
treated by the members of a few great families as their personal
concerns. Of the two, North was at first more blamed than Fox, for it
seemed pusillanimous in him to forgive Fox's treatment, but neither
escaped censure. The king was furious. He had no love for Shelburne, but
he hated Fox, and determined if possible to avoid falling into the hands
of the coalition. He offered the treasury to Pitt, who with admirable
discernment saw that his time was not yet come, and refused it. He tried
Gower; he tried to detach North from the coalition; he even offered
terms to the coalition; then again he pressed Pitt to take the treasury,
and failing in all these attempts, sought help from Chatham's nephew,
Thomas Pitt, and failed to obtain it. From February 24 to April 2 the
country was without an organised government. George was almost in
despair, talked of retiring to Hanover, and spoke bitterly of the
ingratitude of North, whose past subservience to him had been largely
rewarded. At last he was forced to accept the coalition ministry, to
give Portland the treasury, and to submit to the exclusion of Thurlow,
who had been chancellor since 1778 in the ministries of North,
Rockingham, and Shelburne.

The new cabinet consisted of Portland, who was little more than a
figure-head; North and Fox, secretaries of state; Stormont, president of
the council; Carlisle, privy seal; Lord John Cavendish, chancellor of
the exchequer; and Keppel, first lord of the admiralty. All except
Stormont belonged to the party of Fox, the dominant partner in the
coalition. The great seal was placed in commission. Burke again became
paymaster, and Sheridan was secretary to the treasury. George was
determined not to give his confidence to the ministers who had thus
thrust themselves upon him, and to get rid of them as soon as possible.
Fox applied himself assiduously to the duties of office, as indeed he
did during the Rockingham administration, and strove in vain to overcome
the king's dislike by deferential behaviour. George's hostility was
strengthened by the friendship between Fox and the Prince of Wales. The
prince's habits were dissolute and extravagant; he was an undutiful son,
and the king a somewhat unforgiving father. He violently espoused the
cause of the coalition, and George is said to have called the government
"my son's ministry". It was time to provide him with a separate
establishment, and Fox promised him that he would ask parliament for
£100,000 a year. The majority of the cabinet thought the sum too large.
The king was of the same opinion, and did not wish his son to be
independent of all parental control. He therefore offered him an
allowance of £50,000 from the civil list. Fox was unwilling to
disappoint the prince, and the dismissal of the ministers seemed
certain. They were saved by the prince's acceptance of the king's offer,
in addition to the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall which amounted to
£12,000 a year; and parliament had only to vote him £60,000 for his
debts and present expenses. The question of parliamentary reform was
again brought forward by Pitt. As before, he urged that reform would
prevent the crown from again exercising corrupt influence in parliament.
He proposed as resolutions that the number of county and metropolitan
members should be increased, suggesting an increase of at least a
hundred, and that for the future any borough which was found by a
committee of the house to be grossly corrupt should be disfranchised.
This, he believed, would gradually reduce the number of members to what
it then was, and would purify elections. North opposed the motion, Fox
spoke in favour of it, though he wished that it had gone further. It was
lost by 293 to 149. The public was no longer so eager for reform as in
1780.[174] Sawbridge's annual motion for shortening the duration of
parliament was lost by 121 to 56.

[Sidenote: _WARREN HASTINGS IN INDIA._]

Indian affairs demanded immediate legislation. The company's charter was
renewed in 1781; a new arrangement was made as to its dividends and its
payments to the state, and its political transactions were placed more
completely under ministerial control. Two committees were also appointed
by the house of commons to inquire into its administration. Of one of
these Burke was the most active member, and Dundas, then holding office
under North, was chairman of the other. In 1782 Dundas moved resolutions
condemning the company's administration; the Rockingham ministry took
the matter up, and the house voted that Warren Hastings, the
governor-general, should be recalled. The directors agreed, but on
Rockingham's death the proprietors refused their assent. North's
regulating act of 1773 worked badly. From 1774 to 1780 Hastings was
thwarted in council by three of the four councillors sent out by the
ministers, and specially by Francis, the reputed author of the Junius
letters, who opposed him with extreme rancour. Hastings fought a duel
with him in 1779 and wounded him; he returned to England, and Hastings
gained a majority in the council. The Madras council also quarrelled
with their governor, Lord Pigot; he was arrested by their order and died
in confinement. Other difficulties arose from the independent action of
the minor governments of Bombay and Madras, and from the indefinite
character of the powers of the supreme court of judicature.
Administrative abuses existed, and the extreme financial difficulties
caused by the wars with the Maráthás, Haidar Alí, and the French, drove
Hastings to adopt some high-handed measures. The Rockingham whigs were
adverse to him, and Burke, whose generous emotions were roused by any
tale of oppression, applied himself to collecting evidence against him,
which his fervid imagination magnified and distorted.

Hastings guided the affairs of India through a period of extreme danger;
preserved the empire, brought order out of anarchy in every branch of
the administration, and won the esteem and confidence of the subject
people, the army, and the civil service. His task was not merely to
govern well, but to provide dividends out of revenue, and his work was
criticised by the company with reference to its pecuniary results as
well as its political wisdom. In Bengal he abolished Clive's mischievous
dual system, and administered the province through English officials; he
reformed the collection of the revenue, and he effected large economies
by reducing the enormous pension of the nawáb, who under his new system
was spared the expenses of government, and by withholding the tribute to
the emperor, who was a mere puppet in the hands of the Maráthás. While
governor of Bengal he allied himself with the Muhammadan states on the
frontier, and specially with Oudh, which he wished to make a barrier
against Maráthá invasion. He took Allahábád and Kora from the emperor,
or rather from the Maráthás, and made them over to Shujá-ud-Daulá, the
wazír of Oudh, and partly to raise money for the company, and partly as
a matter of policy he accepted the wazír's offer of forty lakhs of
rupees for the loan of British troops to help him conquer the Rohillás,
an Afghan tribe which had lately settled in those districts and was
intriguing with the Maráthás. The conquest was carried out in Eastern
fashion in 1774, and the wazír's cruelties, which were grossly
exaggerated, were laid to Hastings's charge. The overthrow of the
Rohillás was advantageous to the British rule; but though the council at
Calcutta thought the bargain highly profitable to the company, the
hiring out of British troops to serve as subsidiaries to an Asiatic
potentate was a deplorable mistake. Another charge brought against
Hastings concerned the execution of Nanda-Kumár (Nuncomar), a rascally
Bráhman, who, after Hastings was appointed governor-general, helped his
opponents in the council by bringing charges against him. Nanda-Kumár
was hanged for a private forgery, after a patient trial in the supreme
court. His death was highly convenient to Hastings, but there is no
evidence that he had anything to do with the prosecution or
sentence.[175]

[Sidenote: _FOX'S INDIA BILLS._]

During the Maráthá war, a tributary chief, Chait Singh, rájá of Benares,
neglected to perform the demands made upon him, and showed a dangerously
independent spirit. In 1781 Hastings imposed an enormous fine upon him;
he revolted and was defeated, and his estates were confiscated and given
to a kinsman. Though the rájá's conduct was contumacious, Hastings seems
to have acted with undue severity. He was pressed for money, and left
the rájá no choice between paying a very large sum and losing his
estates. Difficulties increased, and he called on Asaf-ud-Daulá, then
nawáb wazír of Oudh, to pay his heavy arrears of debt to the company.
The begams, the mother and widow of the late nawáb, had a vast treasure
which should have belonged to the state. Hastings was informed that
these powerful ladies were helping Chait Singh; it was necessary to get
money from the wazír, and he bade him force the ladies to give up their
treasure. The resident at Lucknow brought up some troops; the begams'
palace at Faizábád was blockaded, and their eunuch-ministers imprisoned
and maltreated until the resident obtained enough to liquidate the
wazír's debt. The wazír threw the odium of this transaction on the
English. Hastings defended his conduct as just and politic. He was not
directly responsible for the severe measures adopted by the wazír, but
it was certainly not a matter in which the British governor-general and
his officers should have taken any part. His conduct in this matter as
well as towards the Benares rájá was misrepresented and used against him
in England.

The refusal of the proprietors to recall Hastings was highly displeasing
to the commons, and a petition from the company for relief from some
obligations imposed in 1781 gave occasion to parliament again to
interfere in its affairs. In April, 1783, Dundas, who was then in
opposition to the coalition ministry, proposed a bill for the government
of India. His plan was to render the governor-general more independent
of his council, to subordinate more completely the inferior governments
to the government of Bengal, to change the uncertain tenure of the
zamíndárs into hereditary possession, to recall Hastings, and to appoint
some noble, like Cornwallis, as his successor. As the government
promised to bring in an India bill the next session, he allowed his bill
to drop. When parliament reassembled in November, Fox brought in two
bills, which were largely prepared by Burke, one affecting the
constitution of the company, the other its administration in India. The
first vested the management of the territories, revenue, and commerce
of the company in seven commissioners, named in the bill, for four
years, with power to appoint and remove all officers of the company.
After that term Fox suggested that the crown should nominate the
commissioners, and meanwhile was to appoint to vacancies. Commercial
transactions were to be managed by a subordinate board chosen by
parliament from among the larger proprietors. The second bill abolished
all monopolies in India, prohibited the acceptance of presents, and gave
native landlords an hereditary estate. The objections urged against the
first bill by the opposition, and chiefly by Pitt, Grenville, and
Dundas, were grounded on its violation of the company's charter, and its
tendency to vest the patronage of India in the existing ministry. Fox
ably defended the bill, and Burke, in an eloquent speech, depicted, with
much exaggeration, the injustice which, he maintained, the millions of
India had suffered during Hastings's administration, and argued that the
delinquencies of the company justified the violation of its charter.

It was, however, the political side of the bill which chiefly roused
opposition. All seven commissioners belonged to Fox's party. For four
years it vested in his nominees "all the patronage of the East". Pitt
declared that it created "a new and enormous influence"; Grenville that
"the treasures of India like a flood would sweep away our liberties".
Fox was accused of making himself "King of Bengal," and a caricature
represents him as Carlo Khan entering Leadenhall street on an elephant
which has the face of North and is led by Burke. All this was party
exaggeration; the bill was a genuine attempt to benefit the natives of
India, and would not probably have had any really serious consequences
in England, though the control of the Indian patronage for four years
would have strengthened Fox's party, and, if it had afterwards been
vested in the crown, would have given some opportunity for the exercise
of corrupt influence by ministers. The king was waiting for an
opportunity to get rid of the coalition ministry, and Thurlow and Temple
easily excited his jealousy for the prerogative by telling him that the
bill would deprive him of half his power and disable him for the rest of
his life. His influence in the commons was diminished by recent
legislation, and there the bill was carried by two to one. Before the
second reading in the lords he gave Temple a card authorising him to
say that, whoever voted for the bill "would be considered by him as an
enemy". This soon became known, and, on December 17, the commons voted
by 153 to 80 that it was now necessary to declare that to report the
king's opinion on any question pending in parliament with a view to
influence votes is a high crime and misdemeanour. Nevertheless the
king's unconstitutional move was successful; the lords rejected the
bill. The next night George ordered the secretaries of state to send
back their seals, for he would not receive them personally, and the
coalition ministry was dismissed. Pitt at once accepted the offices of
first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer.

[Sidenote: _PITT FORMS A MINISTRY._]

He was then in his twenty-fifth year. Extraordinary difficulties faced
him: the opposition of a large majority of the commons, led by Fox, a
master of debate, and strong in men of ability and experience, and the
discredit attaching to the king's unconstitutional action to which he
owed his position. He found it difficult to form a ministry, for few
were willing to join him in a struggle in which victory seemed hopeless.
Shelburne, his former leader, he would not invite, for he could not
endure his habitually enigmatic conduct. Temple, an instigator and the
agent of the king's action, became secretary of state, but immediately
resigned owing apparently to a personal offence. The new cabinet
consisted only of Lords Sydney (Thomas Townshend) and Carmarthen,
secretaries for the home and foreign departments; Gower, president of
the council; Rutland, privy seal; Thurlow, chancellor; and Howe, first
lord of the admiralty; besides Pitt who alone among them sat in the
commons. Richmond again became master of the ordnance and a little later
re-entered the cabinet. Dundas was treasurer of the navy. Pitt's
acceptance of office was regarded by the opposition as a "boyish freak";
his ministry was "a mince-pie administration which would end with the
Christmas holidays".[176]

Pitt had a majority of the commons against him; but in those days the
cabinet was not so wholly dependent on the commons as it became after
1832.[177] Supported by the king and the lords, Pitt determined to do
battle with the majority in the hope that he would overcome their
opposition, discredit his enemies, and win the confidence of the country
before he appealed to it. Fox should have urged an immediate
dissolution. If Pitt had tried to avoid it, he would have incurred the
odium of hesitating to accept the will of the nation. Fox, however, used
every effort to prevent a dissolution. The will of the commons had been
thwarted by the king's unconstitutional interference, and he was
determined to vindicate the authority of the house. Besides, he had a
substantial majority, and though it might have been maintained by a
general election, he knew that his coalition with North was unpopular,
and that his India bill had aroused the hostility of some powerful
corporations which felt that their privileges were endangered by his
attack upon the company's charter. The affairs of India were at once
made a pretext for an address to the crown deprecating a dissolution;
the house was engaged upon them, and a dissolution would frustrate its
endeavours. The king replied that he would not interfere with its work
either by dissolution or prorogation.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S VICTORIOUS CONTEST._]

The house reassembled after the Christmas recess on January 12. Fox
relying on the authority of Lord Somers, one of the leading statesmen of
the revolution, questioned the right of the crown to dissolve parliament
during the business of a session; James II., he said, had done so and
put an end to his reign. His contention was unsound; the will of a house
of commons is not conclusive: the crown has a right to dissolve in order
to ascertain the will of the nation. Pitt replied that he "would not
compromise the royal prerogative or bargain it away in the house of
commons". He was in a minority of 193 to 232. On the 14th, he brought in
his India bill, which proposed to place the political concerns of the
company under a board of control in England to be appointed by the
crown, and to leave to the company its commerce and patronage. Fox
attacked it as incomplete, and it was negatived though only by eight
votes. A fierce struggle followed, a struggle, Dr. Johnson called it,
"between George the Third's sceptre and Mr. Fox's tongue". Fox tried
every means to force the ministers to resign; he put forth all his
wonderful powers of debate and attacked Pitt with great bitterness;
addresses to the crown and resolutions hostile to the ministers were
adopted, and the supplies and the mutiny act were postponed. Through it
all Pitt exhibited wonderful courage, sagacity, and self-control. A body
of independent members proposed a compromise, and the king reluctantly
assented. Fox declared himself willing to work with Pitt, but,
determined to assert the authority of the house, insisted that the
ministers should resign before arrangements were discussed. To this Pitt
haughtily refused to assent. George upheld him: during the late
administration he would not create any peers; on Pitt's recommendation
he created four, and almost daily sent his young minister encouraging
little notes. The lords too were on his side; they condemned as
unconstitutional a resolution of the commons suspending certain
statutory powers of the treasury, which was adopted in order to
embarrass the ministry, and sent an address to the king assuring him of
their support in the just exercise of the prerogative.

Pitt won general admiration by granting the valuable sinecure office of
clerk of the pells to Barré in exchange for the pension secured to him
by the whigs. His private means were only £300 a year, and, as such
matters were then regarded, he might have taken the office himself
without scandal; but uncertain as his position seemed to be, he
preferred saving the country £3,200 a year to putting it into his own
pocket. Feeling outside the house ran strongly in his favour; addresses
were sent up thanking the king for dismissing the late ministry, and
Pitt was presented with the freedom of the city of London. As on his
return from the city on February 27 his carriage was being drawn by
workmen in triumph up St. James's street, it was attacked opposite
Brooks's, the meeting-place of Fox's party; he was assaulted and escaped
with difficulty into White's club. Members of Brooks's were believed to
be concerned in the outrage, which increased Pitt's growing popularity.
The opposition began to waver. On March 1 a fresh address to the king
for the removal of the ministers was carried by only twelve votes.
George again refused his assent. Fox shrank from attempting the extreme
measure of refusing supplies; it would, indeed, have been useless, for
his suggestion that the house should pass a mutiny bill for a brief
period met with no encouragement. He made one more effort; on the 8th he
moved a representation to the king, drawn up by Burke, which was carried
only by one vote. The struggle was over; the next day the usual mutiny
bill passed without a division; the supplies were voted, and on the 23rd
Pitt saw that the time had come for a dissolution. A difficulty suddenly
arose, for the great seal was stolen from Thurlow's house. A new one was
promptly made, and on the 25th parliament was dissolved.

Of his coalition with North, Fox said that it could be justified only by
success. For a second time he put his political fate to the touch. He
attempted to give absolute authority to one branch of the legislature,
to enable an existing house of commons to restrain the constitutional
exercise of the prerogative, to prolong its own existence, and to hinder
an appeal to the will of the nation. Both moves were disastrous to him.
The coalition was condemned as unprincipled; whigs were offended at his
alliance with North, whom they held responsible for the American war,
tories by the alliance of North with the opponent of prerogative. His
attempt to hinder the expression of the national will by a general
election perplexed the whigs, his attack on the prerogative disgusted
the tories. His India bill alarmed chartered bodies, and was held,
unjustly it is true, but with some show of reason, to be inspired by the
wish to perpetuate the power of the whig oligarchy through corrupt
influence. Feelings of personal loyalty and of admiration for the
youthful minister who dared to fight, and was able to win, the king's
battle against such tremendous odds, combined to destroy the effect of
George's unconstitutional proceeding and to rouse enthusiasm for Pitt.
The opposition candidates were defeated in almost all the larger
constituencies; 160 of them--"Fox's martyrs" they were called--lost
their seats. The rout was complete; even Yorkshire, so long faithful to
the great houses, returned Pitt's friend, Wilberforce, the son of a
banker. One consolation they had. After an exciting struggle Fox was
re-elected for Westminster, though only as second member, and, as we
shall see, even this triumph was disputed. Fox's conduct caused the
overthrow of the whig party, and gave the government into the hands of a
minister whose high principles, not less than his supreme ability,
commanded and preserved the confidence of the nation.

FOOTNOTES:

[165] H. Grattan, _Life of Grattan_, ii., 216-20.

[166] Hoste, _Naval Tactics_, i., 153-55, ed. Boswall.

[167] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp. 480-500; Hannay, _Rodney_,
pp. 179-213, and _Hood's Letters_, pp. 101-21, 123-30; Mundy, _Life of
Rodney_, ii., 222-50; _Ann. Reg._, xxv. (1782), 252-57.

[168] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power_, pp. 420-56.

[169] _Life of Shelburne_, iii., 175.

[170] _Life of Shelburne_, iii., 174-221; _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, i.,
330-87, 468-80; Lewis, _Administrations of Great Britain_, pp. 31-49;
Lecky, _History_, iv., 226-35.

[171] _Parl. Hist._, xxiii., 163, 177.

[172] Jones, _Hist. of New York_, ii., 241-55, 497-509, 645-63; Sabine,
_American Loyalists_, pp. 70, 86, 107-12.

[173] _Life of Shelburne_, iii., 305, 312-14; Anson, _Grafton_, pp.
346-50.

[174] _Ann. Reg._, xxvi. (1783), 176.

[175] Forrest, _State Papers, India_, i., Introd., xxxiii-xlviii; ii.,
298-414; Sir A. Lyell, _Warren Hastings_, pp. 60-74; Sir J. F. Stephen,
_Story of Nuncomar_.

[176] Lady Minto, _Life of Lord Minto_, i., 90; Wilberforce, _Life of
Wilberforce_, i., 48.

[177] Anson, _Law of the Constitution_, ii., 129.




                               CHAPTER XIII.

                       SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS.

                               (1760-1801.)


The first forty-one years of the reign are marked by important social
and economic changes, some of which began earlier, and some were not
fully carried out till later. Though the cursory review of them
attempted in this chapter will extend beyond the date which we have
already reached, it seems time to say something of such matters, and a
look ahead will make the later narrative more complete and intelligible.
With the painful exception of a deterioration in the condition of the
poor, these changes were for the better. Manners became more decent,
pity was more easily evoked by human suffering, and culture more widely
diffused. Moral improvement may be traced to a revival of practical
religion and to a general reaction from the artificial cast of thought
of earlier days, while as forces on the same side may be reckoned the
influence of the king and, in a greater degree, that exercised by a
number of distinguished men such as Johnson and Burke. Ideas elaborated
and propounded by French philosophers shook the smug satisfaction of the
world in what was hard, shallow, and insincere, and combined with the
stress of a great war to complete the slow progress of a change in
English taste. After long hesitation literature and art finally turned
from unreality and convention, and drew inspiration direct from nature.
As regards material progress, manufactures and commerce were enormously
increased by the use of mechanical inventions, and the productive power
of the soil by improvements in agriculture. The conditions of industry
changed and, as must ever be the case, industrial revolution brought
suffering on the poor.

The highest class still formed a small and close society; there was no
doubt as to who belonged to it and no chance for an outsider to push his
way into it. The members of it were so thoroughly acquainted with one
another's doings that invitations to dinner were often given only two
days beforehand, and with even shorter notice. They had enormous
authority, both political and social. Entirely independent of public
opinion, those of them who loved vice or frivolity indulged their tastes
without shame or measure. Gambling, the fashionable folly, was carried
to an extraordinary height, especially between 1772 and 1776. At
Brooks's the stakes at quinze were not less than £50, and there was
often £10,000 on the table. Gamesters exchanged their rich clothes for
frieze coats, covered their lace ruffles with leather cuffs, and
shielded their eyes by high-crowned hats with broad brims. Fox
squandered £140,000, chiefly at play, by the time he was twenty-five,
and his brother Stephen lost £20,000 at a sitting. Among the older
gamesters were Lord Masham, too poor for such folly, the wicked Lowther,
witty George Selwyn, and his associate, Lord March, afterwards Duke of
Queensberry, Fox's instructor in vice, the "old Q." who in the next
century as he sat in his favourite place above the porch of his house in
Piccadilly presented to the passers-by the embodiment of the iniquities
of an older generation. Ladies were not less given to play than men.
Duchesses at Bath, the "paradise of doctors and gamesters," set an
example which the vice-regal court at Dublin professed to imitate by
spending whole nights at unlimited half-guinea loo.

There was no redeeming side to this gambling; it was a sordid struggle
for money. At Brooks's in 1781 Fox, in partnership with some allies,
kept the bank at faro as a regular business, one partner relieving
another, and play going on continuously night and day. As the dealer and
the partners could be seen at work through the open windows of the club,
one can scarcely wonder that Fox's faro-bank was a sore point with the
opposition. He won largely, then lost, and finally was £30,000 "worse
than nothing". Idlers in St. James's street were amused by watching the
Jews as they packed his clothes and books and carted them off from his
lodgings. The next year the king was forced to make him a secretary of
state. Though gambling continued common, it became less extravagant and
was more widely condemned. In 1796, when the war with France was
sobering people, some ladies of rank created a scandal by keeping a
faro-bank at their houses. Chief-justice Kenyon threatened the pillory,
and Gillray expressed and stimulated public opinion by a caricature
representing two of "Faro's daughters" in that position. One of them,
Lady Buckinghamshire, and two of her associates, were fined the next
year for unlawful gaming. Fox and other gamesters of the wild time
supplemented the faro-bank by betting at Newmarket. It was a notable
period in the history of the turf, for many great men, specially of the
whig party, were eager and judicious breeders. Such were the king's
uncle, Cumberland, the breeder of Eclipse, Grafton, Rockingham,
Egremont, Richmond, and Sir Charles Bunbury, whose horse Diomed won the
first Derby race in 1780. The professional bookmaker was not yet, and
racing, though used for betting purposes, was free from some evils which
grew up later. The sport was popular, and in 1784 as many as 500 plates
were raced for annually.

[Sidenote: _EXCESSIVE DRINKING._]

Excessive drinking was common in society. Since the Methuen treaty of
1703 port was the wine most drunk. A genuine port cost about two
shillings a bottle, but the wine was largely adulterated on importation,
and one stingy lord is said to have recommended his guests to drink his
port instead of a more expensive wine by assuring them that he knew that
it was good as he made it himself.[178] Men would constantly drink two
bottles of port apiece at a sitting, and sometimes three and even more,
and would appear in parliament, in the theatre, or in a drawing-room in
a state of drunkenness. A treaty with France in 1786 largely increased
the consumption of French wines, but this change, which favoured
sobriety, was ended by the war. Nevertheless, drunkenness was less
general than earlier in the century, and, except in the Prince of
Wales's set, seems to have decreased during the war with France. Duels
were frequent, and, though towards the end of our period they were
increasingly condemned by religious people, they were approved of by
society at large. For some time men of fashion dressed in velvets and
silks of various hues, but during the American war Fox, once the most
extravagant of "macaronis," and his friends showed their political
sympathies by carelessness in dress, and their example was largely
followed. Men's dress, however, did not decline until about 1793 when
the whigs imitated the severity affected by the French republicans. Wigs
were discarded early in the reign, except by professional men, and
hair-powder began to fall out of fashion by the end of the century.
Then, too, ladies' dress became more simple, chiefly because
improvements in the textile manufactures provided them with materials at
once simple and pleasing.

Besides the ordinary amusements of society, fashionable people
frequented public assemblies, of which those at Ranelagh were longest in
vogue. The company at Vauxhall was more mixed. People of the
shop-keeping and lower classes enjoyed themselves in the numerous
pleasure resorts about London, such as Mary-le-bone gardens, Islington,
and Sadler's Wells. Theatres were well attended and the increase of
public decency is illustrated by the disappearance from the stage of the
coarseness of earlier times. It was the golden age of the drama; for it
saw the acting of Macklin and Garrick, of Mrs. Siddons, "the tragic
muse," and her brother John Kemble, of Mrs. Abington, Miss Farren, "the
comic muse," afterwards Countess of Derby, and Mrs. Jordan. As
dramatists Home, Foote, Colman, and Cumberland deserve to be mentioned;
and Goldsmith and Sheridan wrote comedies which, while belonging to
acting drama, adorn English literature. Among less respectable
amusements bull-baiting was confined to the lowest class. An attempt to
render it illegal was defeated in parliament in 1800, chiefly through
the opposition of Windham. Cock-fighting, though widely condemned, was
practised even by gentlemen, chiefly as a means of betting. Exhibitions
of combats with swords became extinct, and made way for the scarcely
less dangerous prize-fights of bruisers which from about 1788 became
extremely popular.

Foreign travel, which earlier was almost confined to the "grand tour"
made by rich young men as part of their education, increased greatly
before the revolutionary war, and travelling in England became more
general as the means of communication were improved. In 1760 English
roads were little better than they were a century before, mere
trackways, which in parts were sloughs in winter and scored with deep
ruts in summer. Travelling over them was slow and often dangerous. The
"flying-machine," or coach, between London and Sheffield was fully three
days on its journey. During the first fourteen years of the reign 452
acts were passed for repairing roads, but for some time little progress
was made. Many and bitter are the complaints made by Arthur Young, the
eminent agriculturist, of the roads on which he travelled in 1769-70.
One turnpike road was a bog with a few flints scattered on top, another
full of holes and deep ruts, while "of all the cursed roads which ever
disgraced this kingdom" that between Tilbury and Billericay was, he
says, the worst, and so narrow that when he met a waggon, the waggoner
had to crawl between the wheels to come to help him lift his chaise over
a hedge. During the last quarter of the century a vast change was
effected; good roads became general, and coaches with springs and
otherwise well appointed ran between London and most considerable towns,
and between one large town and another. From 1784 many of these coaches
carried the mails, and letters posted in Bath were delivered in London
seventeen hours later.

[Sidenote: _POETRY._]

The wider outlook acquired by travel contributed to an increase of
intellectual activity, and improved means of internal communication
assisted the dissemination of books. People read more; many instructive
books met with a large sale, and circulating libraries were established
in the larger towns. In literature the period is marked by an advance in
the transition from artificiality of thought, and still more of
expression, to what was natural and spontaneous. Antiquity began to
attract, and romanticism gradually gained ground. Thomson, who led the
flight of poetry from the gilded house of bondage, wrote at an earlier
time than ours. For us the new feeling is illustrated by the popularity
of _Ossian_, Bishop Percy's _Reliques_, Gray's romantic lyrics, and the
pseudo-antique poems of Chatterton, a Bristol lad who killed himself in
1770. Goldsmith's poetry belongs to the old school, for he was a
follower of Johnson, a strenuous opponent of the new romanticism. The
poetry of Cowper, an ardent lover of nature, whose first volume appeared
in 1781, though usually conventional in expression, is always sincere
and sometimes exquisite. Crabbe, a story-teller and preacher, wrote some
true poetry, along with much that is prosaic: rarely moved by an
inspiration drawn from nature to desert the conventional couplet, he
nevertheless had something of the spirit of the new movement. In 1783
the artist-poet Blake began to write verse which is absolutely
untrammelled by convention, mystical, strange, and unequal. Three years
later a volume by Robert Burns, the national poet of Scotland, contained
the outpouring of a passionate soul in musical verse, and in 1798, two
years after his death, the victory of the romantic school was secured by
the publication of the _Lyrical Ballads_ of Wordsworth and Coleridge,
though its triumph was not confirmed until a few years later.

By 1760 Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett had established the English
novel, though Smollett's master-piece, _Humphrey Clinker_, did not
appear until 1771, the year of his death. Fiction developed in various
directions. In _The Vicar of Wakefield_ Goldsmith, in spite of his
literary conservatism, portrayed manners and character with a perfectly
natural grace, and with a delightful delicacy of touch. Laurence Sterne,
the humorous and indecent prebendary of York, illustrates the prevalence
of sensibility in contemporary society in his _Tristram Shandy_ and the
_Sentimental Journey_. It is a curious characteristic of the time that
displays of emotion by men and women alike were reckoned as proofs of
genuine fineness of feeling. Sterne's sentiment and discursiveness found
several feeble imitators. The taste for antiquity was strong in Horace
Walpole, and his admiration for "the gothick," expressed in the pointed
windows and sham battlements of his house at Strawberry hill, inspired
his romance, _The Castle of Otranto_ (1764), which began the romantic
movement in fiction. To this movement, destined to be adorned by the
genius of Scott, belong Beckford's _Vathek_, Clara Reeve's _Old English
Baron_, and the once widely popular tales of mystery of Mrs. Radcliffe
and "Monk" Lewis, as he was called after his best-known romance (1795).
The novel of manners was developed by Fanny Burney's (Madame d'Arblay)
_Evelina_ (1778), founded on acute observation, dealing almost wholly
with every-day life, replete with satire, and written with extraordinary
freshness and vivacity. _Castle Rackrent_, the first of Maria
Edgeworth's Irish tales, appeared in the last year of the century.
Before its close, too, Jane Austen was writing novels which as yet could
find no publisher, though in their faultless execution, their delicate
humour, and their life-like representation of the society with which
their author was familiar they remain unrivalled.

[Sidenote: _SERIOUS PROSE WORKS._]

Of the writers of serious prose works, Johnson, as critic, moralist and
author, enjoyed until his death in 1784 a kind of literary dictatorship.
His greatest achievement, _The Lives of the English Poets_, belongs to
his later days. This delightful work pronounces with unfaltering
dogmatism judgments founded on canons of criticism which were accepted
in the then expiring age of Augustan literature. His _Life_ by his
satellite Boswell holds the first place among biographies as a triumph
of portraiture. The new interest in antiquity was fostered by the rise
of English historical writing. In the earliest years of the reign Hume
completed his _History of England_, which, though no longer regarded as
of scientific importance, is a fine example of literary treatment as
applied to history. A little later came Robertson's works, more
scholarly in their design, and written in a philosophic spirit and in
highly polished language. The work of one historian of the time is great
alike as a monument of learning and of literary faculty. The first
instalment of Gibbon's _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ appeared
in 1766, the last in 1788. The grandeur of its conception, the orderly
method of its construction, the learning it displays, and the unflagging
pomp with which the historian presents his narrative, invest this book
with a pre-eminence in English historical literature which remains
beyond dispute. Other famous books of the time are Paley's theological
works, Sir William Blackstone's _Commentaries on the Laws of England_,
and Adam Smith's _Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ (1776).
Smith, while laying the foundations of political economy as a distinct
science, treated theories in relation to actual facts; his book was at
once accepted as a guide by statesmen, and largely inspired Pitt's
economic policy. As a political writer Burke carried rhetoric to the
sublimest heights in his _Reflections on the French Revolution_ and some
later works. Lord Chesterfield's _Letters_, many of them belonging to
the early years of the reign, are admirable for their wit and elegance,
but lack the special quality of the inimitable _Letters_ of Horace
Walpole, written on a countless number of topics, and treating them in a
manner which, though somewhat affected, is easy and singularly
appropriate to the writer's cast of mind. Of the Junius _Letters_
enough has been said; they are political articles, not parts of a
correspondence. Lastly, it would be unbecoming to omit here a notice,
however cursory, of Walpole's valuable though not always trustworthy
historical _Memoirs_.

The ecclesiastical architecture of the time was deplorable. Towards the
end of the century it was affected by the revolt from classicism in
literature; and a desire was manifested to desert the corrupt following
of classical models for Gothic art, but it was unaccompanied by taste or
knowledge, and the elder Wyatt's sins of destruction at Salisbury and
elsewhere have made his name a by-word. In secular architecture things
were better; Chambers, the architect of Somerset House, Robert Adam and
his brothers, architects of the Adelphi buildings, and the younger Wood
at Bath have left us works of considerable merit. In art, however, our
period is chiefly memorable as that of the development of the English
school of painting. Sir Joshua Reynolds, one of the great portrait
painters of the world, was in high repute in 1760, was the first
president of the Royal Academy, founded in 1768, and independently of
his work did much to raise the appreciation of art, for he was
universally respected. He started the famous literary club of which his
friends, Johnson, Burke, Goldsmith, and other distinguished men, were
members. Scarcely inferior to Reynolds as a portrait-painter,
Gainsborough invested his subjects with wonderful grace, and Romney,
though not attaining to the height of these two, may be reckoned with
them as a master of his art. Before the end of our period Hoppner and
Lawrence were working in London and Raeburn in Edinburgh. The heavy debt
which English landscape painting owes to Wilson, who lived neglected,
has been acknowledged since his death. In that line Gainsborough was
unsurpassed; he was wholly free from classical tradition and, as in his
portrait work, interpreted nature as it presented itself to his own
artistic sense. By 1800 Girtin had laid the foundation of genuine
painting in water-colours, and Turner was entering on his earlier style,
working under the influence of old masters. Humble life and animals were
depicted by Morland, who was true to nature and a fine colourist. In the
treatment of historical subjects classical tradition long held an
undisputed sway; and the chief claim of West, once a fashionable artist,
on our remembrance is that he broke away from it in his best picture,
"The Death of Wolfe," painted in 1771, which represents his figures in
the uniforms they wore instead of dressed as Romans, a revolt which
caused no small stir.

Engraving on copper flourished, aided by the enterprise of Boydell, and
wood-engraving was brought to perfection by the brothers Bewick. In
sculpture, Flaxman, Nollekens, and Bacon did first-rate work. Music
alone of the arts really interested the king. The public taste was
stimulated by the establishment of Handel commemoration concerts; the
opera was well attended, and church music was enriched by some
distinguished composers. People of the upper and middle classes cared
far more for art of all kinds than in the earlier half of the century:
the rich bought the works of old Italian and French masters; exhibitions
of art were thronged, and articles of _virtu_ found a ready sale.

[Sidenote: _VOYAGES OF DISCOVERY._]

During the earlier years of the reign much interest in natural science
was aroused, probably through French influence. England soon came to the
front in scientific investigation. Among the principal contributors to
this movement were Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen, and Black, of
latent heat; Cavendish, the investigator of air and water; Sir William
Herschel, the astronomer, who spent most of his life in England; Hutton,
the father of British geological science; Sir Joseph Banks, the
naturalist; Hunter, the "founder of scientific surgery"; and Jenner, who
in 1798 announced the protective power of vaccination against small-pox.
Science was aided by voyages of discovery, some of them of the highest
future importance in the history of the world, and in the extension of
the British empire. Between 1764 and 1768 come Commodore Byron's
fruitless voyage round the world, and the discovery of a large number of
islands in the South Pacific by Captains Wallis and Carteret. Cook's
three great voyages were made between 1768 and 1779. In the course of
them he sailed round New Zealand, explored the east coast of Australia
and the new Hebrides, discovered New Caledonia and the Sandwich islands,
and attempted to find a passage from the North Pacific round the north
of the American continent. In 1780 an expedition under Captain Bligh,
sent to transport bread-fruit trees from Otaheite to the West Indies for
acclimatisation, ended in the famous mutiny on board his ship, the
_Bounty_. To the last years of the century belong the voyages of Bass
and Flinders in Australian waters. Meanwhile Mackenzie descended the
river which bears his name to the Arctic ocean, and in 1770 Bruce, the
Abyssinian traveller, reached the sources of the Blue Nile.

Between 1760 and 1801 the national Church, the proper instrument of
national reformation, was passing through a period of transition. Its
vitality was somewhat injured by its controversy with the deists, and
still more by the action of the state. It was a powerful political
engine and as such it was used by statesmen. Convocations remained
silenced, and Church preferments were made to serve political ends and
were regarded both by clergy and laity as little more than desirable
offices. Clergymen begged bishoprics and deaneries of Newcastle with
unblushing importunity, sometimes even before the men they aspired to
succeed had breathed their last. Neither they, nor the ministers who
treated Church patronage as a means of strengthening their party, were
necessarily careless about religion. Newcastle and Hardwicke, for
example, were religious men, and the personal piety of some
preferment-seeking bishops is unquestioned. It was a matter in which the
Church was neither better nor worse than the age. The ecclesiastical
system was disorganised by plurality and non-residence; the dignified
clergy as a whole were worldly minded, and the greater number of the
rest were wretchedly poor. The Church was roused to a sense of its duty
to society by methodism and evangelicalism, two movements for a time
closely connected, though after 1784 methodism became a force outside
the church. By 1760 the persecution to which John Wesley and his
fellow-workers had sometimes been exposed was over, and methodism was
gaining ground. It very slightly touched aristocratic society, chiefly
through the efforts of the Countess of Huntingdon, who, in spite of her
quarrel with Wesley's party, must be regarded as one of the leaders of
the movement; its influence on the labouring class, specially in large
towns and in the mining districts, was strong, and it gained a
considerable hold on people of the middle class.

[Sidenote: _THE EVANGELICALS._]

Within the Church rapid progress was made by the evangelical movement.
Many of the earlier evangelical clergy were methodists, some workers
with Wesley, others preachers of Lady Huntingdon's "connexion" before
her secession in 1781. During the last two decades of the century the
evangelicals became distinct from the methodists and formed an
increasing body inside the Church. Among its clerical chiefs were
Romaine, Venn, Cecil, and Newton of Olney, the spiritual guide of many
of its leading adherents; it owed much to Lord Dartmouth's patronage,
Cowper's poetry presented its doctrine in a pleasing form, Hannah More
furthered its cause by her writings, and Wilberforce brought it into
connexion with political life. Only one of the avowed evangelical
clergy, Isaac Milner, Dean of Carlisle, received dignified preferment
before 1800, for the king was averse from "enthusiasm," and though
Pitt's Church appointments were eminently respectable, he does not seem
to have been guided in making them by any exalted consideration.
Whatever the failings of the evangelical party may have been, it
certainly exercised a strong and wholesome influence on the national
life, which was aided by the effects of the war with France. Not only
did the discipline of war sober the nation, but it also extended the
revolt against unreality which took place in the domains of literature
and art, to that of religion, and brought people to accept a teaching
which appealed more strongly to the heart than that of the older school
of clergy. While most of the work of the evangelicals lies outside our
subject, the character of its influence on society may be gathered from
their efforts for the suppression of the slave trade; from the stricter
observance of Sunday which became general towards the end of our period;
from their plans for bettering the condition, and their care for the
education of the poor. The institution of Sunday schools was largely due
to Robert Raikes, of Gloucester, who began his work in 1780. Six years
later some 200,000 children attended these schools, and in many cases
gained in them their only education. The work was encouraged by the king
and queen, and along with other efforts for the education of the poor
was helped forward by Hannah More, Wilberforce, and other evangelicals.

Apart from any religious movement, many laymen, among whom Burke holds a
high place, strove to soften the hardness and cruelty of the age. There
was need of their efforts. The criminal law was fearfully severe. Early
in the reign as many as 160 crimes were capital felonies, and the number
was constantly augmented. A theft of more than the value of twelve
pence by picking a pocket was punishable by death. This severity led to
an increase of crime. The injured would not prosecute, juries would not
convict on clear evidence, judges recommended to mercy, and criminals
were emboldened by the chances of escape. The heavy punishments attached
to light offences tended to multiply serious crimes; for a thief who
knew that he might be hanged was tempted to commit murder rather than be
caught. Though only about a fifth of the capital sentences were carried
out, executions were terribly numerous, especially between 1781 and
1787. In 1783, at two consecutive executions, twenty persons were hanged
together. Ninety-six were hanged at the Old Bailey in ten months in
1785, and at the Lent assizes of that year there were twenty-one capital
sentences at Kingston, twelve at Lincoln and sixteen at Gloucester, and
in each town nine persons were hanged. Executions were popular
spectacles; 80,000 persons are said to have been present at one at
Moorfields in 1767, and over 20,000 assembled at Tyburn in 1773 to see a
woman burnt--she was previously strangled at the stake--for the murder
of her husband. The ghastly procession to Tyburn was stopped in 1783,
and executions were ordered to be carried out in front of the prison;
and in 1790 the burning of women was abolished. Otherwise, in spite of
Burke's efforts, the criminal law was not materially ameliorated till
the next century. The punishment of the pillory was one of its worst
abuses. When inflicted for some popular act, such as libelling a
minister, the offender was treated as a hero, but if a man's crime
outraged the moral sense of the mob, he was exposed to horrible
barbarity. Two men were pelted to death, in 1763 and 1780, on the
pillory in London. After the second of these murders Burke brought the
matter before parliament; he was supported by Sir Charles Bunbury, who
quoted a similar case at Bury, but the punishment was not abolished.
Whipping was constantly inflicted, not merely on men but on women, and
in public as well as privately. The poor were brutalised by cruel and
indecent punishments, and were far too much under the power of
magistrates, some of them vicious and ignorant men, who had summary
jurisdiction in a large number of criminal cases.

[Sidenote: _PRISONS AND POLICE._]

The prisons were horrible dens in which felons and debtors, men and
women, old and young, were crowded together. Many of them had no
water-supply and very little air; some had no sewers, and where sewers
existed they were generally choked up. Great numbers died of gaol-fever
and small-pox. In about half the county gaols debtors had no allowance
of bread. Everywhere prisoners were exposed to extortion, and were
sometimes detained in gaol after acquittal for non-payment of the
gaolers' fees. Such was the state of things in 1773 when John Howard
began to inquire into the condition of the prisons. He roused the
attention of parliament and of the public to these abuses, and by 1779
some of the more flagrant of them were removed. He spent the remainder
of his life in efforts to reform the prisons, and accomplished much,
though much still remained to be done. After 1776 convicts could no more
be transported to America, and male convicts were kept in hulks on the
Thames and elsewhere. These hulks soon became overcrowded, and in 1784
the old system of assigning convicts to employers in different parts of
the British dominions oversea was again adopted. The evils of this
system were recognised, and it was decided to send criminals sentenced
to transportation to New South Wales. A government was established;
Captain Phillip, of the navy, was appointed governor, and in 1787 took
out the "first fleet" with convicts. He established a settlement at Port
Jackson, and founded a city which he called Sydney, after the then
secretary for home affairs. Such was the unworthy beginning of the
present magnificent colony of New South Wales.

The population outgrew the police system. Riots were frequent in times
of scarcity or popular excitement, and often could only be quelled by
soldiers. Throughout the whole of our period highwaymen infested the
roads; in 1774 Horace Walpole at Twickenham declared that it was
scarcely safe to venture out by day; Lady Hertford had been attacked on
Hounslow Heath at three in the afternoon. Some daring robberies, two of
them of mails, were effected in 1791. In the earlier years of the reign
smuggling was carried on with amazing audacity, specially on the south
and east coasts. It was calculated that 40,000 persons were engaged in
it by sea and land, and that two-thirds of the tea and half the brandy
consumed in England paid no duty. Bands of armed smugglers rode up to
London with their goods, and attempts to interfere with their trade were
fiercely and often successfully resisted. Smuggling, however, was
checked, as we shall see, by the wise policy of Pitt. The weakness of
the police caused an alarming increase of crimes against property;
footpads stopped carriages even in Grosvenor Square and Piccadilly, and
in 1792 the streets are said on good authority to have been unsafe by
night. With the exception of a few Bow street officers and some mounted
patrols, the only police in London were parish constables and the
watchmen, many of them old and decrepit. The magistracy of Middlesex had
largely fallen into the hands of men described by Burke as "the scum of
the earth," who used their office as a means of getting gain, and
frightful abuses were common.[179] In 1792 parliament established
stipendiary magistrates appointed by the crown for the London police
courts, and a few police officers were attached to each court. This
important reform would have been more effective if a larger number of
police had been placed under the orders of the new magistrates, for
after that date the police of London and its immediate neighbourhood
consisted of not more than 2,044 watchmen and patrols and 1,000
constables and other officers, of whom only 147 received pay and gave
their whole time to police work.[180]

The general belief that the trade of Great Britain would be ruined by
the loss of the American colonies was not justified. Between 1783 and
1800 her foreign trade and manufactures were developed at an
extraordinary rate. The official value of English exports in 1760 was
£14,694,970, and of imports £9,832,802; in 1783, of exports £13,896,415,
and of imports £11,651,281; in 1800 the exports of Great Britain were
officially valued at £34,381,617, and the imports at £28,257,781.[181]
Her foreign trade, which provided her with an extended market, was
maintained through her naval supremacy. Before 1780 the war with the
colonies had little effect on her trade; the declaration of the armed
neutrality decreased its profits by increasing risks and raising the
rate of insurance, but does not appear to have inflicted special injury
on any particular branch of it. The American shipping was destroyed and
Dutch commerce suffered severely. At the end of the war England was far
stronger by sea than she was before it began; her manufactures,
specially of iron and cotton, began to develop rapidly, and she kept the
American trade. During the revolutionary war the French believed that
they could reduce England to impotence by ruining her commerce. They
failed to understand the consequences of her power at sea and the
firmness of the foundation on which her wealth rested. The ports of
France and her allies were blockaded; England may be said to have
carried the greatest part of the trade of Europe, her manufactures
flourished exceedingly, and foreign nations could not afford to abstain
from purchasing them.

[Sidenote: _LAISSEZ-FAIRE._]

Before entering on the expansion of manufactures and the industrial
revolution which accompanied it, a word may be said as to the attitude
of the state towards these changes. For some two centuries it had been
held that it was the duty of the state to order trade with the object of
increasing the wealth and power of the nation, and a policy was followed
of interference with trade and its conditions by regulations, bounties,
and restrictions, which is called the mercantile system. To this policy
belong the navigation acts and the regulation of colonial trade and
manufactures for the benefit of the mother-country. The American
revolution dealt it a mortal blow. About the same time Adam Smith's work
led to the idea that national wealth would increase if men were left to
seek their own wealth without interference. While trade outgrew the old
regulations which ordered its conditions, the system of state
interference became discredited, a new economic policy of
non-interference, called _laissez-faire_, took its place, and questions
of trade, manufacture, wages, and other conditions of labour were
increasingly left to settle themselves. This reversed the policy long
and successfully pursued by the whigs, who fostered trade as the basis
of national prosperity. The tories on the other hand held that national
prosperity was based on land, and desired to lighten its burdens by
taxing personal property, and we shall find Pitt distributing his
taxation widely and so as to fall mainly on the moneyed class.[182]
_Laissez-faire_ reached its full development in the establishment of
free trade; it has already been modified in many respects, and may
hereafter be subjected to further modification to suit altered
circumstances.

The expansion of trade during our period was due to improved processes
of manufacture and increased facilities of transport, and in a far
higher degree to the substitution of machinery moved by the power of
water or steam for manual labour. The north, hitherto the most backward
part of England, became the chief seat of industrial life and commercial
enterprise. Wealth was increased, industry became more dependent on
capital, and changes were effected in its conditions which for a time
pressed heavily on the poor. In 1760 there was no Black Country.
Charcoal was employed in the manufacture of hardware, and the Sussex
iron works produced a small quantity of pig-iron at a great cost. Fuel
was giving out, and England, rich in iron, imported over 49,000 tons of
iron a year from Russia and Sweden. The discovery that coal and coke
could be used for smelting was made about 1750, and in 1760 a new era in
the manufacture was ushered in by the foundation of the Carron
ironworks, which had blast furnaces for coal. The improvements in
Newcomen's steam engine, effected by Watt between 1765 and 1782,
facilitated smelting by coal by providing the furnaces with a stronger
blast. In 1783-4 Cort of Gosport invented processes for converting
pig-iron into malleable by the use of coal, and for converting malleable
iron into bars by rollers, instead of sledge-hammers. Iron became cheap
and was used for purposes never dreamt of a few years before; the first
iron bridge crossed the Severn at Coalbrookdale in 1779. By 1796 the use
of charcoal had almost ceased, and the produce of blast furnaces had
risen from 68,300 tons in 1788 to over 125,000 tons. Vast iron works
were established in the coal districts, which soon ceased to be
agricultural. Among the many other manufactures expanded by new
processes was that of pottery. In 1760 Staffordshire stoneware was rough
and badly glazed, and much ware was imported from France. A few years
later Wedgwood succeeded in producing a ware at his works at Etruria
which was superior to any brought from abroad; it was largely used in
England, and five-sixths of the produce of his works was exported.

[Sidenote: _THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION._]

The increasing call for coal both for manufacture and for fuel and the
needs consequent on the growth of trade and the expansion of agriculture
were met by greater facilities of transport. Roads, though they were
gradually improved, could not have answered the demands for the
conveyance of the ever-increasing bulk of heavy goods. A better method
was found in the introduction of canals by the third Duke of
Bridgewater. The canal between Worsley and Manchester, made by him and
his engineer, Brindley, and opened in 1761, enabled the Manchester
people to buy the duke's coal at 3-1/2d. instead of 7d. a cwt.; its
extension to Runcorn reduced the cost of carriage by water between
Liverpool and Manchester from 12s. to 6s. a ton, while by road it was
40s.; and the Grand Trunk canal from Runcorn to the Trent brought the
pottery of Etruria to Liverpool and carried other goods at a quarter of
the old cost of transport. The success of these undertakings was so
great that people went wild about canal-making, and between 1790 and
1794 eighty-one canal acts were obtained, many of them, of course, for
superfluous projects.

The principal factor in the industrial revolution which began during the
period under review was the substitution of machinery for hand labour in
textile manufactures. In 1760 spinning and weaving were domestic
industries, carried on, that is, in the homes of the workers. The women
and children in farm-houses and cottages spent their spare time in
spinning. The implements used in the cotton manufacture remained nearly
as simple as those of the Homeric age, save that weaving had been
facilitated by the use of the fly-shuttle. Since that invention the
weaver found it difficult to obtain enough yarn for his loom, until,
about 1767, a weaver named Hargreaves invented the spinning-jenny by
which a child could work many spindles at once. Two years later
Arkwright, who introduced many inventions into the textile manufacture,
brought out a spinning machine worked by water-power. His water-frame
spun automatically and produced a yarn strong enough for warp, so that
for the first time pure cotton goods were manufactured in England, for
until then the cotton weft was woven on a warp of linen. This machine
was improved on by Crompton's mule, a cross between the jenny and the
water-frame, which spun a finer yarn, and so started the manufacture of
muslin in England; it was invented in 1775 and came into general use
about ten years later. The supply of cotton from India, the Bahamas,
and later from the southern states of America, was large, and the effect
of the new machinery on the manufacture can be gauged by the increase in
the import of cotton-wool from an average of 4,764,589 lbs. between 1771
and 1775 to 56,010,732 lbs. in 1800. The new labour-saving inventions
were at first regarded with jealousy by the workmen. Hargreaves had his
house gutted and his loom destroyed, and in 1799 a violent riot broke
out about Blackburn; Arkwright's works were burnt, and many machines in
the neighbourhood were broken to pieces. In and around Lancashire, where
the manufacture was chiefly carried on, the carding and spinning of wool
ceased to be domestic industries. Capitalists set up factories where
water-power was available, in which children were largely employed, and
factory villages grew up round them. From about 1790 steam-power began
gradually to take the place of water-power; the change was slow, and as
it went on the manufacture became increasingly centred in populous
towns.

Cotton weaving remained a domestic industry, for Cartwright's power-loom
did not come into general use until after 1800. The output of yarn was
enormous, and for a time the weavers' earnings were very large, but the
money which could be earned at the loom and the failure of domestic
spinning caused so many to take to weaving that by 1800 wages had begun
to decline, and gradually a period of distress set in. A machine for
calico-printing further increased the profits of the capitalist and had
a bad effect on labour, for it threw the calico-printer out of
employment. Wool spinning was far more generally carried on in rural
districts than cotton spinning, and more widely spread misery was caused
by changes in the manufacture. It came under the dominion of machinery
somewhat later. Machines for carding and combing took the place of
manual labour after 1790, and enabled one man and a few children to do
the work of many men. Spinning with the wheel lasted longer than in the
cotton manufacture. From 1785 jennies were used, and wool spinning was
gradually transferred to factories and became a separate business,
instead of a by-employment which helped the small farmer to pay his rent
and eked out the scanty wages of the labourer. The change was
accelerated by the scarcity of wool during the revolutionary war, for
by that time the trade had become largely dependent on importation from
Spain, and it was not until about 1800 that sheep began to be bred for
their wool in Australia. As in the cotton trade, the wages of weavers
were high during the war, but the scarcity of material prevented all but
the best workmen from finding employment and there was much distress
among the rest. The failure of domestic spinning deeply affected all the
rural districts of England.

[Sidenote: _AGRICULTURAL WAGES._]

It was specially disastrous because it was accompanied by times of
scarceness and by changes connected with a revolution in agriculture
which pressed heavily on many of the poorer classes. A rapid increase in
population during the latter part of the century was consequent on the
stimulus given to manufacture; in 1760 the population of England and
Wales is estimated at 6,479,700, and of Scotland in 1755 at about
1,265,300; in 1800 the estimate for England and Wales is 9,187,176, and
for Scotland about 1,599,000. This increase implies a demand for a
larger supply of food. Early in the reign wages were low except near
great towns, and the law of settlement prevented the labourer from
moving freely from one parish to another in order to better himself.
While in 1769-70 labourers in Surrey earned on an average from 8s. to
10s. a week, in Wiltshire they received only 6s. 2d. to 5s. 3d., and in
one district in Lancashire as little as 4s. 11d.[183] Wages, however,
were then eked out by home industries and commonable rights. Yet the
margin between income and expenditure was so small that a rise in the
price of bread soon caused distress, and was often followed by riots.
Bread made from rye or barley was still eaten in poor districts, but
wheaten bread was more generally used than earlier in the century, which
proves that the condition of the poor was bettered. In 1769 it cost 2d.
a pound near London, and at a distance of 150 miles 1-1/2d. Meat was
about 3d. to 4d. a pound, rent and clothing were cheap, firing and
candles very dear.

In 1760 England was still a corn-exporting country; importation was
restrained, exportation encouraged by a bounty, and in times of scarcity
the trade was regulated by temporary enactments. After some bad harvests
an act was made in 1773 with the object of keeping the price steady at
about 48s. the quarter; virtually free importation was allowed when it
reached that limit, and exportation was forbidden when it reached 44s.
Landowners and farmers were dissatisfied, and a general fear lest the
country should become dependent on foreign corn led parliament in 1791
to adopt a policy of encouraging home production; it was enacted that
for the future a bounty should be paid on exportation when the price was
at 44s., that prohibitive duties should be placed on importation when it
was below 50s., and virtually free importation only allowed above 54s.
Nevertheless from about that date England definitely ceased to be able
to feed her own people, except in good seasons. Her naval superiority
during the revolutionary war prevented a stoppage in the supply of wheat
from abroad; but it became uncertain, prices fluctuated violently with
good or bad harvests; war acted as a protection to the corn-grower and
bad harvests were followed by famine prices; in 1795 wheat averaged 81s.
6d. in Windsor market, and in 1800 reached 127s. Wages rose with the
expansion of manufactures, but not in anything like proportion to the
rise in prices.

[Sidenote: _THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION._]

Meanwhile efforts were made to meet the increased demand for food by
improved agriculture. In 1760 about half the parishes in England were
still in open fields; and the primitive two-field and three-field
systems by which land was refreshed by lying fallow were, with some
modifications, still in vogue. A new husbandry, however, had begun, and
soon made rapid progress; it was promoted by many large landowners, such
as Lord Townshend, the Dukes of Bedford and Grafton, and Lord
Rockingham, and the king took a lively and practical interest in the
movement. Its advantages were urged by Arthur Young, who did most
valuable work as its apostle. Its leading feature was the introduction
of a scientific rotation of crops founded on the use of clover and
rye-grass and the more careful cultivation of turnips, which kept the
land at once employed and in good heart, and afforded a supply of
excellent fodder. Farmers, too, began to learn the profit to be derived
from marling, manuring, and subsoil drainage, and to use better
implements which did their work more thoroughly and with less labour of
man and beast. The increased demand for meat caused sheep no longer to
be valued chiefly for their wool, or oxen as beasts of draught.
Improvements in the breeding and rearing of sheep and cattle were
introduced by Bakewell, a Lincolnshire grazier, and carried on by
others. The scraggy animals of earlier days disappeared; the average
weight of beeves sold at Smithfield in 1710 was 370 lbs., in 1795 it was
800 lbs., and that of sheep had risen from 28 lbs. to 80 lbs. Capital
was freely invested in land; open fields were increasingly enclosed, and
commons and wastes along with them, and land until then beyond the
margin of cultivation was taken in and ploughed. From 1760 to 1797 as
many as 1,539 private enclosure acts were passed, and a general act was
passed in 1801.

The new agriculture vastly increased the produce of the land. During the
first half of our period rents were low, and the farmers who carried out
the new system as a rule made enormous profits. Arthur Young tells us of
one Norfolk farmer who, on a farm of 1,500 acres, made enough in thirty
years to buy an estate of £1,700 a year. The improved agriculture,
however, could not be carried out without enclosure and, unless an award
was made by agreement, that meant a large initial expense, which was
followed by the expense of actually enclosing the land. These expenses
were often borne by the landlords. The small squires and yeomen who
farmed their own land had neither the intelligence of the large farmers
nor the money to spend on improvements, and both classes virtually
disappeared. Nor could the small farmer either keep his place or take
advantage of the new system. If his holding was unaffected by enclosure,
the loss of domestic industries rendered him less able to pay his rent:
if it was to be enclosed, he found himself with a diminished income at
the very time when he most needed money; and if he managed to keep his
land for a while, he was ruined by some violent fluctuation in the price
of corn. Sooner or later he sank into the labouring class. The enormous
profits of the large farmers did not continue, for about 1780 rents
began to rise. Still the cultivation of good arable land remained highly
profitable, if the farmer had capital enough to meet fluctuations of
price. But war prices and parliamentary encouragement led farmers to
cultivate inferior land; their profits diminished in proportion to the
cost of cultivation, and though the supply of food was increased, its
price was kept up. A sudden fall in prices would send the land back to
its original wild state and was likely enough to ruin the farmer.

Although enclosure was encouraged by parliament with the view of
benefiting the mass of the people by making bread cheaper, it was far
more often than not injurious to the labourer. In many cases commons
were enclosed without adequate compensation to the poorer commoners, who
were deprived of the means of keeping a cow or geese or of the right of
cutting turf for fuel. Some received no allotment because they failed to
prove their claims, and others sold their allotments to wealthy farmers,
either because they were too small to keep a cow or because they could
not enclose them. Young, who strongly advocated enclosure, says that out
of thirty-seven parishes he found only twelve in which the position of
the poor had not been injured by the enclosure of commons, and laments
the disastrous effect of the change on the general condition of the
labouring class. The change was coincident with the decay not only of
domestic spinning, but also of other industries practised in villages,
for the large new-fashioned farmers had their implements, harness, and
household utensils made and mended in towns rather than by rural
workmen. Deprived of the profits of by-employments, and in many cases of
their accustomed rights of common, labourers became solely dependent on
farm wages at a time when prices were enormously high and a living-wage
was not to be gained by agricultural work. They either migrated to seek
work in a factory or came on the rates. In many districts villages
presented a picture of desolation. Wiston and Foston in Leicestershire
each before enclosure contained some thirty-five houses; in Wiston every
house disappeared except that of the squire, and Foston was reduced to
the parsonage and two herdsmen's cottages.[184]

[Sidenote: _COMBINATIONS OF WORKMEN._]

The old system of regulating wages by statute was not wholly extinct in
1760. A few years later a statute made in the masters' interests fixed
the maximum for the wages of the London journeymen tailors at 2s.
7-1/2d. a day, except at a time of general mourning. On the other hand
parliament, in 1773, under the pressure of a riot, passed an act
empowering justices to fix the wages of the Spitalfields silk weavers
and to enforce their ordinance. By 1776, however, Adam Smith declared
that the custom of fixing wages "had gone entirely into disuse". England
was adopting _laissez-faire_. The change of policy is illustrated by
the case of the framework knitters of Nottinghamshire. The employment of
children and apprentices enabled the masters to oppress them; they were
unable to earn more than 8s. to 9s. a week and their wages were
diminished by shameful exactions. They formed a combination, petitioned
the house of commons to regulate their wages in 1778, and were heard
before a committee. A bill was brought in the next year to regulate the
trade and prevent abuses, but was thrown out on the third reading. Wages
were to be settled between the master and the men. Some rioting followed
on the rejection of the bill, and the masters promised redress, but soon
broke their word. Combinations of workmen to set aside statutory
arrangements of wages were of course illegal, but when formed to secure
their fulfilment do not seem to have been so regarded.[185] In 1799,
however, when parliament was anxious to prevent seditious assemblies, a
statute, amended in 1800, rendered it unlawful for workmen to combine
for the purpose of obtaining higher wages. This grossly unjust law made
the workmen powerless to protect themselves against the oppression of
the capitalist employer. Parliament was more than once pressed to meet
the high price of bread and the distress of the agricultural poor by
fixing a minimum for wages. Pitt, a disciple of Adam Smith, would not
consent to such a measure, and his opposition was fatal to it. He was
deeply sensible of the distress of the poor, and, in 1795, brought in a
bill for the amendment of the poor law. It contained some startling
provisions of a socialistic character, was adversely criticised by
Bentham and others, and was quietly dropped.

In 1760 the law of 1723, empowering overseers of the poor to refuse
relief to those who would not enter the workhouse, was still in force.
It seems to have been administered strictly, and it kept down the rates.
As society became more humane, it revolted against so harsh a method of
dealing with distress. A permissive act of 1783, called after its
promoter, Gilbert's act, contained along with some wholesome provisions
others that were foolish and harmful; it enabled parishes to form unions
and adopt a system under which able-bodied men were not allowed to enter
the workhouse; they were to work in the district and have their wages
supplemented from the rates. The administration of the act was committed
to the magistrates and guardians in place of the overseers. A
considerable relaxation of the law of settlement in 1795 was just and
beneficial. In the same year the pernicious principle of supplementing
wages from the rates was carried to its full extent. By that time the
decay of domestic spinning and the rise in the price of food were
causing much distress in Berkshire. At a meeting of justices at
Speenhamland in that county it was resolved to grant allowances to all
poor men and their families--so much a head according to the price of
the gallon loaf. This system was generally adopted, and was strengthened
by an act of 1795 abolishing the workhouse test. As a means of tiding
over a merely temporary crisis, as indeed it was intended by its authors
to be, it would have done no harm. Unfortunately, it lasted for many
years and had disastrous consequences; it rapidly raised the rates, and
helped to crush the small farmers who, though they employed no labour,
were forced to pay towards the maintenance of the labourers employed by
their richer neighbours; it kept wages from rising, encouraged
thriftless marriages and dissolute living, discouraged industry and
efficient work, destroyed self-respect, and pauperised the poor.

[Sidenote: _FACTORY CHILDREN._]

While then the last sixteen years of the century, of which the political
history still lies before us, were, except at certain crises to be noted
hereafter, marked by a rapid expansion of commerce and trade, and an
increase in the wealth of the richer landowners, manufacturers, and
merchants, they were, as we have seen, a period of change in the
conditions of labour and, as such, brought much distress on the working
class, which was aggravated by the high prices consequent on bad seasons
and the risks of war. Of all the sufferings of the poor during this
period none are so painful to remember as those of the children employed
in factories, the helpless victims of _laissez-faire_ for whose relief
the state did nothing until a later date. The greater number of them
were pauper apprentices bound by parochial authorities to mill-owners,
others the children of very poor or callous parents. From little more
than infancy, sometimes under seven years old, children were condemned
to labour for long hours, thirteen or more in a day, at tasks which
required unremitting attention, and in rooms badly ventilated and
otherwise injurious to health; they were half-starved and cruelly
punished when their wearied little arms failed to keep up with the
demands of the machinery. The smaller mills were the worst in this
respect, and as the supply of water-power was not constant, the children
in mills worked by water were often forced to labour far beyond their
strength to make up for lost time. Such of them as survived the
prolonged misery and torture of their early years often grew up more or
less stunted and deformed men and women, physically unfit for parentage,
morally debased, ignorant, and brutalised by ill-treatment.

FOOTNOTES:

[178] Walpole to Mann, April 29, 1784, _Letters_, viii., 473; _Parl.
Hist._, xxv., 1434.

[179] _Parl. Hist._, xxi., 592; xxix., 1034.

[180] Colquhoun, _Treatise on the Police_, pp. 108, 110, 228, 364, 2nd
edit., 1796.

[181] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern
Times_, pt. ii., 931.

[182] Cunningham, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern
Times_, pt. i., 583-608.

[183] Young, _Southern Counties_, p. 325; _Northern Counties_, iv., 453.

[184] Howlett, _Enquiry into the Influence which Enclosure has had on
Population_, p. 10.

[185] Webb, _History of Trade Unionism_, p. 55.




                               CHAPTER XIV.

                  EARLY YEARS OF PITT'S ADMINISTRATION.


The general election of 1784 which established Pitt in office was the
expression of a strong national feeling. Humiliated by the loss of its
colonies, irritated by the mismanagement of its affairs, and burdened
with the expense of an unsuccessful war, which added £114,500,000 to the
public debt, the nation listened with approval to Fox's denunciations
and got rid of North. It was with unbounded disgust that it saw Fox
enter into an alliance with the statesman whom he had denounced as the
prime cause of its misfortunes. During the late conflict in parliament
public feeling grew strong against him. The king's dismissal of a
ministry which commanded a large majority in the house of commons, and
his refusal to dismiss its successor at the request of the house needed
no pardon; they were endorsed by the declaration of the national will,
and he gained a hold on the affection of his people such as he had never
had before. His success must not make us forget the courage and the
political insight which he displayed during this critical period. All
that made the crown worth wearing was at stake, for if Fox's party had
obtained a majority at the general election, George for the rest of his
life would have become a mere puppet in their hands. He won the game,
but he did not win all that he hoped for. Pitt, whom he chose as his
champion, was not a minister after his own heart, content to carry out a
royal policy. George freed himself from the danger of whig domination,
but he did so at the cost of resigning his hopes of establishing a
system of personal government, and accepted an independent prime
minister. He never liked Pitt, but he knew that Pitt stood between him
and Fox, and so for seventeen years was content that he should retain
office. Pitt's power was established by, and rested on, the will of the
nation. In 1784 England looked forward with hope to the rule of a young
minister, a son of the great Chatham, of stainless private character and
unimpeachable integrity, who was free from all responsibility for its
misfortunes, and was the victorious opponent of Fox, whom it regarded
with aversion. Nor did its hope fail of fulfilment.

[Sidenote: _LASTING CHANGES EFFECTED BY PITT._]

What the government did for England during the nine years of peace which
succeeded the election of 1784 may be said to have been done by Pitt.
His colleagues were not men of great capacity, and he received obedience
rather than counsel from them. So it was that the position of prime
minister, a title which North refused to accept, became finally
established. This unavowed change in the constitution settled the sphere
of political action open to the crown. Government by the crown through
departmental ministers acting independently of each other was no longer
possible. The principle of the homogeneous character of the cabinet and
of the prime minister's position in it were, as we shall see, decisively
settled in 1791 by the dismissal of the chancellor, who, relying on the
king's favour, wore out Pitt's patience by rebellion against his
authority. Pitt's strength of character and the king's dependence on him
caused the gradual extinction of the "king's friends" as a party
distinct from the supporters of the government. The leader of the party
Jenkinson, the secretary at war in North's ministry, had great
commercial knowledge; Pitt made him president of the new board of trade
which was constituted in 1785, and as Lord Hawkesbury and as Earl of
Liverpool he gave the prime minister his support. Pitt did not attempt
to reduce the crown to a cypher, and George exercised a strong and
legitimate influence in politics, as adviser of the cabinet, though Pitt
occasionally acted against his wishes.

Another change of lasting importance effected by Pitt was in the
character of the house of lords. In 1760 the whole number of peers,
including minors and Roman catholics, who were incapable of sitting in
the house, was only 174; the house was then the stronghold of the whig
oligarchy. During North's administration about thirty peers were created
or promoted. Under Pitt the invasion advanced far more rapidly.
Economical reform deprived the minister of the power of rewarding his
supporters with places and pensions, and Pitt used peerages and minor
honours in their stead. George, who did not approve of a large increase
in the peerage,[186] was forced to yield to his minister's exigencies.
In five years Pitt was responsible for forty-eight creations and
promotions, and by 1801 the number reached 140.[187] The house of lords
ceased to be a small assembly of territorial magnates, mostly of the
whig party; it became less aristocratic, for peerages were bestowed on
men simply because they were supporters of the government and were
wealthy; it became mainly tory in politics, and its size made it less
open to corrupt influence. As a body, however, it was inferior in
ability and in devotion to its legislative duties to the small assembly
of earlier days.

Under Pitt's leadership, England during the years of peace which
succeeded the American war regained her place in the politics of Europe.
His attention, however, was chiefly devoted to domestic affairs. He was
eminently skilful in finance; he restored the public credit and freed
trade from artificial impediments. The corruption of parliament, of
which both whigs and tories had been guilty, was brought to an end; many
abuses and sinecures were abolished and public life became purer. Though
at first Pitt sustained some defeats in parliament, due both to mistakes
of his own and to the absence of party consolidation among his usual
supporters, his power rapidly increased until it became absolute in both
houses. He showed supreme ability in the management of parliament. With
much of his father's haughtiness of manner he combined a tactfulness and
self-control which his father never exhibited. He had nothing of Fox's
winning power, yet he became extremely popular in the house of commons,
for he showed himself worthy to lead men and able to lead them
successfully. His temper was sweet, his courage, patience, and
hopefulness unfailing, and his industry unwearied. That he loved power
is surely no reproach to a statesman who used it as he did with
single-hearted devotion to his country. For wealth and honours he cared
nothing. He was always poor, and soon became deeply in debt, chiefly
because he was too much occupied with public affairs to control his
household expenditure. While he disdainfully distributed titles and
ribbons among a clamouring crowd, he refused all such things for
himself. Some measures of reform which he advocated in early days he
dropped when he found that the country did not care for them, and in
later days altogether abandoned a liberal policy, for he was called on
to give England that which is infinitely more important than liberal
measures, the preservation of its constitutional and social life from
the danger of revolution.

[Sidenote: _THE WESTMINSTER SCRUTINY._]

When parliament met on May 19, 1784, the ministry carried the address in
the commons by 282 to 114. Pitt, however, soon found that he could not
reckon on this majority on every question. In the Westminster election
Fox had been opposed by Admiral Lord Hood, created an Irish baron after
the battle of the Saints, and Sir Cecil Wray. The poll was kept open for
forty days and there was much rioting and irregularity of every kind,
for which both sides appear to have been responsible. Fox's friends, and
above all the beautiful Duchess of Devonshire and other whig ladies,
canvassed eagerly for him, and the duchess is said to have bought a
butcher's vote with a kiss. George watched the contest with anxiety, for
Fox's attack on the constitutional rights of the crown had deepened his
animosity towards him. So strong were his feelings that, on hearing that
Fox was gaining votes, he wrote to Pitt that "the advance could only be
by bad votes, yet similar means must be adopted against him rather than
let him get returned". He had heard with delight that 300 Quackers
(_sic_) would vote for Hood and Wray.[188] At the close of the poll Hood
stood first and Fox second. Great was the triumph of the Foxites, and
the Prince of Wales, Fox's pupil in debauchery, was pleased to exhibit
his opposition to his father by taking a prominent part in it; he wore
Fox's colours, was present at banquets in his honour, where he gave the
toast of "True Blue and Mrs. Crewe," one of Fox's lady canvassers, and
got disgustingly drunk. Nevertheless the victory was disputed, for the
high-bailiff granted a scrutiny, and instead of returning Hood and Fox
as elected, merely reported the number of the votes. In this he was
clearly wrong, for he made no proper return to the writ. If a scrutiny
was to be held, it should have been completed before the day fixed for
the return. It was his duty to make a return on that day; a decision as
to the lawfulness of the election pertained to the house of commons.
His action deprived Westminster of representation, and would have shut
Fox out of the house had he not already been returned for Kirkwall.

Fox petitioned the house to order the high-bailiff to make a proper
return. Pitt opposed the petition, and the house ordered that the
scrutiny should proceed, though in two divisions on the question his
majority fell to 97 and 78. Eight months later, in February, 1785, the
scrutiny was still proceeding and was likely to last two years longer.
Against the king's judgment,[189] Pitt persisted in maintaining it; his
majority sank to 39, then to 9, and on March 4 he was in a minority of
38. The high-bailiff was ordered to make an immediate return, and Hood
and Fox were returned as elected. In this matter Pitt did not display
his usual tactfulness. Excusably enough in so young a man, he allowed
himself to be swayed by personal feeling, and his feeling was
ungenerous. With the exception of a small knot of friends like Dundas,
he kept himself aloof from his supporters and was ignorant of the
annoyance with which they regarded this attempt to deal harshly with a
defeated foe.[190] A bill passed that session ordered that polls were
not to last more than fifteen days, and that any scrutiny should be
closed six days before the return to the writ was due. Fox sued the
high-bailiff for neglecting to return him and obtained £2,000 damages.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S FINANCE._]

In spite of this mistake Pitt's position was strengthened by his success
in dealing with finance. National credit was low; the public debt of
Great Britain had grown from £126,043,057 in 1775 to £240,925,908,[191]
and the 3 per cent. consols were at about 57. Heavy expenses entailed by
the late war were still to be met, the civil list was in arrear, and the
revenue was grievously diminished by smuggling. In order to make
smuggling less profitable, Pitt largely reduced the duties on tea and
foreign spirits, and made up the loss on the tea duties by a
"commutation tax," an increased duty on houses according to the number
of their windows. He also made smuggling more difficult by a "hovering
act," which subjected to seizure vessels hovering off the coast with any
considerable quantity of tea or spirits. A deficit of £6,000,000 he
supplied by a loan, and in raising this loan he abandoned the old evil
practice of allotment among selected subscribers and opened it to public
competition. A second point on which he made a new departure was his
declaration that all sound finance should be directed towards
extinguishing debt and that consequently "a fund at a high rate of
interest was better for the country than those at low rates". The
unfunded debts were large, those ascertained amounted to £14,000,000,
and as outstanding government bills were at a discount of 15 to 20 per
cent., these debts depressed the funds. Pitt at once funded nearly half
as an instalment. Lastly the required charges exceeded revenue by over
£900,000, an enormous sum for that time, and he proposed to make up the
deficiency by taxation.

The number of the new taxes is a third point specially to be noted in
his budget. One proposed tax, on coals, he withdrew in deference to
general opinion, and substituted others in its place. The rest met with
little opposition. As they finally stood they were laid on candles,
bricks and tiles, hats, pleasure horses and horses entered for races,
British linens and cottons, ribbons and gauzes, ale-licences, shooting
licences, paper, hackney coaches, gold and silver plate, exported lead,
postage, and imported raw and thrown silk. His speech on the budget,
during which he moved 133 resolutions, at once placed his talents as a
finance minister beyond dispute; it was admirably lucid and was
conciliatory in tone. He also carried some regulations checking the
abuse of the privilege of franking letters. In those days a letter which
bore on the outside the signature of a member of parliament was carried
post-free, and franks were given away with the utmost profusion. It was
calculated that the new regulations, without abolishing the privilege,
would increase the revenue by £20,000. The next year, 1785, Pitt
completed the funding of unfunded debt, choosing according to his
principle the 5 per cents. which, though entailing an immediate loss,
afforded an easy means of paying off debt. He was able to declare that
the revenues were in a flourishing state, and to speak of the
institution of a fund for the repayment of the national debt as in the
near future. He was, however, still obliged to raise £400,000 by new
taxes. Among these were an increased tax on male servants, graduated
according to the number kept, and two which excited much hostile
criticism, the one a tax on female servants, also graduated, two
shillings and sixpence on one, five shillings a head on two, and ten
shillings a head on three or more, and the other a tax on shops. Both
these taxes were unpopular; the shop tax was repealed in 1789 and the
tax on female servants in 1792.

In 1784 the East India company was applying to parliament for help, and
as its affairs were under investigation it was unable to declare a
dividend. Pitt carried bills authorising a dividend of 8 per cent., and
granting the company relief from obligations to the exchequer which the
late war made specially onerous. He then brought in his new bill for the
government of India. This measure, which was not materially different
from his bill of six months before, entirely subordinated the political
power exercised by the directors to a board of control consisting of
unpaid commissioners, a secretary of state, the chancellor of the
exchequer, and other privy councillors, appointed by the crown. The
patronage of India was to be retained by the directors, but the
governor-general and the presidents and members of councils were to be
appointed and to be removable by the crown. In all matters of peace and
war the governor-general and his council were to be supreme over the
minor presidencies. Regulations were made to prevent extortion by the
officers of the company, and a special court was instituted for the
trial of those charged with delinquencies. The bill was violently
opposed by Fox, Burke, Sheridan, and Hastings's enemy, Francis, chiefly
on the grounds that government and patronage ought not to be divided,
that the nominal sovereignty of the directors and the extensive power of
the board of control would lead to confusion, and that the
governor-general ought not to have absolute authority in matters at a
distance. After several divisions, Pitt carried the second reading in
the commons by a majority of 211; he accepted some amendments in
committee, and the bill finally passed both houses without a division.
Thus was established that system of double government which lasted until
1858.

The session closed with a motion by Dundas for the restoration of the
Scottish estates forfeited for the rebellion of 1745. The bill was
unanimously approved by the commons. Thurlow, who for some reason,
possibly merely from jealousy of Pitt, adopted a generally malcontent
attitude, spoke against it in the lords, but it passed there also
without a division. Before the end of the year Pitt's success was
declared by the accession to his ministry of old Lord Camden as
president of the council in the place of Lord Gower, who took the office
of privy seal, vacated by the appointment of the Duke of Rutland as
viceroy of Ireland in the previous February. Shelburne, who was deeply
offended by his continued exclusion from office, was created Marquis of
Lansdowne with the promise that, if the king made any dukes outside his
own family, he should be one of the number. He was not appeased by this
promotion, and remained hostile to Pitt, who would have been weakened by
his alliance and lost nothing by his hostility. Temple, who also aspired
to a dukedom, was created Marquis of Buckingham, and was encouraged to
hope that his ambition might in the future be fully satisfied. The
session closed on August 20. Parliament did not meet again until January
25, 1785, and from that time the custom of beginning the regular session
before Christmas has been discontinued.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S PARLIAMENTARY REFORM BILL._]

As Pitt had already twice brought forward motions for parliamentary
reform, in 1782 and 1783, the friends of the cause looked to him to
promote it as head of the ministry. The question was not at that time
exciting much public interest. The king was personally opposed to
reform, and it was not until March, 1785, that Pitt obtained his assent
to the introduction of a bill. He promised the king that if it was
rejected he would not resign, unless "those supposed to be connected
with government" voted against it. George took the hint, and while he
expressed dislike of the bill to Pitt, assured him that he would not use
any influence against it. Pitt did his best to insure the success of his
bill, and even persuaded his friend Wilberforce to return from abroad to
support it. He brought forward his motion on April 18. After defending
himself from the charge of innovation by pointing out that in past ages
changes had frequently been made in the representation, he laid down
that the representation of boroughs should depend not on locality but on
the number of voters. He proposed to disfranchise thirty-six decayed
boroughs, and to add their seventy-two members to the representation of
counties and of London and Westminster. The boroughs were to be
disfranchised at their own request, which was to be obtained by the
purchase of their franchise from a fund provided by the state. In the
future any other borough which was, or became, so decayed as to fall
below a standard fixed by parliament, was to be allowed to surrender its
franchise for an adequate payment, and its right would be transferred to
populous towns. He further proposed to extend the franchise to
copyholders, and in towns to householders.

According to his plan £1,000,000 sterling was to be set aside for
compensation; 100 members would eventually be chosen by free and open
constituencies instead of by individuals or close corporations, and some
99,000 persons would receive the franchise. North spoke ably against the
motion, dwelling on the coldness with which the country regarded the
question; only eight petitions for reform were presented, and none came
from Birmingham or Manchester. Fox opposed it on the ground that the
franchise was a trust, not a property, and that to offer to buy it was
contrary to the spirit of the constitution; and Burke objected to the
alteration which it would make in the representation of interests by
increasing the influence of the country gentlemen. Pitt allowed that the
scheme of purchase was a "tender part"; it was, he said, "a necessary
evil if any reform was to take place". Leave to bring in the bill was
refused by 248 to 174. Pitt had not yet secured an organised majority.
Connexion and influence had not wholly given way to a system of parties
founded on general agreement on political questions. There is no reason
to suppose that the king broke his promise to Pitt, but his dislike of
reform must have been well known, and probably had much weight. Pitt
made no more attempts at parliamentary reform, and for the next seven
years the question was of little importance in English politics.

[Sidenote: _REFORM DEMANDED IN IRELAND._]

The chief conflict of the session was fought over Pitt's scheme for
establishing free-trade with Ireland. An agitation for parliamentary
reform in Ireland brought into prominence a spirit of discontent. The
Irish parliament did not represent even the protestant population; the
house of lords was composed of a large number of bishops, generally
subservient to the crown, and of lay lords, many of them lately ennobled
for political service; the house of commons of 300 members, scarcely a
third of them elected by the people. Flood urged reform on a strictly
protestant basis, and the cause of reform was supported by a convention
of volunteers assembled at Dublin under Lord Charlemont. The Bishop of
Derry, Lord Bristol, a vain and half-crazy prelate, advocated the
admission of catholics to the franchise, and tried to excite the
volunteers, who were then no longer exclusively protestant, and were
recruited from the rabble, to extort reform from parliament by force. He
attended parliament with an escort of volunteers and in regal state, and
appeared in a purple coat and volunteer cap fiercely cocked. His
seditious behaviour, the claim made for the catholics, and the violence
of the democratic party caused a division among the volunteers and among
the advocates of reform generally. Charlemont and Flood himself checked
the violent party in the convention, which was dissolved peacefully.
Flood's motions for reform were rejected, and the volunteer movement
lost political importance. Pitt regarded parliamentary reform in Ireland
as certain if it were adopted in England, and was prepared to welcome
it, but was at that time determined to maintain the exclusion of the
catholics from the franchise. The Irish administration was opposed to a
change of system, and the Duke of Rutland, the viceroy, a young man of
great ability, held that the state of the country would render it
dangerous. The defeat of Flood's last attempt at reform, in 1785, left
the Irish parliament as before without "the smallest resemblance to
representation".[192]

In face of the threatened interference in politics of an armed force, of
discontent and disloyalty, and foreseeing difficulties in the future
between the independent Irish parliament and the imperial government,
Rutland prophesied in 1784 that "without an union Ireland would not be
connected with Great Britain in twenty years longer".[193] Pitt hoped to
pacify discontent by benefiting Irish trade, and to unite the two
countries by a community of interest. His plan, to which he attached
more importance than to Irish reform, though commercial in character,
was based on a lofty political conception; it was designed to promote
"the prosperity of the empire at large".[194] North's concessions to
Ireland in 1779 and the subsequent establishment of Irish legislative
independence left both countries at liberty to regulate each its own
trade. Ireland admitted English goods free or at low duties; and England
shut out most Irish manufactures, though admitting linen, the
manufacture of which was encouraged by a bounty, and, for her own
convenience, woollen yarn free of duty. Ireland, too, though enabled to
trade directly with the English colonies, could neither send their
products to England nor buy them from England. Pitt designed to
establish perpetual free trade between England and Ireland, and as
Ireland would be the gainer by the change, he proposed that in return
she should contribute a fixed sum to the naval defence of the empire.
Rutland, who saw that sending money to England would be violently
opposed, suggested that the contribution should be spent on a portion of
the navy to be kept on the Irish coasts. In words which it is well to
remember, Pitt pointed out that "there can be but one navy for the
empire at large, and it must be administered by the executive in this
country".[195] The resolutions he sent over to be presented to the Irish
parliament provided that the contribution should come from the surplus
which the grant of free trade would create in the hereditary revenue of
the crown, for, as that revenue was chiefly made up of customs and
excise, the payment would be in exact proportion to the benefits
conferred by the change.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S RESOLUTIONS ON IRISH COMMERCE._]

As, however, Ireland had a heavy debt, which was largely due to the
extravagance of government, Grattan insisted that the contribution
should depend on the yearly equalisation of the revenue with the
expenses. The Irish government yielded to his demand, and with that
change the resolutions were carried. Pitt brought them before the
English house of commons on February 22 in a speech of remarkable power.
Fox, who had long been hoping "to make his harvest from Ireland,"[196]
opposed them as injurious to British manufacture. The manufacturers at
once took the alarm; a petition with 80,000 signatures was sent up from
Lancashire against the resolutions, and a "chamber of manufacturers,"
with Wedgwood as president, vigorously protested against them. English
manufactures, it was asserted, would be undersold and ruined by goods
produced by cheap labour in Ireland. After evidence had been heard on
the matter for twelve weeks, Pitt saw that he must modify his scheme. On
May 12 he brought forward a new set of resolutions less generous to
Ireland, and providing that in commercial legislation the Irish
parliament should perpetually be bound by the parliament of Great
Britain. Fox, North, and Sheridan vehemently opposed them, and Fox
denounced the whole plan as an attempt to lure Ireland to surrender her
liberty. "I will not," said he, "barter English commerce for Irish
slavery; that is not the price I would pay, nor is this the thing I
would purchase." Nevertheless after long and warm debates, Pitt
triumphantly carried his resolutions. The speeches of Fox and Sheridan
found a loud echo in the Irish parliament; Grattan, in an impassioned
speech, condemned the new resolutions, and they passed the commons only
by 127 to 108. So strong an expression of adverse feeling forced Pitt to
abandon his scheme. Thus was his wise and hopeful attempt to encourage
Irish trade and strengthen the bond between the two countries wrecked by
the factiousness of the opposition, the selfishness of the manufacturers
in England, and the susceptibility of the Irish liberal party. Fox's
opposition to free trade with Ireland brought him a temporary return of
popularity in the manufacturing districts.

Pitt's command of the house of commons was still uncertain. In February,
1786, he was defeated on a bill for fortifying the dockyards at Plymouth
and Portsmouth. His defeat was largely due to the unpopularity of the
Duke of Richmond, the author of the plan, who had not gained in general
esteem by deserting his former party, and to the old prejudice against
increasing the military power of the crown. Yet it illustrates Pitt's
position at the time. It was a "loose parliament"; the majority voted
every man as he had a mind; Pitt had yet to bind his party together, and
his cold and repellent manners still hindered him from making
friends.[197] His power was strengthened in this session by the general
approval elicited by his bill for the reduction of the national debt by
means of a sinking fund. In forming his plan he received much help from
Price, a nonconformist minister, distinguished as a writer on financial
questions. When introducing his bill he was able to show that the public
revenue would exceed the expenditure by about £900,000, which he
proposed to raise to £1,000,000 by some new taxes not of a burdensome
nature, ample resources existing to meet a temporary excess in naval and
military expenditure caused by the late war. That the revenue would
continue to improve seemed assured by the increase in the customs due to
Pitt's measures against smuggling. Government might reckon on at least
£1,000,000 surplus, and that sum he proposed to make the foundation of
his new sinking fund. Unlike the sinking fund established by Sir Robert
Walpole in 1716, which had from time to time been diverted to other
purposes, his fund was to be kept inviolate in war as well as in peace,
and applied solely to the discharge of debt. To secure this, he proposed
that in every quarter of each succeeding year £250,000 should be paid to
six commissioners of high position, and should be used by them in the
purchase of stock. The interest of such stock, together with the savings
effected by the expiration of annuities, was to be invested periodically
in the same way. The fund thus created would then accumulate at compound
interest and become a sinking fund for the extinction of the national
debt.

The bill passed both houses without a division. The highest expectations
were founded upon it, for people generally, in common with Pitt himself
and Price, regarded the new fund as an infallible means of discharging
the national debt solely by the uninterrupted operation of compound
interest. That the application of surplus revenue to the payment of debt
is sound finance, and that to treat surpluses designed for that purpose
as a separate fund is a convenient arrangement need no demonstration.
There is not, however, anything magical or automatic in the operation of
compound interest, nor can the separation of a sinking fund from general
revenue have any real efficacy. Reduction of national debt, whatever
arrangements may be made for it, can only be effected by taxation.
During the years of peace, when the revenue was in excess of
expenditure, Pitt's sinking fund acted as a convenient mode of reducing
the debt. In 1792 a second fund of 1 per cent. on all loans was
established, and by 1793 the commissioners had reduced the debt by about
£10,000,000. Then came the war with France; the revenue fell short of
the expenditure, and Pitt met the deficiency by large loans raised at
great expense. Yet in order to preserve the benefit which, it was
believed, was derived from the uninterrupted operation of compound
interest, the payments to the sinking fund were regularly continued, so
that the state was actually borrowing money at a high rate of interest
in order to reduce a debt at a low rate of interest. No member of the
opposition saw the fallacy involved in Pitt's scheme. He is said,
probably with truth, to have himself discovered it later, but he
maintained the fund, which was useful as a means of keeping the duty of
reduction of debt before the nation and of helping it to face with
hopefulness the rapid accumulation of debt during the war with France.

[Sidenote: _COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE._]

In 1787 Pitt laid before parliament a treaty of navigation and commerce
with France. The treaty of Versailles in 1783 provided that
commissioners should be appointed to make commercial arrangements
between the two countries. The French cabinet invited Shelburne to
proceed in the matter, and he was about to do so when he was driven from
office. Fox was opposed to a treaty. Pitt appointed a commissioner in
April, 1784, but nothing further was done. It was a critical matter, for
a commercial treaty with France was certain to give some offence at
home, and Pitt may for that reason alone have been willing to delay
action until his position was more secure. In 1785 the French council of
state, irritated by the large influx of British manufactures which were
smuggled into France, issued _arrêts_ restraining trade with Great
Britain. Pitt was too wise to retaliate. His opportunity had come, and
he entrusted the negotiations to Eden, who deserted the opposition and
accepted a seat on the new board of trade. Eden had a thorough knowledge
of commercial affairs, and carried out his mission as envoy to the
French court with great success.[198] The treaty, signed on September
26, 1786, reduced the duties on many of the principal articles of
commerce of both countries, and put others not specified on the
most-favoured-nation footing. A large and easily accessible market was
opened to British commerce, and, as the exports of France were for the
most part not produced in England and the French were in want of
British products, both countries would, Pitt argued, be gainers by an
increase in the freedom of their trade one with the other, and political
ill-feeling would be diminished by more intimate and mutually profitable
relations. The navigation clauses showed as liberal a spirit as the
commercial; an enemy's goods carried in the ships of either country were
to be held free by the other, except contraband of war, which was
limited to warlike implements and was not to include naval stores.

The treaty favoured the interests of the consumer, and was contrary to
the economic principles of the whigs, who maintained that commerce
should be regulated so as to promote home industry. Fox strongly
objected to it in parliament, mainly on the ground that France was "the
natural foe of Great Britain," and that any close connexion with her was
dangerous. Sheridan and Charles Grey, afterwards the second Earl Grey,
in his maiden speech joined him in condemning the treaty, but it was
approved of by large majorities. Though it caused some temporary
displeasure among the manufacturers, it was followed by a large increase
of trade with France. Among Pitt's achievements as minister in time of
peace none deserves to be ranked higher than this treaty, whether
regarded in its details, or as a monument of his enlightened commercial
policy, or as illustrating his statesmanlike view of the relations which
it was desirable to establish between the two countries. His credit was
further strengthened in the same session by his bill for the
consolidation of the customs and excise. The customs duties, fixed from
time to time, some on one system and some on another, were so complex
that no one could be sure what he might be required to pay, and
merchants often depended on the custom-house officers to tell them the
amount due on goods. The excise, though in a less confused state, was
also in urgent need of regulation. Pitt abolished the whole mass of
existing duties with their percentages and drawbacks, and put a single
duty on each article as nearly as possible of the same amount as before.
These duties and all other taxes he brought into a consolidated fund on
which all public debts were secured. Simple as this change appears, it
involved about 3,000 resolutions. While it only slightly increased the
revenue, it was a great benefit to merchants, it simplified the work in
public offices, prevented officials from abusing their power, and
enabled Pitt to get rid of a large number of custom-house sinecures,
and so at once to effect an economy and dry up a source of corruption.
The bill received a warm welcome from Burke, and was passed without a
division.

[Sidenote: _BILL FOR RELIEF OF DISSENTERS._]

Pitt's position in the commons was not yet one of command. In 1788 his
party, those who recognised him as their leader, was said to number only
52, while Fox's party, the regular opposition, was estimated at 138; the
"crown party" which might be reckoned on to uphold the government for
the time being "under any minister not peculiarly unpopular," consisted
of 185, and the rest were "independent" members, whose votes were
uncertain. Pitt then had to walk warily. His practical temperament was
in his favour. That the country should be well governed, and that it
should be governed by himself, which was the same thing to him, as it is
probably to all great ministers, was the object of his life. Compared
with that, special questions were of small importance. There was nothing
doctrinaire in his turn of mind; the abstract righteousness of a cause
did not appeal to him, and could not divert him from the pursuit of his
main object. In 1787 a bill for the relief of dissenters by the repeal
of the test and corporation acts of the reign of Charles II. was brought
in by Beaufoy, a supporter of the government. In reality the dissenters
suffered very little from these acts, for they were relieved by annual
acts of indemnity. Yet their grievance was not wholly sentimental, and,
even had it been so, it would still have been a grievance. The
opposition was divided; North opposed the bill, Fox warmly advocated it.
Pitt consulted the bishops. All save two were against it. He valued the
support of the Church, and declared himself against the bill, which was
rejected by a majority of 78. In 1789 the majority against it sank to
22. Yet Pitt was thoroughly high-principled. As we shall see later in
the case of Hastings, he would not be false to his convictions, and if
he judged that a cause was worth maintaining, even at the cost of
weakening his own position, he did not shrink from his duty. This is
proved by his conduct with reference to the slave trade.

The cruelties attendant on the trade were forcibly represented by a
society for procuring its abolition, founded in 1787, mainly by quakers,
of which Granville Sharp and Clarkson were prominent members.
Wilberforce's sympathy was already aroused by reports of the sufferings
of the negroes in the slave-ships. Pitt advised him to undertake the
question in parliament, and as a preliminary agreed to the appointment
of a committee to inquire into the methods of the trade. The merchants
of London, Lancashire, and Bristol were indignant at the threatened
interference, and efforts were made to conceal the truth. Nevertheless
the abominable cruelties to which the slaves were subjected during the
middle passage were clearly proved. Chained to their places, fettered
and fastened together, they were packed so closely on the lower decks
and in stifling holds that they could scarcely turn, they were kept
short of food and water, and were exercised to keep them alive by being
forced under pain of the lash to jump in their fetters. While
Wilberforce was ill in 1788, Pitt gave notice of a motion on the trade,
and supported a bill moved by Sir William Dolben which mitigated the
sufferings of the negroes during the passage. In 1789 Wilberforce in a
long and eloquent speech moved resolutions for the abolition of the
trade, and Pitt, Fox, who was always quick to feel for human suffering,
and Burke joined in supporting him. Pitt's conduct on this question
displeased many of his followers. The interests concerned in the trade
were powerful, and for a time the question was virtually shelved.

[Sidenote: _AUSTRIA AND THE UNITED PROVINCES._]

The peace of Versailles left England isolated. The new government was to
show that she was able and ready to reassert her right to exercise an
influence in Europe. The political situation presented three alliances,
of France and Austria, Austria and Russia, France and Spain, and opposed
to them two isolated powers, England and Prussia. None of these
alliances directly threatened England, yet there were elements of danger
in the two first. After the death of Maria Theresa, in 1780, her son
Joseph II. changed the general direction of Austria's policy. He was
restless and full of great schemes which he looked to Russia rather than
France to support. The growth of Russian power under Catherine had
changed the political state of Europe. The treaty of Kutchuk Kainardji,
in 1774, at the close of a successful war against the Turks, saw Russia
strongly established on the Black Sea; the partition of Poland augmented
her preponderance in the north: and in 1780 England found that her
maritime interests were threatened by a power seated both on the Baltic
and close to the Mediterranean. Catherine welcomed the overtures of
Joseph, for she contemplated further conquests from the Turks, and the
good-will of Austria was important to her. Of these two allied powers
Austria was the more dangerous to England and Prussia. Russia had
already gained much, Austria was hoping for gain; Catherine was looking
mainly to extension in eastern, Joseph's ambitions tended to disturb the
balance of power in western and central Europe. France was impoverished;
she desired peace and was anxious to restrain the emperor's ambition,
and Spain could do nothing without her. A quadruple alliance, then,
between the two imperial courts and France and Spain was impossible. The
late war had raised the Bourbon influence in Europe. England was unable
to detach Austria from France, and to form an alliance, as Carmarthen
wished, with the two imperial courts; and she was, as we shall see, led
by a conflict in Holland to enter into an agreement with Prussia which
had important results.

Her foreign policy between 1784 and 1788 was chiefly concerned with the
affairs of the United Provinces. Anxious to remove the restrictions
imposed by treaties on the Austrian Netherlands, Joseph set aside the
Barrier treaty of 1715, designed to check French aggression; and the
Dutch withdrew their garrisons from the border fortresses. He pressed
other claims upon them, relying on their weakness, for they paid dearly
for provoking a war with England; and he demanded that the Scheldt,
which was closed by the treaty of 1648, should be open to navigation.
His claim concerned England, for though Austria could never become a
great naval power even if Antwerp had access to the sea, the ports of
the Netherlands and, indeed, of the United Provinces might fall under
the control of some strong maritime state, such as France or Russia.
Joseph's demand was backed by a recommendation from the Russian empress.
He sent ships to sail up and down the river, and they were forcibly
stopped by the Dutch. War seemed imminent. France, however, was then
gaining great influence in Holland, and though she compelled the Dutch
to assent to some of the emperor's demands, she upheld their refusal
with regard to the Scheldt, and negotiated a treaty concluded at
Fontainebleau in November, 1785, between the emperor and the republic,
by which Joseph renounced his demand for the opening of the river.

[Sidenote: _FRENCH INFLUENCE IN HOLLAND._]

He was already occupied in renewing a scheme, which had been defeated in
1778, for exchanging his Netherland provinces for Bavaria. This project
was highly prejudicial to Prussian interests in Germany; and Frederick
of Prussia baulked it by forming a Fürstenbund, or alliance of princes,
to maintain the integrity of the Germanic constitution. In February,
1785, he invited King George as Elector of Hanover to join in this
projected alliance. George willingly assented, for the alliance was
beneficial to Hanover; and in a letter to his Hanoverian minister he
expressed the hope that his assent would lead to an understanding
between England and Prussia. This was merely an expression of his
private feelings; the Fürstenbund was not a matter of English politics
and did not, in fact, bring about an Anglo-Prussian alliance.[199] Such
an alliance was highly desirable for England as a means of defeating the
intrigues of France in the United Provinces. The more republican or
"patriot" party in Holland, which had led the states to break their
ancient friendly relations with England, was completely under French
influence, and, relying on the support of France, designed to compel the
stadholder, William V. of Orange, a feeble and irresolute prince, to
resign his office. Their victory would have made the republic virtually
a French province, and would have brought France a great accession of
naval power. Sir James Harris, the British ambassador at the Hague,
laboured to counteract their designs by encouraging the party in the
republic opposed to the policy of Holland. The stadholder's wife, a
princess of high spirit, was a niece of Frederick the Great, and Harris
was anxious for an alliance between England and Prussia as a means of
overthrowing the French party. Ewart, the ambassador at Berlin, shared
his views, but the ambassadors were held back by Carmarthen. The
cabinet, Harris declared, was wholly occupied by domestic matters.[200]

In May, 1785, it was evident that Austria was in accord with France, and
the cabinet inquired what Frederick's intentions were, hoping that his
desire that England would join in preventing the Bavarian exchange would
induce him to oppose the ambitious designs of France, and to form a
union of defence.[201] Frederick spoke freely to Ewart with reference
to the Bavarian exchange, but would promise nothing as regards
Holland.[202] The cabinet then made proposals to Catherine on the basis
of her detaching Austria from France, and the formation of a triple
alliance between England and the two imperial courts for the maintenance
of peace.[203] Catherine replied that she would only agree on condition
that England would not assent to the Fürstenbund, which was a menace to
her Austrian ally. Her demand was peremptory and threatening. George
stood firm. The Fürstenbund, he wrote to Pitt, concerned his "electoral
capacity," it was a matter of Hanoverian, not of English, politics; he
had already ratified it, and would not retreat.[204] A communication
from the Prussian ambassador led the cabinet in September to send Lord
Cornwallis to Frederick to ascertain his intentions. Frederick declared
that the agreement between himself and England to check France would
mean a general war in which England would have to meet the fleets of
France, Spain, Holland, and perhaps Russia; and he would have on his
hands the armies of France, Austria, and Russia; and that "though such a
contest had been maintained, it was not a game to play often".[205] He
was old and ill, and would not interfere. The action of France in
negotiating the treaty of Fontainebleau strengthened the French party in
Holland; the stadholder was forced to quit the Hague, but was supported
by some of the other provinces. Frederick the Great died on August 17,
1786. The fortunes of the Orange party were at low ebb. France supplied
the patriots with money; free corps were acting on their side; the
stadholder was suspended from his office, and French agents advocated
its abolition. It seemed as though Holland would become mistress of the
Dutch republic and France the ruler of Holland.

[Sidenote: _THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE._]

The new Prussian king, Frederick William II., the brother of the
Princess of Orange, deserted the purely German policy of Frederick for
a more extended European policy. He did not, however, at once interfere
in the affairs of Holland, for there was a strong French party at his
court. Harris needed money to support the stadholder's cause, and
Carmarthen proposed a subvention of £1,200 a year. George was anxious
not to be drawn into another war, and said that as his family was
growing expensive the money could not be spared from the civil
list.[206] In May, 1787, the cabinet decided to put £20,000 at Harris's
disposal. Matters came to a crisis in June. As the princess was on her
way to the Hague she was arrested and turned back by a free corps.
Frederick William demanded that satisfaction should be made for this
insult, and as the states of Holland, relying on French support, refused
his demand, he entered into a secret convention with England to restore
the stadholder, the two powers agreeing, Prussia to send an army into
Holland and England to prepare forty ships of the line to support it. A
Prussian army under the Duke of Brunswick crossed the frontier and met
with little resistance. Amsterdam surrendered on October 10, and the
stadholder was restored. Meanwhile Montmorin, the French foreign
minister, declared that his court would support the Dutch. Pitt, who was
then personally directing foreign affairs, decided, with the full
approval of the king, that if the French court would not agree to the
restoration war was inevitable.[207] A treaty was made with the
Landgrave of Hesse Cassel for the hire of troops, and the naval and
military forces were augmented. On the 27th France definitely renounced
her design of intervention, and on Pitt's demand the French navy was
reduced to a peace-footing. The designs of France, which were fraught
with danger to English interests, were defeated, and the party in
Holland favourable to alliance with England was secured in power. Though
the Fürstenbund, a purely German system directed against Austrian
ambition, failed to bring about an Anglo-Prussian alliance, the change
in Prussian policy and, as an immediate cause, the insult to the
Prussian king's sister, brought England and Prussia into active
co-operation against the attempt of France to become mistress of the
United Provinces, and in 1788 led to the formation of a triple alliance
for mutual defence and the maintenance of peace between England,
Prussia, and the republic which changed the political situation. England
was no longer isolated; she was restored to her position of influence in
the affairs of Europe. Harris was created Baron Malmesbury as a reward
for his services at the Hague.

FOOTNOTES:

[186] George III. to Pitt, March 30, 1790, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.

[187] May, _Constitutional History_, i., 277-80, 321.

[188] George III. to Pitt, April 13 and May 1, 1784, MS. Pitt Papers,
103.

[189] George III. to Pitt, March 4, 1785, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted
in Stanhope's _Life of Pitt_, i., App. xv.

[190] Pulteney to Rutland, Feb. 10, 1785, _Hist. MSS. Comm., Rutland
Papers_, iii., 177-78; Earl of Rosebery, _Pitt_, pp. 64-66.

[191] _Parl. Paper, Accounts_, xxxiii. (July, 1858).

[192] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, _Correspondence of Pitt and
Rutland_, p. 17; see also pp. 76-79.

[193] _Ibid._, p. 19.

[194] _Parl. Hist._, xxv., 586.

[195] Pitt to Rutland, Jan. 6, 1785, _Corr._, p. 73.

[196] Rutland to Pitt, June 16, 1784, _Corr._, p. 22.

[197] Pitt to Rutland, May 21, 1785, _Corr._, p. 105; Stanhope, _Life of
Pitt_, i., 275, 288-89.

[198] Count de Butenval in his _Précis du Traité de Commerce_, 1786,
endeavours to prove that in the initiation of negotiations Pitt was
acting in obedience to the will of Vergennes.

[199] F. Salomon, "England und der deutsche Fürstenbund," _Historische
Vierteljahrsschrift_, 1903, ii., 221-42.

[200] Malmesbury, _Corr._, ii., 102-6, 112-15, 116-18.

[201] Carmarthen to Ewart, May 14, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.; _Political
Memoirs of the Duke of Leeds_, pp. 111-13; Salomon, _u.s._, pp. 231-33.

[202] Ewart to Carmarthen, May 26, 1785, MS. Prussia, R.O.

[203] Carmarthen to Fitzherbert, June 23, MS. Russia, Supplementary,
R.O.

[204] George III. to Pitt, August 7 and 10, 1785, with Woronzow's
(Vorontsov) statement, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, partially copied in
Stanhope's _Life of Pitt_, i., App. xviii.

[205] Cornwallis, _Corr._, i., 199-211.

[206] George III. to Pitt, Sept. 22, 1786, and Jan. 8, 1787, MS. Pitt
Papers, 103.

[207] Pitt to Eden, Sept. 14, 1787, _Auckland Corr._, i., 194-96; George
III. to Pitt, Sept. 16, MS. Pitt Papers, 103.




                               CHAPTER XV.

                          THE REGENCY QUESTION.


The affairs of India, which played so large a part in raising Pitt to
power, brought him a question fraught with embarrassment. Annoyed by
reproofs sent out by the directors, and harassed by opposition in his
council, by the independent attitude of the Madras government, and by
difficulties arising from the conduct of officials both at Benares and
Lucknow, Hastings in 1783 declared his intention of resigning office.
His hope that the cabinet would request him to remain with extended
powers was crushed by the speech with which Pitt introduced his India
bill, and he left India in February, 1785, esteemed and honoured by the
natives of all classes in the Bengal government. His wife came to
England a year earlier, and though her conduct before her marriage with
Hastings would have debarred other ladies from appearing at so strictly
moral a court, she was received at St. James's, and the queen accepted
presents from her. On the return of Hastings the directors thanked him
for his eminent services, the king was gracious to him, the chancellor,
Thurlow, who was in the royal confidence, was loud in his praise, and
society generally smiled upon him. Pitt was cold; there was much in his
conduct which needed defence. Preparations for an attack upon him were
steadily pursued. Burke found a useful ally in Francis, who gratified
his spite by giving him information to be used against his former
antagonist. Fox and the opposition as a party adopted Burke's case. It
was believed that Pitt would stand by Hastings in order to please the
king. If he did so, they could represent him as shielding a criminal; if
he joined in bringing him to trial, he would incur the risk of offending
the king and alienating many of the supporters of the government.

[Sidenote: _CHARGES AGAINST HASTINGS._]

During 1785 Burke went on accumulating facts which were distorted by his
fervent imagination. The delay of the attack encouraged the friends of
Hastings, and on the first day of the session of 1786 his parliamentary
agent, Major Scott, an ill-advised person, challenged Burke to fulfil a
pledge made the year before that he would bring charges against him. In
February Burke announced that he would propose to impeach Hastings
before the lords, and in April exhibited charges against him. Pitt
insisted that a copy of them should be delivered to Hastings, and that
he should be heard in his defence before the house voted upon them. Fox
and Burke, who on every check to their proceedings accused the
government of a design to screen Hastings, declared with much heat that
Pitt's proposal was intended to quash the accusation. The house,
however, determined to hear Hastings, and he read his defence, which
occupied two days and wearied his audience with a number of unfamiliar
details. On June 1 Burke moved the first charge, which related to the
Rohillá war, and was ably supported by Fox. Pitt took no part in
discussing the main subject of the debate. Dundas, the most prominent
member of the India board, though condemning Hastings's conduct, refused
to consider the war as affording ground for a criminal charge; and said
that, as an act of parliament had subsequently reappointed Hastings as
governor-general, the house had condoned his previous conduct; and he
spoke of Hastings as "the saviour of India". The house rejected the
charge by 119 to 67.

The second charge, with reference to the treatment of the rájá of
Benares, was moved by Fox with all his wonted ability. A treasury note
invited the supporters of the government to vote against the motion. To
the astonishment of all, and to the consternation of his supporters,
Pitt announced that he agreed to the charge; he sharply criticised the
misrepresentation of Hastings's opponents, and conclusively maintained
that the rájá was bound to furnish the troops and money demanded of him,
but he considered the fine imposed on him "exorbitant, unjust, and
tyrannical". Many of the government party voted against him, but about
fifty followed his lead and the charge was accepted by 119 to 79. The
next day Hastings attended the court on the presentation of a
magnificent diamond sent by the nizám to the king, whose acceptance of
the present gave rise to much ill-natured comment. Various motives have
been suggested for Pitt's decision. None appear adequate save the most
obvious and honourable one, that he acted in accordance with his
conscience. Though his decision took the house by surprise, he clearly
defined his attitude four months before: "he was neither a determined
friend or foe to Mr. Hastings, and was resolved to support the
principles of justice and equity".[208] He did not read the papers
relating to Benares until the eve of the debate, and then, Dundas says,
after reading them along with Hastings's defence, Pitt and he agreed
that they could not resist the charge. The king in a friendly note gave
Pitt credit for acting conscientiously, adding that for his part he did
not think it possible in India "to carry on publick business with the
same moderation that is suitable to an European civilized nation".[209]
George was an eminently sensible man. There was no split between him and
his minister.

In February, 1787, Sheridan brought forward the third charge, relating
to the treatment of the begams of Oudh in a speech held by all who heard
it to be a marvellous display of oratory. He described Hastings as "by
turns a Dionysius and a Scapin," a tyrant and a trickster, with a mind
in which "all was shuffling, ambiguous, dark, insidious, and
little".[210] Indeed throughout the proceedings against Hastings his
accusers constantly disregarded moderation and even decency of language.
The third charge and other articles having been accepted by the commons,
Burke, on May 11, impeached Hastings of high crimes and misdemeanours.
An attempt was also made to bring an impeachment against Sir Elijah
Impey, lately chief-justice of Bengal, on the ground of the execution of
Nanda-Kumár and on other charges, but the commons, having heard his
defence, refused to agree to the articles. The trial of Warren Hastings
before the lords was opened in Westminster hall on February 13, 1788,
with circumstances of dignity and splendour worthy of so great an
occasion. Burke's speech on the case for the prosecution lasted for four
days; it remains a magnificent specimen of rhetoric, though its vehement
denunciations founded on occurrences in which the accused was not
directly concerned, and its attempts to create prejudice were not likely
to affect the opinions of men conscious of their responsibility as
judges. The court sat during that session of parliament for thirty-five,
and in 1789 for seventeen days. It became evident that the trial would
last a long time and public interest in it soon flagged.

[Sidenote: _CORNWALLIS GOVERNOR-GENERAL._]

Cornwallis was chosen by Pitt in 1786 as governor-general of India under
the new act, and assumed the government in 1788. Unfettered by his
council, he was in a far better position than Hastings, and, in spite of
many difficulties arising from abuses of long standing, he effected
numerous reforms both in the civil and military services of the company
during the first three years of his administration. Meanwhile Tipú,
encouraged by his success in the late war and by the negligence of the
Madras government, was preparing for another attempt to drive the
English out of the Karnatic. He attacked their ally, the rájá of
Travancore, in 1789. Cornwallis secured the alliance of the nizám and
the Maráthás in 1790, and General Medows, the new governor of Madras,
successfully invaded Mysore. As, however, no further progress was made,
Cornwallis assumed the command; he carried Bangalore by storm in March,
1791, and having obtained the active co-operation of the nizám and the
Maráthás, laid siege to Seringapatam in 1792, and compelled Tipú to
submit to a peace by which he surrendered half his dominions, engaged to
pay a sum equal to £3,600,000, and gave two of his sons as hostages. The
surrendered territory was divided between the peishwá and the nizám.
Tipú's power was effectually broken, and the way was prepared for his
final overthrow seven years later. Cornwallis was created a marquis as a
reward for his splendid services, and resigned his office in 1793.

Though the government escaped the dangers in which the impeachment of
Hastings threatened to involve it, a new question relating to India
brought it into some peril. When, in October, 1787, war seemed likely to
arise out of the intervention of England in the affairs of the Dutch
republic, the India board sent four regiments to India, a measure of
precaution which met with the full approval of the directors. The
storm-clouds dispersed, and then the directors objected to pay the
expense. Pitt held that the company was bound by the act of 1784 to pay
for the transport and maintenance of any troops which the board judged
to be necessary for the defence of the British possessions in India, and
brought in a declaratory bill to that effect in February, 1788. The
opposition was supported by the influence of the company, and made a
vigorous resistance. Fox, whose downfall as minister had followed his
attack on the company, appeared as a champion of its claims. The
directors were heard by their counsel, one of whom, Erskine, afterwards
lord chancellor, a strong whig, made a violent attack on Pitt. On the
other side, Scott, also (as Lord Eldon) a future chancellor, contended
as a member of the house that the bill was a true exposition of the act.
The debate on the committal lasted till 7 A.M. Pitt had drunk heavily
with Dundas the night before, and was too unwell towards the end of the
debate to reply to his opponents. His majority of 57 was considered
unsatisfactory, and so many of the regular supporters of government were
adverse or lukewarm that an ultimate defeat was thought probable. With
great tact he two days later adopted some amendments which met the chief
arguments of the opposition without injuring the principle of the
bill.[211] The danger was over, and the bill finally passed both houses.
A severer conflict and a more signal triumph were at hand.

The retirement of the aged chief-justice, Lord Mansfield, in the June of
that year, was followed by some legal appointments, which included those
of Pitt's personal friend, Pepper Arden, as master of the rolls, and
Scott as solicitor-general. Thurlow, who was annoyed by Pitt's assent to
the impeachment of Hastings, strongly objected to Arden's appointment.
The king tried to make peace between him and Pitt. Thurlow was forced to
yield, and remained sulky and hostile. About the same time Howe, the
first lord of the admiralty, who was constantly attacked with reference
to matters which arose out of the reduction of the navy consequent on
the peace, resigned office, because he considered that Pitt did not
afford him adequate support. He was created an English earl on his
retirement. In his place Pitt put his own elder brother Chatham, a
favourite with the king, but, as it proved, an indolent and inefficient
minister, and also appointed Hood to a seat on the new admiralty board.

[Sidenote: _AFFAIRS OF THE PRINCE OF WALES._]

For the most part things were going well with the king. He rejoiced in
the successes of his ministers, and his victory over the coalition
brought him popularity such as he had not enjoyed since his accession.
His popularity was heightened by an attempt to stab him made by an
insane woman named Margaret Nicholson on August 2, 1786. The poor woman
was sent to Bedlam. George, who behaved with the utmost calmness,
escaped unhurt, and the manifestations of loyalty evoked by the incident
deeply gratified him. He was, however, much troubled by the ill conduct
of the Prince of Wales. The prince drank, gambled, betted, and was
addicted to debauchery; he showed no sense of honour in his dealings
either with men or women, was thoroughly mean and selfish, and consorted
with low companions. He was outrageously extravagant, and, in addition
to the large sums lavished on his ordinary expenses, incurred enormous
liabilities in altering and decorating his residence, Carlton house. The
arrangement of his affairs in 1783 was not on a scale sufficient to meet
his expenditure. By August, 1784, he was so deeply in debt that he
informed his father that he intended to leave England and live abroad.
George insisted that he should give up this scheme, which would have
implied a public breach, and said that if he expected help he should
send him a full statement of his debts and some assurance that he would
keep within his income in the future. The prince was unwilling to send
details of his debts, and when Sir James Harris tried to persuade him to
please his father by ceasing to identify himself with the opposition and
by marrying, declared that he could not give up "Charles" [Fox] and his
other friends, and that he would never marry. When at last he sent his
father the required statement, it showed liabilities amounting to
£269,000, of which £79,700 was for completing the work at Carlton house.
George was very angry, and the prince finding that his father would not
help him stopped the work, dismissed his court officers, and sold his
stud. There was an open quarrel between the father and son. "The king
hates me," the prince said, and he did not consider how grievously he
had provoked his father.[212]

His friends wished to obtain the payment of his debts from parliament,
but were embarrassed by the report that he was secretly married to Mrs.
Fitzherbert, a beautiful and virtuous lady, six years older than
himself, who at twenty-seven was left a widow for the second time. After
repeated solicitations, unmanly exhibitions of despair, and a pretended
attempt at suicide, he had persuaded her to accept his offer of
marriage, and they were married privately before witnesses by a
clergyman of the established Church on December 21, 1785. This was a
most serious matter, for Mrs. Fitzherbert was a Roman catholic, and the
act of settlement provided that marriage with a papist constituted an
incapacity to inherit the crown, while on the other hand the royal
marriage act of 1772 rendered the prince's marriage invalid. In April,
1787, his friends in the house of commons took steps towards seeking the
payment of his debts from the house. Pitt refused to move in the matter
without the king's commands, and, notice of a motion for an address to
the crown on the subject having been given, declared that he would meet
it with "an absolute negative". In the course of debate, Rolle, a member
for Devonshire, alluded to the reported marriage as a matter of danger
to the Church and state. Fox explicitly denied the truth of the report,
and on being pressed declared that he spoke from "direct authority".
There is no doubt that he did so, and that the prince lied. Mrs.
Fitzherbert was cruelly wounded, and in order to satisfy her the prince
asked Grey to say something in the house which would convey the
impression that Fox had gone too far. Grey peremptorily refused to throw
a doubt on Fox's veracity, and the prince had to employ a meaner
instrument: "Sheridan must say something". Accordingly, Sheridan in a
speech in the house, while not insinuating that Fox had spoken without
the prince's authority, "uttered some unintelligible sentimental trash
about female delicacy".[213] Fox was indignant at the way in which the
prince had treated him, and is said to have refused to speak to him for
more than a year; but he evidently did not consider the prince's conduct
such as ought to prevent him from again acting with him, and in about a
year they appear to have been as friendly as before.

The denial of the prince's marriage was generally accepted. Pitt saw
that there was a strong feeling that he ought to be relieved from his
difficulties, and determined to anticipate a motion to that effect. He
and Dundas arranged terms between the father and son. George agreed that
the prince should receive an addition to his income of £10,000 a year
from the civil list, and that a royal message should be sent to the
commons requesting the payment of his debts; and he demanded that the
prince should promise not to get into debt again. The promise was given,
and a reference to it was inserted in the king's message. The commons,
without a division, voted £161,000 for the payment of the debts and
£20,000 for the completion of Carlton house. The father and son were
reconciled, and appeared together in public. In spite of his
protestations the prince did not amend his conduct. Early in 1788 he
still took an active part with the opposition, and set up a gambling
club, where he lost heavily. His example was followed by his younger
brother Frederick, Duke of York. The duke, then a lieutenant-general,
after receiving a military education in Germany, returned home in 1787,
and lived a very fast life with so little regard to decency that "his
company was thought _mauvais ton_".[214]

[Sidenote: _THE KING'S INSANITY._]

On November 5, 1788, the king, who for some time had been in bad health,
became decidedly insane. At first it was believed that his life was in
immediate danger, and that, even if he was spared, he would not recover
his reason. The Prince of Wales stayed at Windsor, and assumed charge of
the king's person, and it was universally recognised that he must be
regent. Whether the king died or remained insane, Pitt's dismissal
seemed certain, for not only was the prince closely allied with the
opposition, but he was deeply offended at the line Pitt had taken with
reference to his debts. The hopes of the opposition ran high. Fox, who
was travelling in Italy with his mistress, Mrs. Armistead, was sent for
in hot haste. In his absence Sheridan, whose convivial habits made him
acceptable to the prince, busied himself with the affairs of the party.
If they came into power Loughborough had an undoubted claim to the
chancellorship. Thurlow, however, was ready to betray his colleagues if
he were assured that he should retain his office. The prince and
Sheridan arranged that he should have his price, and he secretly joined
them. From the first Pitt decided on his course; the prince must be
appointed regent by act of parliament, with such limitations as would
secure the king, should he recover, from being hampered in the exercise
of his rights.[215] For himself, embarrassed as his private affairs
were, he looked forward calmly to the loss of office, and determined to
practise as a barrister. According to the last prorogation, parliament
was to meet on the 20th. The king's insanity rendered a further
prorogation impossible; parliament met, and Pitt procured an adjournment
until December 4, to see how it would go with the king.

Meanwhile Fox returned home and unwillingly agreed to the arrangement
with Thurlow. The chancellor's colleagues were convinced that he
betrayed their counsels, and one day when the cabinet met at Windsor,
the fact that he had first had a private interview with the prince was
disclosed through the loss of his hat; "I suppose," he growled, "I left
it in the other place," the prince's apartment.[216] Pitt wisely took no
notice of his treachery. On the 3rd the king's physicians were examined
by the privy council; they stated that he was mentally incapable, that
they believed that his illness was curable, and that they could not say
how long it might continue. The opposition was anxious to make the worst
of matters, for if the illness was likely to be a long one, it would be
difficult to refuse the regent full powers. Accordingly, on the 4th, Fox
urged that the physicians should be examined by a committee of the
house. Pitt assented readily, for a new physician had been called in who
took a favourable view of the case. This was Willis, a clergyman, who
had become a doctor, and was a specialist in insanity; he took chief
charge of the king, who was removed to Kew, pursued a new line of
treatment, prohibited irritating restraints, and controlled him by
establishing influence over him. He told the committee that he had found
that such cases lasted on an average five months, and at worst about
eighteen; the other doctors, though less hopeful, held that ultimate
recovery was probable. The ministers were ready to proceed, and
reckoned that another month would see the prince appointed regent, and
that their own dismissal would follow at once.[217]

[Sidenote: _FOX ASSERTS THE PRINCE'S RIGHT._]

On the 10th Pitt moved for a committee to search for precedents. Fox
objected; it was not for parliament, he maintained, to consider who
should be regent; the Prince of Wales had a clear right to the regency,
and parliament was only qualified to decide when he should exercise his
right. When Pitt heard the authority of parliament thus called in
question, he is said to have slapped his leg and to have exultantly
exclaimed to the minister sitting beside him, "I'll unwhig the gentleman
for the rest of his life!" He declared that Fox's doctrine was in the
highest degree unconstitutional, and that no part of the royal authority
could belong to the prince unless it was conferred on him by parliament;
the question, he told the house, concerned its right of deliberation.
Fox saw his mistake, and two days later stated that the prince put
forward no claim of right; both sides agreed that he must be regent and
that before he assumed the office he must be invited to do so by
parliament; his right was an abstract question upon which it was no use
to argue. Pitt was too good a tactician to allow him to minimise the
point at issue; he denied "that the prince had any right whatever". The
difference between an irresistible claim, which Pitt acknowledged, and
an inherent right was not one merely of words; if the prince could claim
the regency as of right, parliament could not restrict his power without
his consent. The effect of Fox's false move was heightened by the folly
of Sheridan who raised a storm of indignation by a threat of the danger
of provoking the prince to assert his claim. Once again Fox made Pitt
the champion of the king and the nation against the pretensions of a
whig faction. The character of the struggle was understood, and bills
were posted with the heading: "Fox for the prince's prerogative," and
"Pitt for the privilege of parliament and the liberties of the nation".
Yet in both houses several supporters of the government ratted, for the
prince seemed the rising sun, and he and the Duke of York openly
canvassed on Fox's side.

Nevertheless the commons approved Pitt's resolutions to the effect that,
as the personal exercise of the royal authority was interrupted, it was
the duty of the two houses to supply the defect, and that it was
necessary to determine on means by which the royal assent might be given
to bills for that purpose. None of the precedents adduced by the
committee met the present case. Fox argued that to appoint a regent by a
law was to treat the monarchy as elective, and that the two houses had
no legislative power independently of the crown; and assuming that he
was about to re-enter on office taunted the ministers with a design to
weaken their successors by limiting the powers of the regent. The
ministerial majority was 268 to 204. Pitt proposed to provide for the
royal assent by placing the great seal in a commission with authority to
affix it to the bill. This daring fiction, the only means by which a
regency could be established by enactment, was approved by 251 to 178.
On this question, and throughout the whole course of the struggle, Burke
spoke with a violence and impropriety which injured his party and
suggested a disordered mind. He called Pitt the prince's competitor,
referred to the chancellor as Priapus and as "a man with a large black
brow and a big wig," and later disgusted the house by speaking of the
king as "hurled from his throne" by the Almighty. In the lords the
proceedings followed the same lines as in the commons. Willis's account
of the king convinced Thurlow that he was playing a wrong game, and when
the question of the prince's right was discussed in the lords' he spoke
strongly on the government side. Several members of the lower house were
present to hear him. He referred to the favours he had received from the
king, "When I forget them," he said, "may God forget me!" "Forget you!"
said Wilkes with exquisite wit, "He will see you damned first." "The
best thing that can happen to you," said Burke. Pitt left the house
exclaiming, "Oh, the rascal!" On the 25th Thurlow formally severed his
connexion with Fox. After a warm debate the ministerial resolutions were
affirmed by the lords by 99 to 66.

[Sidenote: _RESTRICTIONS ON THE REGENT'S POWER._]

The restrictions which the cabinet proposed to place on the power of the
regent were laid before the prince. He was to be debarred from
conferring peerages except on the king's issue of full age; from
granting reversions or any office or pension except during pleasure, and
from disposing of the king's property; and the charge of the king's
person and the management of the household were to be in the queen's
hands. These restrictions were based on the idea that the king would
speedily recover; if his illness was prolonged they were to be open to
revision by parliament. The prince promised to accept the regency, and
stated his objections to the restrictions. The existence of the
government seemed drawing to an end. Pitt was extremely popular, and the
London merchants, expecting that he would soon be driven from office,
offered him a gift of £100,000, which he declined to accept. Before he
could bring the restrictions before the commons, the speaker, Cornwall,
died, and on January 5, 1789, William Wyndham Grenville, joint-paymaster
of the forces, was elected in his place. A fresh examination of the
physicians was urged by the opposition. Willis told the committee that
good progress was made; Dr. Warren's account was less favourable. Willis
was represented by the prince's party as a charlatan, and Warren was
pitted against him as the doctor of the opposition. After this delay
Pitt laid the restrictions before the house as resolutions. They
certainly impaired the power of the executive, and would have weakened
any ministry appointed by the regent. No exact date was fixed for their
duration, and it is conceivable that, after the regency had lasted for
some years, the upper house would have refused to remove the restriction
as to the creation of peers, and would, as in 1719, have attempted to
limit their number by withholding from the regent a part of the royal
prerogative. And as the management of the household would have placed a
patronage of over £80,000 a year[218] at the disposal of the queen, who
was hostile to Fox, a court influence might have been established in
favour of Pitt and adverse to the new ministry. The queen was accused of
intrigue and violently attacked by the opposition press. Fox urged his
objections to the resolutions with much force, but they were adopted by
both houses, and on the 31st the prince accepted the offer of the
regency made by the lords and commons on those terms, on the
understanding that the restrictions were temporary.

His party was in high glee; medals were struck to commemorate his
regency, whig ladies wore regency caps and ribbons, and a list of new
ministers was drawn up. The conduct of the prince and the Duke of York
caused much scandal. Stories of the ill-treatment of the king while in
the prince's charge may be dismissed as unfounded; it is alleged that
the prince made sport of his father's ravings, it is certain that his
associates did so, and that he and his brother behaved with brutal
callousness and openly indulged in riotous merry-making during the
king's illness.[219] Before the resolutions could be made law it was
thought that a formal opening of parliament was necessary in order to
invest it with legislative capacity, and this was effected on February 3
by a commission under the great seal. Pitt then brought in the regency
bill, and while it was before the commons, agreed that all restriction
should terminate in three years if the king remained ill so long. The
bill passed the commons after warm debate, and had reached the committee
stage in the lords when, on the 19th, the king was declared to be
convalescent. His recovery progressed steadily, and on March 10 he
announced to parliament, through commissioners, his complete restoration
to health. Both on that night, and on April 23, when he returned thanks
in St. Paul's, there were great rejoicings, for his illness enshrined
him in the hearts of his people. The skill and temper which Pitt
exhibited throughout the long crisis strengthened his position in
parliament and his place in the esteem of the public, and from that time
more cordial relations were established between him and the king, who
warmly acknowledged his obligations to him. Though he was fortunate in
the king's timely recovery, he owed much also to Fox's bad management.
The hasty assertion of the prince's rights and the delays interposed in
the proceedings in the commons put off the settlement of the regency
until it was no longer needed, while the attack on the authority of
parliament on behalf of the prince's prerogative and the reckless
attempt of Fox and his party to displace a ministry which had the
confidence of the nation, in order to obtain office for themselves,
brought general censure upon them and added to Pitt's popularity.

In Ireland the parliament met in 1789 when the regency question was
still before the English parliament. Buckingham, who as Earl Temple was
lord-lieutenant in 1782-83, had succeeded Rutland in 1787. He hoped that
the Irish would adopt the English plan. He was disappointed by their
extreme jealousy of anything which might look like dependence. The
functions of the viceroy rendered the question of restrictions of little
importance, and, under the guidance of Grattan, an address was voted
inviting the prince to assume the regency of the kingdom without
limitations. Buckingham refused to forward it on the ground that it
purported to invest the prince with a power not conferred on him by law;
for the prince could not lawfully take any part of the royal authority
without an act of parliament, and no Irish bill could be enacted without
the royal assent under the great seal. The cabinet approved of his
refusal. The parliament sent commissioners over with the address; but by
the time that it was presented the king was virtually recovered, and the
matter ended ineffectually. No serious consequences probably would in
any case have arisen from the course adopted by the Irish parliament,
but the difference between the two countries on so important a question
enforced the need of a legislative union. Soon after the conclusion of
this business Sydney resigned the home office. He differed from Pitt on
the slave trade question, and Pitt was probably glad to get a colleague
more thoroughly at one with him. He was succeeded by William Grenville
on June 5, and Henry Addington was elected speaker in Grenville's place.

[Sidenote: _THE FRENCH REVOLUTION BEGINS._]

In the summer news of a revolution arrived from Paris. The reforming
movement, in which all European states had some share, was promoted in
France by ideas of constitutional government borrowed from England, by
the attacks of Voltaire on medievalism and religious authority, by the
advance of science, by the teaching of the encyclopædists, by the
exaltation of individual liberty by political economists, by Rousseau's
romantic theories on the foundations of society, and by sympathy with
the American revolution. It was supplied with practical aims by the
misery of the poor, the injustice done to the lower classes, which alone
paid the heaviest of the taxes, the privileges of the nobles and clergy,
the harshness of the laws, and arbitrary methods of government. England,
as we have seen, shared in the reforming movement. Here, however, it had
no such violent results as in France. No sharp lines divided class from
class; the laws were the same for all, there was no difference in
taxation, and no privileged caste, for a peer's younger sons were
commoners, as was his eldest son so long as his father lived.
Parliamentary and other free institutions, imperfect as they were,
secured the liberties of the people. The life of the agricultural poor
though hard was not intolerable; landowners lived upon their estates and
directed local affairs, and the poor were at least kept from starvation.
France was almost bankrupt, ruined by the prodigality of her two last
kings and their neglect of their duties to their people. Louis XVI. was
forced to summon the states-general, which met at Versailles on May 4,
1789. Political discontent was rife and was rendered dangerous by the
distress of the poor; the winter had been hard, prices were rising, and
Paris was full of destitute persons, of labourers out of work, and along
with them a large number of criminals and ruffians.

The deputies of the "third estate," who were about equal in number to
those of the two privileged orders and were supported by a few nobles
and a large minority of the clergy, demanded that the three estates
should form a single chamber. The king upheld the privileged orders in
their refusal. The third estate voted itself a "national assembly," and,
after a struggle of six weeks, gained its point, and the estates were
constituted as a single assembly. Paris was in a ferment of excitement.
The king dismissed Necker, the minister of finance, who was trusted by
the popular party, and refused to withdraw his troops from the city. A
riot broke out, and on July 14 the Bastille, an ancient fortress and
prison, then little used, which was guarded by a few Swiss and some old
soldiers or _invalides_, was taken by the mob, and the governor and some
others were murdered. The king's brother, the Count of Artois, the
Prince of Condé, and several unpopular nobles fled from France. A new
municipality was established and Lafayette was chosen to command a new
civic militia or national guard. Disorder and rioting prevailed in the
provinces, country-houses were burnt and pillaged, and many murders were
committed. Louis was forced to assent to all the demands of the people;
he recalled Necker, and showed himself at the Hôtel de Ville wearing the
national cockade or tricolour. The assembly voted decrees sweeping away
the feudal system, abolishing the privileges of classes and
corporations, and ecclesiastical tithes, and promulgated a flatulent
declaration of the rights of man. Bread-riots broke out in Paris on
October 5; a mob marched on Versailles and invaded the palace, and on
the 6th the national guard brought the king and queen to Paris, where
they remained in virtual captivity.

[Sidenote: _ENGLISH OPINIONS ON EVENTS IN FRANCE._]

The first tidings of the movement were received in England with
satisfaction. It was generally believed that the insurrection would
shortly end in the establishment of constitutional government, that
while the troubles lasted France would cease to be formidable, and that
consequently a continuance of peace and relief from taxation might be
expected. Before long, however, the acts of violence and the spoliation
effected by the decrees of the assembly roused widespread disgust. As
late as February, 1790, Pitt, while stigmatising the liberty proclaimed
in France as "absolute slavery," believed that the commotions would end
in order and true liberty. Burke from the first held that the outburst
of "Parisian ferocity" proved that it was doubtful whether the French
were fit for liberty; he maintained that, though the power of France
might cease to be formidable, its example was to be dreaded, and
expressed his abhorrence of the destruction of the institutions of the
kingdom. Fox, on the other hand, as he had delighted in the American
revolution, delighted in the revolution in France. Of the fall of the
Bastille, which had made hardly any impression on French public opinion,
he wrote: "How much the greatest event it is that has happened in the
world; and how much the best!" While he regretted the bloodshed which
accompanied the revolution, he constantly declared his exultation in its
successes. A comparatively small party of democrats, supported by the
political dissenters under the leadership of the Unitarian ministers
Price and Priestley, noisily expressed their sympathy with the French
democrats; and some men of high position, such as Lords Stanhope and
Lansdowne, professed more or less republican principles. The revolution
society under the presidency of Stanhope sent an address to the French
assembly, and clubs were formed in many large towns "avowedly affiliated
to the democratic clubs in France".[220]

The difference between Burke and Fox on this matter was openly declared
in the debate on the army estimates in February, 1790. Fox in a
mischievous speech referred to the part taken by the French army in
forwarding the revolution, and said that it was a time when he should be
least jealous of an increase in the army, since the example of France
had shown that "a man by becoming a soldier did not cease to be a
citizen". Burke declared that France was setting an example of anarchy,
fraud, violence, and atheism, and that the worst part of its example was
the interference in civil affairs of "base hireling mutineers" who
deserted their officers "to join a furious licentious populace". He
protested against a comparison between the revolution in France and the
revolution of 1688, between the conduct of the soldiery on that occasion
and the behaviour of some of the French troops. His speech, which was
received with general applause, had a strong effect on opinion, and Pitt
and others expressed their agreement with it. Fox answered him in a
conciliatory tone. Sheridan fanned the flame; he taunted Burke with
inconsistency, and pronounced a panegyric on the revolutionary leaders.
Burke replied that thenceforth he and Sheridan were separated in
politics. A rift in the opposition was started, and an attempt to close
it by a conference two days later was ineffectual. The opinion of
parliament on two other questions during the session was, seemingly,
influenced by events in France. Fox renewed the attack on the test acts.
He was opposed by Pitt; and Burke, whose speech, Fox said, filled him
"with grief and shame," animadverted on the overthrow of the Church in
France, and maintained that Price, Priestley, and other dissenters hoped
to overthrow the Church of England. Fox's motion was defeated by 294 to
105. A motion for parliamentary reform by Flood, who then represented an
English constituency, was opposed by Pitt, Windham, and Burke, and was
rejected without a division. The session ended on June 10, and
parliament was dissolved.

[Sidenote: _SPANISH CLAIM TO NOOTKA SOUND._]

England reaped material benefit from the temporary extinction of France
as a factor in the affairs of Europe, consequent on the proceedings of
the assembly. Some difficulties with Spain had been removed by a
convention arranged in 1786, by which Great Britain agreed to withdraw
the settlers from the Mosquito coast, and the Spanish king allowed them
to occupy a district in Honduras. As this compliance on the part of
England checked the smuggling of goods into the Spanish colonies, it was
well received by Spain. Hostile feelings towards England soon revived.
Florida Blanca, the Spanish minister, was anxious to increase trade with
the colonies, and was determined to keep it exclusively for the
mother-country. It was impossible to prevent English ships from
interfering with it. The colonies of Spanish America were discontented;
some insurrections had been made with the object of gaining direct trade
with other nations, and the malcontents hoped for help from
England.[221] Florida Blanca believed that England sought first to
establish direct commercial communication with her Spanish American
colonies, and, finally, to separate them from the mother-country.[222]
He was determined to prevent these designs, which had no existence in
England, and was upheld in his purpose by the extravagant opinion held
by himself and his nation as to the strength of their country. He found
his opportunity in 1789. Some English merchants had established a
settlement at Nootka Sound, off Vancouver's island, for trade in furs
and ginseng with China. In April one of their ships with its cargo was
seized in the Sound by a Spanish frigate, the officers and crew were
maltreated, and two more ships were seized shortly afterwards.
Satisfaction was demanded by the English government, and was refused by
Spain on the grounds that all lands on the west coast of America as far
as 60° north latitude were under the dominion of Spain, and further that
Nootka belonged to Spain, because it had been discovered and occupied by
a Spanish captain four years before Cook visited those coasts.

[Sidenote: _CONVENTION WITH SPAIN._]

The English government held that these pretensions were inadmissible,
for there was no effective occupation by Spain; it refused to discuss
them, and claimed that the king's subjects had a right to navigate and
fish in those waters and settle on unoccupied lands.[223] Spain prepared
for war, and Florida Blanca seems to have made overtures to Austria and
Russia in the vain hope that they would enter into an active alliance
with his court.[224] The affair was kept secret in England until May 3,
when the preparations of Spain demanded immediate action. On that day an
order in council was passed for pressing seamen in every port in the
kingdom, and the commons unanimously agreed to a vote of credit of
£1,000,000 for expenses. The matter was laid before the two other
members of the triple alliance; the Dutch at once fitted out a squadron
to act with the British fleet, and a favourable answer was received from
the Prussian king. The French ministers, moved by the news of the naval
preparations of Great Britain, and expecting to be called on to fulfil
the obligation expressed in the family compact, ordered the armament of
fourteen ships of the line. On this the national assembly voted that it
had the right to decide on questions of war, and on May 22 declared that
the French nation renounced wars of conquest. This grandiloquent decree
destroyed the effect of the armament. Nevertheless, Spain was set on
war; fleets were gathered at Ferrol and Cadiz, and a loan of £4,000,000
was arranged. Florida Blanca seems to have relied on help from the
United States, and made some efforts to gain their good-will, but they
did not respond to them.[225] From France he peremptorily demanded the
assistance to which Louis was pledged by the family compact. His demand
was laid before the national assembly, and on August 25 it was decided
to substitute a new _pacte national_ for the _pacte de famille_, and to
invite the king to arm forty-five ships for defence, and to revise the
treaty; and a suggestion was made to Spain that she might confirm the
new compact by the cession of Louisiana. This was mere folly. The
English ministers notified the French government that any help given to
Spain would be promptly resented,[226] and Florida Blanca seeing that no
reliance was to be placed on France entered into negotiations with
England. During their progress a fresh cause of offence was given to
England; for in September McDonald, captain of a British West Indiaman,
reported that his ship had been stopped by a Spanish frigate in the Gulf
of Florida, that he had been forced to go aboard the Spaniard, and had
there been cruelly tortured, being set in the bilboes in the blazing
sun.[227] For this outrage satisfaction was promptly made, and on
October 28 a treaty was signed between Great Britain and Spain by which
Spain yielded to the demands of the British court with reference to the
Nootka Sound affair and restored the disputed territory. The submission
of Spain marks a complete change in her policy; she sought by compliance
towards England to gain the security no longer to be looked for from
alliance with France. It was a signal triumph for Pitt, who as usual had
directed the proceedings of the foreign office, for Carmarthen, who
succeeded his father as Duke of Leeds in 1789, was a feeble person. Pitt
had broken up the family compact and could reckon on the compliance of
Spain. France was isolated and had exhibited her weakness before the
eyes of Europe. The despicable proceedings of the national assembly
saved England from a war, and dissolved the alliance which had so long
threatened her.[228]

FOOTNOTES:

[208] _Parl. Hist._, xxv., 1094.

[209] George III. to Pitt, June 14, 1786, MS. Pitt Papers, 103, quoted
in Stanhope's _Life of Pitt_, i., App. xix.

[210] _Parl. Hist._, xxvi., 287.

[211] Bulkeley to Buckingham, March 10, 1788, _Court and Cabinets of
George III._, i., 360-61; _Parl. Hist._, xxvii., 115-27.

[212] Copies of correspondence relating to the Prince of Wales given by
the king to Pitt in Jan., 1787, MS. Pitt Papers, 105; Malmesbury,
_Diaries_, ii., 126-31.

[213] Holland, _Memoirs of the Whig Party_, ii., 123-42; Langdale,
_Memoirs of Mrs. Fitzherbert_, pp. 28-30; _Parl. Hist._, xxvi., 1019,
1048-56, 1070, 1080.

[214] _Court and Cabinets_, i., 363-64; _Auckland Corr._, i., 456.

[215] Grenville to Buckingham, Nov. 13, 1788, _Court and Cabinets_, i.,
448-49.

[216] Same to same, Nov. 30, _ibid._, ii., 23; _Administrations of Great
Britain_, p. 122 n.

[217] Grenville to Buckingham, Dec. 9, 1788, _Court and Cabinets_, ii.,
41.

[218] _Parl. Hist._, xxvii., 1010.

[219] Compare Massey, _Hist._, iii., 383-84, 388, with Jesse, _Memoirs
of George III._, iii., 85 _sqq._, and Lecky, _Hist._, v., 147 _sqq._;
see also _Court and Cabinets_, ii., 12, 25, 122; _Auckland Corr._, ii.,
306.

[220] _Annual Register_, xxxii. (1790), 65.

[221] Despatches and Papers, MS. Pitt Papers, 345.

[222] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.

[223] Del Campo to Leeds, Feb. 10, 1790; Memorial, Spain, 18; Leeds to
Fitzherbert, Aug. 17, 1790, all MSS. Spain, R.O.

[224] Merry to Leeds, Feb. 8, 1790; Fitzherbert to Leeds, Nov. 8, 1790,
MSS. Spain, R.O.

[225] Fitzherbert to Leeds, June 16, 1790, MS. Spain, R.O.; Bond to
Leeds, Jan. 3, 1791, _Letters of P. Bond_.

[226] Leeds to Lord Gower, Sept. 1, 1790, MS. France, R.O.

[227] McDonald's Affidavit, Sept. 25, 1790, MS. For. var., 816, R.O.

[228] A. Sorel, _L'Europe et la Révolution Française_, ii., 84-95.




                               CHAPTER XVI.

                      DECLARATION OF WAR BY FRANCE.


For the sake of clearness it will be convenient in this chapter to
notice first some matters of domestic interest debated in parliament
from 1790 to 1792, next to take a general view of English foreign
policy, and, lastly, to trace the effects of the French revolution on
English politics down to the outbreak of the war with France. The
general election of 1790 proved that Pitt had thoroughly gained the
confidence of the nation, for it increased his already large majority.
The election presented one noteworthy incident; Horne Tooke, though in
holy orders, and consequently supposed to be disqualified, presented
himself for election at Westminster; he retired before the close of the
poll, and the question of the qualification of clergymen to sit in
parliament was not decided until 1801. In consequence of the hostility
of the chancellor, Pitt needed some one to lead his party in the lords,
and chose William Grenville, the secretary of state for home affairs,
who was created Baron Grenville. The expenses of the armament against
Spain amounted to nearly £3,000,000; the prosperity of the country
warranted Pitt's decision not to allow any interruption in the progress
of the reduction of debt; he obtained £500,000 from the Bank of England
without interest, on the strength of unclaimed dividends, and proposed
to obtain the remainder by taxation. The question was raised whether the
dissolution put an end to the prosecution of Hastings. That an
impeachment was not "abated" by a dissolution had been affirmed by the
lords in the case of Lord Danby in 1679, but this decision was reversed
in 1685. Precedents were obscure, and the great lawyers differed. Pitt,
who on this question sided with Fox and Burke, argued on broad
constitutional grounds that an act of the crown should not hinder the
commons in the exercise of a right, and it was agreed by both houses
that an impeachment should remain _in statu quo_ from one parliament to
another. The trial was resumed in 1791. After lasting for seven years it
ended in 1795 in the acquittal of the accused on every count. The
decision was generally approved. If in the midst of extraordinary
difficulties Hastings did some things hard to justify, he was at the
least a great ruler, firm, self-reliant, patient, and enlightened, who
served his country well. He lived until 1818, honoured in his old age.

[Sidenote: _PITT ON THE SLAVE TRADE._]

The relief granted to English Roman catholics in 1778 was extended in
1791. Though they were still precluded from sitting in parliament and
holding public offices, a bill introduced by John Mitford, afterwards
Lord Redesdale, gave complete freedom of worship and education,
admission to the legal profession, and exemption from vexatious
liabilities to all catholics who took an oath of an unobjectionable
character. Pitt approved of the bill, and Fox supported it, though he
wished that it had gone further, and declared his dislike of all tests.
A bill placing Scottish catholics in virtually the same position as
their co-religionists in England was passed in 1793. The confiscation of
Church property in France strengthened the unwillingness of the commons
to weaken the position of the Church at home. A motion to relieve the
Scottish presbyterians from the obligation of the test act was lost by a
large majority, and a motion for the relief of unitarians, which must be
noticed later, also failed. Since 1789 Wilberforce had been working on a
committee for collecting evidence with respect to the slave trade. In
1791 he made a motion for its abolition which was supported both by Pitt
and Fox, but was defeated by 163 to 88. He repeated his motion in 1792.
The king had at first favoured the cause, but a shocking massacre of the
white population in the French portion of St. Domingo by the negroes,
who were excited by the preaching of the "rights of man," turned him
against it, and he thenceforward regarded abolition as jacobinical.
Thurlow, Hawkesbury, and Dundas were strongly opposed to it. Pitt could
not, therefore, make it a government measure without almost certainly
wrecking his administration. He supported the motion with a speech of
surpassing eloquence. Public opinion made a direct negative no longer
possible; but the West India merchants and planters and the shipping
interest were powerful, and the anti-abolitionists were strengthened by
the king's known dislike to the cause. The motion was met by arguments
for delay, and an amendment proposed by Dundas for gradual abolition was
carried. A resolution was finally adopted that the trade should cease in
1796. The lords postponed the question. Year after year Wilberforce,
supported by James Stephen, Zachary Macaulay, and others, carried on the
struggle for the abolition of the trade with noble persistency. The
victory was not attained until 1807.

Another measure on which Pitt and Fox were also in full accord was more
successful. Lord Mansfield's pronouncement in the action against Almon,
the bookseller, in 1770, which reserved the question of the criminality
of a libel for the decision of the court, was, it will be remembered,
widely condemned as an invasion of the rights of jurors. Of late years
these rights had successfully been maintained by the famous advocate
Erskine. When, for example, in 1789, in consequence of a motion by Fox,
a publisher, Stockdale, was prosecuted by the crown for a libel on the
promoters of the trial of Hastings, Erskine contended that the whole
pamphlet in question should be considered by the jury, and procured an
acquittal. Fox, who in his early days had jeered at the rights of
jurors, introduced a bill in 1791 declaring their right to give a
general verdict in a case of libel. His speech was one of his finest; he
was ably seconded by Erskine; Pitt gave him his aid, and the bill was
passed unanimously by the commons. Thurlow, who disliked the bill,
prevailed on the lords to postpone it until the next session. When it
was again sent up by the commons in 1792, he obtained a delay until the
judges should have been consulted. Their opinion, though hesitating, was
unfavourable to the bill. The aged Camden, however, spoke strongly in
its favour, and it was carried in spite of the chancellor's opposition.
This statute, of which Fox, Erskine, and Pitt share the credit, placed
the liberty of the press in the hands of jurors.

[Sidenote: _EUROPEAN POLITICS._]

From 1788 Pitt's foreign policy was directed towards the pacification of
Europe and the maintenance of the balance of power by means of the
triple alliance between Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland. Catherine
of Russia, who was bent on the overthrow of the Turkish empire, and on
strengthening her hold on Poland, pressed the Turks until they declared
war in 1787. The next year the emperor Joseph declared war against them.
Gustavus III. of Sweden allied himself with the Turks and invaded
Finland. His expedition failed, and Denmark, the ally of Russia, invaded
his kingdom. Sweden was in imminent danger; its overthrow would have
given Russia absolute sway in the Baltic; the commerce of England and
Holland would have been seriously affected, and the coast of Prussia
endangered. The allied powers interfered, and a threat that Prussia
would invade Holstein, and a British fleet sail for the Sound, compelled
Denmark to cease hostilities, and saved the independence of Sweden.
Catherine was deeply offended, and when the allies offered to mediate a
peace between her and the Turks, returned a decided refusal. She pressed
on the war with success, and the capture of Ochakov extended her
dominions to the Dniester.

The emperor's war was unsuccessful. He was in great difficulties; for
Hungary was restless and his Netherland provinces in revolt. The allies
might have mediated a peace between him and the Turks on the basis of
the _status quo_ before the war, had it not been for the desire of
Frederick William to use the difficulties of Austria for his own
advantage. He designed to compel Austria to a peace by which she should
restore Galicia to Poland, in order that in return Poland should cede to
him Dantzig and Thorn; and he would have compensated Austria by allowing
the emperor to conquer and retain Moldavia and Walachia. He hoped to
accomplish this through his alliance with England and Holland, and in
order further to weaken Austria proposed that the revolted Netherlands
should be united to Holland as one republic, urging that they might
otherwise fall into the hands of France. Pitt desired to arrange a peace
on the _status quo_ basis, and to extend the triple alliance by the
inclusion of other powers; and, highly as he valued the Prussian
alliance, he would not consent that, merely to aggrandise Prussia,
England should lend herself to a policy which would almost certainly
have led to a new war. Accordingly, the Duke of Leeds warned Frederick
William that his plans went beyond the treaty of alliance, which was
purely defensive. The death of the emperor Joseph, on February 20, 1790,
changed the situation, for his successor, Leopold II., was a practical
and wary statesman. Frederick William was bent on war against Russia
and Austria, his minister signed a treaty with the Turks, and he pressed
England to acknowledge the independence of the Austrian Netherlands. The
English government took a decided line, made him clearly understand that
in the event of a war he would be isolated, and proposed an immediate
armistice.

Frederick William at last yielded to the representations of England and
Holland. Through the mediation of the allies an armistice between
Austria and the Turks was arranged on the basis of the _status quo_ at a
congress at Reichenbach in July, 1790, and a formal peace was concluded
the next year at Sistova. The English government, anxious to prevent an
alliance between the revolted Netherlands and France, desired the
restoration of the Austrian power in the provinces, under conditions
which would shut out French influence by satisfying the people; and
accordingly the allies guaranteed the liberties of the provinces, and
they were regained by the emperor. The ministry agreed with Prussia that
support must be given to Sweden, which was exhausted by its war with
Russia; a subsidy was promised and a squadron lay in the Downs ready to
sail for the Baltic. As soon as Catherine heard of the issue of the
conference at Reichenbach, she made a peace with Gustavus without the
mediation of the allies, which was concluded at Werela in August. So
far, then, in spite of serious difficulties arising from the ambition of
the Prussian king, the triple alliance had enabled the government to
carry out its policy with success. Its formation secured the Dutch from
the ascendency of France; it strengthened the position of England in its
quarrel with Spain, saved the independence of Sweden, mediated peace on
the basis of the _status quo_ between Austria and the Porte, hindered
the spread of French influence in the Netherlands, and indirectly
restored peace in the Baltic.

[Sidenote: _THE RUSSIAN ARMAMENT._]

Pitt's policy, however, received one decided check. Catherine rejected
the proposal of England that she should make peace with the Turks on the
basis of the _status quo_ before the war, and declared that she would
keep Ochakov and the line of the Dniester. Pitt differed from the views
held by his father, the whigs generally, and the coalition, with
reference to Russia. They looked on Russia as the natural ally of
England, both for commercial reasons and as a counterpoise to the
Bourbon alliance, and Catherine owed much to England's good-will in her
war with the Turks in 1770 and during her conquest of Crimea in 1783.
Times had changed; and Pitt regarded with displeasure the establishment
of Russia on the Black Sea and the prospect of the conquest of
Constantinople, and held that the Turks were useful as a check on
Russian aggrandisement. The possession of Ochakov was believed to be of
the first importance in the struggle between the two powers. Frederick
William urged that Catherine should be forced to resign it. In 1790 Pitt
was opposing his wishes elsewhere; he was unwilling to alienate him
altogether, and agreed to put pressure on Russia. The Turks were
repeatedly defeated, and in December Suvorov (Suwarrow) took Ismail;
12,000 Russians and 28,000 Turks perishing in the storming and sack of
the city, which are described in Byron's splendid verse. In the
following March, in spite of some opposition, Pitt persuaded the cabinet
to agree to send a fleet to the Baltic, and a squadron to the Black Sea
to assist the Turks, while Frederick William invaded Livonia, and on the
27th an ultimatum was despatched to St. Petersburg.[229]

The next day a royal message to parliament announced the augmentation of
the navy. Pitt sought to obtain a pledge that parliament would support
the government in its proposed action. He met with strong opposition.
Fox and others in both houses maintained that our true policy was to be
on good terms with Russia, and that Russia had an undoubted right to
retain Ochakov. "The balance of Europe," it was urged, could not be
overset by its retention; it was a matter which did not concern England;
a war with Russia would be disastrous to English trade and manufactures;
if Russia became a power in the Mediterranean so much the better, as its
fleet would be a check on the fleets of France and Spain. Burke
vehemently protested against England embarking on an "anti-crusade" by
assisting "destructive savages," as he called the Turks, against a
Christian power. Four times, in one form or another, the question was
debated in the commons. The government majorities were large, though
less than normal. In the cabinet Grenville opposed the armament, and
Pitt found that the feeling of the country generally, and specially of
the city of London and the mercantile class, was strong on the same
side. He yielded on April 16; a messenger was sent in hot haste to St.
Petersburg to prevent the presentation of the ultimatum, and the
Prussian king was informed that the fleet would not sail to the Baltic.
Catherine was triumphant; she kept Ochakov and the line of the Dniester,
made terms with the Turks without the intervention of other powers on
August 11, 1791, and concluded a definite peace at Jassy in the
following January. Freed from her wars with Sweden and the Porte, and
from the danger of foreign intervention in both cases, she was again
able to pursue her designs on Poland. She complimented Fox on the part
he had played, and placed his bust in her palace between those of
Demosthenes and Cicero. Pitt, who had lately refused the king's offer of
the garter, sarcastically referred in parliament to the compliments his
opponent received from a foreign sovereign.

Pitt's prestige was for a time seriously injured by this failure and
people talked of a possible change of government. Leeds considered that
as foreign secretary he was specially compromised, and resigned the
seals. As it was more difficult to find a foreign than a home secretary,
Pitt recommended that Grenville should be transferred to the foreign
department, that Cornwallis should take Grenville's place, and that,
until Cornwallis returned from India, Dundas should have the seals, and
further suggested that Lord Hawkesbury (Jenkinson), then president of
the board of trade, should be called to the cabinet. George agreed, but
as Cornwallis declined the offer Dundas remained home secretary. Pitt
learnt that Ochakov was not so important as he at first imagined; indeed
the possession of it by the Turks would not have rendered Constantinople
safe from attack nor protected Poland from further partition. His
failure, however, to carry out his scheme of coercing Russia was a
serious matter; it destroyed his hopes of an extension of the defensive
alliance, and the triple alliance itself, on which his foreign policy
had been built, virtually came to an end. Frederick William was deeply
annoyed and, in order to strengthen his position with regard to Russia,
made advances to Austria, which led to an alliance between the two
powers and to their joint invasion of France.

The opinion of the great majority of the nation with regard to the
revolution in France was decided by the publication of Burke's
_Reflections on the French Revolution_ in November, 1790. This famous
work was primarily intended to rebut the assertions of Price and others
that the revolution in France was a more perfect development of the
ideas of the English revolution of 1688, that Englishmen had a right to
choose their own governors, cashier them for misconduct, and frame a
government for themselves. It describes the constitution as an
inheritance to be handed down to posterity uninjured and, if needs be,
improved, and exhibits and condemns the measures of the French assembly
as precipitate, unjust, and doomed to failure. Splendid alike as a
literary achievement and as a store-house of political wisdom, it is
also remarkable as a proof of Burke's prescience, for though he wrote at
an early stage of the revolution, before those savage excesses which
have made it a by-word, he foretold its future course, not indeed
without errors, but with wonderful sagacity. Superbly national in
sentiment, the book met the propaganda of French ideas by appealing to
the pride with which Englishmen regarded their own institutions. Its
success was immense. Paine answered it in his _Rights of Man_,
expressing revolutionary ideas with a crude force which influenced
thousands too ignorant to detect its fallacies; and Mackintosh in his
_Vindiciæ Gallicæ_ expounded in polished sentences the position of the
whig sympathisers with the revolution. Neither undid the effect of
Burke's work. Of the well-to-do of all classes there was scarcely one
man in twenty who did not become an ardent anti-jacobin.

[Sidenote: _RUPTURE BETWEEN BURKE AND FOX._]

Stimulated by the success of the _Reflections_, Fox lost no opportunity
of declaring his admiration of the revolution in parliament, and his
followers irritated Burke by thwarting his attempts to reply. At last
the crisis came during a debate on a bill for the government of Canada.
After the settlement of the United Empire Loyalists in western Canada,
the demands of the British colonists for the repeal of the Quebec act of
1774 became urgent. Pitt recognised the value of the French population
as a conservative force, a check on revolt, and in order to do justice
to both peoples, introduced a bill dividing the dominion into two
provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, each with its own governor, elective
assembly, and legislative council. Burke supported this measure, which
was passed, and is known as the constitutional act of 1791. Fox objected
to the principle of the bill on the ground that the French and English
inhabitants should coalesce, and to two special provisions in it, one
that the sovereign might grant hereditary titles with a right to sit in
the council, the other reserving certain crown lands for the support of
the protestant clergy. He blamed the proposal to revive titles of honour
in Canada when they had been abolished in France, and jeered at Burke's
lament in the _Reflections_ on the extinction of the spirit of chivalry
among the French. A few days later, on May 6, Burke, after much baiting
by Fox's party, spoke strongly of the danger of French propagandism, and
declared that at the risk of the desertion of friends he would exclaim
with his latest breath, "Fly from the French constitution!" "There is no
loss of friends," Fox whispered. "Yes," he said, "there is a loss of
friends. I have done my duty at the price of my friend; our friendship
is at an end." When Fox rose to reply the tears trickled down his
cheeks. The rupture was permanent. Burke stood alone. His former friends
treated him as a renegade, and the whig newspapers showered abuse upon
him. His answer was a powerful vindication of the consistency of his
position in his _Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs_, which had a
decided effect on the opinions of many of Fox's party.

In June came the French king's flight to Varennes and his enforced
return to Paris. His queen Marie Antoinette appealed to her brother the
emperor for help. Leopold would do nothing save in concert with the
other great powers, and learnt that England would take no part in a
congress.[230] Pitt, always more interested in domestic reforms than in
foreign politics, had no intention of interfering in the internal
affairs of France. War would hinder the commercial progress of the
country; he wanted fifteen years of peace to secure the full benefits of
his economic reforms: his policy was one of strict neutrality. He shared
in the general belief, so soon proved to be mistaken, that the
revolution would prevent France from engaging in war and would ensure
years of peace to England; the funds were high and commerce was
flourishing. Leopold could only look to Prussia for co-operation. The
attitude of England decided that of Spain. Gustavus of Sweden was,
indeed, eager for a war of a crusading kind to re-establish the old
_régime_, but this idea was contrary to the policy of both Austria and
Prussia, and Gustavus allied himself with the French emigrant princes
who commanded an army at Coblentz; themselves selfish and intriguing,
their army undisciplined and ill-provided; Leopold rated them at their
proper value and was on his guard against them. Frederick William,
untrustworthy as he was, seems to have been sincerely anxious to help
the French king. Leopold hoped to avoid war; he distrusted Prussia, and
the designs of Catherine on Poland caused both sovereigns to hesitate.
In August, however, the diet demanded that Leopold should support
certain princes of the German empire against France. He held a
conference with Frederick William at Pilnitz, and on the 27th the two
monarchs signed a declaration that they would employ force on behalf of
the French king, provided that the powers to which they applied would
join them. Leopold knew that England would refuse, and the declaration
was nugatory. It enraged the French, and was used by the _émigrés_ as
though it promised the fulfilment of their hopes for an invasion of
France by a foreign confederation. Calonne, who acted as their minister,
applied to Pitt for an assurance of neutrality and for a loan. Pitt
refused his requests and would not recognise him as having any formal
authority. On September 13 Louis was forced to accept the new French
constitution, and Leopold declared that his acceptance put an end to all
need for intervention.

[Sidenote: _REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDA._]

The French were not content to leave other peoples alone. To the more
ardent revolutionists the revolution was not a mere political event in
the history of their country; it was a religion which it was the mission
of France to propagate. No part of France was to remain outside it; the
feudal rights of princes of the empire in Alsace and Lorraine were
abolished, and Avignon and the Venaissin were declared French territory.
No people wishing to share in its benefits was to be left unenlightened,
and French democrats were already intriguing with the factions in the
Netherlands which were opposed to the Austrian rule. In England the
propaganda had as yet made little way, though the democrats were noisy.
At Birmingham, where Priestley had his chapel, they arranged to hold a
dinner on July 14 to celebrate the fall of the Bastille, and a seditious
address was circulated. In the evening of that day a violent riot broke
out. The mob, with shouts of "Church and king," wrecked two dissenting
chapels and seven houses belonging to prominent democrats, one of them
Priestley's house, where they destroyed his library, philosophical
apparatus, and papers. The riot lasted for two days and was finally
quelled by dragoons. Three of the rioters were hanged, and over £26,000
was paid by the neighbouring hundreds as compensation to the sufferers.

Though both as a king and as a German prince George was indignant at the
proceedings of the French revolutionists, he fully acquiesced in Pitt's
determined neutrality. How little at the beginning of the session of
1792 Pitt expected to be driven from his position is shown by the line
which he adopted in parliament. The king's speech declared that the
state of Europe seemed to promise that the country would continue to
enjoy tranquillity. The naval force was reduced to 16,000 men, and the
proposed reductions in the two services amounted to £200,000. For the
last four years there had been an average yearly surplus of £400,000,
and Pitt proposed to add £200,000 a year to the sinking fund and to
remit taxes to the same amount. He also instituted an additional system
for the reduction of debt by providing that every new loan should carry
a sinking fund of its own. When this scheme was before the lords,
Thurlow poured ridicule upon it, and spoke of its author with contempt.
The king wrote to Pitt, hoping that his old friend would own himself in
the wrong, and that Pitt would overlook the offence. Pitt, who had borne
long enough with Thurlow's sullen temper and constant opposition, told
the king plainly that he must choose between him and the chancellor.
George did not hesitate, and Thurlow, much to his surprise, received an
order to give up the great seal. He retired at the end of the session,
on June 15, and the great seal was put in commission. Pitt's ascendency
in the cabinet was placed beyond dispute. The dismissal of Thurlow marks
a step in the progress of the development of the cabinet system. It was
no longer possible, as in the earlier years of the reign, for a minister
to remain in office, through the king's favour, against the will of the
prime minister. When a prime minister is dissatisfied with one of his
colleagues he can insist on his resignation, for if he requests his
dismissal, his request cannot be rejected unless the sovereign is
prepared to take new advisers.

[Sidenote: _A WHIG SCHEME OF COALITION._]

The loss of the chancellor was erroneously believed to have weakened
the government. Some of the whig party, of which the Duke of Portland
was the recognised head, busied themselves in devising a coalition
government. Apart from the sweets of office, the condition of their
party rendered the idea specially attractive to them. Burke's appeal to
the whigs to maintain their old principles, which he urged in person at
a meeting of the heads of the party on June 9, 1792, convinced them that
unless Fox moderated "his tone and temper," it might become impossible
for them to continue to work with him. A junction with the government
might save them from disruption. It was proposed that Pitt should resign
the treasury, that he and Fox should be joint secretaries of state and
that the treasury should be held by the Duke of Leeds, as a neutral, who
would be little more than a figure-head. This precious scheme, chiefly,
at least, set on foot by Loughborough in the hope of gaining the
chancellorship, was debated among them for weeks. Loughborough, who was
not a man to be trusted, led them to believe that some of Pitt's
confidential friends were in favour of it, and had assured him that Pitt
would readily agree to it. Fox approved of the idea of coalition if he
was to have an equal share with Pitt of power and patronage. Leeds
mentioned the idea of a coalition to the king, who received it coldly,
for George hated Fox; he did not intend to alter his government to suit
the whig leaders, and he knew that they were mistaken as regards Pitt's
attitude. At last Leeds spoke of the scheme to Pitt who drily told him
that circumstances did not call for any alteration in the government and
that no new arrangement had ever been in contemplation.[231] If the
Portland whigs were to separate themselves from Fox and his friends and
were to support the government, they would have to support the
government of Pitt, and that after a while, as we shall see, they
resolved to do.

Early in 1792 war between France and Austria and Prussia seemed at hand.
The French ministers hoped to obtain an alliance with England, or at the
least an assurance of neutrality in case of an invasion of the
Netherlands, and to arrange a loan. They were prepared to offer Tobago
and even Mauritius to boot. Talleyrand, the ex-Bishop of Autun, came
over in an unofficial capacity to see how matters stood and to intrigue
with the opposition. At court the king treated him coldly and the queen
turned her back on him. He had interviews with Pitt and Grenville, and
got nothing out of them; he received much attention from the opposition
and returned to France in March. Meanwhile, on February 7, Leopold,
unable to disregard the call of the diet and uneasy about the
Netherlands, agreed with Frederick William to restore order in France,
both allies intending to be indemnified. Yet war did not come at once,
and on March 1 Leopold died. His son and successor, Francis II., was
less distrustful of Prussia, and was eager for war. Under the influence
of a party, somewhat later known as the Girondists, the French assembly
was brought to desire war with Austria. On the accession of this party
to power Dumouriez became minister of foreign affairs. He designed to
detach Prussia from the Austrian alliance, isolate Austria, invade the
Austrian Netherlands, where the people seemed ready for revolt, and
establish them as an independent republic, and prosecute further plans
for the extension of France to its "natural barriers". Gustavus was
assassinated, and Sweden adopted a neutral policy; Russia, though
violently hostile, was engaged in Poland, England decided the policy of
Spain and would be followed by Holland. Would England oppose an invasion
of the Netherlands on the understanding that France would not conquer
them for herself; could the government be persuaded to an alliance by
offers of Tobago, a mutual guarantee of possessions, and a treaty of
commerce; and could a loan be arranged? Negotiation on these points was
entrusted to Talleyrand who was to accompany Chauvelin, the accredited
ambassador, to England.[232] On April 20 France declared war on the
"King of Hungary and Bohemia," as Francis was entitled before his
election.

[Sidenote: _SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS._]

While England's official relations with France remained friendly,
dislike of the revolution was growing stronger, and the more moderate
whigs were changing their opinions with regard to it. This change was
largely due to the active propagation of revolutionary ideas among the
lower classes, which was carried on by various societies. The Friends of
the People, a respectable association of the more extreme whigs,
excluding Fox, who would not join it, was formed in the spring of 1792
to promote parliamentary reform; some of its proceedings were
discreditable, but it kept clear of connexion with the French
revolutionists. Not so the Revolution Society, the Society for
Constitutional Information, and the London Correspondence Society, which
were in correspondence with the jacobins of Paris. The last, the most
formidable of them, was directed by a secret council, and had branches
in various large towns, the Sheffield branch alone numbering 2,400
members. Meetings were held in which the most violent revolutionary
sentiments were loudly applauded, and seditious handbills and pamphlets,
chief among them the second part of Paine's _Rights of Man_, were
distributed by tens of thousands. Though the number of persons who
adopted revolutionary ideas was as yet comparatively small, the
propaganda was carried on noisily, and was certainly gaining ground. The
government saw that it was time to interfere, and, on May 21, issued a
royal proclamation against seditious writings. The address to the crown
in answer to the proclamation was opposed in the commons by Grey. Fox
supported him, and declared that the proclamation was merely a move
taken by the government to divide the "whig interest," which, he said,
nothing could divide. Nevertheless Windham and others of Fox's party
supported the government, and the address was carried without a
division. Proceedings were taken against Paine by the attorney-general;
he fled to France and became a member of the convention. For a time the
propaganda was checked.

The feeling which it excited strengthened the government. Acting in
connexion with the Society of the Friends of the People, Grey gave
notice of a motion for a reform of parliament. Pitt said that it was
"not a time to make hazardous experiments"; and though Fox, Erskine, and
Sheridan spoke on the other side, he was supported by the larger number
of the party. Pitt was delighted at this split, and hoped to obtain a
pledge of co-operation against the propaganda from "the most respectable
members of opposition".[233] Matters were not ripe for this. An attempt
of Fox to procure the relief of the unitarians from penal laws was
defeated by a large majority, owing to the active part which they were
taking in spreading principles subversive, so Pitt said, "of every
established religion and every established government". Chauvelin and
Talleyrand found themselves avoided by society generally. They held
constant communication with Fox, Sheridan, Lord Lansdowne, and other
enemies of the government; and Chauvelin had the impertinence to send a
remonstrance to Grenville against the proclamation of May 21, for which
he was duly rebuked. All that they could obtain from Grenville was an
assurance that England desired to remain at peace with France, and hoped
that France would respect the rights of the king and his allies; if, in
other words, the French wished England to remain neutral, they must keep
their hands off Holland. No better success attended the effort to detach
Prussia from the Austrian alliance, and the Prussian king declared
himself at war with France.

An attempt of the French to snatch the Austrian Netherlands ended
miserably; their soldiers fled before the emperor's army of occupation
on April 29, mutinied, and murdered one of their generals. The allied
armies under the Duke of Brunswick were gathering, and Paris was in a
ferment. Neither of the two national assemblies, not the first, called
the constituent, nor its successor, the legislative assembly, could
govern. The Paris mob, bestial and sanguinary, was supreme, and was
moved from time to time to violent action by individuals or groups which
played upon and pandered to its passions. On June 20 a carefully
engineered insurrection exposed the king and queen to cruel insults and
imminent danger. The long agony of the monarchy was drawing to a close.
After protracted delays the allies began to move, and, on July 25,
Brunswick published an ill-judged manifesto which excited the French to
fury. The British ambassador, Lord Gower, wrote that the lives of the
king and queen were threatened, and asked if he might represent the
sentiments of his court. Determined not to give any cause of offence,
the government refused to allow him to speak officially. On August 10
another prearranged insurrection was raised in Paris; the king and queen
sought refuge with the assembly, and the king's Swiss guards and
officers were massacred. He and the queen were imprisoned, and royalty
was "suspended". Gower was at once recalled. This was not a hostile act;
the king to whom he was accredited no longer reigned, and to have
accredited him to the provisional government, which had deposed the
king, would have been indecent and a just cause of offence to the allied
powers. Before leaving he was instructed to express his master's
determination to remain neutral, and his earnest hope that the king and
queen would be safe from any violence, "which could not fail to produce
one universal sentiment of indignation throughout every country of
Europe". Talleyrand left England; Chauvelin remained, though the king's
deposition deprived him of his character as ambassador.

[Sidenote: _FRENCH CONQUESTS._]

The allied armies entered France; Longwy surrendered on the 26th and
Verdun on the 31st. A few days later England was horrified by the news
of the massacres of September; the indignation was general, and Fox
spoke of the massacres with genuine disgust. The success of the allies
was short-lived; Dumouriez defeated the Prussians at Valmy on September
20, and before the end of October the invaders were forced to evacuate
France. A French army seized Savoy and Nice, which were annexed to
France, and another overran the principalities on the left bank of the
Rhine, receiving the surrenders of Speyer, Worms, and Mainz, crossed the
river and took Frankfort. Meanwhile Dumouriez entered the Austrian
Netherlands; he defeated the Austrians at Jemappes, and the Netherlands
were lost to the emperor. Everywhere the French posed as liberators and
set up republican institutions. While France was allured by the
Girondist idea of universal emancipation, it carried on the traditions
of the old monarchy in its aggressions; it was so in the Rhineland and
the Netherlands, and it was so with regard to the Dutch republic. French
republicanism was industriously propagated in the provinces, and the
"patriot" party, which was defeated in 1787, was again encouraged to
revolt. Determined not to be drawn into war, the British government, in
July, warned the states-general not to be persuaded to join the allies,
and the Dutch remained neutral. In November, a victorious French army
was on their border, and a strong party among them was ready to
co-operate with it by overthrowing the stadholder as soon as it entered
their territory. England was bound alike by honour and her own interest
to defend the stadholder, and the French knew that, if they desired that
England should remain neutral, they must not molest Holland. On the
13th the states-general applied to England for an assurance of help if
need arose. It was, Pitt felt, "absolutely impossible to hesitate," and
Grenville assured the states-general that England would faithfully
fulfil the stipulations of the treaty of 1788.

[Sidenote: _FRENCH PROVOCATIONS._]

Holland was in imminent danger, and in the hope that some combined
action might lead to a general pacification, the English government
sought to open confidential communications with Austria and Prussia. The
replies of the two powers were delayed; they were arranging for their
respective indemnifications; for their plans were upset by the failure
of their invasion of France. Catherine had invaded Poland in the spring,
and Frederick William, who had more than once guaranteed the integrity
of the kingdom, betrayed the Poles, and agreed with the empress to make
a second partition of Poland between themselves. That was to be his
indemnity; the emperor was to be gratified by being allowed to exchange
the Netherlands for Bavaria. Great Britain protested, but in vain. The
second partition of Poland was carried out in 1793. Scarcely had
Grenville assured the Dutch that England would stand by them, when, on
the 16th, the French executive declared the Scheldt open, and soon
afterwards sent ships of war by it to Antwerp. This decree violated the
rights of the Dutch, which had been confirmed by the treaty of
Fontainebleau in 1785, and which England was bound to defend by the
treaty of 1788. It showed that France assumed the right of subverting
the political system of Europe by setting treaties at nought, and it was
a direct defiance of England.

Nor was this the only provocation which England received. The downfall
of the French monarchy excited the revolutionary societies to fresh
activity, and the propaganda was carried on with amazing insolence.
Deputations from these societies appeared before the national convention
with congratulatory addresses and were received with effusion. The
constitutional society, for example, hoped that Frenchmen would soon
have to congratulate an English national convention, and the president
in reply expressed his belief that France would soon hail England as a
sister-republic. Emissaries from the French ministry promoted sedition
both in England and in Ireland, and their reports led their employers to
believe that England, Scotland, and Ireland were ripe for revolt.[234]
It was an absurd mistake. Yet though the number of revolutionists was
still comparatively small, the propaganda caused much uneasiness.
Thousands of French refugees were landing in England, mostly priests and
members of the aristocracy, many of them completely destitute.
Subscriptions were raised for their relief, and Burke and others exerted
themselves nobly in their behalf. This large immigration made it easy
for French spies and revolutionary agents to carry on their work
undetected. Its progress was helped forward by discontent among the
lower class. The harvest was bad and the price of wheat rose, trade was
depressed, and there was much distress, specially in the manufacturing
districts. Riots broke out at Carlisle, Leeds, Yarmouth, Shields, Leith,
Perth, and Dundee, and in some cases were connected with revolutionary
sentiments. At Dundee cries were raised of "No excise, no king," and a
tree of liberty was planted. On November 19 the convention openly
asserted its right to overthrow the government of other countries by
decreeing that France would help, and would instruct her generals to
help, all peoples that desired freedom; and an order was given that
translations of this decree should be distributed in all countries. The
decree was an invitation to the subjects of every state in Europe to
revolt, and the propaganda which it authorised was a gross insult to the
British government and nation.

The danger of Holland and the activity of revolutionists at home
convinced the ministry that it was time to take measures of defence. On
December 1 a part of the militia was embodied, and parliament was
summoned for the 13th; the Tower was fortified, naval preparations were
set on foot, a squadron was ordered to the mouth of the Scheldt, and an
order of council prohibited the exportation of grain to France.
Grenville informed the Dutch that England was arming, and called on them
to arm also. Pitt still hoped for peace, and suggested to a French envoy
that his government should give him assurances through an authorised
agent with respect to the safety of Holland and the decree of November
19. The executive council would only treat through Chauvelin, who was
offensive.[235] On the 27th he demanded whether England was to be
reckoned neutral or an enemy of France; he protested that the decree did
not apply to England, and that no attack would be made on Holland, but
said that France would not give way as to the Scheldt, and threatened
that if the ministers decided on war, they would find the nation against
them. Already a decree of the convention passed on the 15th had ordained
that all states occupied by French armies should virtually be subject to
France, and should contribute to the support of the French troops. The
war of "liberation" had become a war of conquest.[236] Grenville replied
to Chauvelin on the 31st to the effect that the protestations of the
executive council were belied by its conduct, that England could not
consent that France should annul treaties at her pleasure, or be
indifferent to her assumption of sovereignty over the Netherlands, and
that if she desired England's friendship, she should abandon her views
of aggression and cease to insult or disturb other governments.[237]

[Sidenote: _DISRUPTION OF THE WHIG PARTY._]

During the first days of the session Pitt was absent; he had at the
king's earnest wish accepted the valuable sinecure office of warden of
the Cinque Ports, and was not yet re-elected. In moving an amendment to
the address on the 14th Fox made a violent attack on the government. At
that critical time when England's welfare demanded that party enmities
should yield before the importance of union against sedition at home and
aggression abroad, he did not scruple to declare that the government had
wilfully exaggerated domestic disturbances, in order to establish a
system of oppression more intolerable than "the horrors of the
inquisition of Spain," and implied that the ministers were hostile to
France merely because France was, as he jeeringly said, "an unanointed
republic". Windham and other whigs voted against him, and his amendment
was rejected by 290 to 50. He returned to the charge, but spoke more
moderately, on the next day and again on the next, with a motion for
sending an ambassador to Paris, which was negatived without a division.
The disruption of the whig party was obvious; Portland, Fitzwilliam,
Spencer, Carlisle, and Loughborough in the lords, and in the commons
Windham, Elliot, and many more voted with the government, and Burke took
his seat on the treasury bench. Loughborough received the great seal on
January 28, 1793, but the rest as yet gave the ministers independent
support. An addition of 9,000 men to the naval force and increased army
estimates were voted unanimously, Fox declaring his approval on the
ground that the position of foreign affairs demanded them. An alien bill
was also carried, subjecting foreign immigrants to police regulations
and empowering the secretary of state to expel them. This bill was
opposed in the lords by Lansdowne, and in the commons by Fox and Grey.
In the course of an almost frenzied speech in support of it, Burke threw
a dagger on the floor of the house, a specimen, he said, of three
thousand which, he was informed on excellent authority, had been ordered
in Birmingham by an English revolutionist.

Chauvelin, whose credentials as "minister plenipotentiary of the French
republic" were not accepted by the English court protested against the
alien bill and the prohibition of the export of grain, and declared that
France considered the treaty of commerce of 1786 broken and annulled.
The two measures excited the indignation of the convention; the speedy
downfall of England was triumphantly predicted; 3,000,000 Irishmen were
ready to revolt, and India would shake off the British rule as soon as
the French appeared in Asia. The executive council was pressed to demand
the repeal of both measures, and a satisfactory explanation of the
English military preparations, and orders were given for the immediate
armament of a fleet. While the French ministers were already preparing
for a descent on England,[238] and France was reducing the Austrian
Netherlands to a merely municipal status, the contemplated invasion of
Holland was delayed by the condition of the French army; and
negotiations with England were carried on. Believing that if the English
people were assured with respect to the Netherlands and the intention of
France not to interfere in their domestic concerns, they would declare
against the government in case of a war, the French foreign minister
protested that the occupation of the Netherlands was merely temporary,
that France looked forward to Belgian independence, and that the decree
of November 19 only applied to a case where the general will of the
people was expressed. The opening of the Scheldt was defended as
authorised by the law of nature. This paper, which was a kind of
ultimatum, did not withdraw the claim to propagate republicanism in
other states or to annul the treaty rights of England's allies, and put
no definite limit to the occupation of the Austrian Netherlands.
Grenville returned a haughty answer. War was almost certain. The
execution of the French king on the 21st hastened the end. The tidings
were received in London with universal grief and indignation; the
theatres were closed, and not the court alone, but all who could afford
it, wore mourning. As the king drove through the streets, cries were
raised of "War with France!" Chauvelin was ordered to quit the kingdom
in eight days, and left at once. On February 1 France declared war on
England and Holland. In common with the nation at large, George welcomed
the declaration of war; the "insolence" of France irritated him, and the
execution of the French king was an insult and a menace to every crowned
head in Europe; yet the order of the king in council for Chauvelin's
departure was of course given on the advice of the ministers.[239]

[Sidenote: _WAR WITH FRANCE._]

Pitt had striven long and earnestly to avoid war. It was finally forced
upon him. Grossly as the government was provoked by French attempts to
spread republicanism in the king's dominions, that alone would not have
forced him into war; the great mass of the English people was thoroughly
loyal, and the resources of government were sufficient to deal with
sedition. But England was bound in honour to defend the rights of the
Dutch, and her own security demanded that she should withstand the
French designs of aggrandisement. Burke would have had war declared on
France as an enemy of God and mankind, because she trampled on
institutions which he regarded as sacred in themselves and essential to
the well-being of society. The feelings of the nation were excited by
the excesses of the revolution, until the crowning act of the king's
execution called forth a demand for war; and as the war went on hatred
of French principles made Englishmen willing to bear the heavy burdens
it entailed. But in the great decision Pitt was unmoved by sentiments
such as these. Unlike the rulers of Austria and Prussia, the government
was not embarking on a war either of principles or ambition, not on a
crusade against republicanism nor, in its inception, a struggle for
extended dominions; its object was to maintain the honour and the
security of England. The opening of the Scheldt by France was a far more
serious matter for England than if Leopold II. had succeeded in his
attempt to carry out the same measure; for France was a great maritime
power and entertained schemes of boundless ambition. That she
contemplated the annexation of the Austrian Netherlands and the conquest
of Holland was certain, and if she became mistress of the Netherlands
and Holland, and had Antwerp as a station for her fleet, the security of
England would be at an end.

Security could only be attained either by war or by an alliance with the
republic, which would have been repugnant to the nation, would have made
England partner in unjustifiable aggressions, and would have betrayed
the interests of Europe to France. While it may be urged that the
haughty tone adopted by Grenville during the last few weeks of peace
irritated France, and that the dismissal of Chauvelin put an end to
further attempts at reconciliation, it will scarcely be denied that the
government was justified in refusing to prolong useless communications,
and that it acted wisely in taking a decided step when the country was
thoroughly prepared to support its decision. Having to choose between
war and all that an alliance with France would have entailed, England
chose war, and took her stand in the breach which France made in the
political system, true to herself and finally the saviour of Europe.

The violent opposition of Fox seems to have proceeded from mixed causes.
That he sincerely loved liberty must be allowed, but he was less
attracted by the constitutional liberty of Burke's devotion, which like
some stately building grows towards completeness as each successive
generation enters into and carries on the labours of its predecessors,
than by the cause of liberty, whether truly or falsely so called, in
revolt. Unbridled in his own life, he loved resistance to authority. And
he was one of those, in England unfortunately there are always such, who
rate the cause they love above their country's cause. It was so with
him during the American war. When he would describe how much an event
pleased him he wrote, "no public event, not excepting Saratoga and
Yorktown, ever gave me so much delight". It was so during the war with
France. His opposition, however, also proceeded from hatred to the
government.[240] Abhorred by the king and rejected by the country, he
resented his exclusion from office by opposing the government at a time
when Englishmen should have sunk all party differences in the face of
their country's peril. He ascribed the measures taken to repress
sedition and defeat the French propaganda as attempts at tyranny. While
he acknowledged that the opening of the Scheldt was a _casus belli_, he
spoke of it as a matter which England could well afford to overlook, and
he represented the action of the government as unfair to France and as
the result of monarchical prejudice. As the war went on his unpatriotic
feelings were constantly displayed in a most offensive manner. His
conduct broke up the whig party. England was entering on a period of
fearful conflict; happy at least in that the confidence of the nation
was given to a statesman whose one absorbing care was for the welfare of
his country.

FOOTNOTES:

[229] _Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds_, pp. 150-52; Lecky,
_Hist._, v., 222-99.

[230] Sorel, _L'Europe et la Révolution Française_, ii., 236.

[231] _Political Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds_, p. 194.

[232] Sorel, _u.s._, ii., 417-23.

[233] _Auckland Corr._, ii., 401-3.

[234] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 214-15.

[235] _Ibid._, 221-22, 225, 229.

[236] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 235-37, 259; Sybel, _Geschichte der
Revolutionzeit_, French trans. _Histoire de l'Europe pendant la
Révolution Française_, ii., 58-60.

[237] Correspondence between M. Chauvelin and Lord Grenville, _Parl.
Hist._, xxx., 250-56.

[238] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 243.

[239] Pitt to Grenville, Jan. 23, 1793, and following letters, _Dropmore
Papers_, ii. 371-72, 378.

[240] _Memorials of C. J. Fox_, iii., 349.




                               CHAPTER XVII.

                           THE FIRST COALITION.


The nine years between Pitt's accession to office and the outbreak of
the war with France were a period of advance in constitutional freedom
and financial prosperity. All progress in these directions was arrested
by the war. The security of England, a matter of higher importance than
these, was at stake. The war demanded all the energies of the nation.
Questions which would have divided the country or weakened the
government were shelved, for it was not a time to debate reforms when
the state itself was in peril. Pitt defeated efforts for parliamentary
reform and grew cold to the cause of the abolition of the slave trade.
But the war brought worse than an arrest of progress; it brought
repression of freedom and a tremendous load of debt. The French
propaganda roused general indignation and alarm. Towards the end of 1792
the ministers were convinced of the existence of a plot for effecting a
revolution by the aid of France. There was much to justify their alarm;
Ireland seemed ripe for revolt, political discontent was strong in
Scotland, and evidence, gained later, confirmed them in their belief
that sedition was reaching a dangerous height in England. They overrated
the existing danger, though if sedition had remained unchecked it might
soon have become dangerous; for France was attacking the state by secret
seduction as well as by open arms. Extraordinary precautions were taken
to meet a peril which was specially terrible because its extent was
unknown. Measures of repression were eagerly welcomed by parliament;
judges and magistrates exercised their powers with harshness, and juries
were often biassed by the feeling of the bench. The nation was alarmed,
and severity was popular.

[Sidenote: _PITT AS A WAR MINISTER._]

Pitt, who had guided England in peace, was to remain at the helm in
war. The conduct of the war is therefore closely connected with the
question whether, great as he was in peace, he was a great war
minister.[241] The British army, which in 1792 only numbered about
17,300 men and at the outbreak of the war was increased by 9,945, was so
small that it could only either act a secondary part in a continental
war, or engage in isolated expeditions to support insurrections in
France. During the first part of the war our successes on land were
trifling and our failures many. This was partly at least due to the
custom of regarding noble birth rather than military attainments as a
claim to command. Though Pitt, as we shall see, insisted on the recall
of the Duke of York, he did not break through this evil custom, and our
generals, though brave, were often incompetent. Pitt built great hopes
on the co-operation of the French royalists and many expeditions were
sent out to act with them. A belligerent power should place little
dependence on insurrectionary movements in an enemy's country; for
insurgents, however hostile they may be to their own government, will
seldom act cordially with a foreign invader; their forces are generally
unorganised, and they are apt to expect too much of their foreign ally.
It is good policy to encourage them by sending them supplies, for their
revolts embarrass their government and are useful as diversions in war.
But a belligerent should not squander on diversions strength which might
be employed in the main conflict. Pitt's expeditions of this kind were
costly failures; they inflicted no deadly wound and were expensive both
in men and money. On the other hand England was victorious by sea; the
naval force was raised to 45,000 men in February, 1793, was constantly
increased, and was commanded by admirals whose right to command was
based on their skill in seamanship and maritime warfare.

For the security of England and the peace of Europe France, it was held,
must be reduced to powerlessness. England's greatness at sea might
enable her to destroy the enemy's commerce, conquer her colonies, and
blockade her ports; the object of the war could be attained only by
victories on land. Politically the continental states were rotten; their
rulers were selfish despots, each bent on extending his dominions by
any means, however dishonest; for international morality had broken
down before the bait offered by the weakness of Poland. What barrier
could they oppose to the flood of French aggression, the outcome of the
enthusiasm of a great people? When France forced England into war she
provoked a more dangerous enemy--the will of a nation. Supported by the
national will, Pitt embarked on the task of combining the powers of
Europe against France, and as some were unwilling and some unable to
fight at their own expense, he paid them with English gold, and England
found money for them as well as for her own naval and military
operations. Pitt raised enormous loans. The funded debt, which in 1792
was, roughly, £238,000,000, rose during nine years of war to about
£574,000,000. He began to borrow at once; in 1793 he raised a loan of
£4,500,000, and in 1794 another of £11,000,000, besides imposing new
taxes amounting to £913,000.

He has been blamed for not raising more by taxation during the early
years of the war instead of burdening posterity so heavily. The
financial difficulties of France led him to believe that the war would
be short. "It will be a short war," he said, "and certainly ended in one
or two campaigns." "No, sir," replied the more prescient Burke, "it will
be a long war and a dangerous war; but it must be undertaken." In its
earliest years Pitt had good reason for avoiding high taxation. It began
in the midst of a financial crisis. The harvest of 1792 was seriously
defective, and there was much want. The rapid advance in agriculture,
commerce, and manufactures had led to the foundation of many country
banks, which eagerly pushed their own notes into circulation, and credit
was unduly strained. Currency became redundant, and a violent revulsion
began in November, 1792, when the number of bankruptcies in the month
amounted to 105, more than double the average number of the ten earlier
months of the year. The crisis became more acute in the spring of 1793,
and during the year there were 1,926 failures, of which twenty-six were
failures of country banks. In order to relieve the distress Pitt, in
April, obtained the assent of parliament for the issue of exchequer
bills to the extent of £5,000,000 to be applied in advances at fair
interest and on good security. Fox offered a factious opposition to this
measure, alleging that it conferred a dangerous power on the executive.
It was completely successful, and the panic was checked. As, then, Pitt
believed that the war would be short, and as it was not a time for
attempting to raise taxation to an amount sufficient to furnish the
supplies within the year, he was justified in having an early recourse
to loans.

In return for the £336,000,000 of debt created by Pitt in nine years,
the country only received about £223,000,000 in money; and he has been
accused of extravagance because he raised money mainly in 3 per cent.
stock instead of at a rate more nearly corresponding to its market
value. In 1793 every £100 borrowed created £138 stock, and when in 1797
the 3 per cents. fell to 47, the sacrifice was enormous. Pitt did
attempt to raise a loan at a higher rate in 1793, and found it
impossible; and it is at least doubtful whether he did not act more
prudently in borrowing in the 3 per cents. than at a high rate.[242] In
his budget speech of 1793 he announced that he would always maintain the
sinking fund. He kept his promise, and this expensive economy provided a
deduction of £42,500,000 from the £336,000,000 of debt. Financially, as
we have seen, this was a mistake; politically it was useful in
encouraging and comforting the country in a time of stress; for the
opposition was as fully persuaded as the ministry of the efficacy of the
fund. If, then, it be allowed that the war was just and necessary,
little fault should be found with the way in which money was provided
for it. That Pitt's subsidies were sometimes unwise may be conceded;
that his coalitions disappointed him is certain. He had to contend with
selfishness and deceit in the rulers of Europe, and laboured with
ability and courage to keep them steadfast to the common cause, again
and again taking up his task, undismayed by failures which are not to be
laid to his charge. While mistakes in the conduct of the war forbid us
to call him a great war minister in the narrow sense of the term, we
should scarcely refuse that praise in a wider, truer sense to a minister
so dauntless in adversity, so fertile in resource, so deservedly trusted
by the nation as "the pilot that weathered the storm".

[Sidenote: _THE COALITION FORMED._]

In March the government hired troops from Hanover and Hesse Cassel; and
during the year, Holland being already an ally, made treaties hostile
to France with all the other Christian powers of Europe except Denmark,
Sweden, the Swiss, Tuscany Venice, and Genoa, which decided on
neutrality. The emperor and the Prussian king agreed to carry on the war
in concert with England. Catherine of Russia made a treaty of commerce,
and another promising co-operation against the commerce of France. Her
army was engaged in Poland, and she took no part in the war beyond
carrying out her engagement by means of her fleet. In May, the
convention declared war on Spain and the king entered into the
coalition. The King of Sardinia was already at war, and the British
government granted him a subsidy of £200,000 to enable him to keep up
his army, and agreed to send a fleet into the Mediterranean. A treaty
for concerted action in the Mediterranean was made with the king of the
Two Sicilies, and another treaty with Portugal, our ancient ally, which
became of importance after Spain deserted the coalition. The accession
of England to the enemies of France gave them a new weapon against her.
Great Britain and Russia agreed to prevent neutral ships from supplying
her with provisions, and, on June 8, British officers were ordered to
stop all ships so engaged and send them to England, where their cargoes
would be sold and their freights paid by the government.

The emperor did not relish the idea of a disinterested war; and
Grenville agreed that the allies should indemnify themselves, and should
make conquests on the Belgian frontier of France, which in Austrian
hands would form a strong barrier against her. This met the emperor's
views, for an enlargement of the Austrian Netherlands would forward his
plan of exchanging them for Bavaria. The proposed exchange, however, was
contrary to English policy, for it would have created a weak state on
the French frontier. As soon as war was declared, Dumouriez invaded
Holland, but was soon called back to Belgium, where the French were
losing ground. He was defeated at Neerwinden on March 18, and the French
withdrew from the Netherlands. They were unsuccessful on the Rhine, and
Mainz was threatened by the Prussians. Dissatisfied with the proceedings
of his government, Dumouriez intrigued with the enemy and finally fled
to the Austrian camp, but was unable to carry his army with him. On
April 8 a conference between representatives of the allies was held at
Antwerp. Lord Auckland, the British minister in Holland, appeared for
England, accompanied by the king's second son, the Duke of York, who was
to command the British and Hanoverian army. The allies agreed to make
conquests and keep them. Auckland declared that this was the policy of
his court. Austria was to gain places on the frontier which would shut
France out from the Netherlands, England would look to the conquest of
Dunkirk and the French colonies.[243]

On May 20 the British army with its Hanoverian and Hessian contingents
joined the Prince of Coburg, and took a distinguished part in driving
the French from their camp at Famars. The smart appearance of the
English troops was much admired, but their officers were careless. The
French army of the north was disorderly and discouraged. While the
regular troops generally behaved well, the volunteers, who had a
separate organisation and elected their own officers, were insubordinate
and lacking in soldierly qualities; the representatives of the people
who accompanied the army, though they did some good, meddled in military
matters; the generals were suspected, were constantly displaced, and
were fortunate if they escaped the scaffold; and the ministry of war was
utterly incompetent. The allies besieged Condé and Valenciennes; Condé
surrendered on July 13 and Valenciennes on the 28th, and the Austrians
took possession of both. Coburg's allies were anxious to secure
territory for themselves, and he had some difficulty in persuading them
to join him in an attack on the French at Cæsar's camp, a strong
position covered by the Scheldt, the Sensée, and the Agache. The French
were driven out and fell back on Arras. France was in sore straits.
Mainz capitulated on July 23, and the army of the Moselle retreated
behind the Saar. On the Spanish frontier Roussillon was invaded. In the
Alps the republican army was driven back near Saorgio, and its best
troops were sent off to quell insurrection in the cities of the south;
for the country was torn by civil discord. The Girondins were overthrown
in June, and the party called the Mountain gained absolute power.
Bordeaux was a centre of resistance; Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon were
in revolt, and were supported by the towns of the Jura and Provence. An
insurrection which began in the Vendean district of Anjou grew to a
formidable height. The army of La Vendée, of 40,000 men, defeated the
republican generals, captured Saumur, and threatened Nantes. Between
Basle and the sea the allies were 280,000 strong; an advance on Paris in
two directions, from the Belgian border by Soissons and from Mainz by
Reims, would almost certainly have ended the war. After the capture of
Cæsar's camp the way to Paris lay open to Coburg; there was no French
force strong enough to arrest the march of the allies.[244]

[Sidenote: _DISCORDANT AIMS OF THE ALLIES._]

The coalition was paralysed by discord and by the insistence of its
members on the pursuit of different objects. The English ministers made
the security of the Netherlands as an Austrian province a prime
consideration, and to satisfy them the emperor promised to give up the
exchange of the Netherlands for Bavaria. He was to be indemnified by the
acquisition of Alsace and Lorraine, which were to be conquered by the
help of Prussia.[245] Frederick William, however, would not help to
conquer territory for Austria, nor assist in the dismemberment of
France, unless the emperor assented to the treaty for the partition of
Poland secretly arranged between him and Catherine of Russia, and signed
on January 23. Baron Thugut, the Austrian minister, who was violently
hostile toward Prussia, would not assent to a treaty which aggrandised
that power and did not give his master a share in the spoil. While,
then, France, distressed by invasion, revolt, and scarcity, seemed an
easy prey, Brunswick remained on the Rhine, and refused to co-operate
with Austria in Alsace, and Coburg was intent on gaining frontier towns.
The English government was anxious to secure its own share in the
conquests from France, and, on August 10, acting on instructions from
home, York went off with a force of 37,000 men, his own English and
German troops with 11,000 Austrians, to lay siege to Dunkirk. About the
same time Frederick William ordered 8,000 Prussian troops engaged in
Flanders to withdraw to Luxemburg, and Coburg invested Le Quesnoy.

On one side only was full advantage taken of the distress of France. In
consequence of the late disputes with Spain and Russia the British navy
was in an efficient state. Of 113 ships of the line nearly ninety were
in good condition. Howe commanded the channel fleet; he kept it at
Spithead, and it did nothing of importance during the year. The
Mediterranean fleet under Hood sailed in June and blockaded Toulon. The
insurrectionary movement at Marseilles was quelled by the convention,
and the royalists at Toulon were threatened by the jacobin forces.
Though the town was well supplied with provisions, the chiefs of the
royalist party persuaded the people that the only way to escape
starvation was to treat with the English. The inhabitants declared for
Louis XVII., the son of the late king, and the constitution of 1791, and
surrendered the town to Hood, together with the ships in the port,
thirty ships of the line, more than a third of the whole French line of
battle, and other smaller vessels. Hood received the forts and the ships
for King Louis and promised to restore them at the end of the war. He
invited the co-operation of the Spanish fleet under Lángara and when it
appeared entered the harbour, on August 29. The news was received in
England with delight, and Grenville declared his belief that "the
business at Toulon" would probably be "decisive of the war". England
desired the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and it was hoped
that the occupation of the place would strengthen the movement in that
direction in the south. The _émigré_ Count of Provence, the next younger
brother of Louis XVI., who had assumed the title of regent, desired the
government to allow him to enter the town. As the _émigrés_ aimed at the
restoration of absolutism it would have been fatal to the hopes built on
the movement in the south in favour of a constitutional monarchy to have
granted his request, and it would have been unfair to the Toulonese who
stipulated for the acceptance of the constitution of 1791. Besides this,
the _émigrés_ were strongly opposed to the policy of conquest adopted at
Antwerp; and, though Toulon was not to be taken from France, England
could not at that time encourage the count's pretensions. His presence
in the town would have been embarrassing to Hood, and he would certainly
have interfered with the defence. England did not acknowledge his claim
to the regency, and he was not admitted into Toulon.

While the allies were divided in purpose and action, the danger of
France and the violation of her territory roused the party in power to
energy in her defence. In August the second committee of public safety
decreed a _levée en masse_, and on the 23rd substituted for it a
universal conscription. Men were poured into the army, but they had to
be turned into soldiers; and efficient generals, and above all a
competent military administration, had to be provided. At this crisis
Carnot, who was to earn the title of "organiser of victories," took the
direction of the war. The new troops were at first worse than useless,
but after a while they were brought to order by being drafted into the
old battalions; the amalgamation of the volunteers with the regulars was
effected early in 1794, and the army of the revolution became a
well-ordered fighting machine. While the new levies of August, 1793,
were still undisciplined Carnot's genius began to raise the fortunes of
France.

[Sidenote: _HONDSCHOOTE._]

When York marched off to the siege of Dunkirk on August 10 he divided
his army into two corps, placing one, composed of 14,500 German and
Austrian troops, under Marshal Freytag, to act as an army of
observation, while he commanded the army of the siege in person. On his
march a detachment of his troops surprised and routed a French force at
Linselles while engaged in pillaging the place. He summoned Dunkirk on
the 23rd. The fleet, which was to have bombarded the town and brought a
siege-train, had not arrived. He was only able to invest the town on the
east, for the French laid the country between Bergues and Dunkirk under
water, and the causeway from Bergues was strongly defended. His army
occupied a wretched position, was in want of good water, and was cut off
from direct communication with Freytag, who was encamped in front of
Bergues.[246] On September 6-8 Freytag's army was attacked by a French
army under Houchard of nearly four times its strength. Walmoden, who
succeeded Freytag, might have avoided the battle of Hondschoote on the
8th; he fought in obedience to York's orders and was defeated with heavy
loss. York hastily retreated to Furnes. If Houchard had followed up his
success he might have crushed York's army. He turned aside to attack the
Dutch quartered on the Lys and routed them at Menin. Le Quesnoy
surrendered to the Austrians on the 11th, and Coburg invested Maubeuge.
Jourdan, the new commander of the army of the north, and Carnot, who
accompanied him, attacked and defeated the Austrian covering army at
Wattignies on October 16, and forced Coburg to raise the siege. This was
practically the end of the campaign, which closed far more favourably
for France than it had begun.

On the German frontier political disunion was fatal to the success of
the allies. Frederick William believed that the emperor's refusal to
accept the partition treaty encouraged the Poles to resist his demands.
He left the army of the Rhine, and went off to Posen to establish his
rule in his new dominions, ordering Brunswick not to engage in any
operations which might prevent him from sending him such troops as he
might call for. Wurmser, the Austrian commander, drove the French from
their lines at Weissenburg on October 13, but the limited co-operation
of the Prussian army was not enough to secure any material progress, and
finally, on December 26, Hoche inflicted a severe defeat on the
Austrians at the Geisberg. Wurmser retreated across the Rhine, and the
Prussians were forced to abandon the greater part of the Palatinate, and
withdrew to Mainz. No French territory on the north or east remained in
the hands of the allies except Condé, Valenciennes and Le Quesnoy, while
on the Italian frontier forward movements of the Piedmontese had ended
in failure and the King of Sardinia was reduced to a merely defensive
attitude.

The republican armies were not less successful against domestic foes
than against foreign invasion. The loss of Mainz in July set free a
large force which was used to lay waste La Vendée. The Vendeans applied
for help to the emigrant princes and to England. Pitt, though he would
not encourage the hopes of the princes, was willing to support a
movement which was weakening the enemy and might forward the
establishment of a constitutional monarchy. Stores were sent to
Noirmoutier for the insurgents and further help was promised. Some
80,000 Vendeans, of both sexes and all ages, crossed the Loire, marched
through Anjou, and made an attempt on Granville, in the hope of gaining
a port at which they might receive succour from England. An expedition
was prepared to help them, and a force of 12,000 men, émigrés, British
troops, and others under the Earl of Moira, the Lord Rawdon of the
American war, arrived off the Norman coast on December 2. They made
signals but no answer was returned. The Vendeans had failed before
Granville and had retreated a few days before. As they were attempting
to return to their homes they were caught by a republican force; a large
number was massacred and the rest dispersed. The English expedition
returned without accomplishing anything.

[Sidenote: _EVACUATION OF TOULON._]

Toulon was threatened by the republicans both on the east and west,
while on the north Lyons was closely besieged. Hood despatched Nelson to
Naples for reinforcements which were sent by the king. Even with them
the garrison, made up of 2,000 British troops, Spaniards, Sardinians,
Neapolitans, and French royalists, many of them untrained, amounted to
only about 12,000 men fit for duty, a wholly insufficient number, for
the defences were widely extended. Hood sent off four of the French
ships, full of republican prisoners, who were allowed to return to their
homes because it was inconvenient to keep them. By the middle of
September the republicans were pressing the siege, and on October 1 the
garrison under Lord Mulgrave smartly drove them from a commanding
position which they had seized on Mont Faron. The fall of Lyons on the
9th set free a large force to act against the place, and the besieging
army under Dugommier finally numbered 37,000 men, with artillery
organised and directed by a young Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte,
who since September 16 had taken an active part in the siege. General
O'Hara, then in command in the town, was wounded and taken prisoner
while leading a sortie, and on the night of December 16-17 the enemy
forced the line of defence and planted their batteries in commanding
positions. Neither the harbour nor the town was tenable any longer, and
orders were given for the embarkation of the troops. Of the twenty-seven
French ships of the line in the harbour, nine, together with smaller
vessels, were burnt by British seamen under Sir Sidney Smith, in spite
of a furious bombardment from the heights, and three accompanied the
retreat. The remaining fifteen were left to the enemy, and an attempt to
destroy the dockyard was only partially successful, for time was short
and the Spaniards, either through treachery or more probably through the
incompetence of their officers, failed to accomplish their share of the
work. The English and Spanish fleets sailed on the 19th, carrying off
some 6,000 refugees, and Hood's fleet anchored in Hyères bay. The
remainder of the population was exposed to the cruel vengeance of the
jacobins.

There is good reason to believe that the government did not intend to
violate the terms of the surrender by keeping Toulon as a British
possession. As an isolated station it could not have been defended and
supplied without an enormous strain on England's resources. Its value to
Great Britain was purely temporary; it was of incalculable importance to
the enemy, and it was expected to serve as a base for the movement in
the south against the jacobin government. The issue of the insurrection
was decided by the fall of Lyons. Hopes of a success to be gained
through French disaffection were as ill-founded as those based on
American loyalism. The ministers pursued a mistaken policy, and pursued
it weakly; for as they believed that the occupation of Toulon was of
first-rate importance, they should have concentrated their efforts upon
its defence instead of squandering their resources by trying to do two
things at once, to co-operate with the Vendeans and to defend Toulon,
while the war on the Flemish frontier was a constant drain on England's
small army. Grenville ascribed the disaster to the "common cause" to the
failure of the Austrian government to fulfil its promise of sending a
reinforcement of 5,000 men to the garrison.[247] The loss of the place
was a bitter disappointment; it was mortifying in itself, and it
declared the futility of the high hopes built on the insurrectionary
movement in the south. Reckoning it with Dunkirk and the Vendean
expedition, the government had to confess to three failures in the year.
Yet England had some grounds for satisfaction. Tobago and the fishery
islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were taken without difficulty,
Pondicherry and the other French factories in India were surrendered,
several French ships of war were captured in single-ship and other small
combats, and a substantial advantage was gained by the destruction of
the ships at Toulon.

[Sidenote: _REPRESSION._]

The success of the allies in the spring of 1793 gave Fox an opportunity
for moving for the re-establishment of peace. If, he argued, the war was
undertaken to preserve Holland and check the aggrandisement of France,
that object was attained. France had been the aggressor; so much the
more reason was there to regard the war as purely defensive, and end it
when the aggression ended. Pitt said that he would no longer pledge
himself that England would not interfere in the internal affairs of
France. So long as the existing French government was in power, there
could be no security that the system of aggression and propagandism
would cease, or that treaties would be observed. Fox's motion was
defeated by 187 to 47. Earlier in the session the government brought in
a bill against traitorous correspondence, to prevent intercourse with
France, and specially such acts as the purchase of French stocks, which
tended to support the enemy. Some of its provisions were unusually
restrictive, and the penalty of treason was attached to the breach of
any of them. The bill was passed without material alteration. In spite
of the strong feeling against societies believed to advocate
revolutionary principles, Grey, in accordance with his notice of the
last session, moved that the petition of the Friends of the People for
parliamentary reform should be considered. His motion, which was
supported by Fox, was defeated by 282 to 41.

Violent efforts were made by the government to crush the effects of the
French propaganda, by prosecutions for uttering, printing, or publishing
sedition. The attack was indiscriminate; spies were employed, and idle
words of obscure persons were made grounds of indictment. Both in the
superior courts and at quarter sessions severe penalties were inflicted.
One Frost, a broken-down attorney, and a pestilent rascal enough, though
convicted merely of saying in a coffee-house that he was "for equality
and no king," was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, to stand in the
pillory, and be struck off the roll. A dissenting preacher, found guilty
of using seditious language in the pulpit, was sentenced to fines of
£200 and four years' imprisonment; and Ridgway, a bookseller in
Piccadilly, was awarded the same penalty for selling the _Rights of Man_
and two other pamphlets of a kindred tendency. In Scotland, where the
government business was managed by Dundas, the parliamentary
representation was extremely unsatisfactory; the reformers were violent,
and belonged to revolutionary societies. The sedition cases were mostly
heard before the lord-justice clerk Braxfield, who behaved with
scandalous harshness and severity. One Muir, who had been expelled from
the society of advocates, though no offence of any magnitude was proved
against him at his trial, was condemned to fourteen years'
transportation. Three others received like sentences, and a dissenting
preacher named Palmer was transported for five years. Adam, an eminent
Scottish lawyer, contended in parliament that the sentences on Muir and
Palmer were illegal. His opinion was traversed by Dundas and Pitt, and
his motion on their behalf was negatived by 171 to 32.

It must be remembered that the proceedings of the corresponding and
constitutional societies were such as no settled government could leave
unpunished. Some few arms and a mass of compromising documents were
seized in Edinburgh, and twelve of the leading members of these
societies were arrested in May, 1794. A secret committee of the commons
presented reports on seditious practices, which show that some persons
had conspired to raise an armed insurrection, and that a so-called
national convention at Edinburgh was concerned in treasonable
conspiracy. Later in the year one Watt was hanged for engaging in a wild
plot to seize Edinburgh castle and commit other acts of treason. On the
presentation of the first report of the committee the government brought
in a bill to suspend the _habeas corpus_ act. Pitt declared the matter
urgent, and the bill, which was introduced in the commons on Friday the
16th, was passed in a special sitting the next day, though not without a
struggle, Fox accusing the ministers of a design to terrorise the people
in order to shield themselves from the condemnation which they deserved
for wickedly involving the country in a disastrous war. The opposition
in the commons did not rise in any division above 39, and the lords
passed the bill by 92 to 7. The ordinary law had hitherto proved
sufficient for the occasion, and a review of the evidence before
parliament does not appear to show adequate cause for arming the
executive with an authority so dangerous to liberty. Parliament was
alarmed, and the government shared its alarm and yielded to its desires.
A revulsion of feeling ensued. When the prisoners arrested in May were
tried for treason, the evidence was found to be weak. The first, Hardy,
a shoemaker, was brilliantly defended by Erskine, and was acquitted.
Horne Tooke, the only one of the lot in a superior social position,
jeered at the court, and called Pitt, the Duke of Richmond, and other
great persons to give evidence as to their former connexion with
societies for parliamentary reform. He and Thelwall, a lecturer, were
acquitted, and the rest were set at liberty. The general alarm was
pacified, and people rejoiced that the high character of the English
courts of justice should have been vindicated.

[Sidenote: _ACTIVITY OF THE OPPOSITION._]

When parliament met on January 21, 1794, the opposition was able to
taunt the government with the feebleness and failure of the military
operations of the past year. An amendment to the address recommending
proposals of peace was moved in both houses. In the lords it was
supported only by 12 against 97 votes, the Duke of Bedford and Lords
Lansdowne, Stanhope, and Lauderdale as usual being conspicuous in
opposition to the ministry. In the commons, Fox urged that the cruel
acts of the jacobin government should not prevent England from
negotiating with it, to which Pitt replied that no dependence could be
placed on the existing French government, and that "any alternative was
preferable to making peace with France upon the system of its present
rulers". The address was carried by 277 to 59. Votes were passed for
60,000 regular troops and a naval force of 85,000 men. Weak as the
opposition was, it lost no opportunity. Some Hessian troops sent to join
a British force arrived off the Isle of Wight before the expedition was
ready, and were landed for a short time to prevent them from suffering
from sickness. The opposition maintained that this was a violation of
the bill of rights and the act of settlement. It was easily shown that
the law had not been violated and that the course pursued was not
irregular, and both lords and commons declined to allow that the matter
called for an act of indemnity. Compared with the trifling nature of the
occurrence, the fuss made over it by the opposition can only be
explained by a desire to impede the government in the performance of its
duty at a time of national danger. An invasion was threatened. The
defence of England, Grenville said, would best be secured by her
"water-guard". It was further provided for by raising volunteers. Dundas
wrote to the lord-lieutenants of counties, recommending subscriptions
towards the expenses of the movement. Fox and Sheridan declared that
this recommendation was illegal. Their contention that it was a demand
for "benevolences" was absurd. Yet a request by the government for
money, not addressed to the house of commons, seems contrary to the
spirit of the constitution. Nor did the safety of the state, which would
outweigh all such considerations, require the step. But the matter was
of no practical importance and the action of the government was approved
by parliament.

As Frederick William was evidently withdrawing from the war, Malmesbury
was sent to Berlin, late in 1793, to persuade him to continue it. He
would not do so at his own expense, and it was proposed that the allies
should pay him to keep 100,000 men in the field. Thugut objected;
Austria could not pay her share and it would be better for Europe and
for Austria that the king should stay in Prussia than lead so large an
army to the Rhine.[248] This upset the arrangement. England wanted a
strong force on the frontier of the Austrian Netherlands, and at last,
on April 19, a treaty was signed by which Frederick William agreed to
furnish 62,400 men to act with the armies of Great Britain and Holland
"wherever it shall be judged most suitable to the interests of the two
maritime powers," all conquests being at their disposal, on
consideration of £50,000 a month, and £300,000 at the beginning, and
£100,000 at the end of the campaign, with bread and forage money. Of
these sums £400,000 was to be paid by Holland and the rest by England.
Mack, the Austrian quartermaster-general, came to London and laid a plan
of campaign before the ministers. It was decided that the Austrian and
British armies should widen the breach made in the line of French
fortresses, should march on Cambrai and then perhaps on Paris, supported
by an advance of the Prussians from the Moselle, under Möllendorf, who
had succeeded Brunswick in command. Prompted by Mack, who was then
generally believed to be a strategist of supreme skill, the ministers
expressed dissatisfaction with Coburg, and as difficulties arose with
respect to the command,[249] the emperor took the ostensible command
himself and came to Brussels on April 2.

[Sidenote: _ENGLAND'S ALLIES._]

The campaign opened well. The allies invested Landrecies, and an attempt
to turn the British position at Cateau was repulsed by a brilliant
charge of the 15th light dragoons; a more serious effort to raise the
siege failed, and Landrecies capitulated on the 30th. The Austrians
under Clairfait, however, were defeated at Mouscron. York marched to
Tournai and the allies attempted by a series of combined movements to
cut off the French in West Flanders from their communications with
Lille. Their plan was wrecked by their utter defeat at Tourcoing on May
16, where the British suffered heavily. The French attacked the camp
near Tournai on the 23rd with the object of forcing the line of the
Scheldt, but were foiled, and the British infantry highly distinguished
themselves by their gallant recapture of the post at Pont-à-chin.
Prussian help was urgently needed for the protection of the Netherlands,
and, though paid for by English gold, was not forthcoming. A formidable
insurrection broke out in Poland, and Frederick William marched to quell
it, ordering Möllendorf to confine himself to the defence of the empire.
Malmesbury and Cornwallis went to Mainz and urged Möllendorf to proceed
to Flanders; nothing would move him. The emperor was more anxious about
his interests in Poland than the defence of the Netherlands, and
returned to Vienna. On June 26, Coburg was defeated by Jourdan at
Fleurus and rapidly retired on Waterloo. On July 11, the French entered
Brussels. The Austrians retreated to the Meuse, and York's corps to
Malines where it was joined by 7,000 men under Lord Moira, who had
landed at Ostend on June 26. Disgusted at the supineness of the
Austrians, who were leaving the British and Dutch to their fate, the
English government insisted that Coburg should be superseded.[250] They
urged the emperor to make an effort to reconquer the Netherlands. Thugut
replied that Austria had no money, that the Netherlands were more
important to England and Holland than to the emperor, who did not get
£200 a year from them, and that the Prussian subsidy ought to be
transferred to Austria, or a large loan guaranteed.[251] Austria was set
on her interests in Poland, and it is scarcely too much to say that she
virtually betrayed the common cause.

These negotiations were brought to an end by the success of the French
arms in Germany. The Austrians retreated across the Rhine in October,
and England was not going to pay for the defence of the empire. The
useless subsidy to Prussia was stopped on the 17th, and Möllendorf
withdrew his army across the Rhine. Meanwhile York's army had fallen
back on the line of Dutch fortresses; it was driven across the Meuse,
was forced to retreat from Nimeguen, and encamped behind the Waal.
Dissatisfied with his generalship, Pitt, as early as October 11,
represented to the king that the division of command between him and the
Prince of Orange was mischievous, and suggested that some experienced
general should be sent out. George, who was deeply attached to his son,
seems to have put the suggestion aside, for on November 23, Pitt wrote
again insisting on the duke's recall. The king, though "very much hurt"
was forced to yield and the command-in-chief devolved on General
Walmoden.[252] York had shown himself a gallant soldier and had already
proved his capacity as a military administrator, but he was not equal to
the command of an army in the field.

The first attempt of the French on the line of the Waal was smartly
repulsed by Sir David Dundas on January 4, 1795, but they crossed in
large force a week later, and the British fell back. The line of the Lek
was abandoned and the province of Utrecht evacuated. As the French
advanced, their party among the Dutch gathered strength; the stadholder
fled to England, the Dutch troops separated from the British, Amsterdam
received the invaders, and on the 30th the Dutch fleet, which lay frozen
up in the Texel, was captured by French cavalry. Meanwhile the British
suffered terribly from the severe cold; and their sick and wounded were
often exposed to ill-treatment by the people. The government decided to
withdraw the army and bring it back by Bremen. It retreated across the
Yssel and by the end of February evacuated the United Provinces and
entered Westphalia by way of Enschede. Westphalia was held by
Möllendorf's army, and the British troops, worn out by sickness and
privations, were embarked at Bremen on April 12.

[Sidenote: _DEFECTIONS FROM THE COALITION._]

By the end of 1794 the French were everywhere victorious on land. They
were masters of the Netherlands and were over-running Holland; they held
all the country to the left of the Rhine except Mainz and Luxemburg; a
victorious French army wintered in Catalonia; the passes of the maritime
Alps were opened, and the Piedmontese were driven back from Mont Cenis
and the Little St. Bernard. The states-general proclaimed the
establishment of the Batavian republic, and a treaty with France signed
on May 16 placed the Dutch in a position of virtual dependence.
Frederick William, anxious to forward his interests in Poland, had
abandoned the war, and was turning towards peace with France. The
spoliation of Poland, which exercised so deadly an effect on the
fortunes of the coalition, was completed in January, 1795, when Russia
divided the remainder of the country between herself, Austria, and
Prussia by an arrangement confirmed by treaties later in the year. The
coalition suffered from further defections. The Grand-duke of Tuscany,
who was compelled by Hood's fleet to break off intercourse with the
republic in the summer of 1793, was restored to his former state of
neutrality by a treaty with France. Spain also was deserting the
coalition. Godoy, the lover of the queen of Charles IV., who controlled
the policy of the court, opened negotiations with France before the end
of 1794. Among the questions which retarded their progress was the fate
of the Spanish king's young kinsman, the dauphin, or Louis XVII. Death
released the poor boy from his misery in June. The French entered
Vittoria and were preparing for the siege of Pampeluna. Their successes
hastened matters; the treaty with France was concluded on July 22, 1795,
and the minion Godoy was saluted as "Prince of the Peace". Pitt's
coalition was well-nigh ruined.

While the year 1794 saw the hopes of England frustrated on the
continent, she was victorious at sea. Acting on overtures from Paoli,
Hood attacked the French in Corsica, and sent Nelson to blockade Bastia,
which was surrendered on May 22. Calvi was besieged by a military force
under General Stuart and by Nelson, who lost his right eye there. Its
capitulation, on August 10, completed the conquest of the island. In the
West Indies a squadron under Sir John Jervis and troops commanded by Sir
Charles, afterwards the first Earl Grey, compelled the surrender of
Martinique, St. Lucia, and Guadaloupe with Mariegalante. Port-au-Prince
and harbours important to the Jamaica trade were also taken in the
French part of San Domingo. But the British force was insufficient for
all that it had to do in the West Indies. French troops landed in
Guadaloupe during the absence of Jervis and Grey, were welcomed by a
large part of the creole population, and after a long struggle forced
the British to evacuate the island.

[Sidenote: _THE GLORIOUS FIRST OF JUNE._]

England's maritime strength, combined with a bad harvest, war, and
insurrection, caused a scarcity of food in France which threatened to
amount to a famine. A fleet of merchant ships laden with provisions was
anxiously expected from America, and a convoying squadron was sent to
bring it over. The channel fleet, thirty-four ships of the line and
fifteen frigates, under Howe, sailed on May 2 with 148 merchantmen bound
for different parts. Howe despatched the merchantmen and their convoys
under Admiral Montagu, with orders that after Montagu had convoyed the
merchantmen a certain distance, he was to cruise about with six ships of
the line and look out for the provision ships. Their safe arrival was
vital to France, and Rear-admiral Villaret-Joyeuse sailed with the Brest
fleet to bring them in. As soon as Howe found that the French fleet had
sailed, he determined to strike at the main force of the enemy. He
sighted the French to windward on the 28th, about 400 miles west of
Ushant. Their fleet consisted of twenty-six ships of the line, the same
number as his own. He at once sent four of his fastest ships to get to
windward of them, and attack their rear. A partial action took place in
which the _Révolutionnaire_ (110) was utterly disabled, and her last
assailant, the _Audacious_ (74), was so crippled that she went home. On
the 29th Howe planned to obtain the weather-gage and to deliver a
concentrated attack on the rear of the enemy. He took his flagship, the
_Queen Charlotte_ (100), through the French line, and was followed by
two others. Villaret manoeuvred skilfully, but three of his ships were
badly damaged. The result of Howe's admirable tactics during these two
days was that four French ships were forced to leave the fleet, and
another had to be towed by a consort, and that he won the windward
position and so was enabled to force an action. On the 30th there was a
thick fog, and during the day the French received a reinforcement of
four ships, giving them the advantage of one over the British. The fog
cleared at noon on the 31st; the British fleet came up with the enemy,
then to leeward, and "near sunset" formed the line of battle.

On Sunday morning, June 1, a fresh breeze blowing south by west, the two
fleets lay in parallel lines, the leading British ship being opposite to
the seventh of the French fleet. The British having formed on the
larboard line of bearing, Howe brought them down slantwise on the enemy,
apparently intending that each ship should pass across the stern of her
opponent, rake her, and engage to leeward. Unlike Rodney in the battle
of the Saints, he deliberately adopted the manoeuvre of breaking the
line, and planned that his ships should fight to leeward instead of to
windward, and so bar the crippled ships of the enemy from getting away.
As the _Queen Charlotte_ bore down, he bade the master, Bowen, lay her
as close as he could to Villaret's flagship, the _Montagne_ (120). Bowen
brought her so close round the Frenchman's stern that the tricolour
ensign flapped against her shrouds, and as she passed she raked her
gigantic enemy from stern to stem with her larboard broadside to such
effect that the _Montagne_ lost 300 killed and wounded before she could
make reply. Six British ships broke through the line and engaged to
leeward; the others remained to windward, the captains perhaps not fully
understanding Howe's plan.

As the _Brunswick_ (74) tried to force her way through the French line,
her anchors caught in the rigging of the _Vengeur du Peuple_ (74), and
the two ships drifted side by side in deadly embrace for three hours.
When at last they parted the _Brunswick_ had received much damage and
lost 158 men, including her captain, who was mortally wounded. The
_Vengeur_ was a wreck. A broadside from the _Ramillies_ (74) finished
her. She "hauled her colours down and displayed a Union Jack over her
quarter, and hailed for quarter having struck, her masts going soon
after, and a-sinking".[253] The _Alfred_ (74) sent an officer aboard
her, and the boats of three English ships saved about 333 of her crew.
The "rest went down with her". The flatulent account of her end, given
by Barrère in the convention, is largely imaginary. The crew of the
_Vengeur_ did not choose death rather than the surrender of their ship.
Some of those whom the efforts of the British seamen failed to save,
went down with a cry of _Vive la république_! They had surrendered after
a hard-fought fight, and they died as gallant seamen die. The battle of
"the glorious first of June" ended in the complete victory of the
British fleet. Six French ships were taken besides the _Vengeur_; five
dismasted and several crippled ships were brought away by Villaret. Howe
might easily have secured more prizes, but he was an old man, and was
completely worn out by the fatigue and anxiety of the last five days.
His tactics were splendid, though the detaching of part of his fleet
under Montagu was a strategic mistake. The provision ships got safely
into Brest, but the French purchased their food at the cost of their
fleet.

In July the whigs who supported Pitt coalesced with the government. A
third secretaryship of state was again instituted. Grenville remained
foreign secretary; the Duke of Portland, the nominal head of the
seceding whigs, took the home department, with the colonies, and Dundas
retained the conduct of the war as secretary of state for war. Earl
Fitzwilliam became president of the council, and was promised the
vice-royalty of Ireland as soon as a suitable place was found for the
present lord lieutenant, the Earl of Westmorland. The Marquis of
Stafford resigned the privy seal, which was given to Earl Spencer, and
Windham entered the cabinet as secretary-at-war, though his office was
not then considered as one of cabinet rank. Burke retired from
parliament at the close of the trial of Hastings, and, as he was in
straitened circumstances, accepted two pensions of £1,200 and £2,500.
The death of his only son clouded the last years of his noble life. Two
later changes in office were salutary. Pitt had the unpleasant duty of
urging the king to remove his brother Chatham from the admiralty;[254]
he resigned on December 20, was succeeded as first lord by Earl Spencer,
an excellent appointment, and succeeded Spencer as privy seal, an office
more suited to his temperament and talents. The Duke of Richmond was
held to be inefficient as master of the ordnance; the new ministers
insisted on his removal, and he was succeeded on February 13, 1795, by
Cornwallis. At the same time the king appointed his son York
field-marshal on the staff; he became commander-in-chief in 1798, but at
no time had a seat in the cabinet.

[Sidenote: _THE IRISH CATHOLIC QUESTION._]

These accessions and changes strengthened the ministry. For a time,
however, the new ministers recruited from the whigs were inclined to act
as a party on questions concerning office. This caused some trouble in
the cabinet, specially in connexion with Ireland. Although the trade of
Ireland was increased by the removal of restrictions, its agriculture
stimulated by bounties on exported corn, and its manufactures and other
resources enlarged by parliamentary grants and wise legislation, its
political condition was unsatisfactory. It needed a reform of
parliament, the admission of catholics to political power, the overthrow
of the system by which the castle secured power by the distribution of
pensions and offices, and a change in the tithe law. The Earl of
Westmorland had succeeded Buckingham as lord-lieutenant in 1790. Round
him stood a group of ministers, bishops, and great lords opposed to any
changes. Revolutionary principles gained ground among the people. The
society of United Irishmen, founded by Wolfe Tone, a lawyer, in 1791,
aimed at uniting protestants and catholics for the purpose of
overthrowing the English ascendency and effecting a reform of parliament
of a democratic kind. While religious animosity was dying out among the
upper classes, it was rife among the peasantry, and catholic "defenders"
and protestant "peep of day boys" were at constant war. The catholics
still suffered from many disabilities. Their hopes of relief were
encouraged by the English relief act of 1791, and by the advocacy of
Burke, who in his _Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe_ (1792), argued
against the monopoly of power by the protestants, and allowed his son to
act as the professional adviser of the catholic committee. The English
ministers favoured the catholics, and dreaded an alliance between them
and the democratic party among the protestants, which would bring them
over to join in the demand for parliamentary reform.

Dundas urged the Irish government to assent to the enfranchisement of
the catholics on grounds both of justice and expediency. Westmorland and
his advisers objected. Pitt recommended them to give way, and wrote that
in any case they must not deprive the catholics of hope. In a letter to
Westmorland he pointed out that no danger could possibly arise from
enfranchisement if Ireland were united to England, a plan which, he
said, had long been in his mind.[255] The Irish government yielded, and
a bill granting the catholics the suffrage and other relief became law
in April, 1793. They were still shut out from parliament and from high
offices of state. The measure was ill-conceived, for while it conferred
political power upon the poor and ignorant catholics, it left the
catholic gentry, a loyal and conservative body, debarred from exercising
the influence to which their position entitled them. On the outbreak of
the war Grattan supported the government; and parliament voted liberal
supplies for the army and navy, and passed a bill establishing an Irish
militia of the same kind as that of England. The country was disturbed
by troubles over the compulsory enlistment for the militia and by the
lawlessness of the defenders. A period of comparative quiet, however,
followed the relief act, and the rejection of a moderate reform bill in
1794 created no disturbance. Nevertheless secret disloyalty increased,
and Tone and some of his allies held seditious correspondence with
France.[256] The United Irishmen grew in numbers, for while the leaders,
Tone, Emmet, and Rowan were protestants, they were joined by many
catholics. On the other hand, Grattan and his party, supported by most
of the protestant and many of the catholic gentry, though anxious for
reforms and specially for the complete repeal of the catholic
disabilities, were strongly opposed to the democratic movement and were
loyal to the constitution of 1782.

[Sidenote: _FITZWILLIAM AS VICEROY._]

Their hopes were raised by the prospect of the speedy appointment of
Fitzwilliam as lord-lieutenant, which seemed to promise a change of
system favourable to the hopes of the Irish whigs. On taking office as
president of the council in July, Fitzwilliam, in common with Portland,
to whose department Ireland belonged, thought that he was to succeed
Westmorland without delay; he appointed his chief secretary and openly
entered into communications with Grattan and Ponsonby which implied
extensive changes both of men and measures.[257] The Irish were
delighted. Pitt, however, did not mean to give Ireland over to Portland
and Fitzwilliam. Unfortunately he let matters slide; though he did not
recall Westmorland, he abstained from checking Fitzwilliam's somewhat
premature proceedings. In October, Portland pressed for Fitzwilliam's
immediate appointment. Pitt then said that he would not consent to a
change of system, and specially not to the dismissal of the chancellor,
Fitzgibbon, and would not recall Westmorland until he had a suitable
place to offer him. A serious quarrel ensued between him and the new
ministers of Portland's party. At last a compromise was effected. A
court office was found for Westmorland. Fitzwilliam in an interview with
Pitt and other ministers disavowed all idea of a general change of
system, agreed to some arrangements with regard to appointments, and was
instructed to prevent, if possible, the agitation of the catholic
question during the coming session, though if he could not evade it he
was to be at liberty to give the measure his full support.[258] Pitt was
favourable to catholic emancipation, but wished to have no changes
during the war. Fitzwilliam received his appointment and was succeeded
as president of the council by the Earl of Mansfield.

[Sidenote: _FITZWILLIAM RECALLED._]

He landed in Ireland on January 4, 1795. His appointment had inspired
the catholic committee with fresh vigour, and he found that the
catholics were united on the question of a complete removal of
disabilities and that the mass of the protestant gentry favoured their
demand. Defenderism was active and the country was in a disturbed state.
He informed the cabinet that the catholic question was urgent.
Parliament met and in a loyal humour voted large supplies for the war.
Grattan undertook the catholic business, and Fitzwilliam promised his
support, and pressed for the approval of the cabinet on the ground that
a complete repeal of all disqualifying laws was necessary in order to
secure the pacification and loyalty of the country. No answer was sent
to his appeals. Meanwhile Fitzwilliam dismissed some administrative
officers and among them Beresford, a powerful member of the party which
had so long been preponderant at the castle. Beresford carried his
complaint to London, and Pitt remonstrated with Fitzwilliam on his
dismissal. Portland, too, at last wrote, warning him not to commit
himself on the catholic question. It was too late. Portland wrote again
and declared himself hostile to emancipation. Fitzwilliam expostulated
in vain, and finally, on February 23, the cabinet agreed to recall him.
He left Ireland on March 25. It was a day of general gloom; the Dublin
tradesmen put up their shutters, no business was transacted, and many
persons wore mourning. The hopes of Ireland were bitterly disappointed
and the door seemed shut against reforms by constitutional means. Lord
Camden was appointed lord-lieutenant, the catholic bill was rejected,
Fitzgibbon was made Earl of Clare, and the party in favour of the
protestant ascendency was re-established in power. Whether the presence
of catholics in the parliament would have led to such a thorough removal
of the causes of Irish discontent as would have pacified the country and
saved it from the rebellion of 1798 seems extremely doubtful, but it is
certain that the recall of Fitzwilliam was fatal to any chance of so
happy a settlement.

Although he acted hastily and unadvisedly as regards the dismissals, he
was right in saying that it was impossible for him to stave off the
catholic claims, and that no measures would secure the loyalty of the
catholics or the peace of Ireland unless they were satisfied. As Pitt
desired to defer emancipation to an uncertain date, the end of the war,
he should not have excited the expectation of the Irish by an
appointment which they naturally interpreted as a sign of immediate
acquiescence. Fitzwilliam, before his actual appointment, was allowed to
commit himself to a line of conduct to which Pitt afterwards objected;
his instructions were somewhat vague, and he did not receive timely
notice that the cabinet would not assent to the policy he was
adopting.[259] Deeply immersed in the conduct of the war, Pitt seems to
have neglected the affairs of Ireland at this time, and to have failed
to appreciate the gravity of the crisis. Fitzwilliam's recall was due
partly to Pitt's unwillingness to offend Beresford's powerful friends in
both countries and the whole party which had given him valuable
support,[260] partly to his determination to avoid any change of system
during the war, and partly to the dislike of some other members of the
cabinet, plainly expressed by Portland, to the proposed overthrow of the
protestant ascendency. Yet another influence was brought to bear on the
decision of the cabinet. On February 6 the king sent Pitt a statement of
his strong objection to emancipation, both as a matter of policy and on
religious grounds, ending with the remark that it would be better to
change the new Irish administration than to submit to it.[261] His
feelings were strengthened by hearing, perhaps from Westmorland, that
Fitzgibbon was of opinion that he could not give the royal assent to
catholic emancipation without a breach of his coronation oath and of the
act of succession,[262] a mistaken idea which ruled his later conduct
with lamentable results. He consulted some great lawyers on the point;
Lord Kenyon and Scott, the attorney-general, assured him that he could
assent to a change in the test act without breach of his oath, but the
chancellor, Loughborough, gave him an undecided answer which tended to
strengthen his opinion. His feelings on the question doubtless confirmed
the ministers in their decision, but must not be supposed to have
dictated it.[263]

FOOTNOTES:

[241] This question is admirably dealt with by Lord Rosebery in his
_Pitt_, pp. 148-60.

[242] Newmarch, _On the Loans Raised by Mr. Pitt_, pp. 25-27; W. E.
Gladstone to H. Gladstone, March 10, 1876, in Morley's _Life of
Gladstone_, ii., 637-38.

[243] Sorel, _u.s._, iii., 366-68; Sybel, _u.s._, ii., 239-41; Auckland
to Grenville, Ap. 8 and 9, 1793, MS. Holland, R.O.

[244] Chuquet, _Les Guerres de la Révolution_, xi., 115.

[245] Auckland to Grenville, April 26 and May 14, 1793, MS. Holland,
R.O.; Eden to Grenville, April 15 and May 13, MS. Austria, R.O.

[246] Chuquet, _Les Guerres de la Révolution_, xi., 149, 151-52, 251.

[247] Grenville to Eden, Jan. 3, 1791, MS., Austria, R.O.

[248] Eden to Grenville, Jan. 29 and Feb. 15, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.

[249] Grenville to Eden, Feb. 18, and Eden to Grenville, March 11, 1794,
MS. Austria, R.O.; Grenville to King, Feb. 16, _Dropmore Papers_, ii.,
505.

[250] Grenville to Spencer, July 19, 1794, MS. Austria, R.O.

[251] Spencer and J. Grenville to Grenville, Aug. 12 and Oct. 1, 1794,
MS. Austria, R.O.

[252] Pitt to George III., Oct. 11 and Nov. 23, 1794 (rough drafts),
MSS. Pitt Papers, 101; George III. to Pitt, Nov. 19, in Stanhope's _Life
of Pitt_, ii., App. xxi. The drafts of Pitt's letters escaped Lord
Stanhope's notice.

[253] "Log of the _Brunswick_," _Great Sea Fights_, i., 102, ed. Admiral
T. S. Jackson.

[254] Pitt to George III., Dec. 8, 1794. MS. Pitt Papers, 101.

[255] Lecky, _History_, vi., 513.

[256] W. W. Tone, _Life of T. W. Tone_, i., 111-18.

[257] Grenville to T. Grenville, Sept. 15 and Oct. 15, 1794, _Court and
Cabinets_, ii., 301,312.

[258] Add. MS., 33,118, ff. 268-78 (Pelham Papers), dated March, 1795,
and _First Letter of Fitzwilliam to Earl of Carlisle_, p. 19, Dublin,
1795.

[259] _Second Letter of Fitzwilliam to Carlisle_, pp. 12, 13, 2nd ed.,
1795.

[260] That it was largely a question of "men" with Pitt was held by
Pelham, the chief secretary, 1795-97 (Pelham to Portland, March 22,
1795, Add. MS., 33, 113), as well as by Fitzwilliam (_Second Letter to
Carlisle_, pp. 4, 24) and Burke (_Life of Grattan_, iv., 202).

[261] Stanhope, _Life of Pitt_, ii., App. xiii.-xiv.

[262] _Auckland Corr._, iii., 303-5; Add. MS., 33,118, f. 283.

[263] For full treatment of this crisis see Lecky, _Hist._, vii., 1-98.




                               CHAPTER XVIII.

                          ENGLAND'S DARKEST DAYS.


Before parliament met on December 30, 1794, a change in the public
affairs of France encouraged hopes of peace in England. The fall of
Robespierre and the end of the Terror on July 28 (10th Thermidor) were
followed by a reaction; the revolutionary committees lost their
dictatorial power, the convention regained its supremacy, and the
jacobin club was closed. This reaction, combined with the success of the
French arms in the Netherlands and Holland, the decay of the coalition,
the burdens entailed by the war, and the conviction that the republican
government would gain in stability by foreign opposition, led some of
Pitt's followers to desire an attempt at negotiation. The king's speech
urged a vigorous prosecution of the war, and was ably seconded in the
commons by a young member, George Canning, one of Pitt's devoted
adherents. Pitt's friend, Wilberforce, moved an amendment for opening
negotiations, and the minority against the government was 73. Soon
afterwards in two divisions, arising out of a resolution moved by Grey
in January, 1795, the minority rose to 86 and 90. As in these divisions
the minority included some of Pitt's regular supporters, they are highly
significant. As regards domestic affairs the opposition remained in its
normal condition. A motion for the repeal of the _habeas corpus_
suspension act, which led to a debate on the late trials for treason,
was defeated by 239 to 41, and attacks on the government with reference
to the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam were easily foiled by the assertion of
the right of the crown to dismiss its confidential servants.

[Sidenote: _THE PRINCE OF WALES._]

The affairs of the Prince of Wales again demanded the attention of
parliament. He had not mended his ways since 1787; his creditors pressed
him and put executions in his house. He could no longer reckon on the
support of the opposition in any application to parliament, for he had
voted against them on the seditious publications bill in 1792. In order
to escape from his difficulties he promised the king to marry Caroline,
daughter of the Duke of Brunswick. She was brought over to England by
Lord Malmesbury, and though at his first interview with her the prince
did not conceal his disgust, the marriage took place on April 8. Pitt
brought a royal message to the commons requesting in humble terms that
they would enable the prince to pay his debts and would make a provision
for him and the princess. He stated the prince's debts at about
£630,000, and proposed that the princess should have a jointure of
£50,000 a year, that the prince's income should be increased by £65,000,
making it £125,000 a year, exclusive of the duchy of Cornwall, and that
£25,000 a year should be deducted for the interest on his debts, and the
revenues of the duchy appropriated for the gradual payment of them. Grey
moved that the increase should only be £40,000. Fox reminded the house
that in 1787 the prince promised that he would not again apply to
parliament for payment of his debts, and suggested that the augmentation
of £65,000 and the income of the duchy should be used for the purpose.
Pitt's proposals were carried. The princess, a coarse-minded and giddy
young woman, was shamefully treated by her husband, and after the birth
of their daughter, the Princess Charlotte, in January, 1796, they
finally separated.

For the prosecution of the war parliament voted 100,000 seamen,
including marines, and £14,500,000 for army expenses; the total supplies
were about £27,500,000. Ten new taxes were imposed, one of them on
hair-powder at twenty-one shillings a head, which was calculated at
£210,000; and a loan of £18,000,000 was effected. With this year began a
period of difficulty in raising money and the loan was only obtained at
the total rate of £4 16s. 2d. per cent. In February Pitt hoped to
prevent Prussia from making peace with France, and to induce the king to
renew the war by the grant of another subsidy. Grenville, who was
convinced that no reliance could be placed on Prussia, objected and
threatened to resign if Pitt persisted in his plan. He desired a close
alliance with Austria, and believed that the grant of a subsidy to
Prussia would alienate the courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg. Pitt
would not give way, and Grenville promised to keep his intended
resignation a secret until the end of the session. He privately
announced his resignation to the king, who, though he had at first been
opposed to a Prussian subsidy, was then on Pitt's side, for he was
discouraged by the ill-success of Austria. Pitt's project came to
naught; for on April 5 Frederick William made a treaty with France at
Basle, by which he surrendered the Prussian territories on the left bank
of the Rhine. Secret articles provided that if France kept those
territories he should be indemnified elsewhere. Grenville continued in
office; Pitt had cause to rejoice that he was saved from a serious
mistake, and the threatened disruption of the cabinet remained a
secret.[264]

George himself had advised Grenville in December, 1794, to persuade
Austria to renew the war by granting her a subsidy or a loan. His advice
was in accordance with Grenville's own wishes. An arrangement with
Catherine of Russia determined the Austrian emperor to carry on the war,
with the intention of indemnifying himself at the expense of Bavaria and
Venice, if he was unable to recover the Netherlands and conquer Lorraine
and Alsace, and England had to find him money. By a convention signed on
May 4 the government guaranteed a loan of £4,600,000 to be raised in
London, to enable him to employ an army of 200,000 men. Defensive
treaties were also concluded with Russia and Austria, and a triple
alliance was formed in virtue of which Russia sent subsidies to Austria;
for Catherine would take no part in the war by land. The imperial loan,
which in 1798 became a charge on the consolidated fund, was raised at
the rate of 7-1/2 per cent. It was unsuccessfully opposed by Fox, who
argued against the general policy of making grants to foreign powers,
whether by way of loans or subsidies, and pointed out that the only real
difference between a loan and a subsidy was that, in the case of a loan
England would not be able to get rid of the payment, whereas a monthly
subsidy could be stopped if the contract was broken.

In Germany the war was not marked by any great event. France was much
distressed by domestic troubles. Public credit failed; and Pitt,
speaking on Grey's motion for peace, argued that France was near the end
of her resources. Food was scarce and half Paris was only kept alive by
distributions of bread and meat at low prices. The jacobins of Paris
were crushed by the thermidoriens, and in the south-east a sanguinary
movement of the enemies of the republic, the "white terror," pursued its
course unchecked. In August a new constitution was adopted of a far less
democratic character than that of 1793; the executive was vested in a
directory of five and the legislative in two assemblies. An insurrection
in Paris on October 5 was quelled mainly by the fire of a few cannon
under the command of Bonaparte, and the revolution assumed an organised
and settled form. Three years of war had brought Austria also to a state
of exhaustion. Active operations, therefore, did not begin until late.
Luxemburg surrendered after a blockade; and in the autumn Jourdan and
Pichegru led two armies across the Rhine at different points. Jourdan
drove the Austrians back and invested Mainz; Pichegru occupied Mannheim.
Clairfait, however, forced Jourdan to abandon the siege of Mainz and cut
the two French generals off from one another. Mannheim was retaken and
both the French armies were pushed back across the Rhine.

[Sidenote: _A LOST OPPORTUNITY._]

In the war on the Italian frontier the British fleet in the
Mediterranean bore some part. In Hood's absence it was commanded by
Admiral Hotham, a distinguished officer, though lacking in dash and
resolution. The French threatened Corsica with their Toulon fleet.
Hotham engaged them on March 13 and 14, and cut off their two rearmost
ships, but in Nelson's opinion lost an opportunity of destroying the
whole fleet. The attempt on Corsica, however, was abandoned. Both fleets
were reinforced; for the watch on Brest was slackly kept and six ships
were allowed to leave the port and sail to Toulon. Another engagement in
Hyères bay on July 13 only resulted in the destruction of one French
ship, and was another lost opportunity. The command of the sea, which
would have carried with it the control of the Italian states, was not
secured. Meanwhile an Austrian army, acting with the Sardinians and
relying on the co-operation of the British fleet, forced the French to
evacuate Vado. The two armies faced one another, the Austrians waiting
until the French should be compelled to retire by want of provisions;
for as they were cut off from Genoa they depended on supplies by sea.
Hotham detached Nelson with a small squadron to intercept their
supplies and co-operate with the Austrians. He performed his duty with
characteristic energy, but the ships which Hotham allowed him were too
few for the work he had to do. The French army was strongly reinforced
and was supplied by coasting vessels. The allies were totally defeated
in the battle of Loano on November 23. The Austrians retreated beyond
the Apennines, and the French had no further difficulty in obtaining
provisions.

[Sidenote: _QUIBERON._]

Before the end of 1794 Pitt was persuaded by the Count de Puisaye, a
leader of the Breton Chouans, to send an expedition to support them. The
expeditionary force was to consist of French emigrants headed by the
Count of Artois, the youngest brother of Louis XVI. Emigrants were
enlisted in England and from the force lately serving on the Rhine, and
the government supplied arms and money. It was hoped that an unexpected
descent on the coast would enable the royalists in the west to gain an
immediate success, which was to be followed up by an invasion of a
British force under Lord Moira. The plan became known, and in June it
was necessary to act at once. The first body of emigrants, about 3,500
men, under Puisaye and Hervilly, with large supplies of all kinds and
specially of arms for future recruits, sailed on the 16th in a squadron
commanded by Sir John Warren. The Brest fleet was on the watch for them,
and Warren sent for help to Lord Bridport, then in command of the
channel fleet. Bridport caught the French, who were inferior in
strength, off the Ile de Groix and captured three of their line of
battle, but allowed the rest to escape into L'Orient. On the 27th the
emigrants were landed on the peninsula of Quiberon and, with some help
from the squadron, took the fortress of Penthièvre which commanded it. A
large number of Chouans joined them and arms were distributed among the
peasantry.

Puisaye and Hervilly quarrelled. Time was wasted, and Hoche, who was in
command in Brittany, drove in the Chouans from their advanced posts and
shut the whole force up in the peninsula. They made an attempt to break
out on July 16; Hervilly was wounded and his troops retreated under
cover of the fire from British gunboats. A second party landed under
Sombreuil. More quarrelling ensued and then treachery, for Hervilly had
enlisted some who were republicans at heart. These men betrayed their
companions, and with their help Hoche stormed the fort of Penthièvre,
and fell on the royalists in the peninsula. Many were slaughtered;
others fled. It blew hard, and for a time the British ships could do
little for the fugitives. At last they were able to take off Puisaye and
some 3,500 others. Sombreuil and about a thousand under him were cut
off, and laid down their arms. Sombreuil was tried and executed at
Vannes, and over 700 were shot in batches on successive days in a field
near Auray. The fugitives were landed on the islands of Houat and Hædik
which were covered by the squadron. Then the Count of Artois with a
third division of the expedition and a body of British troops appeared,
took possession of the Ile d'Yeu, and seemed about to cross over to the
mainland to co-operate with the Vendeans. However nothing further was
done of any importance, and in October the troops were embarked for
England. The Vendeans, who had hoped in vain to receive help, and to be
headed by Artois, were again crushed, and the only result of this
ill-planned and deplorable expedition was the ruin of the royalist cause
in the west.

Nor were events cheering in the West Indies during 1795. The reconquest
of Guadaloupe, due to the insufficiency of the British force sent out in
1794, led to disastrous consequences. The French firmly established
themselves in the island and made it a centre for operations, St. Lucia
was taken, and insurrections of French inhabitants, negroes, and native
races were fomented and supported in St. Vincent's, Grenada, and
Dominica. An insurrection of the Maroons caused much trouble in Jamaica,
and the government of the island imported bloodhounds from Cuba to track
the fugitive insurgents. Great indignation was expressed in parliament
at this measure, and it was asserted that the dogs tore the natives in
pieces. Dundas explained that the home government was not responsible
for the importation of the dogs, and promised that if they were used for
such a horrid purpose the practice should be stopped. In 1796 a large
force was sent to the West Indies under Sir Ralph Abercromby and Admiral
Christian. St. Lucia was retaken and the British power re-established in
the Antilles. The French, however, retained Guadaloupe, and privateers
both from that island and Cuba did much damage to the West India trade.
England gained largely by the alliance between Holland and France, for
it threw the Dutch colonies open to attack. Their rich settlements in
Ceylon, Malacca, and on the Malabar coast; the Cape (September, 1795);
Demarara, Essequibo, and the Moluccas (1796) were taken without
difficulty.

England's naval power was already forwarding the increase of her trade,
and the total loss of commerce with France, Holland, and the Belgian
Netherlands was more than counterbalanced by its increase with Germany,
Russia, and the United States. With the United States some serious
difficulties with respect to neutral rights were happily settled in 1794
by a treaty which was negotiated on their part by Jay, and finally
ratified in 1796. Yet the year 1795 was one of great distress among the
poor. Two bad harvests in succession raised the average price of wheat,
which in 1792 had been 43s., to 75s. 2d. Bread riots broke out in
Sussex, in Birmingham, Nottingham, Coventry, and other places. Bills
were passed with the object of husbanding the supply of wheat; liberal
bounties were granted on importation, and the members of parliament
entered into an agreement to curtail the use of wheaten flour in their
own households. A bill for the regulation of wages, introduced by
Whitbread, the brewer, and advocated by Fox, was opposed by Pitt and was
rejected. Starving men are quick to believe assertions that their
sufferings are caused by ill-government, and the corresponding society,
encouraged by the failure of the prosecutions in 1794, was active in
spreading political discontent. At a large meeting held in St. George's
Fields on July 29, an address to the king was voted and resolutions were
passed demanding annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and above all
peace, as remedies for the high price of food. Parliament was summoned
for October 29. On the 26th, a meeting in Copenhagen Fields,
Mary-le-bone, at which 150,000 persons are said to have been present,
adopted a strongly worded "remonstrance" to the king, praying for
parliamentary reform, the dismissal of the ministers, and a speedy
peace. When the king went to open parliament a large crowd greeted him
with hisses and cries of "Bread! Peace! No Pitt!" His carriage was
pelted, and a missile, probably from an air-gun, broke the glass. On his
return the same cries were raised; there was more pelting, and the king
was only rescued from the crowd by the arrival of some horse-guards.
George, than whom no braver man lived in his dominions, remained
perfectly calm throughout these scenes, read the royal speech without a
sign of excitement, and the next night went with the queen and the
princesses to Covent Garden theatre, where he was received with
enthusiasm. The soldiers also acted admirably and abstained from hurting
any one.

[Sidenote: _REPRESSIVE ACTS._]

The insult to the king and the proceedings of the corresponding society
were met by repressive measures. Proclamations relating to the outrage
and to seditious assemblies were followed by two bills, one introduced
in the lords by Grenville, the other in the commons by Pitt. The first,
the treasonable practices bill, extended the crime of treason to spoken
and written words not followed by any overt act, and created a new crime
by subjecting to heavy penalties any one convicted of inciting others to
hatred of the sovereign or the established government. The second, the
seditious meetings bill, forbade all political meetings of which notice
had not previously been given by resident householders, and empowered
any two justices to dissolve a legally constituted meeting at their
discretion by using the riot act. Both these measures were grievous
encroachments on liberty. Apart from its extension of the law of
treason, the first might be used to prevent all discussion of political
reforms; the second checked the public expression of opinion on public
affairs. The ministry, however, was acting in accordance with the will
of parliament and of the vast majority of the respectable part of the
nation, who were alarmed and indignant at the success of seditious
agitators in exciting political discontent among the uneducated classes.
England was engaged in a struggle for existence, and could not afford to
tolerate sedition. Looking back on issues then incalculable, we may
think that repression was carried farther than was necessary; but
anything was better than the least sign of weakness in dealing with
seditious practices. Excited meetings, over one of which Fox presided,
were held to condemn the bills. Numerous petitions, mostly got up by the
corresponding society, were presented against them; and many were
presented in their favour. They were violently opposed by the minority
in parliament, and Fox declared that if they became law, obedience would
no longer be a question of duty but of prudence, a direct incitement to
rebellion only to be excused as uttered in the heat of debate, an excuse
which is also needed for some foolish and intemperate language on the
other side. The sedition bill, which was limited to three years, was
amended by giving up the clause empowering magistrates to dissolve
meetings at their discretion as dangerous to the public peace. The two
bills were passed in both houses by overwhelming majorities. The treason
act was only to last during the king's life, and both acts proved quite
harmless, for neither was ever called into operation.

Pitt's budget for 1796 included another loan of £18,000,000 and several
new taxes, one of them on salt. He proposed duties on legacies and on
collateral successions to real estate. The first was easily carried, but
Fox, in spite of his democratic professions, seized on the proposal to
make landed estates equally liable with other property to taxation, as
an opportunity for thwarting the government by exciting the selfishness
of the landed gentry, and Pitt found that so many of his supporters were
hostile to the tax that he withdrew his proposal. Nor was the inequality
redressed until 1853, when Gladstone, following Pitt's lead, made all
successions alike liable to duty. As at the end of the session in May
parliament was near the term of its natural life, a new parliament was
elected. The returns showed that the government had lost no ground in
the confidence of the country: as a rule, the large constituencies
elected supporters of Pitt; indeed, twenty-three of Fox's small
following were returned for nomination boroughs.

The policy of England in 1796 was closely connected with the course of
the war between her Austrian ally and the French. In March Bonaparte
took the command of the army of Italy. He defeated the Austrians at
Montenotte, and compelled the Sardinian king to abandon the coalition.
He crossed the Po, forced the passage of the Adda at Lodi, and occupied
Milan on May 14. The Austrians fell back behind the Mincio, and
garrisoned the strong fortress of Mantua. Bonaparte levied contributions
on the Dukes of Parma and Modena, forced the papal states to submission,
occupied Leghorn, which was thus closed against our ships, and reduced
the Grand Duke of Tuscany to obedience. In June Ferdinand of Naples and
the pope made armistices with France. The Austrian power in Italy
depended on the possession of Mantua. Wurmser forced Bonaparte to raise
the siege, and the Austrians though defeated at Lonato and Castiglione,
regarrisoned the place. A second attempt by Wurmser to relieve it was
defeated in August, and he was shut into Mantua. If Hotham had destroyed
the French fleet in the Mediterranean, Bonaparte would not have carried
everything before him in the Italian states south of the Po. As it was,
his success had an unfortunate effect on England's naval war.

[Sidenote: _FLEET LEAVES THE MEDITERRANEAN._]

After 1795 the French made no more attempts to cope with an English
fleet. They employed their navy only in military expeditions and in the
destruction of British commerce.[265] The watch upon their ports was
slackly kept and ships constantly left them. Much damage was done to
England's trade, specially by privateers; her navy was largely employed
in convoy duty, and actions between small squadrons and single ships
were frequent. In this year a French squadron cruelly ravaged the coast
of Newfoundland, another captured part of a West India convoy, and a
third made some prizes in the Levant. Warfare of this kind, though
troublesome to England, could not affect her maritime supremacy. That
was impaired by the results of Bonaparte's campaign in Italy. In
December, 1795, the command in the Mediterranean was taken by Sir John
Jervis, a fine seaman and a strict disciplinarian, who soon brought the
fleet to a high state of efficiency. He kept a strict watch on Toulon,
and employed Nelson in intercepting the French communications by sea. By
the end of June the ports of Tuscany, Naples, and the papal dominions
were shut against his ships; Corsica was restless, and the fleet was in
danger of being left without a base. In July Nelson, who was then
blockading Leghorn, occupied Elba in order to gain a harbour and
establish a place of stores at Porto Ferrajo. A new danger, however,
threatened the fleet, for Spain, influenced by Bonaparte's successes,
made an offensive and defensive alliance with France by a treaty signed
on August 19; and as the Spaniards had over fifty ships of the line, the
position of the British fleet became critical. And there was work for it
elsewhere, for Portugal was in need of help. The Austrian cause in Italy
seemed almost hopeless, and Jervis received orders to evacuate the
Mediterranean.

Then better news came to England; the Austrians had achieved a signal
success in Germany. Two French armies under Jourdan and Moreau crossed
the Rhine in the summer and acted independently of each other. After a
campaign of about two months Jourdan was defeated by the Archduke
Charles at Amberg, and again near Würzburg on September 3, and was
forced to recross the Rhine. Moreau advanced as far as Munich, for
Bonaparte intended, after the fall of Mantua, which he believed would
not be delayed, to effect a junction with him in Bavaria. Jourdan's
overthrow left Moreau in a critical position, and he only saved his army
by a masterly retreat through the Black Forest. Bonaparte's hope that he
would soon bring the war to an end by marching into Bavaria, and on
Vienna, was disappointed. His army was kept on the Mincio, for Mantua
remained untaken, and another army under Alvinzi was preparing to march
to its relief. Italy was not conquered yet, and on October 19 the
cabinet decided that the fleet should remain in the Mediterranean.[266]
It was then too late. Corsica and Elba were abandoned; Ferdinand of
Naples made peace with France, and Jervis sailed for Lisbon. After three
years in the Mediterranean the fleet retired from its waters; its
departure left that sea closed to British commerce, assured Bonaparte's
communications, and strengthened his hold over Italy.

[Sidenote: _NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE._]

Pitt, driven into war against his will, was sincerely anxious for peace.
He had entered on the war for political reasons, and would not be
deterred from negotiation by dislike of the French republican
government. His views were not shared by all his colleagues; Windham and
Pitt's whig supporters generally were averse from peace because they
desired the overthrow of the revolutionary system. The king fully
sympathised with them, and their sentiments were stimulated and
expressed by Burke, whose first _Letter on a Regicide Peace_ appeared in
the autumn. Pitt believed that the new French government would be
willing to treat, and that it would remain in power, so that a stable
peace might be hoped for. The king's speech at the opening of parliament
in October, 1795, stated that the government would be willing to treat,
and this was emphatically declared in a royal message to parliament on
December 8. Sorely against the king's will, an attempt at negotiation
was made in the early spring through Wickham, the British ambassador at
Berne. His overtures were scornfully rejected, the directors replying
that no proposition for the surrender of any of the countries declared
by France to be "re-united" to herself would be entertained. This was
final; for England was bound by treaty to maintain the integrity of the
Austrian dominions, and could treat only on the basis of the surrender
of the Austrian Netherlands by France.

In July the cabinet determined to make another attempt. A strong party
in France desired peace, and the friends and agents of the British
government abroad represented that the directors would be unable to
resist its demands. The expenses of the war were enormous, for Austria
clamoured for financial support; and it seemed possible that the
emperor, pressed by the double French invasion of Germany and by
Bonaparte's victories in Italy, might make a separate peace.[267]
England's naval successes had given her much that Pitt could offer. And
he would offer much, for he was in earnest in his attempt. If it did not
succeed he would at least show the nation that he desired peace, and the
rejection of his offers would wound its pride, rouse its spirit, and
encourage it to bear the burden of the war. George believed that the
attempt would fail, and consented to it because he reckoned that its
failure would have this effect on the nation. In September the cabinet
requested the Danish ambassador in Paris to ask for a passport for an
English minister. The directors rejected his mediation, but the strength
of the peace party prevented them from declining all negotiation, and
they offered to receive a minister if the British government made an
official request. Great Britain was, in fact, to sue for peace. The
government acquiesced, and Malmesbury was sent over to Paris. England
offered all that she had conquered from France for a peace which should
include her allies, if France would surrender the Austrian Netherlands
either to the emperor or in exchange for some equivalent which he would
accept, and restore the Milanese. The surrender of the Netherlands was
refused, and on December 19 Malmesbury was ordered to leave Paris in
twenty-four hours. This abrupt termination was connected with the death
of Catherine of Russia on November 17, soon after she had agreed to
support Austria with an army of 60,000 men to be paid by England. Her
half-crazy son and successor, Paul, declared himself neutral. On the
part of the directory, however, the negotiations were illusory,
undertaken merely to appease domestic discontent. The French declared
that England's offers were insincere. Fox and his party adopted the same
line, and their attacks on the government left them with thirty-seven
supporters in the commons and eight in the lords.

This ineffectual negotiation roughly coincides with the beginning of an
awful period of stress and depression. The directory designed to isolate
England, reduce her to bankruptcy by destroying her commerce, and
complete her ruin by invasion. Already Austria, her one efficient ally,
was nearly exhausted; her commerce was shut out from the Mediterranean,
and, though vigorously pushed in other quarters, was constantly
harassed, and a plan of invasion was ripe for prosecution. Pitt met the
prospect of invasion by proposals for increasing the army and navy by
parochial levies, and for the formation of militia reserves and
irregular cavalry. Fox asserted that the French did not contemplate an
invasion, and that the immediate duty of parliament was to guard the
freedom of the people against its domestic enemies, the ministers. This
disgraceful speech roused the indignation of the peace-loving
Wilberforce, who declared that Fox and his friends seemed to wish that
just so much evil should befall their country as would bring them into
office. Though the government easily carried its proposals for defence,
it was embarrassed by financial difficulties. Pitt had granted an
advance of £1,200,000 to the emperor without the consent of parliament.
He was justly blamed for this unconstitutional act, and eighty-one
members voted against the government. In his budget of December 7 he
proposed another loan of £18,000,000. The public debt already exceeded
£400,000,000; the 3 per cents. had fallen with its growth, and in
September were at 53. In the dangerous position of the country,
financiers would have declined the loan, and Pitt offered it to the
public at 5 per cent. and £112 10s. stock for £100 money. Liberal as
these terms may seem, they were exiguous at that critical time, and the
stock was at 4 per cent. discount before the deposit was paid. Pitt,
however, appealed to the loyalty of the country. Patriotic enthusiasm
was aroused, and the "loyalty loan" was promptly subscribed. Twenty-nine
new items of taxation were imposed during the session; one of them
raised the stamp duty on newspapers, which Pitt described as a luxury,
from 2d. to 3-1/2d., and was calculated to produce £114,000.

[Sidenote: _RELIGIOUS FEUD IN IRELAND._]

The threats of invasion were not vain; a descent on Ireland was
attempted. The government, though withholding emancipation, had made an
effort to conciliate the catholics. While the penal code was in force
Irish priests were educated abroad. Burke held that they required a
special education, and that seminaries should be established for them in
Ireland as a means of keeping them from disloyalty. The destruction of
the French seminaries by the republicans left no choice between a
priesthood educated at home and one without education, and therefore
likely to be dangerous to civil order. Camden met the difficulty by
favouring the foundation of the college of Maynooth. Religious animosity
had broken out afresh since the recall of Fitzwilliam, and many outrages
were committed on both sides. On September 1, 1795, the defenders and
peep-of-day boys fought near a village called Diamond, in Armagh, and
the defenders were worsted with some slaughter. Immediately afterwards
the Orange society was founded to maintain the protestant cause. In 1796
protestant mobs assuming the name of Orangemen, persecuted the catholics
in Armagh, and drove them from their homes, bidding them go "to hell or
Connaught". The magistrates gave the catholics little help, and the
government minimised the outrages of the protestants.

Religious hatred changed the position of parties. The United Irishmen no
longer attempted to unite men of the two religions; they encouraged the
catholics to believe that the protestants were determined to destroy
them and conquer the land for themselves. There was much anarchy.
Catholic disloyalty was increased by the feeling that the government
favoured the Orangemen, and attacks were made on royal troops in
Connaught. A stringent insurrection act was passed, which gave the
magistrates power to send on board the fleet those attending unlawful
assemblies or otherwise acting disloyally, and in the autumn the _habeas
corpus_ act was suspended. Corps of yeomanry and infantry were formed by
the gentry for their own protection, and were accepted by the crown. The
defenders coalesced with the United Irishmen, and the society adopted a
military organisation. On different pretexts, such as a potato-digging,
funerals, or football matches, large bodies of men assembled in military
array; guns were collected, and pike-heads forged. Leading members of
the United Irishmen pressed the directory to send an expedition to
Ireland, representing that the catholic peasantry and the dissenters of
Ulster were alike ripe for revolt. Among the most active of these agents
were Wolfe Tone, Arthur O'Connor, and Lord Edward Fitzgerald, a son of
the Duke of Leinster, a young man of romantic disposition and no special
abilities, who had married a lady of great beauty, well known in French
society, Pamela, supposed to be a daughter of Madame de Genlis by the
Duke of Orleans.

The directors appointed Hoche to command an invading force, and a fleet
of seventeen ships of the line, thirteen frigates, and other vessels
sailed from Brest on December 15 with 15,000 troops and a supply of arms
for distribution. Though an invasion was expected, the fleet met with no
enemy, and evaded a squadron which was on the look-out off Ushant. Some
of the ships, however, were separated from the others, and one of
seventy-four guns was wrecked through the incapacity of the French naval
officers. On the 21st thirty-five ships of the fleet arrived at the
mouth of Bantry bay, "in most delicious weather," wrote Tone, who
accompanied the expedition. Then the wind changed and blew hard. Only
fifteen ships managed to enter the bay, and five of them were forced by
the gale to put out to sea again. The ship on which Hoche sailed did not
arrive. No landing was effected, and, on January 17, the battered fleet
returned to Brest, less five ships lost, six captured by some British
ships lying at Cork, and one of seventy-four guns, which was attacked on
its way home by two English frigates off Ushant, driven ashore, and
wrecked.

If the wind had remained light and favourable, or if the French had been
better seamen, and their force had landed, Ireland would probably have
been conquered for a time, for the country was drained of regular
troops. Between Bantry and Cork were only 4,000 men hastily collected at
Bandon, and stores and artillery were virtually non-existent. That a
French fleet should have been able to leave Brest, remain five days on
the Irish coast, and return without being attacked by the channel fleet
caused great alarm in England, and was due to Bridport's slackness. The
Irish of all classes behaved with exemplary loyalty; the country people
afforded every assistance in their power to the troops at Bandon, and no
symptom of disaffection appeared in Dublin. It was evident that many who
had joined the disloyal societies had been driven to do so by fear, and
that the catholics as a body were not as yet ready to revolt.[268]
Either merely to harass England, or to prove the feasibility of a more
serious invasion, two frigates and two other vessels were despatched
from Brest in February with about 1,200 men, half of them convicts.
After destroying some merchantmen in the Bristol channel, they anchored
in Fishguard bay. The troops landed on the 23rd, and were, it is said,
much alarmed through mistaking a body of Welshwomen in their red cloaks
and beaver hats for soldiers. The next day Lord Cawdor, captain of the
Pembrokeshire yeomanry, appeared with a force of local troops and
country folk, and they at once surrendered. The two frigates which
brought them were captured on their way back to Brest.

[Sidenote: _SUSPENSION OF CASH PAYMENTS._]

The expenses of the war, loans and subsidies to foreign princes, and
bills drawn by British agents abroad caused a continual drain of specie
from the bank of England. By 1795 the exchange became unfavourable, and
since then the drain had been enormous. Pitt anticipated taxes and
borrowed heavily. Believing that an invasion was imminent, many small
tradesmen and others were eager to turn their property into cash; a run
on country banks set in, and some failed. The bank of England was
pressed for gold. On Saturday, February 25, the floating debt owed to it
by government was about £7,500,000, and its stock of coin and bullion,
which in 1794 was over £8,500,000, was reduced to £1,272,000; and a
sharp run was expected on Monday. The bank itself, and the private banks
which depended on it, were threatened with immediate stoppage, and the
consequences to the country would have been disastrous. The directors
applied to Pitt. He called the king to London; a privy council was held
on Sunday, and an order was issued suspending cash payments at the bank
until the will of parliament was expressed. The leading merchants and
bankers at once declared that they would accept bank of England notes.

Committees of both houses of parliament reported that the bank was in a
thoroughly stable condition, and, after much debating, during which Fox
asserted that Pitt deserved impeachment for defrauding the public
creditor, a bill was passed on May 3 prohibiting the bank from issuing
cash, except in sums below £1, until six months after the end of the
war. Cash payments were not resumed until 1819. A fair, though
constantly decreasing amount of gold remained in circulation for some
years, and was supplemented by the issue of one pound notes. The bank
was moderate in its issues, and, except in 1800, there was no
appreciable difference between the value of its paper and gold until
1808. The government was undoubtedly justified in saving the bank from
the effects of panic. Whether the suspension should have been continued
after the restoration of public confidence is another matter. It was
continued chiefly because it enabled the bank to make large advances to
government without incurring a drain of bullion. Currency was at once
expanded, and Pitt obtained a new loan of £14,500,000; it was raised
mainly in the 3 per cents., and created a debt of £175 for each £100
cash. Pitt therefore paid, including the provision for long annuity, at
the rate of £6 7s. per cent. The imperial loan of £1,620,000 was raised
on even more onerous terms.

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OF CAPE ST. VINCENT._]

In the midst of anxiety and financial depression England was cheered by
a great naval victory. France called on Spain to form a junction of
fleets. It was the old idea of 1779 when the two Bourbon powers were to
destroy the channel fleet and lay England open to invasion. The Spanish
fleet, twenty-seven ships of the line, under Admiral de Córdova, sailed
from Carthagena for Cadiz on February 1. Jervis was then cruising off
Cape St. Vincent, and before dawn on the 14th he received tidings that
the Spaniards were near. He had only fifteen ships of the line, but his
squadron was in splendid order, and among its commanders were Commodore
Nelson and Captains Collingwood, Troubridge, and Saumarez. The Spaniards
were eager to get to port, and ten of their ships were far ahead of the
rest on the leeward side. He made for the gap and attacked the main body
of seventeen ships, keeping the nine lee ships (one had got away) in
check meanwhile. After some cannonading and manoeuvring the Spaniards
attempted to join their lee division. They were stopped by Nelson who,
on his own responsibility, wore his ship, the _Captain_ (74), took her
out of the line, crossed the bows of five Spaniards, and promptly
supported by Troubridge in the _Culloden_ (74), engaged the gigantic
Spanish flagship, the _Santisima Trinidad_ (130), and two others. His
daring manoeuvre threw the enemy into confusion and enabled the
British to come to close quarters.

During the fight the _Captain_ was crippled, "her wheel and foretopmast
gone and not a sail or rope left". She was engaged by several of the
enemy, particularly by the _San Nicolas_ (80) and the _San Josef_ (112),
whose mizzen-mast she had shot away. Collingwood pushed his ship, the
_Excellent_ (74), between her and the _San Nicolas_, gave the Spaniard a
broadside within pistol shot, and passed on. The _San Nicolas_ "luffing
and the _San Josef's_ mizzen-mast being gone, they fell on board of each
other". Nelson boarded the _San Nicolas_ and captured her. From her he
and his men boarded the _San Josef_, which also surrendered, and on her
deck he received the swords of the Spanish officers. Four of the enemy's
ships were taken and the _Santisima Trinidad_ surrendered but was not
secured.[269] The fight lasted until evening, and though the Spaniards
had ten ships which had not been closely engaged and eight more
uncrippled, they drew off in the night. They showed an utter lack of
seamanship in the action. The number of their fleet, the size and
quality of their ships, and the weight of metal they carried place this
battle of St. Valentine's Day, or Cape St. Vincent, among the splendid
victories of the British navy. Its moral effect was excellent; it helped
the nation to pass through the banking crisis with calmness, and raised
its spirits. The long-standing belief that Spain was a first-rate
maritime power was destroyed at last. Jervis was created Earl of St.
Vincent and received a pension of £3,000 a year, and Nelson, already
gazetted rear-admiral, a pension of £1,000 and the order of the Bath.
About the same time Admiral Harvey, commanding in the Leeward islands,
and Sir Ralph Abercromby captured Trinidad from the Spaniards, but
failed in an attack on Puerto-rico.

It was well that England should be encouraged, for darker days were at
hand. The Austrian attempt in Italy in the autumn of 1796 ended in
disaster. Although Alvinzi beat the French at Caldiero on November 12,
he was no match for Bonaparte in generalship, and the Austrians were
defeated in a three days' battle at Arcola on the 15th-17th. A last
attempt to save Mantua was foiled by Bonaparte's victory at Rivoli on
January 14, and on February 2 the great fortress was surrendered by
Wurmser. Bonaparte led his victorious army into Carinthia, overcame the
Austrian resistance with the help of Masséna and Joubert, and advanced
to Leoben about 100 miles from Vienna. The death of Catherine had
deprived the emperor of his hopes of help from Russia, and on April 18
preliminaries of peace were signed at Leoben. Francis renounced his
rights over the Netherlands and agreed to a congress for the conclusion
of a peace with the empire. By secret articles he promised to surrender
his territories west of the Oglio and to accept in exchange the _terra
firma_ of Venice from the Oglio eastward, with Venetian Dalmatia and
Istria. Lombardy and the rest of the Venetian _terra firma_ were to be
constituted an independent republic by France, and Venice was to be
indemnified by the Legations, Romagna, Ferrara, and Bologna. The emperor
negotiated apart from Great Britain and without sending any notice of
his intentions to London,[270] and England suddenly found herself
deprived of her one efficient ally.

[Sidenote: _DISCONTENT IN THE NAVY._]

Her enemies were preparing to close in upon her. Three fleets threatened
her with invasion. A French fleet lay at Brest, inadequately watched by
Bridport; a Spanish fleet at Cadiz was closely blockaded by Jervis; and
Duncan with the North sea fleet kept watch for a fleet which the Dutch
at the bidding of France were fitting out in the Texel. The safety of
the realm depended on the navy, and the navy mutinied. Both soldiers and
sailors had just grievances, specially as regards their pay. Seditious
pamphlets were distributed among the soldiers by the democratic
societies, and, it was believed, among the sailors also.[271] The
discontent in the army, which for a time appeared likely to have serious
consequences, was allayed through the influence of the Duke of York. The
pay of privates of the line was raised from 8-1/4d. to 1s. a day,
though a deduction on account of the existing high price of provisions
reduced the actual increase to 2d.; and other advantages were
granted.[272]

The sailors had no royal duke to speak for them. Mutinies had broken out
sporadically in the navy during the American war and temporary
concessions had been made, but there was no general removal of
grievances. The pay remained as it was fixed in the reign of Charles II.
at 22s. 6d. a month (of twenty-eight days) for able seamen and 19s. for
ordinary seamen, though the cost of living had risen, the men said, 30
per cent., so that they could not provide for their families. The system
on which they were paid was unfair to them; a deduction of two ounces in
the pound was made in their rations by the admiralty to balance waste of
stores; the medical service was disgracefully bad, and they complained
bitterly of the shameful practice of not providing them with fresh
vegetables as a protection from scurvy when in English ports.
Punishments were sometimes frightfully severe and a tyrannical captain
could make a ship a floating hell. A mutiny, only remotely connected
with the general movement, was provoked on the _Hermione_ (32) on the
Jamaica station by the insane cruelty of Pigot, the captain; the crew
murdered him and the other officers, and delivered the ship to the
Spaniards from whom it was afterwards retaken. Owing to the large demand
for men in war time many crews contained a large number of bad
characters, criminals whose sentences were remitted on condition of
entering the navy, and such like, and on some ships there were many
Irishmen who had imbibed disaffection on shore. Such men would naturally
be inclined to mutiny. A ship's crew, however, took its tone from the
able seamen, the A.B.'s, from whom the petty officers were chosen. At
that time they were often not more than a fourth of the crew, and
unfortunately they had special grievances. They were skilled men, and
might have been mates with good pay on a merchant ship. They were forced
to serve in the navy by impressment, and when in port were refused leave
to visit their families for fear they should desert. In the winter of
1796-97 the able seamen in the channel fleet seem to have combined to
obtain a redress of grievances. Anonymous petitions were sent to Lord
Howe, who forwarded them to the admiralty where they were disregarded.

[Sidenote: _MUTINY IN THE NAVY._]

On April 15 the fleet, which was then at Spithead, was ordered to put to
sea. The crews instead of weighing anchor manned the yards, cheered, and
hoisted the red flag, the usual signal for battle. They were joined by
the marines. No personal disrespect was shown to the officers, but the
ships were taken out of their command. The admiralty board went down to
Portsmouth and held an interview with the delegates from the ships, who
presented a list of their demands. The commissioners haggled; the men
stood firm, and further demanded that officers accused of tyranny should
be dismissed their ships. On the 25th the commissioners gave way on all
points; the pay of able seamen was to be the same as that of privates in
the army, though without deductions, 1s. a day, or a rise of 5s. 6d. a
month; ordinary seamen were to receive a rise of 4s. 6d.; their other
grievances were to be redressed; and a promise was given that the fleet
should not be sent to sea until the increase of pay had been voted by
the house of commons, and the king's pardon had been proclaimed. Various
hindrances, which might perhaps have been overcome if the government had
appreciated the need of promptitude, delayed the application to
parliament. Days passed by; the sailors heard nothing of a bill for the
rise in their wages or of a proclamation of pardon, and an ill-judged
order sent by the admiralty to the captains with reference to stores and
to mutinous conduct roused their suspicions. They believed that they had
been cajoled. Hitherto their conduct had been as blameless as the nature
of the case allowed. It was so no longer. Two of the ships remained at
Spithead; the rest had gone to St. Helen's. On May 7 all the crews again
mutinied and most of the officers were sent ashore. A struggle took
place on board the _London_; a mutineer was shot dead, and a midshipman
and a marine officer were wounded. Pitt proposed a grant for the
increase of pay on the 8th, and, as discussion might be mischievous,
asked for a silent vote. To their shame, Fox and his friends used this
crisis as an opportunity for a violent party attack on the
government.[273] The money was voted, and on the 10th Howe, the sailors'
favourite "Black Dick," went down to the fleet with the vote and the
king's proclamation. The men were pacified; more than 100 officers to
whom they objected were removed from the ships; discipline was restored,
and the fleet put to sea.

The admiralty commissioners, after contesting the just demands of the
men, had yielded to a dangerous point by removing officers at the
dictation of mutineers. Their vacillation encouraged the idea that
mutiny paid, and mutiny accordingly spread. On the 12th it broke out in
the ships lying at the Little Nore with reinforcements for the North sea
fleet. These ships contained a large number of London roughs and some
disaffected Irishmen. Unlike the mutiny at Spithead, it was a violent
and criminal movement. It was directed by Richard Parker, a seaman of
some education on board the _Sandwich_ (90), who is said to have entered
the navy as a midshipman, to have been dismissed his ship for
immorality, and as mate to have been broken for insubordination; he had
been imprisoned for debt at Perth, and had volunteered for the navy in
order to obtain his release. Delegates were chosen; the red flag was
hoisted, and the officers were deprived of command. From the first an
element of weakness existed in the movement, for the men were not
unanimous; two loyal frigates were forced to join the mutiny, and there
was a loyal minority on the others. The squadron moved out to the Great
Nore, and the mutineers paraded Sheerness with a red flag. Lord Spencer
and his colleagues went down to Sheerness and had an interview with the
delegates; they failed to persuade them to return to their duty, and
Parker treated them with insolence. Besides the demands made by the
channel fleet, which were already granted, the mutineers required that
no officer that had been removed from his ship should again be employed
in her without the consent of the ship's company, and that the articles
of war should be revised. Demands of that kind, of course, could not be
discussed. The first sign of weakness in the movement appeared on the
29th; the two loyal frigates left the squadron and, though fired on by
the rest, made good their escape. The mutineers, however, soon received
an accession of strength which encouraged them to proceed to further
acts of rebellion.

The mutiny spread to Duncan's fleet then in Yarmouth Roads. The men knew
that the Dutch fleet was preparing for an invasion of the kingdom, and
they left the way open. All the ships, save Duncan's flagship and one
other, deserted him and joined the mutineers at the Nore. Nevertheless,
the stouthearted admiral sailed with his two ships to his station off
the Texel, determined if the Dutch came out to fight them. While there
he concealed his weakness from the enemy by making signals as though his
fleet lay in the offing. England was in imminent danger, and Count
Vorontsov (Woronzow), the tsar's ambassador, directed the Russian
squadron, then at Yarmouth and under orders for home, to delay its
departure and join Duncan until he could be reinforced from Spithead,
the greatest service, wrote Grenville, that England has ever received
from any nation.[274] Happily, the Dutch fleet was not ready to put to
sea. The mutinous crews attempted to intimidate the government by
blockading the Thames, and trading vessels were stopped at the entrance
of the river. Some officers were ill-treated. Farmhouses on the coast
were sacked. The country was greatly alarmed, and the 3 per cents. fell
to a trifle over 48. The government acted with vigour; the garrison at
Sheerness was strongly reinforced; furnaces for heating shot were made
ready in the forts on the Thames; gunboats were fitted out, and the
buoys at the mouth of the river were taken up to prevent the escape of
the mutineers. In response to a royal message, parliament passed bills
on June 3 and 6 providing that incitement to mutiny should be punishable
with the highest penalties of misdemeanour, and that intercourse with
the mutinous ships should be a capital felony.

[Sidenote: _NAVAL DISCIPLINE RESTORED._]

The mutineers "ordered" captain Lord Northesk, who was virtually
imprisoned on his ship, to go to London and lay their demands before the
king. An official answer was returned requiring unconditional surrender.
They grew uneasy, and their doubts of success were increased by
addresses sent from the seamen of the channel fleet, severely
reprobating their conduct. Cut off from communication with the shore and
without hope of support from the channel fleet, they soon lost heart
altogether. Parker became unpopular. Ship after ship either left the
squadron or signalled a return to obedience, and finally, on the 14th,
the crew of the _Sandwich_ brought her under the battery at Sheerness,
and surrendered Parker. He was tried by a court-martial, and hanged at
the yard-arm of his ship. About forty were condemned to death, and some
others were flogged. The government was inclined to mercy, for the bulk
of the men had been deluded by Parker and other scoundrels; only
fourteen seamen and four marines were executed; the other condemned men
were pardoned by the king after the next great naval victory.

A mutinous spirit appeared in other divisions of the navy. The squadron
at the Cape was brought to order by Lord Macartney, the governor, who
threatened to sink the ship most forward in the movement by bombarding
her from the shore. One of the ships off Cadiz began a mutiny; St.
Vincent, a rigid disciplinarian, though, as the men knew, careful for
their welfare, was equal to the occasion; the ringleader was sentenced
by a court-martial, and St. Vincent surrounded the ship with gunboats,
and forced the crew to hang him themselves, and that on a Sunday
morning, which, being against all precedent, deeply impressed the
sailors. Convinced that the idleness attending a long blockade was bad
for discipline, he kept his ships employed as much as possible, and, in
July, detached a squadron under Nelson to attack Santa Cruz. The attack
was unsuccessful, and cost Nelson his right arm. England never passed
through darker days than those of the mutinies.[275] The lessons they
teach are that a country which neglects the legitimate grievances of its
defenders pursues a course not less perilous than shabby; and that
mutinous conduct of every kind should at once be met with exemplary
severity. Neither impressment nor flogging was included in the seamen's
grievances, but they complained of unjust treatment by officers. Since
1797 their condition steadily though slowly improved, and they were
treated both by their officers and the admiralty with more of the
consideration to which their splendid services entitled them. To Nelson
the health and contentment of his seamen were always matters of care and
pride.

[Sidenote: _NEGOTIATIONS AT LILLE._]

Pitt, seeing England destitute of efficient allies, threatened with
invasion, short of money, burdened with debt and taxation, with public
credit at a low ebb, and with her fleets in mutiny, was set on peace, if
it could be had on reasonable terms. He was encouraged by the state of
parties in France, for in May the moderates or royalists who desired to
put an end to the war gained a majority in the legislative councils. On
June 1 the government proposed a negotiation for preliminaries of a
peace which should be definitely arranged at a future congress. The
proposal was rejected by the directors, who would not allow any concert
between Great Britain and Austria, or any discussion of the general
interests of Europe, and insisted that England should negotiate for a
definite and separate peace. Grenville considered that this would be
humiliating to England, and would have resigned rather than consent to
it if he had not felt it his duty not to embarrass the government. The
king heartily agreed with him, and so did Lord Liverpool (Hawkesbury)
and Windham.[276] Pitt was too strong for them, and Malmesbury was sent
to meet the French commissioners at Lille. He had scarcely arrived there
when Burke, who by voice and pen had so long warned England to have no
peace with France, died on July 9. Here, wrote Canning, "there is but
one event, but that is an event for the world--Burke is dead". One of
the five French directors was a constitutional royalist, another,
Carnot, was inclined to that side, the other three were jacobins. A
struggle was impending between this jacobin triumvirate and the majority
in the councils. The success of Malmesbury's mission depended on its
issue. England's need of peace may be gauged by Pitt's offers of the
recognition of the French sovereignty over Belgium, Luxemburg, Savoy,
and Nice, of the cession of all her conquests from France, Spain, and
Holland, except Trinidad and the Cape, and of an exchange for Ceylon. In
the discussions of the cabinet Grenville opposed Pitt's pacific policy,
and as he found that the contents of Malmesbury's despatches became
known out of doors, and that Pitt was enabled to support his opinions by
the opinions of others, he arranged that Malmesbury's specially secret
communications should be withheld from his colleagues generally, and
they were only seen by himself, Pitt, and Canning,[277] the
under-secretary for foreign affairs. Difficulties were raised by the
French as to the royal style "King of Great Britain and France," the
restitution of, or an equivalent for, the ships taken or destroyed at
Toulon, and the retention of any conquests from the Dutch.

The negotiations were prolonged, for Malmesbury hoped that the majority
in the councils would prove stronger than the triumvirate, and the
triumvirs would not break them off before they had secured their
position. During their progress Portugal, England's sole remaining ally,
made a separate peace. A _coup d'état_ was effected by the army on
September 4 (18th Fructidor); the royalist and moderate deputies were
condemned to transportation, two new directors were chosen, and the
jacobin, or war party, was established in power. New commissioners were
sent to Lille, and on the 14th Malmesbury was asked if he would agree to
the restitution of every conquest made from France and her allies. He
replied that that was beyond his powers, and was ordered to depart in
twenty-four hours. After this abrupt termination of Malmesbury's mission
the former friendly and confidential relations between Pitt and
Grenville were fully restored. The _coup d'état_ baffled Pitt's efforts.
It was followed by the conclusion of a definite peace between France and
the emperor, which destroyed all hope of a concert between Great Britain
and Austria. After the preliminaries of Leoben, Bonaparte declared war
on Venice, procured the overthrow of its ancient constitution, and
established a new municipality. By the treaty of Campo Formio, concluded
October 17, he betrayed the Venetians by handing over their city to
Austria, along with Istria, Dalmatia, and the Venetian _terra firma_ as
far west as the Adige, while France took the Ionian islands for herself.
The emperor resigned the Belgic provinces, and by a secret article
promised to use his influence in the empire to secure to France the left
bank of the Rhine. The directors looked forward to an invasion of
England. While her navy was engaged with the fleets of Spain and
Holland, a French force was to cross the channel and march on London;
Ireland would revolt; England would accept a democracy, and Tipú would
destroy her power in India.[278]

The futility of their arrogant hopes was already exhibited. Another
invasion of Ireland was planned in the spring. A Dutch fleet was to
carry over a land force, and was to be followed by Hoche and the Brest
fleet. The United Irishmen eagerly expected a French invasion. Though
the Dutch fleet was not ready until the crisis of the mutinies was over,
Duncan's force was still small. Week after week the wind prevented the
Dutch from leaving the Texel. Provisions ran short, and Duncan's fleet
was again in force. The great opportunity had passed by. Fresh plans
were made for descents on Ireland and Scotland in concert with a French
expedition; but the hopes of the United Irishmen received a further blow
in the death of Hoche. At last, on October 6, the Dutch fleet left the
Texel.

Duncan received the news at Yarmouth on the 9th, and on the 11th came up
with the enemy off Camperdown. In number of ships the fleets were about
equal, but the British were the stronger. Duncan attacked in two
divisions, broke through the Dutch line in two places and engaged to
leeward, cutting them off from their coast. He signalled for each ship
to engage its opponent, as in Howe's action of the First of June.
Mistakes led to a concentration of force on the Dutch rear, which had
good results.[279] The Dutch fought with splendid courage, and the
carnage on both sides was terrible. Nine Dutch ships, including the
_Vrijheid_ (74), the flagship of their admiral, De Winter, were taken.
The shattered remainder of their fleet put back into the Texel. The
British admiral was created Viscount Duncan of Camperdown, and received
a pension of £3,000 a year. The victory was of incalculable importance.
Three fleets threatened the kingdom, and Camperdown, as Grenville said,
broke the right wing of the invasion.[280] It raised the spirits of the
nation. Won by the fleet so lately in mutiny, it proved that England
could again, as of old, rely on the loyalty of her navy. It reasserted
her supremacy at sea, which, in spite of the victories of Howe and
Jervis, seemed weakened by the evacuation of the Mediterranean and the
mutinies. Supreme at sea, she carried the trade of the world. Since the
great drop of 1793 her commerce had increased year by year until it
again declined in 1797. From that year, fostered by the demands of war
and fed by the activity of British manufactures, it increased with
extraordinary rapidity.

[Sidenote: _SECESSION FROM PARLIAMENT._]

In parliament the opposition gained no ground. On May 26, Grey again
brought forward the question of reform, and this time propounded a
scheme. He proposed that the counties should return 113 instead of 92
members, that they should be divided into districts each with one
member, and that the franchise should be extended to leaseholders and
copyholders, that in boroughs householders only should have votes, that
polls should be held simultaneously, and that, if possible, no one
should record more than one vote; that all landowners, traders, and
"professors of science" should be qualified for a seat, and that
parliaments should be triennial. Pitt declared that the country did not
desire reform, and the motion was lost by 252 to 91. When parliament met
in November, Fox and some of his chief supporters in both houses
seceded, attending only on special occasions. Their conduct was
unconstitutional and ill-advised. It is the duty of a member of
parliament to attend its proceedings, and in the commons his attendance
can be enforced. Secession is a betrayal of a public trust and a
declaration against the constitution. In this case it was partial, and
therefore specially futile. It caused a division among the little band
of the opposition, and injured the seceders in the opinion of the
country; their conduct was considered unpatriotic, and Fox's absence
from parliament when the thanks of the house were voted to Duncan was
particularly blamed. The secession of their leaders gave some whigs of
less standing an opportunity of coming to the front. In Fox's absence
the remnant of the opposition was led by Tierney, a clever financier and
a brilliant speaker with a bitter tongue. From the beginning of the war
constant motions had been made for peace with France. They were
discontinued after 1797; for it was generally recognised that Pitt would
gladly welcome peace. Wit came to the support of the government; Gillray
bitterly caricatured Fox and the opposition, and in November the
_Anti-Jacobin_ began its brilliant mockery of democratic principles and
politics. Its most telling verses were the work of Canning, who entered
the ministry as under-secretary for foreign affairs in January, 1796.
The threats of invasion roused the spirit of the country. Danger was no
longer to be apprehended from English disloyalty; the nation was justly
proud of the achievements of its navy and was full of loyalty and
courage.

Pitt took advantage of this spirit. Parliament met on November 3, and he
brought in his budget on the 24th. All hope of a speedy termination of
the war ended with the rupture of the negotiations at Lille. He
therefore declared that though it was impossible to raise the whole of
the supplies in the year, it was the duty of the nation to contribute
its full share towards the expenses of the war in order that posterity
might not be burdened with an unfair accumulation of debt. The service
of the year amounted to £25,500,000, and a deficiency of £19,000,000 had
to be supplied. He proposed to borrow £12,000,000 and to raise
£7,000,000 by taxation, chiefly by a measure generally known as trebling
the assessed taxes, by which the amounts already charged in respect of
these taxes were augmented on a scale graduated according to income.
Praiseworthy as his effort was to keep down debt, his plan was open to
serious objection. Assessed taxes are essentially an optional expense,
in that they can be avoided by those who do not choose to incur them.
Pitt's plan made the payments of the preceding year an arbitrary
standard of taxation, increasing them by one quarter to treble and
progressively to quadruple their amounts. This was really an income tax
in disguise, with the special drawback that it forced those who reduced
their style of living to pay on the basis of their former expenditure.
Fox returned to parliament to oppose the bill, and in one division the
minority numbered 75. Some feeling was excited against Pitt out of
doors. When, on December 19, the king and queen went in state to St.
Paul's to return thanks for the three great naval victories won by Howe
over the French, St. Vincent over the Spaniards, and Duncan over the
Dutch, Pitt was hooted by the London mob, and as he returned home was
guarded by a party of horse. This outbreak of ill-temper was of no
important significance. The nation was fully determined to support the
government in its efforts to maintain the safety and honour of England.

FOOTNOTES:

[264] _Dropmore Papers_, iii., 25-30, 50.

[265] _Influence of Sea Power upon the French Revolution_, i., 178, 201.

[266] _Dropmore Papers_, iii., 261.

[267] Perregaux to Lord "Courton" [Auckland], July 16, 1796, Rose to
Auckland, July 29, _Auckland Corr._, iii., 350-52; Pitt to Grenville,
June 23, _Dropmore Papers_, iii., 214.

[268] Pelham to Duke of York, Sept. 22 and Dec. 26, 1796, and Jan. 4,
1797, Add. MS., 33,113; Beresford to Auckland, Jan. 28, 1797, _Auckland
Corr._, iii., 375-77.

[269] _Logs of the Great Sea Fights_, i., 232, 239.

[270] Grenville to Starhemberg, May 3, 1797, _Dropmore Papers_, iii.,
317 _sqq._

[271] _Parl. Hist._, xxxiii., 799, 806.

[272] _Annual Register_, xxxix. (1797), i., 222; ii., 252.

[273] _Parl. Hist._, xxxiii., 477-516.

[274] Grenville to Woronzow, June 5 and 22, _Dropmore Papers_, iii.,
328, 335.

[275] An excellent narrative of the mutinies is given in a series of
articles by Mr. D. Hannay in the _Saturday Review_, June 6 to July 4,
1891.

[276] Letters of George III. and Grenville, June 1, 16 and 17, _Dropmore
Papers_, iii., 327, 329-30; Malmesbury, _Diaries_, iii., 590, 595.

[277] Canning to Grenville, July 31, 1797, _Dropmore Papers_, iii., 337;
see also pp. 341-43; Malmesbury, _Diaries_, iii., 416, 465.

[278] Sorel, _L'Europe et la Révolution Française_, v., 259-60.

[279] _Logs of the Great Sea Fights_, i., 258-60, 265 _sqq._; Brenton,
_Naval History_, i., 347-55.

[280] Grenville to Woronzow, Oct. 16, 1797, _Dropmore Papers_, iii.,
381.




                               CHAPTER XIX.

                   IRISH REBELLION AND NAVAL SUPREMACY.


In spite of Duncan's victory the French directors were set on an
invasion of England. All their vague designs for the extension of French
supremacy led up to the ruin of the power which they recognised as their
most formidable enemy. From the Adriatic to the North sea a vast
republic was to furnish the armies of France with recruits. Europe was
to be united in a coalition against England. The Mediterranean was to be
a French lake. Every port was to be shut against England's ships;
England's commerce was to be destroyed and her pride humbled. A quicker
means of bringing her into subjection seemed possible. On a foggy night
an army might be carried across the Channel unobserved by her fleet.
What a Norman duke had done might be done by a mighty republic, and the
English crown might be lost in a second battle of Hastings. The victors
would march on London, and be received as deliverers by a people
groaning under the oppression of "that monster Pitt". They failed to
understand that Pitt had the nation at his back, and that even the most
violent whigs would resist to the death an invasion of their country.
They formed an "army of England," and appointed Bonaparte to command it.
On his return to Paris in December, 1797, he set himself to prepare for
the invasion. Transports for over 24,000 men were soon ready at
Boulogne, Ambleteuse, Calais, and Dunkirk, and boat-builders were hard
at work. In February he made a tour of the coast from Etaples to Ostend
and heard what sailors said about the scheme. On the 23rd he told the
directors that France could not gain supremacy by sea for some years,
and that without that no operation could be more hazardous than an
invasion of England, that a surprise was possible only in the long
winter nights, and that their naval preparations were too backward for
such an attempt to be made that year.[281] He turned to other projects
of conquest which might lead to the destruction of England's commerce in
the east and of her power in India. For some while longer he ostensibly
devoted himself to preparations for invasion. The "army of England,"
which in April numbered 56,000 men, was quartered in the towns of the
north, and every port from Havre to the Texel was crowded with
transports. But by that time the army had lost its commander and the
great scheme was definitely abandoned. Nevertheless, the directors
determined to be ready if an opportunity for invasion should occur, and
maritime preparations were continued. In May a flotilla from Havre
attacked the islands of St. Marcouf, which had been seized by Sir Sidney
Smith in 1795, and was beaten back by the little garrison. Equally
feeble efforts were made by England to check the preparations for
invasion. On tidings that the transports built at Flushing were to be
conveyed to Ostend by canal in order to avoid the British fleet, a force
of 1,200 men was sent to destroy the sluices of the Bruges canal. They
landed near Ostend and blew up the great sluice. A storm prevented them
from re-embarking and, after a smart engagement, they were all taken
prisoners. If the thing was worth doing, a sufficient force should have
been sent to do it.

[Sidenote: _INVASION THREATENED._]

The threatened invasion rallied the nation to the support of the
government. Though Fox and the other seceders had ceased to attend
parliament, they kept up an agitation against the ministry. Fox's
birthday, January 24, was celebrated by a public dinner. The Duke of
Norfolk in proposing his health said that Washington began the war of
independence with only 2,000 men, yet America was free; he saw that
number before him, let them apply his words. He afterwards called on the
company to drink "our sovereign's health, the majesty of the people".
Considered in connexion with the circumstances of the time his words
were in the highest degree seditious. The government, strong in the
support of the nation, took up the silly and insolent challenge, and the
duke was deprived of his lord-lieutenancy and the command of his militia
regiment. In May, Fox repeated the toast at a meeting of the whig club.
The ministers discussed what notice should be taken of his offence. It
is not pleasant to find Pitt considering whether he might be led on to
utter similar words in parliament and be sent to the Tower for the rest
of the session. With all his greatness Pitt lacked the generosity which
was a redeeming trait in Fox's character. The anxieties of the past
year, combined with his unfortunate failing, had shaken his health and
his temper had suffered. It was finally decided that Fox should be
removed from the privy council, and the king struck his name out of the
council book with his own hand.

The belief that the country was in danger evoked patriotic enthusiasm,
and £2,300,000 was subscribed to augment the produce of the triple
assessment. Pitt's supplementary budget announced a further loan of
£3,000,000 and imposed fresh taxes. Chiefly as a means of supporting
credit he brought forward a scheme for the commutation of the land tax.
For many years the tax had been granted at four shillings in the pound;
he proposed to make it perpetual at that rate, to enable landowners to
redeem it, and to apply their payments to the reduction of debt. The
bill, though opposed in both houses on the plea that it was unfair to
the landed interest, was carried by large majorities. The alien act and
the suspension of _habeas corpus_ were revived, for with the enemy
threatening the country disloyalty was intolerable. With a view to the
organisation of defence the government was empowered to ascertain the
number of men who were prepared to take up arms in case of invasion, to
instruct each as to what he should do, and to arrange for the removal of
helpless persons, cattle, and other property from the coast.

It was a time of overwhelming anxiety to the ministers, for, in addition
to the expected invasion, they had to meet rebellion in Ireland. With so
great a strain upon him, Pitt was unable to bear with patience the
attempts of Tierney, the leader of the non-seceding section of the
opposition, to thwart his measures. On May 25 he brought in a bill to
abrogate certain exemptions from naval service, and asked the house to
pass it through all its stages in one day. Tierney objected, and Pitt
accused him of desiring to obstruct the defence of the country. The
speaker ruled that the imputation was unparliamentary. Pitt repeated his
words, haughtily declaring that he would "neither retract from nor
explain them". The next day Tierney sent him a challenge. They met on
Sunday afternoon, the 27th, on Putney heath, Pitt accompanied by his
friend Dudley Ryder, afterwards Lord Harrowby, the paymaster of the
forces, and Tierney by Colonel Walpole. Two shots were exchanged on each
side without effect, Pitt firing his second shot into the air. Honour
was then declared to be satisfied. Wilberforce, in common with many
other religious people, was much shocked, and gave notice of a motion
against duelling by members of the house, but was persuaded to withdraw
it, for Pitt threatened to resign if it was carried. The king expressed
his disapproval, telling Pitt with characteristic good sense that a
public man should remember his duty to his country before what was due
to himself. Not until that generation had well-nigh passed away was
duelling virtually extinguished by the condemnation of society. In
contrast to the lack of moral perception on that point stands the
quickening of the public conscience with reference to the slave trade.
Wilberforce again brought in his annual motion for its abolition. It was
seconded by Pitt and vigorously supported by Fox, who pertinently asked
why the minister did not use his majority to accomplish the end he
professed to desire. It was lost only by four votes. The rest of the
session was largely taken up by the affairs of Ireland.

There, as we have already seen, religious animosity strengthened the
party of rebellion. Its leaders also took advantage of agrarian and
other grievances to allure the peasantry. The catholic peasants were
little moved by the questions which weighed with their more educated
neighbours and with the dwellers in towns. They were not enamoured of
the republican sentiments which appealed to the Ulster presbyterians,
and did not care a straw about parliamentary reform for its own sake,
nor for catholic emancipation. Their motives were more personal. They
were poor and oppressed. The national parliament, though it refused to
grant political reforms, had done much to improve the condition of the
country by subsidies for promoting manufactures, fisheries, and canals,
and by bounties on exported corn. The financial position of Ireland was
bettered, but the lot of the peasantry grew worse. Corn bounties and the
high prices of war time caused a rise in the value of land. Holdings
were subdivided, and, as the agricultural population was large, were
eagerly taken at high rents. The tenants could not make a living,
especially as they were ignorant and generally thriftless. The chief
cause of their discontent was the system of tithe which pressed heavily
on the small cultivators. They believed that a reformed parliament would
rid them of that intolerable burden. Finding that reform was withheld,
they readily listened to men who bade them look for relief to France,
where tithe had been abolished. High rents, exacted by the agents of
absentee landlords or by middle-men, who rented large tracts of land and
sublet them in small holdings, were another though lesser grievance from
which they hoped to be delivered by revolution. Sentiment urged them in
the same direction. Proud and sensitive they resented the dominance of
an alien race; they held the wrongs of their forefathers in remembrance,
and looked back with mournful longing to the age, invested by their
poetic imagination with glory and happiness, when Ireland was yet
unconquered. The United Irishmen told them that a fresh conquest would
be attempted, that the Orangemen, encouraged by government, designed to
rob them of their land and destroy them. They looked to France for
protection and were ready to take up arms against the crown.

[Sidenote: _REBELLION FOILED IN ULSTER._]

The government was determined to nip rebellion in the bud, and struck
first at conspiracy in Ulster, where it was mainly engineered by
protestant leaders. In the spring of 1797 the province was almost in
open revolt. Martial law was proclaimed, and on May 18 soldiers were
empowered to act without authority from a civil magistrate. An active
search was made for arms. It was carried out mainly by yeomanry and
militia, for the regular troops were few and mostly stationed in towns.
The catholic districts were ruthlessly harried. A fierce resistance was
made. Many outrages were committed by the soldiers, specially by a Welsh
regiment of mounted fencibles, the Ancient Britons. Houses were burned
and peasants were slaughtered. Crowds were imprisoned without process of
law and many were sent off to serve in the fleet. These severities which
lasted for several months crushed the life out of the conspiracy in
Ulster. The government was justified in using force to suppress
rebellion, but it was lamentable that the work should have been
entrusted to troops which were little better than banditti. An earnest
attempt was made to restrain them by Sir Ralph Abercromby, who succeeded
Lord Carhampton as commander-in-chief in November. He issued an order
declaring that the army was in a state of "licentiousness," and
forbidding soldiers to act without the civil authority. This order was
contrary to the proclamation of May 18, and gave great offence to the
party of repression in the Irish government headed by Lord Clare, and to
the British ministry. A proclamation of March 30, 1798, re-established
martial law; Abercromby resigned his command, and was succeeded by
General Lake.

The British government upheld the Irish ministers. Early in 1797 the
Prince of Wales wished the king and Pitt to send him to Ireland as
lord-lieutenant to carry out a policy of concession. If he had been
wholly different from what he was, such a step, though it would not
perhaps have averted the coming rebellion, would have probably rendered
it less formidable by detaching some of the leaders of the conspiracy.
The prince was not a man to be trusted, and his offer was refused. The
internal affairs of Ireland were not under English direction; the
ministers knew nothing of them except through reports from the castle
and left them to the Irish government. Addresses in favour of
conciliation were moved in the lords by the prince's friend, Lord Moira,
an Ulster magnate, and in the commons by Fox. They were resisted as
attacks on the government and were rejected. Moira laid the excesses of
the soldiers before the lords in November and again in February, 1798.
The government refused to credit his accounts, or to interfere with the
measures taken by the Irish ministers to suppress rebellion.

The progress of the conspiracy was reported by informers, of whom there
was no lack. Great preparations were, as we have seen, made in France
for a possible invasion of England; the United Irishmen expected that
the French would land in Ireland in the spring, and an organised army
was ready to co-operate with them, under the command of Lord Edward
Fitzgerald. The conspiracy was directed by a committee in Dublin. One of
its leaders, Arthur O'Connor, a priest named O'Coighly, and three more
were arrested at Margate while on their way to France to make further
arrangements. O'Coighly was hanged for treason. Fox, Sheridan, and other
members of the opposition bore witness to O'Connor's character, and he
and the rest were acquitted. He was arrested on another charge and was
sent to Dublin. After the rebellion he, in common with the other
political prisoners, gave evidence as to the conspiracy, and they were
eventually released. No government is worthy of the name that sits still
and allows conspiracy to ripen unchecked. The Irish government did not
do so. It adopted measures of repression which wrecked the plans of the
conspirators and caused secret conspiracy to break prematurely into open
rebellion. It was thus enabled to put an end to a prolonged state of
danger before it could be augmented by the anticipated foreign invasion.
It struck swiftly at the heads of the conspiracy. In pursuance of
information from an officer of the rebel army named Reynolds, fifteen of
them were arrested together in Dublin on March 12. Fitzgerald escaped
for the time. A reward of £1,000 was offered for his detection, and in
May his hiding-place was betrayed. He made a desperate resistance,
mortally wounded one of the officers sent to take him, and was himself
wounded in the arm. He was conveyed to prison, where he died on June 4.

[Sidenote: _REPRESSIVE SEVERITIES._]

The government having crushed the head of rebellion in Ulster, proceeded
to combat it in the midland and southern counties, where it was
distinctly a catholic movement. Officers were ordered to enforce
disarmament by summary methods; martial law was established, and they
were enjoined to distribute their troops at free quarters where arms
were supposed to be concealed. Scenes of cruelty sickening to
contemplate followed. As soon as a district was proclaimed, troops took
up free quarters in it, burned every house where a weapon was
discovered, shot men without trial of any kind, put many to cruel
torture either on suspicion of concealing arms or to extort evidence,
and excited the bitterest feelings of revenge by outrages on women,
cutting the petticoats from the backs of girls who showed any sign of
sympathy with rebellion, such as wearing, it might be accidentally, a
green ribbon. Men were commonly tortured by floggings of fearful
severity, or by half-hanging. In imitation of the French republicans,
the rebel party cut their hair short, and it was a pastime with the
soldiers to torture "croppies" by fixing a covering lined with hot
pitch, a "pitch-cap," on their heads, which could not be removed without
tearing the scalp. More than one man died under the lash, and one from
fear of the torture. No name is more closely associated with these
horrors than that of Thomas Judkin Fitzgerald, high-sheriff of
Tipperary. Resolute, courageous, and energetic, he united with some fine
qualities a violent temper and an insensibility to human suffering.
Conspiracy was rife in Tipperary, and he was determined to stamp it out.
One instance of his cruelties will suffice. A teacher of French named
Wright was suspected of treason, and a note of a harmless kind, written
in French, was found on him. Fitzgerald, who could not read it, brutally
assaulted him, declared that he would have him first flogged and then
shot; and failing to obtain a confession from him, caused him to receive
150 severe lashes and had him put in prison, where he lay for some days
with his wounds uncared for. After the rebellion Wright sued him, and
obtained £500 damages. Fitzgerald's severity and the courage with which
he acted were effectual; Tipperary remained quiet. The government paid
Wright's damages, and Fitzgerald's services were rewarded with a
baronetcy.

The conspirators intended to wait for a French invasion. Their
organisation was deranged by the arrests of March 12. A plan was made
for seizing the castle and occupying Dublin. The city was proclaimed and
violent measures of repression were adopted. A new rebel executive was
broken up by the arrest of two brothers named Sheares, who were
eventually hanged as traitors. An outbreak of rebellion was certain; it
was forced on prematurely by drastic measures of repression. Though
nothing can excuse the barbarities perpetrated under the shield of
so-called martial law, severe repression was certainly necessary.
Without it the conspiracy would have continued to grow, and a rebellion
coincident with a foreign invasion would have been in the highest degree
dangerous. The rebels lost their leaders; their movements were paralysed
in some districts and crippled in others; they saw no hope except in an
immediate outbreak, and were driven to it by intolerable severities. So
far the system pursued by the government was successful. Yet in some
districts the terror and rage it excited stimulated rebellion, and when
rebellion broke out led to horrible reprisals. The rising began on an
appointed day, May 23. Attacks were made on the garrisons at Naas,
Clane, and other places in Kildare. Nearly everywhere they were repulsed
with heavy loss, the catholics among the militia and yeomanry behaving
with perfect loyalty. It was a sanguinary struggle. The rebels
surprised a detachment of the North Cork militia by night, and
slaughtered them, killing many of them in their beds. The troops gave
little quarter; rebels taken in arms were commonly flogged, shot, or
hanged without trial. The citizens of Dublin, where the rebels had been
thoroughly cowed by floggings and hangings, were zealous in preparing to
defend their city. On the south-west small bodies of troops routed the
rebels with heavy loss at Carlow and Hacketstown. The communications of
Dublin were secured on the north by a loyalist victory at Tara, where,
on the 26th, about 400 yeomanry and fencibles defeated ten times their
number of rebels, and on the west by another victory. By the 31st the
rebels in Meath, Kildare, and Carlow had lost all heart.

[Sidenote: _WEXFORD REBELLION._]

By that time rebellion had broken out in the county of Wexford. There it
soon took the form of a religious war, though the catholic troops
remained faithful to their colours. There were only 600 regular troops
and militia in the county, the loyalist force being composed chiefly of
yeomanry, who were generally protestants. With and without the approval
of the magistrates, they had begun to practise the usual methods of
enforcing disarmament, burning houses and flogging and half-hanging
suspected persons, and though these severities had not as yet been
practised so widely as in some other districts, they excited violent
terror and resentment. Led by a priest, Father John Murphy, whose house
or chapel had been burnt, the rebels defeated a small number of militia
at Oulart, and attacked Enniscorthy with a force of about 7,000 men.
There and elsewhere they drove horses and cattle in front of them to
disorder the ranks of their opponents. After a stout defence the
survivors of the little garrison fled to Wexford, whither the loyal
inhabitants of the neighbourhood were flocking for protection. The rebel
army, swelled to the number of 15,000, advanced on the town. An attempt
to relieve it having failed, the garrison made terms and evacuated the
place, which was occupied by the enemy on the 30th. The rebels chose
Bagenal Harvey, a protestant gentleman and one of the United Irishmen,
as commander-in-chief, and leaving a garrison in Wexford, established a
camp on Vinegar hill. Hoping to penetrate into Carlow and join the
rebels there and in Wicklow and Kildare, they detached 5,000 men to take
Newtownbarry. Colonel L'Estrange, who commanded there, retreated with
the garrison, and the rebels rushed into the place. He was soon
persuaded to return, surprised them as they were pillaging, and routed
them with the loss of only two men.

In the camp on Vinegar hill priests were dominant; mass was said every
morning, and the fury of the people was excited by violent sermons.
Protestants were brought in from the surrounding country, and all who
did not receive "protections" from the priests were butchered, sometimes
with ghastly cruelty. Though the priests often interfered to save the
captives, it is probable that at least 400 were slain in the camp.[282]
The prime object of the rebel leaders was to establish communication
with other counties. Their plans were ruined by lack of discipline and
organisation, as well as by the extraordinary gallantry of the loyalist
troops. After some fighting a detachment of rebels took Gorey in the
north of the county. Instead of pressing on into Wicklow, they remained
there feasting and plundering the neighbourhood. At the same time a
large body under Harvey marched on New Ross, with the object of opening
communication with Kilkenny and Waterford, where they believed that
thousands were ready to rise in arms.[283] The town was attacked at
daybreak on June 5, and was defended by General Johnston and about 1,600
men against thousands of rebels. Again and again the garrison, beaten
back for a time by sheer weight of numbers, rallied and steadily faced
the enemy. Lord Mountjoy was killed as he led a charge of militia. The
rebels fought desperately, but as a mere mob. After a fierce struggle of
ten hours they turned and fled through the burning town. No quarter was
given. At least 2,000 of them were slain. The loss on the loyalist side
was 230. During the battle some rebels fled to Scullabogue House, where
their army had left 224 prisoners, nearly all protestants, under a
strong guard. They declared that the day was lost, that the garrison
were slaughtering the catholics, and that Harvey had ordered that the
prisoners should be killed. Thirty-seven were massacred at the hall
door, and 184, including some women and children, were shut into a barn
and burned to death. Out of the whole number only three escaped.

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OF ARKLOW._]

After his defeat at New Ross, Harvey, who tried in vain to check the
savagery of his followers, was deposed from his command, and was
succeeded by a priest named Philip Roche. The rebels at Gorey had been
wasting their time. They were largely reinforced, and on the 9th some
10,000 men attacked Arklow. Its capture would have thrown open the road
to Dublin. The garrison under General Needham numbered about 1,500, and
had some cannon. Mainly owing to the splendid courage of the Durham
fencibles they defeated the rebels, who were much discouraged by the
fall of one of their priests, for they believed that he and some of
their other priestly leaders could not be harmed by shot or sword. Their
defeat decided the issue of the rebellion. It was almost confined to
Leinster. Connaught remained quiet, and it scarcely touched Munster. In
Ulster, the chief seat of the conspiracy, there were only two outbreaks,
in Antrim and Down, which were easily suppressed. Severity had nipped
rebellion in the bud. Nor was this the only reason for the comparative
inaction of the province. The presbyterians, whose republican sympathies
had led them to look to France and seek the support of the catholics
against England, found France fail them again and again; and they were
bitterly incensed against the catholics on hearing how in Wexford they
made the rebellion a religious war and were torturing and massacring the
protestants. Nor were French politics any longer such as to allure
republicans, for France was rapidly tending towards military rule, and
was bringing the republics she had founded into subjection to herself.
Before long Ulster became, as it has since remained, thoroughly loyal to
the crown.

The rebellion was defeated by the gallantry of the Irish loyalists and
the few English troops which supported them. No help had as yet been
sent from England. Decisive as the battle of Arklow proved to be, the
Irish ministers believed that the rebellion was still likely to grow,
and wrote urgently for reinforcements. Five regiments were despatched,
and several militia regiments volunteered for service in Ireland. The
crown could not accept their offer without the consent of parliament.
The opposition in the commons raised objections, and were defeated by a
large majority. On the 21st Lake, at the head of an army of over 13,000
men, attacked the rebels on Vinegar hill. After a short resistance they
fled in confusion. Enniscorthy was taken, and the royal army marched on
Wexford. When the rebels occupied Wexford on May 30, they behaved with
comparative moderation. There was some pillaging, but few acts of
violence were committed. Many protestants were imprisoned, and the rest
were confined to their houses and lived in mortal terror, for the lower
class of catholics showed a savage spirit which was only kept in check
by their leaders. It broke out on June 20, when nearly all the armed
rebels had marched out against the royal forces. Infuriated by the news
of disasters, the mob, under the leadership of a ruffian named Dixon and
his equally savage wife, slaughtered ninety-seven of the prisoners. The
next day the rebels offered to surrender the town on terms. They
believed that their offer was accepted, and surrendered before they
heard that Lake refused it. The rebel leaders and all found guilty of
murder were executed. Philip Roche and, in spite of his humane
exertions, Harvey were among the number. The remains of the rebellion
were stamped out with fearful severity. Many excesses were committed.
Every execution was hailed with exultation by the victorious party.
Cornwallis, who had succeeded Camden as lord-lieutenant in June, was
disgusted with their bloodthirsty and vengeful spirit. Seconded by the
chancellor, he obtained from parliament an act of general indemnity with
special exceptions, and did all in his power to restrain the ferocity of
the troops.

The rebellion left Ireland burdened with debt. Throughout wide districts
the land lay waste, houses were in ashes, the peasants homeless and
starving. Old racial and religious hatreds were revived and were
strengthened a thousandfold by the barbarities perpetrated by both
parties. If Ireland was ever to be at peace, if Celts and Saxons,
catholics and protestants, were ever to dwell together as one people, it
could only be by her acceptance of the control of a single imperial
parliament. A legislative union had long been contemplated by Pitt and
by other English statesmen. That Pitt deliberately planned and fostered
the rebellion, as Irishmen have actually asserted, in order to carry out
a union is a charge so monstrous as scarcely to demand serious
refutation. It is enough to say that he would certainly not have chosen
to have Ireland in rebellion at a time so critical for England as the
spring of 1798. That the policy of the government both in England and
Ireland, which certainly conduced to the rebellion, was to some extent
swayed by the desire for union is probable.[284] That is quite another
matter. The rebellion made union absolutely necessary, and while the
rebels were still in arms, Pitt began to prepare for it. The history of
the union must be deferred to our next chapter.

[Sidenote: _HUMBERT'S INVASION._]

The rebels' hopes of help from France were bitterly disappointed. A
serious invasion was impossible without command of the sea; only small
expeditions could be sent out by stealth. On June 16 certain Irish
conspirators represented that if a small expedition landed on the
north-west coast the independence of Ireland might be secured. The
directors determined to send one immediately.[285] It was long delayed,
for the navy was in disorder. At last, on August 6, when the rebellion
was over, and Ireland was full of troops, General Humbert sailed from
Rochelle with eighty-two officers and 1,017 men, together with supplies
and arms for the natives, in three frigates under the command of Captain
Savary. The ships took a long route to avoid the British fleet, and did
not arrive in Killala bay until the 20th. Killala, which had a garrison
of only 200 men, was occupied, and Ballina was taken. The French were
joined by a large number of Irish, delighted at receiving arms, clothes,
and food. Many of these recruits deserted, carrying away their guns, and
those who remained were of little use. General Hutchinson, who commanded
in Connaught, advanced against the invaders. He was joined by Lake, and
their forces amounted to over 5,000 men. Lake posted a detachment to
guard Castlebar. Humbert avoided it by crossing the mountains, and on
the 27th, after a march of fifteen hours engaged the British, though
vastly inferior to them in number. The militia were seized with panic,
and though the artillery behaved well, the army was utterly routed and
fled in disorder leaving nine guns in the enemy's hands.

After this shameful rout, called "the race of Castlebar," Cornwallis
took the command in person at the head of a large army, and reached the
neighbourhood of Castlebar on September 4. Early on that day Humbert
left Castlebar to march on Sligo, for he heard that there were few
troops in the counties of Sligo and Leitrim. He probably intended to
maintain himself near the sea in order to meet reinforcements from
France, and is said to have hoped to reach Dublin by a circuit to the
north-east. Wild as this hope seems, it was encouraged by the news of
insurrectionary movements. On reaching Colooney he was met by Colonel
Vereker with a small force from Sligo, which he defeated after a smart
engagement. He abruptly changed his course and marched to the
south-east, either because he believed that Vereker's force was the
vanguard of an army, or because he hoped to take advantage of a
rebellion which had broken out in Granard, and of disaffection in
Longford and Westmeath, and to reach Dublin through those counties.[286]
On the 9th Lake attacked him with an overwhelming force at Ballinamuck,
near Granard; Cornwallis was marching on his rear, and after a short
resistance the French surrendered themselves prisoners. They then
numbered ninety-six officers and 748 men. No terms were granted to their
Irish allies of whom 500 are said to have been slain. The adventure,
gallantry, and achievements of Humbert's little band form a notable
episode in the military history of France. Their conduct was worthy of
their country, for they committed no excesses. Killala was retaken from
the rebels with great slaughter and the rebellion in Connaught was soon
at an end.

The expedition under General Hardy, which was to have sailed to support
Humbert, was prevented from leaving Brest by the British fleet. From
Dunkirk a brig got away on September 4, carrying Napper Tandy and some
other United Irishmen, a few soldiers, and stores. Tandy persuaded the
French that he was a man of importance in Ireland, and that if he
appeared there the people would rise in arms; so the French made him a
general, and gave him command of this little expedition. He reached the
island of Aran, in Donegal, on the 16th, and heard of Humbert's failure.
No one paid any heed to him. He read the letters in the post office,
hoisted a green flag, got very drunk, and was carried back to the brig
eight hours after landing. The brig sailed to the coast of Norway to
avoid capture. Finally Tandy and some of his friends took refuge in
Hamburg. The city delivered them up to the English and thereby incurred
the wrath of Bonaparte. They were sentenced to death but were not
executed, and Tandy was allowed to go to France, where he ended his
days.

[Sidenote: _ABORTIVE ATTEMPTS ON IRELAND._]

At last, on September 16th, Hardy succeeded in sailing out from the Raz
with 4,000 troops for the relief of Humbert. They were carried in the
_Hoche_ (80) and nine smaller ships, under Admiral Bompard. The French
took a wide course and arrived off Lough Swilly on October 10. They were
met the next day by Sir John Warren with three ships of the line and
five frigates. The French, who fought well, were overpowered. The
_Hoche_ and three of their frigates surrendered, and three more of their
vessels were caught during the next few days. Only two frigates and a
sloop returned to Brest. On the _Hoche_ was Wolfe Tone, who had embarked
as a French officer. He was tried by court-martial in Dublin and
sentenced to be hanged. His request that he might die a soldier's death
was refused; he cut his throat and died in prison. Of all the promoters
of the rebellion he was, perhaps, the most talented, and was excelled by
none either in courage or in whole-hearted devotion to the cause of
Irish independence. One more attempt at invasion was made by Savary, who
after landing Humbert's force had returned to France. Ignorant of the
fate of Humbert's expedition, he sailed from Rochelle on October 12 with
three frigates and a corvette, carrying 1,090 troops, and appeared off
Killala on the 27th. There he heard of the failure of both Humbert and
Bompard. He set sail again and was so hotly chased by some British ships
that he threw guns, stores, and ammunition overboard.[287] His ships got
away, though with some damage, and returned to Rochelle. So ended the
French attempts on Ireland. If in the height of the rebellion a small
expedition had succeeded, as Humbert did, in evading the British fleet
and had landed in Ireland, it might have prolonged the struggle, but
could not have changed its issue. Disorganisation and unreadiness
prevented France from seizing the opportunity of doing even so much as
that. In the face of England's superiority at sea the despatch of any
large force would have ended in signal disaster. Independently of the
risk of capture at sea, the little secret expeditions to which France
was reduced were a mere waste of money.

Bonaparte sailed from Toulon on May 19, intending to take Malta, conquer
Egypt, despoil England of her power and commerce in the east, and gain
for France exclusive possession of the Red sea. He had with him 35,000
troops, and a fleet, which finally amounted to thirteen ships of the
line, fourteen frigates, and a vast number of smaller vessels, under the
subordinate command of Admiral Brueys. Malta was surrendered by the
knights of St. John. Bonaparte took Alexandria on July 2, and defeated
the Mamelukes in the battle of the Pyramids on the 21st. Lower Egypt was
conquered. As the port of Alexandria was unsuitable for his fleet,
Brueys stationed it in Abukir bay, near the Rosetta mouth of the Nile,
in order to guard the rear of the army. So far Bonaparte's schemes were
successful. But they had been formed without taking the British navy
into account. Nelson again entered the Mediterranean. Acting on orders
from the admiralty, St. Vincent sent him thither, and by June 7 he was
in command of thirteen ships of seventy-four, and the _Leander_ of fifty
guns. He at once began a long search for the French fleet, in which he
was hindered through lack of frigates to do scouting work. He anchored
off Naples on the 17th, and believing that the enemy would attack
Sicily, passed through the straits of Messina, and sailed along the east
of the island. He was off Alexandria on the 28th, two days before the
French arrived there, then he searched the Levant, and returned to
Sicily for supplies on July 19. On the 25th he put to sea again, sailed
along the coast of the Morea, and finally on August 1 discovered the
enemy in Abukir bay. The French fleet was anchored in line on the
western side of the bay, with wide shoals between it and the shore. It
was sheltered by Abukir (now Nelson's) island and its rocks, and its
leading ship was pretty close to the shoal off the island. It was
composed of thirteen ships of the line and four frigates, and was much
superior to Nelson's in the size of the ships and weight of metal. Some
of the ships, however, were worn out, and many of their crews were not
seamen.

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OF THE NILE._]

Though Troubridge's ship, the _Culloden_, and two others were not with
the main body, Nelson would not delay his attack, and at 5.30 P.M.
formed his line of battle, the wind being N.N.W. and blowing down the
French line. Very skilfully the British ships were taken round the
island and the shoals. They then swept round, and steering to the
south-west headed for the French van about 6.30, led by the _Goliath_
under Captain Foley. Near as the leading French ship, the _Guerrier_
(74), was to the shoal, Foley passed across her bows, and engaged the
next ship, the _Conquérant_ (74), on the inshore side. Hood followed
with the _Zealous_, and anchored by the _Guerrier_, and three more
engaged on the enemy's port side, Nelson's ship, the _Vanguard_, and the
two next attacking on the outside. Eight British ships set on the five
of the French van, the two others engaged two Frenchmen of much larger
size in the centre, and one of them, the _Bellerophon_, was dismasted
and drifted off. Later two of the missing ships of Nelson's squadron and
the _Leander_ came into action; the _Culloden_ having struck on a rock
off the island, remained aground. By that time the French van was
crushed, and the battle raged round the centre. Brueys fell, and soon
afterwards his ship, the _Orient_ (120), caught fire. Her assailants
poured so fierce a storm of shot upon her that her crew could not get
the fire under. The summer night was lightened by the sheet of flame
which wrapped her from the water-line to the mast-heads. The fire
reached her magazine, and the great ship blew up with a terrific
explosion. During the fight Nelson was badly wounded in the forehead. He
was soon on deck again, and sent boats to pick up the survivors of the
crew of the _Orient_. The British victory was completed in the morning,
and never was victory so complete. Of seventeen French ships two were
burnt besides the _Orient_, one sank, nine were taken, and only two
ships of the line and two frigates escaped.[288] Great was the rejoicing
in England at the news of the battle of the Nile. Nelson was raised to
the peerage as Baron Nelson of the Nile and Burnham Thorpe; other
honours were conferred on him both at home and by foreign sovereigns,
and parliament voted him a pension of £2,000 a year for two lives.

The king's speech on November 20 described the victory as foiling an
enterprise against the most valuable interests of the British empire,
and as likely to lead other powers to combine for the general
deliverance of Europe. Let us trace its effects under these two
headings. Bonaparte's conquest of Egypt was designed to be a step
towards the overthrow of British power and commerce in the east. He
found himself shut up in his conquest. Great ideas presented themselves
to him. He would take Constantinople, and conquer Europe by a flank
attack. He would be a second Alexander, and after another Issos would
drive the English from India. Already French envoys were inciting Tipú
Sultán to war. From the shores of the Red sea Bonaparte wrote to bid him
expect his army. The letter was seized by a British ship. Nelson's
victory encouraged the sultan, Selim III., the nominal lord of Egypt, to
declare war. A Turkish army and fleet were assembled at Rhodes, and
another army in Syria. Bonaparte did not wait to be attacked in Egypt.
The conquest of Syria would deprive the British fleet of its source of
supplies in the Levant, and would open the way to a conquest either of
Constantinople or Delhi.[289] On February 15, 1799, he captured El
Arish, and on March 6 took Jaffa by storm. Then with an army weakened by
disease and fighting, he marched on Acre. There he again had to meet a
British sea-captain.

[Sidenote: _DEFENCE OF ACRE._]

After his distinguished service at Toulon, and some later employment,
Sir Sidney Smith, in 1795, was appointed to the command of some small
vessels with which he did much damage to the enemy off the Norman coast.
He was taken prisoner in 1796 and kept in France for eighteen months. He
escaped in 1798 with the help of a royalist officer of engineers,
Colonel Phélypeaux, was sent to Constantinople as joint-plenipotentiary
with his brother, and, Nelson being at Naples, became senior naval
officer in the Levant. Acre, as the best harbour on the Syrian coast,
was specially important to British maritime supremacy in those waters.
So long as it remained uncaptured, Bonaparte could not advance, for the
door would be left open to an attack on his rear. If he took the place,
he believed that Syria would rise against Djezzar, its Turkish ruler.
The fortifications were weak, but Nelson's victory deprived him of the
power of investing it by sea. Smith sent his friend, Phélypeaux, in the
_Theseus_ (74) to teach the Turks how to strengthen the place, and
followed himself in the _Tigre_ (74). On March 18 he intercepted a
French flotilla with the artillery, ammunition, and stores on which
Bonaparte depended for the siege. They were brought into Acre; the
French were left only with field-pieces, and it was not until April 25
that they could bring up heavy guns from Jaffa. Much fierce fighting
took place between the Turks and the French; and the British ships kept
up a constant fire on the French in their lines and whenever they
advanced to attack. Smith, who was given to vapouring, was offended by
some communication from Bonaparte, and sent him a challenge to which
Bonaparte replied that he would fight when the English sent a
Marlborough to meet him.

Bonaparte's victory over the Turks at Mount Tabor seemed a great step
towards conquest. All depended on the fate of Acre. At last on May 7 the
Turkish fleet from Rhodes hove in sight. It was becalmed, and the French
made a desperate attempt to storm the place before the reinforcements
could arrive. They effected a lodgment, but Smith landed his seamen who
helped to drive them out with their pikes, and they fell back with heavy
loss. On the 20th Bonaparte raised the siege which had cost him nearly
5,000 men by war and sickness. Smith received the thanks of parliament
and a pension of £1,000 a year. Though vainglorious and arrogant, he
conducted the defence of Acre with sound judgment as well as with energy
and courage. By weary marches through the desert, Bonaparte led his army
back to Egypt, where he defeated an invasion of Turks. Smith sent him a
bundle of newspapers, and from them he received tidings which determined
him to leave his army and return to France. Before we enter on the
European events which chiefly led to his return, let us see how the ruin
of his plan of eastern conquest, the fruit of Nelson's victory, affected
the British rule in India.

By reducing the resources of Tipú in 1792 Cornwallis believed that he
was establishing a balance of power in India which would enable the
English to adopt a policy of nonintervention. This policy was pursued
both by him and his successor, Sir John Shore, afterwards Lord
Teignmouth. It was defeated through the revival of French influence. The
nizám put his army under French officers who held a large part of his
territories and paid their troops out of their revenues. Daulat Ráo
Sindhia, the strongest of the Maráthá lords, also employed French
officers and was inclined to help Tipú rather than the English. From
neither of these powers, which were in alliance with the company in
Cornwallis's war with Tipú, could any help be expected in a fresh
struggle with him; and as in 1797 Tipú proposed an alliance with France
against the English, a struggle could not be far off. In October of that
year Pitt's friend, Lord Mornington, was appointed governor-general. On
the day that he reached Madras, in April, 1798, Tipú received a French
force from Mauritius. Mornington at once persuaded the nizám to enter
into a subsidiary treaty by which he agreed to dismiss his French
officers and to form a close alliance with the company. The Frenchmen
were made prisoners and his army was placed under British officers.
Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt encouraged Tipú in his hostility, for he
expected that a French army would shortly appear in India. This hope was
frustrated by Nelson's victory. Nevertheless, he believed that the time
would come when he would be able to co-operate with a French invasion;
he tried to play a waiting game, and evaded the British attempts at
pacification. Mornington determined to put an end to his subterfuges,
and, in February, 1799, ordered an invasion of Mysore under General
Harris, the governor of Madras. Harris's army was joined by the army of
the nizám, and, on March 27, routed Tipú at Malvalli, the left wing of
the British, which consisted mainly of the nizám's contingent, being
under the command of Mornington's brother, Sir Arthur Wellesley,
afterwards Duke of Wellington. Seringapatam was taken by storm and Tipú
was slain. Mornington, who was created Marquis Wellesley, partitioned
Mysore, set up a youthful rájá, and placed him under British protection.

[Sidenote: _A NEW COALITION PROPOSED._]

While Nelson's victory enabled Englishmen to uphold the power and
interests of their country in the east, it led also to a second
coalition against France. Already mistress of the Batavian, Cisalpine,
and Ligurian republics, France occupied Rome in February, 1798, drove
out Pius VI., and founded a Roman republic. In August, the Helvetic
republic, established partly by intrigue and partly by force, in place
of the Swiss confederation, became her dependent ally. The German empire
was hopelessly divided, Piedmont was in process of annexation, Naples
was threatened. Yet the power of France was not so great as it seemed.
Among the peoples of the new republics many resented the destruction of
their old independent governments. Pitt poured money from the secret
service funds into the hands of agents, who in every country of Europe
recruited for the interest of England. He seems generally to have
received a good return, except in Holland, where the democratic party
remained strong. In other lands the rising feeling against France was of
no small importance in the coming struggle.

Paul, the Russian tsar, was deeply offended by the capture of Malta, for
he had a romantic predilection for the order of St. John, of which he
constituted himself the protector. The eastward advance of the French
seemed to threaten the spread of republicanism to his dominions and the
revival of trouble in Poland. Encouraged by Nelson's victory, he incited
the Porte to declare war on France, sent ships to act with the British
and Portuguese squadrons in the Mediterranean, and formed a defensive
alliance with the Turks to which England acceded.[290] He tried in vain
to induce the courts of Berlin and Vienna to combine against France, and
appears to have made a secret treaty with Austria concerning the passage
of troops, for some 60,000 Russians were soon marching towards the
Danube.[291] Pitt eagerly took advantage of the tsar's disposition.
Grenville promised a subsidy if the tsar would enter on the war as a
principal,[292] and on November 16 bade Sir Charles Whitworth, the
British ambassador at St. Petersburg, propose a coalition between
England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia to support Naples, re-establish
Austria in Italy, drive the French from Holland, the Belgian
Netherlands, Switzerland, and Savoy, and join the Netherlands to Holland
to form a strong barrier state.[293] Frederick William III., who
succeeded his father in 1797, would not be moved from his neutrality.
Russia was only waiting for the arrangement of a subsidy. With Austria
there were difficulties. The emperor, disgusted with the greediness of
France, was fully determined on war, but wanted a loan of £2,000,000. As
England had lost by former transactions with Austria, Pitt would make no
further promise until existing obligations had been fulfilled.[294]
Besides, the imperial minister Thugut was anxious for delay; he hoped
that the directory would be crushed by its own difficulties, and in any
case was unwilling to move without the co-operation of Prussia, or
before Russia could enter on the campaign. He had formed a defensive
alliance between Austria and the Two Sicilies, or Naples, on May 19, but
declared that Austria would only support Naples if France was the
aggressor, and would give no help if Naples began the war.[295]

His plans were disconcerted by the action of Ferdinand IV. of Naples.
After the battle of the Nile the British fleet in the Mediterranean was
broken up and employed in different directions. Nelson himself sailed to
Naples, was received as its deliverer, and was ensnared by the charms of
Emma, the wife of Sir William Hamilton, the British minister. She was a
woman of low birth, and in her youth had entered on an immoral life.
Though grown stout she was still beautiful, and her considerable natural
talents had been improved by Charles Greville, under whose protection
she had lived. He passed her over to Hamilton, who married her in 1791.
Queen Maria Caroline made a favourite of her, and used her for political
ends, for the queen was anxious for British help against the French and
the Neapolitan republicans. Under court and female influences, Nelson,
who had been ordered to protect Naples, came to consider its fortunes as
of the first importance. The queen, far bolder and more energetic than
her husband, was bent on war. Mack, the Austrian strategist, took
command of the army, and by Nelson's advice Ferdinand declared war on
France. Nelson assisted the operations by carrying troops to Leghorn.
Ferdinand entered Rome in triumph on November 29. His triumph was
short-lived; the Neapolitans were routed by the French, and Naples was
threatened. On December 23 the king and queen and their court took
refuge on board Nelson's ship, the _Vanguard_, and her companions, and
Nelson conveyed them to Palermo and remained with them there. The French
occupied Naples and the Parthenopean republic was established on the
mainland of the Two Sicilies. Among other operations in the
Mediterranean a small British force took Minorca from the Spaniards in
November without the loss of a man, and British and Portuguese ships
blockaded Valetta and compelled the surrender of Gozo. In order to avoid
offending the tsar, or exciting the jealousy of the Austrian or
Neapolitan courts, England renounced all desire for conquest either as
regards Malta, where she proposed that the knights should be
re-established, or the Adriatic, where Turkish and Russian ships were
attacking the French in the former possessions of Venice.[296]

[Sidenote: _THE SECOND COALITION._]

The ill-advised action of Ferdinand of Naples, for which Nelson was
largely responsible, caused some embarrassment to the English
government, and Grenville anxiously assured Thugut that England was not
responsible for it.[297] At the same time it hastened the formation of
the second coalition. A treaty of close alliance with Naples was signed
by Russia on November 29, and another by the Porte on December 23, to
which Great Britain acceded on January 2.[298] England further made a
treaty with Russia on December 29 by which the tsar agreed to furnish
45,000 men to act against France in co-operation with Prussia, and
England promised a subsidy of £225,000 for initial expenses and £75,000
a month afterwards. Thomas Grenville was sent to Berlin to act with
Count Panin in persuading Frederick William to join the coalition. The
king refused; the treaty with Russia was modified by a mutual agreement
that the Russian troops should be employed as seemed most advantageous
to both powers, and the English government suggested that they should
act with the Austrians in Switzerland.[299] Austria was soon forced to
abandon her temporising policy. A corps of 25,000 Russians was encamped
on the Danube. France demanded their expulsion from Austrian territory,
and that, as Thugut said, meant war.[300] On February 28 Jourdan crossed
the Rhine with 40,000 men. The second coalition of which England was the
soul was a direct result of the battle of the Nile.

England was successful alike in arms and diplomacy. She had crushed a
long-threatened rebellion and had been unharmed by attempts at invasion.
Her fleet had vindicated her naval supremacy in the Mediterranean;
Bonaparte's great design against her commerce and power in the east had
utterly failed, and she had succeeded for the second time in forming a
coalition against the common enemy. Though she was burdened with
taxation and debt, and suffering from the evils of a prolonged war, her
commerce was increasing and sedition was virtually extinct. In one
quarter only is an almost insignificant failure to be recorded. The
attempt to conquer San Domingo with insufficient forces, in which the
government had persevered since 1793, was abandoned. Animated by
republican sentiments, the negroes raised a large army under a former
slave, Toussaint l'Ouverture. The small British force at Port-au-Prince
could make no head against them, and was withdrawn in 1798. France
shortly afterwards withdrew her forces, and Toussaint remained virtually
master of the island. England's failure entailed no real loss. She
acknowledged the neutrality of San Domingo, and Toussaint opened its
ports to her commerce and prevented France from using them for
privateering purposes.

FOOTNOTES:

[281] Desbrière, _Projets de Débarquement_, i., 387-90.

[282] Gordon, _Hist. of the Rebellion_, pp. 166-67, 378-80; Lecky,
_Hist._, viii., 103.

[283] Gordon, _u.s._, p. 140.

[284] Lecky, _Hist._, viii., 286.

[285] Desbrière, _Projets de Débarquement_, ii., 40-42.

[286] Desbrière, _Projets de Débarquement_, ii., 120-21.

[287] Desbrière, _Projets de Débarquement_, ii., 182.

[288] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution_, i.,
257-71.

[289] Rose, _Life of Napoleon_, i., 201.

[290] Grenville to Whitworth, Oct. 3 and 5, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.

[291] Garden, _Histoire des Traités_, vi., 147.

[292] Grenville to Whitworth, Oct. 23, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.

[293] Same to same, Nov. 16, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.

[294] Eden to Grenville, Nov. 16 and 24, 1798, MS. Austria, R.O.

[295] Eden to Grenville, Nov. 8 and 10, 1798, MS. Austria, R.O.

[296] Grenville to Whitworth, Nov. 23, 1798, MS. Russia, R.O.

[297] Grenville to Eden, Dec. 22, 1798, and Jan. 25, 1799, MS. Austria,
R.O.

[298] Garden, _Histoire des Traités_, vi., 147-51.

[299] Grenville to Whitworth, March 15, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.; _Ann.
Register_, xli. (1799), 211.

[300] Eden to Grenville, Jan. 11 and Feb. 7, 1799, MS. Austria, R.O.




                               CHAPTER XX.

                ISOLATION IN EUROPE AND THE IRISH UNION.


During the earlier part of the war of the second coalition in 1799 the
allies gained a series of victories. In Germany Jourdan was defeated by
the Archduke Charles in the country between the Lake of Constance and
the Danube, and the French withdrew across the Rhine. In Italy they were
repulsed by the Austrians, retreated across the Mincio and, on April 12,
fell back behind the Adda. Then a Russian army joined the Austrians, and
Suvorov, the captor of Ismail, took command of the allied forces. He
conquered Lombardy at the battle of Cassano on the 27th-29th. Moreau
retreated behind the Ticino, and called on Macdonald to bring his army
from Naples to help him. Suvorov's blows fell in quick succession; he
advanced into Piedmont, cut Moreau off from communication with Masséna,
who was operating in Switzerland, and invited Charles Emanuel, who had
been forced to abdicate his continental possessions, to return to Turin.
Everywhere the Italian people rose against the French. Suvorov designed
to crush Moreau and Macdonald separately, to cross the Alps, and restore
the French monarchy. He was thwarted by the Austrian court. Thugut
disapproved of the proposed restoration of the King of Sardinia, for he
was set on the aggrandisement of Austria at the expense of Piedmont. The
tsar aimed at the re-establishment of the old order in Europe, the
emperor at the increase of his own dominions. Suvorov, though indignant
at Austrian opposition, turned to the work immediately before him, and
inflicted a crushing defeat on Macdonald at the Trebbia on June 19.
Macdonald made a rapid retreat, and finally led his shattered army to
Genoa. A new French army was defeated by Suvorov at Novi on August 15,
its commander, Joubert, falling early in the battle.

The English government approved of the emperor's designs on Piedmont,
for under a strong power the country would be a barrier to French
aggression,[301] and as the difference of policy between Austria and
Russia hindered the progress of the war, devised a plan for bringing
them into accord as regards operations. Suvorov, after completing the
conquest of Italy, was to enter Switzerland and prosecute his intended
invasion of France; the Austrians were to remain in occupation of
Piedmont and enter France by Savoy, while the archduke was to act on the
Rhine where his presence would forward a scheme for an invasion of
Holland by England and Russia. During the spring and summer the archduke
had been struggling with Masséna in Switzerland without making much
progress, though in August the French evacuated the Grisons country.
Shortly before he left for the upper Rhine he was joined by a new
Russian army under Korsakov. After his departure Masséna utterly
defeated Korsakov and his Austrian allies near Zürich on September 26.
When, then, Suvorov had, in spite of great hardships, led his army over
the St. Gothard, he found his whole plan of campaign overset and his
position seriously endangered by Korsakov's defeat. He abandoned the
campaign, and at the head of only 25,000 men of the 70,000 sent by the
tsar to the war, retired into Germany. In the Mediterranean, Corfu, the
other Venetian islands, and several important posts were captured by the
combined Russian and Turkish squadrons. Valetta was closely besieged
under Nelson's direction; Italy was virtually lost to the French, though
they still held Genoa.

[Sidenote: _NELSON AT NAPLES._]

England bore a part in the war both by sea and land. On April 25 a
powerful French fleet slipped out from Brest. All the southern coast of
England was disturbed by the fear of invasion. The French, however,
sailed into the Mediterranean. The fleet under St. Vincent was scattered
on different services and each division was far weaker than the French,
who were expected at Naples, at Malta, and at Alexandria. A crisis was
impending at Naples. The upper and middle classes were largely
republican, the poor throughout the kingdom were attached to the
monarchy. In February, Cardinal Ruffo, as the king's vicar-general, set
on foot a counter-revolution. At the head of a horde of peasants he
quickly regained Calabria for the king, while a Neapolitan diplomatist,
Micheroux, with the help of some Russian and Turkish ships, won back
Apulia. On April 3 Troubridge captured Procida and Ischia from the
republicans, but on the arrival of the French fleet in the
Mediterranean, was summoned by Nelson to join him at Maritimo, and left
only one British ship off Naples under Captain Foote. On June 13, after
Macdonald had withdrawn his army, the bands of Ruffo and Micheroux
entered Naples and took cruel vengeance on the republicans. The castle
of St. Elmo, held by a French garrison, and the castles Dell' Uovo and
Nuovo by Neapolitan republicans, were besieged by the royalists, by
Foote, and by the Russian and Turkish allies. Both sides expected the
arrival of the French fleet, and Ruffo was anxious to gain speedy
possession of the forts. An armistice was arranged, and on the 19th a
capitulation of the forts Dell' Uovo and Nuovo was agreed upon, was
signed by Ruffo, Foote, and the Russian and Turkish commanders, and was
ratified by the French commandant of St. Elmo.

The capitulation provided that the rebels should surrender the two forts
and evacuate them unharmed as soon as transports should be ready to
convey to Toulon such of them as desired to depart. On the 21st Nelson,
after an interview with the king, sailed from Palermo for Naples. As
soon as he arrived, on the 24th, he signalled to annul the armistice,
and sent word to Ruffo that he disallowed the capitulation. The next day
he sent Ruffo a declaration that he should not allow the rebels to
embark; they must surrender to the king's mercy, and he bade Ruffo
inform them of his decision. Ruffo refused, and remonstrated in person
with Nelson, who gave him a written "opinion" that the capitulation
could not be carried out without the king's approbation. The cardinal
then sent the rebels Nelson's declaration. On the 26th Nelson promised
him that he would not break the armistice and, further, sent him word
that he would not oppose the embarkation of the rebels. Did not Ruffo,
anxious for British help in case the French and the rebels should renew
hostilities, yield to Nelson's opinion that the question of the
capitulation should be reserved for the king? We have no absolute proof
that this was so, but Sir John Acton, Ferdinand's minister, in a letter
of August 1, says that the king pardoned Ruffo because he yielded to
Nelson's wise declarations.[302] After receiving a communication from
Ruffo, Micheroux informed the rebels, no doubt in good faith, that
Nelson had consented to the capitulation. The evacuation was arranged,
and the rebels embarked that evening in the belief that they would be
allowed to proceed to Toulon. Nelson prevented the transports from
leaving the harbour. The king disallowed the capitulation, and put to
death a large number of the rebels.

Such are the main outlines of this extremely complicated affair. It is
certain that Ruffo exceeded his authority in arranging the capitulation,
and that Nelson knew and carried out the king's wishes. He evidently
acted with full authority; he neither changed his opinion as regards the
capitulation nor did he deceive either Ruffo or the rebels. That the
rebels were deceived is certain, but for that Ruffo was responsible,
though he may only have been guilty of gross carelessness in not making
Micheroux understand the position of affairs. But Nelson's conduct was
not creditable. The capitulation was not less valid because Ruffo acted
disobediently in arranging it, and it was signed by a British captain.
Nelson was justified in suspending its execution until King Ferdinand's
will was declared; but, as the rebels could not then be restored to the
position they held before it was made, he was bound to use every effort
to induce the king not to break it, and to allow the rebels to proceed
to Toulon. Unfortunately he had imbibed the vengeful spirit of the
Neapolitan court. Blinded by the blandishments of his mistress and the
flattery of the court, he forgot the conduct which became a British
admiral and the representative of his own sovereign, and pandered to the
cruel desires of the Bourbon king and queen for vengeance on those who
had revolted against their detestable government.[303]

With the fate of one Neapolitan rebel Nelson was immediately concerned.
Francesco Caracciolo, formerly commander of the royal fleet, had joined
the republicans, taken command of their vessels, and fired on his king's
frigate, the _Minerva_. He escaped from Naples on June 17, and so was
not included in the capitulation; he was arrested, and on Nelson's
repeated request was handed over to him by Ruffo on the 29th. Nelson
immediately ordered the captain of the _Minerva_ and other royal
officers to try him by court-martial on board his own flagship, the
_Foudroyant_. Caracciolo was found guilty of treason, and sentenced to
death with ignominy. Nelson ordered that he should be hanged that same
evening from the yard-arm of the _Minerva_, which was accordingly done.
He was forty-seven at the time of his death. His treason was patent, and
its penalty inevitable. Although Nelson does not appear to have received
any written commission from Ferdinand, he evidently had a right to order
the court-martial and to enforce its sentence,[304] but the eagerness
with which he acted and the indecent haste of the execution are
lamentable illustrations of his animosity. The garrison of St. Elmo
surrendered on terms, and the royal power was re-established in Naples.
The French fleet was still in the Mediterranean. Large as it was, it did
nothing of importance, save effecting a junction with the fleet of
Spain. The combined fleets reached Brest in September, outstripping the
pursuit of the British under Lord Keith, who succeeded St. Vincent as
commander-in-chief. In April, 1800, St. Vincent took command of the
channel fleet and instituted a strict blockade of Brest.

[Sidenote: _EXPEDITION TO THE HELDER._]

On June 22, 1799, Pitt made a convention with Russia for a joint
invasion of Holland. On the part of England the principal object was the
capture of the Dutch fleet in the Texel and the destruction of the naval
depôt, which would deprive France of maritime aid from Holland, while
both the allied powers hoped to follow up the Austrian successes by
threatening the French frontier. It was expected that the Orange party
would be strong enough to give the invaders effectual help and that the
Dutch would rise against the French. The tsar promised 17,500 men, and
England agreed to send 13,000, to pay the tsar £88,000 for first
expenses, and a subsidy of £44,000 a month, and to provide transports
and horses. On August 27 a British force of 10,000 men under Sir Ralph
Abercromby landed at the Helder, a point by no means suited for an
invasion, which was chosen on account of its proximity to the Dutch
fleet. Abercromby repulsed an attack of the Dutch and threw open the
Texel to the British ships, under Admiral Mitchell. The Dutch seamen,
who were attached to the house of Orange, forced their officers to hoist
the prince's flag, and the fleet, consisting of thirteen ships carrying
from sixty-four to forty-four guns and other smaller vessels,
surrendered, and was carried to Yarmouth. The arrival of the Russians
was delayed, and the republicans had time to make preparations for
defence. Brune, a French general, took command of the combined French
and Dutch forces, and failing in an attempt on the British position,
established his quarters before Alkmaar.

On September 12 the first division of the Russians arrived, and
reinforcements from England brought up the number of the combined army
to about 30,000 men. The Duke of York was ostensibly in command, but the
cabinet ordered that all operations should be directed by a standing
council of war. A general advance was attempted on the 18th-19th. It was
not well planned, and failed owing chiefly to the undisciplined
impetuosity of the Russians on the right wing. The British lost over
1,000 killed and wounded, the Russians about 2,500, but the allies took
some 3,000 prisoners, mostly Dutch. Heavy rains set in; the republicans
broke up the roads and laid the country in front of the allies under
water. The invaders, cooped up in a sandy corner of land, were in a
sorry plight. A fresh advance was attempted on October 2; there was some
heavy fighting in which General, afterwards Sir John, Moore and his
brigade highly distinguished themselves, and Moore was twice wounded. It
was a drawn battle; and Brune fell back on the formidable line of
Beverwyk. The duke attacked him on the 6th, and failed to drive him from
his position. It became evident that the allies would not succeed in
forcing their way out of the small district they occupied, and that the
hopes entertained in England of assistance from the Dutch were
fallacious, for the people showed no sign of deserting the French
alliance. Accordingly, on the 18th, the duke capitulated; it was agreed
that the allies should re-embark unmolested and that England should
restore 8,000 French and Dutch prisoners. The British troops returned
home and the Russians were assigned winter-quarters in the Channel
islands. Dearly as this ill-planned expedition cost England, both in men
and money, the country was consoled for its failure by the acquisition
of the Dutch fleet, which passed into the king's service in virtue of a
convention with the Prince of Orange. About the same time came news of
the surrender of the rich Dutch colony of Surinam to Admiral Lord Hugh
Seymour.

[Sidenote: _PAUL DESERTS THE COALITION._]

During the winter the coalition was broken up by the defection of
Russia. Paul was angered by the policy of Austria which, under Thugut's
direction, was dictated by anxiety for the acquisition of Piedmont; he
was irritated by the support Thugut received from the English government
which, so far as the continental war was concerned, based its hopes on
Austrian success, and he was disgusted by the failure of his arms. He
considered that his troops were sacrificed in Switzerland to Austrian
selfishness, that they were not well treated in the expedition to the
Helder, and, which seems to some extent true, that they were shabbily
provided for in the Channel islands.[305] He recalled his troops and
withdrew from the coalition. His political attitude exhibited "daily
tergiversation," the result of palace intrigues.[306] The hope of
gaining Malta for himself and the knights still allured him, and on
December 31, he assumed the grandmastership of the order. He kept his
fleet in the Mediterranean to assist in the blockade of Valetta, in the
hope of making other acquisitions, and to support the King of Naples.
Yet his unsettled mind sometimes veered towards France; the "virtues of
Bonaparte" would suddenly become his chief topic of conversation and
"everything would be in suspense" as regards his policy.[307] Bonaparte
had returned to France, and his return was to decide the issue of the
war on the continent, though that result could not be foreseen
immediately. From the newspapers sent him by Sidney Smith he learnt in
Egypt the news of the early successes of the Austrians and the
distracted state of France. The government was unpopular, the taxes
were heavy, the revenues fell short of the expenditure, commerce was
destroyed, the royalists were in arms in the north-west, and brigandage
was rife. He left his army in the charge of Kléber, embarked on August
23, evaded the British cruisers, and landed at Fréjus on October 9. He
joined a party which was plotting against the directory. On November 9
and 10 (18th and 19th Brumaire) he overthrew not only the directory,
which was ready to fall, but the legislature also. A provisional
government was set up, and on December 13 a new constitution was
published. Bonaparte was declared first consul for ten years with powers
which, under a thin disguise, made him virtually master of France.

Kléber found his resources failing, no help came to him, for England was
supreme in the Mediterranean, and the Turks threatened to attack him.
With the assistance of Sidney Smith, who acted on his own
responsibility, he arranged a capitulation with the grand-vizier. The
convention of El Arish, signed on January 24, 1800, provided that the
French should evacuate Egypt and return home unmolested, and it
contained no stipulation that they should not serve again during the
war. The English ministers, aware that Kléber was in straits, had
already ordered Keith not to agree to any terms short of the surrender
of the French troops as prisoners of war. Keith informed Smith of this
order, but his letter did not reach him until after the convention was
signed. On receiving it, Smith sent word to Kléber that his government
refused to sanction the convention. When the ministers heard that Smith
had assented to it, they generously resolved not to disavow the act of a
British officer, and ordered that the convention should be recognised.
By that time, however, the French had defeated the Turks at Heliopolis
and were determined to make further efforts to hold the country.

[Sidenote: _BONAPARTE'S LETTER._]

Bonaparte lost no time in setting about the pacification of civil strife
in France. In December, 1799, Pitt, untaught by experience, was planning
an expedition to co-operate with the royalists in La Vendée and
Brittany, with the object of reducing Brest, compelling the surrender of
the French fleet, which was to be held in the name of Louis XVIII. (the
Count of Provence), and taking the Spanish fleet as prize. Bonaparte's
skilful policy pacified the disturbed districts, and foiled the hopes of
the royalist conspirators. Pitt was forced to postpone his scheme and
after a time abandoned it. While he was engaged on it, Bonaparte sent a
letter addressed to the king personally, in which he declared his desire
for peace. In later days he said that his object was merely to increase
his popularity; for the French were weary of war. In this case he
probably spoke the truth. Be this as it may, he certainly would not have
agreed to such terms as would have given to England and to Europe the
security for which England was fighting. His letter was answered by
Grenville, who said that the king could not enter into negotiations
unless he had a satisfactory assurance that France would abandon the
system of aggression, that while he did not prescribe the form of
government she should adopt, no assurance would be so satisfactory as
the restoration of the monarchy, and that her present government
afforded no evidence either of a change of system or of stability.
George thought this letter "much too strong," but suggested no
alteration. Talleyrand, then French minister of foreign affairs, wrote
in favour of a negotiation between the two powers, and was told by
Grenville that if the king could see the security of his own dominions
and of Europe assured, he would gladly negotiate "in concert with his
allies". The position taken by the ministers was sound and honourable,
but the tone of their answer to Bonaparte was unwise, for it played his
game by uniting the French in a determination to resist foreign
dictation with respect to their domestic affairs.

An address to the crown on the French overtures was moved in the lords
by Grenville, and was carried by 92 votes to 6. In the commons it was
supported by George Canning, already one of the ablest speakers on the
government side, and by Pitt who, in one of his finest speeches,
reviewed the relations of France with other states from 1792 onwards, as
proving that the proposed negotiations would have been illusory; he
urged that the exhausted state of France held out hope of a permanent
peace, and declared that as a lover of peace he would not sacrifice it
by grasping at a shadow. The address was opposed by Fox, who returned to
parliament for the occasion. He effectively ridiculed Pitt's
oft-repeated assurances that France was exhausted; but his main
contention, that if France as a republic had been aggressive, so she had
been when under Louis XIV., that she had not acted worse than the allies
of Great Britain, and that there was therefore no reason to refuse to
negotiate with her, seems academic and feeble. The opposition mustered
in full strength, but was defeated by 265 to 64. The divisions prove
that the position of the government was unimpaired in parliament.

In the country generally the patriotic spirit aroused by the military
aggressions of France and the achievements of the British navy was
strong, and revolutionary principles were seldom publicly professed.
Some abortive projects of Irish conspirators in 1798 for co-operating
with the corresponding society led to the appointment of a committee of
the commons, which reported on the revolutionary societies in March,
1799. Bills were passed for suppressing these societies and restricting
debating societies, and for compelling printers to obtain certificates
and to affix their names to all matter that they printed. In evident
connexion with these measures was the law against combinations of
workmen enacted in this, and amended in the next session, to which
reference has already been made (p. 277); though probably political in
intention, it had an oppressive effect on the condition of the working
classes. Only three trials for sedition took place during the year, one
of them of the printer and publisher, and another of the author of the
same libel, a pamphlet by Gilbert Wakefield in answer to one on the
government side. Wakefield, who had taken deacon's orders and afterwards
left the Church, was a distinguished scholar and a friend of Fox. He was
prosecuted by Scott, the attorney-general, and sentenced to two years'
imprisonment, and to find sureties for his future behaviour. The
severity of the sentence excited the indignation of the opposition, and
£5,000 was subscribed for him. In July Scott was appointed chief-justice
of the common pleas, and received a peerage as Lord Eldon.

[Sidenote: _THE INCOME TAX._]

The burdens of the country were increasing. In December, 1798, Pitt
announced that the supplies exceeded the ordinary revenue by
£23,000,000. He repeated the principle which he enunciated when
proposing the triple assessment, that loans should not exceed such
amount as could be defrayed within a limited time by temporary taxation.
The triple assessment had failed, though the deficiency had been
supplied by voluntary contributions. He proposed to substitute an income
tax of 2s. in the pound on all incomes of and above £200, and of
graduated amounts between £60 and £200. The produce, he calculated,
would be at least £10,000,000 a year. The opposition, led by Tierney,
objected to the tax as inquisitorial, as a grievous confiscation, and as
unjust, in that it would fall equally on precarious and on settled
incomes, on the produce of industry and on the wealth of the idle. It
was carried in the lords without a division, and in the commons by a
large majority, and came into operation on April 5, 1799. During the
year 1799 Pitt raised £15,000,000 by loan, including £3,000,000 for
Ireland, charging the income tax with the interest and redemption of
£11,000,000. The loan was raised in the 3 per cents; it created £175
debt for each £100 money, and the rate was therefore 5-1/4 per cent. In
his next budget, for 1800, Pitt reported the supplies for the year at
£39,500,000. The produce of the income tax for the first year was
disappointing, and for the coming year he reckoned it only at
£7,000,000. In return for a renewal of its charter the bank of England
granted a loan of £3,000,000, without interest, for six years, and Pitt
further borrowed £20,500,000, including £2,000,000 for Ireland. The
income tax was charged with £13,500,000 of the British loan, and
additions were made to the taxes on tea and spirits. Public credit was
good and commerce and manufactures rapidly increasing, and Pitt obtained
the loan at an average rate of not quite 4-3/4 per cent.

But while commerce was flourishing the poor were suffering terribly from
scarcity. The spring and summer of 1799 were cold and wet, and the
harvest was wretched. During the twelve months which succeeded September
1, 1799, the average price of wheat rose to 106s. a quarter. Parliament
held several debates on the scarcity. Whitbread for the second time
brought in a bill for the regulation of the wages of agricultural
labourers; Pitt opposed it on sound economic grounds and it was again
rejected. During the spring of 1800 parliament made some proposals for
the husbanding of wheat and for bounties on importation, but, as we
shall see later, the scarcity grew more grievous. The distress of the
poor and the burden of taxation strengthened the desire for peace, and a
large meeting of London citizens petitioned parliament for negotiations
with France. In May the king was shot at in Drury Lane theatre. The
incident had no political significance; his assailant, Hadfield, a
discharged soldier, was insane and was sent to Bedlam.

At the beginning of 1800 Pitt's hopes were mainly founded on his scheme
of co-operation with the French royalists, which was rendered abortive
by Bonaparte's measures of pacification, and on the arms of Austria.
Thugut knew that from Bonaparte the emperor could not expect to gain
better terms than those of the treaty of Campo Formio, and held that the
best chance of forwarding Austrian interests lay in prosecuting the war
in alliance with England. Austria, however, could not move without
English money. The English government promised a loan of £2,000,000 and
made subsidiary treaties with the Elector of Bavaria, the Duke of
Würtemberg, and the Elector of Mainz for contingents to serve with the
Austrian armies. In April the Austrians under Melas defeated the French
in the mountain passes to the west of Genoa, shut up the left wing of
their army within the lines of Genoa, and forced the right wing under
Suchet across the Var. Their advance was stayed by Masséna's defence of
Genoa. His troops suffered terribly from famine; they were shut in on
land by the Austrians and bombarded from the sea by British ships.
Meanwhile Bonaparte was preparing to attack the Austrians in northern
Italy as soon as their chief army in the Black Forest country under Kray
was effectually held in check by the French army of the Rhine, so as to
enable the French to use the Swiss passes. If Masséna could detain the
Austrians before Genoa until Bonaparte descended into Italy, they might
then be taken in the rear. A promise had been made that a British force
would co-operate with the Austrians and excite the royalists of southern
France to insurrection. If such a force had landed on the rear of the
French, Suchet's corps must have been destroyed, Genoa would probably
have fallen, and the campaign might have had a different event. But the
ministers failed to see the supreme importance of supporting the
Austrians. They hesitated, and withdrew troops which should have been
sent to Minorca to form an army to co-operate with Melas, in order to
employ them in Portugal. There, however, they were not wanted, for
Portugal was not attacked. The great opportunity was lost. Sir Ralph
Abercromby with 5,000 men sailed from Minorca for Genoa on June 22, but
then it was too late.

[Sidenote: _BATTLE OF MARENGO._]

In April Moreau defeated Kray in a series of engagements and forced him
to retire to Ulm. Bonaparte, who had formed "an army of reserve" at
Dijon, crossed the Great St. Bernard in May with 41,000 men, reached
Aosta on the 22nd, and entered Milan on June 2. On the 4th Masséna
capitulated, and led his half-starved force out of Genoa with the
honours of war. It had done its work by keeping the Austrians before the
city. The successes of Moreau secured Switzerland and enabled Bonaparte
to summon other French divisions, partly composed of detachments from
Moreau's army, to enter Italy by the passes of the Simplon and the St.
Gothard. Their appearance upset the plans which Melas was making for
defence. He met Bonaparte at Marengo on the 14th, and after a
hard-fought battle was totally defeated. On the 16th he signed a
convention at Alessandria, which left the French masters of the country
as far as the Oglio. Hostilities in Germany were suspended on July 9.
Bonaparte returned to Paris in triumph after an absence of less than two
months. On June 20, before the news of Marengo reached Vienna, Minto
signed a convention with Austria which guaranteed the loan to the
emperor, and stipulated that neither power should make peace without the
consent of the other. Pitt's hopes were defeated; for the time Austria
was completely paralysed. The opposition reproached the government with
the failure of its plans. The country, it was urged, desired peace;
another defeat would reduce Austria to impotence, and France, disengaged
from all continental war, would direct her whole strength against
England. Parliament remained steadfast in its support of the government.

Bonaparte, anxious to detach Austria from her alliance with England,
offered peace to the emperor, who sent an envoy to Paris to find out
what terms he proposed. It was a dangerous move, for the English
ministers might have interpreted the mission as a negotiation for a
separate peace, contrary to the convention of June 20; and Thugut feared
that England might take offence and leave Austria to Bonaparte's mercy.
The emperor's envoy was in fact persuaded by Talleyrand to sign articles
of peace, generally on the basis of the treaty of Campo Formio. The
emperor disavowed his unauthorised action. Austria's interests would be
best served by a general peace, arranged at a European congress, at
which Great Britain should be represented. This was in accordance with
the views of the British government, and on August 9 Minto informed the
emperor that his court desired to take part in negotiations for a
general peace. The emperor proposed a congress at Lunéville in which
England should be invited to take part. Bonaparte's design of disuniting
Austria from England and treating separately with the emperor was
foiled; he could not reject the emperor's proposal, for France was eager
for peace. Pitt and Grenville believed that negotiations were certain,
and Thomas Grenville was chosen to attend the congress.

But Bonaparte's diplomatic resources were not exhausted. He declared
that if the continental armistice with Austria was to be prolonged, it
must be supplemented by a naval armistice with Great Britain, and in
September he employed an agent named Otto to negotiate this armistice
and to propose a separate peace between France and England. Bonaparte's
project would have enabled France to revictual Malta and to send
supplies and reinforcements to her army in Egypt, and would thus have
robbed England of the most powerful means of enforcing her demands in
the proposed congress. The king was for rejecting the project
absolutely. The cabinet was divided: Dundas and some others were for
making a separate peace; Pitt and Grenville were determined to maintain
the alliance with Austria, to insist that all negotiations should be for
a general peace, and to refuse to throw away the advantages which
England derived from her naval supremacy, but, as a speedy termination
of the armistice would have been fatal to Austria, they hoped to modify
Bonaparte's demands. Pitt, of course, had his way, and the government,
after sending Bonaparte a counter-project which he refused, finally
rejected his proposal. Bonaparte was enraged and stormed against
England's usurpation of the lordship of the sea. Determined to isolate
her, he pressed the emperor's ministers to negotiate separately. They
foresaw that they might be forced to yield, but so long as they were not
assured of advantageous terms, decided to remain united to England; for
they were unwilling to stand alone, to lose the money of England, or to
risk a possible alliance between England and Prussia.

[Sidenote: _AUSTRIAN POWER CRUSHED._]

While the proposed naval armistice was still in debate, the blockade of
Valetta came to an end. England's supremacy in the Mediterranean
prevented France from relieving the garrison. The only two ships which
remained to France of the fleet defeated in Abukir bay were captured,
one of them by Nelson himself. The blockade was kept up until September
15, when the place was surrendered after a siege of two years, and Malta
passed into the possession of Great Britain. About the same time the
Dutch island of Curaçao put itself under the king's protection. Earlier
in the year Goree was surrendered to a British squadron. Elsewhere
British ships were less profitably employed. Some attacks on the Breton
coast did little damage to the enemy, and brought no material advantage
to England. The government employed the troops which should have been
sent in the spring to the support of the Austrians in desultory
expeditions. In August a considerable force under Sir James Pulteney was
sent against Ferrol. After landing his men Pulteney found that the place
was too strong to be taken by a _coup-de-main_, and abandoned the
enterprise. An equally abortive attempt was made on Cadiz in October by
a force of 22,000 men under Abercromby, then commanding at Minorca, and
by the Mediterranean fleet under Keith. The plague was raging in the
town, and Keith could not guarantee that, if the troops were landed, the
weather might not cut them off from communication with the fleet, and
possibly hinder re-embarkation. Abercromby therefore refused to land his
troops, and decided to sail off to Gibraltar. He received orders to
attack the French in Egypt in co-operation with the grand-vizier. The
troops landed in Abukir bay on February 8 and 9, 1801, with results
which must be deferred to our next volume.

The armistice in Germany ended on November 28. A strong Austrian army
under the archduke John, a general of no experience, held the line of
the Inn. The archduke adopted the offensive, crossed the river, attacked
the French under Moreau at Hohenlinden on December 3, and was totally
defeated, losing ninety-seven guns and 15,000 men, or more, killed,
wounded, or prisoners. The Austrians were utterly crushed; the French
crossed the Inn and the Salzach without meeting serious opposition. The
archduke Charles again took command of the defeated army, and on the
25th signed an armistice at Steyer. Meanwhile Cobenzl, the imperial
ambassador, was haggling over terms of peace with Joseph Bonaparte at
Lunéville; he refused to negotiate officially without the participation
of England, and at last proposed that if a treaty was made, it should
not be announced until after March 10 when the Anglo-Austrian alliance
would lapse. The battle of Hohenlinden brought the alliance to a
premature end. The emperor informed the British court that he was no
longer able to maintain the alliance, and gave Cobenzl authority to sign
preliminaries independently of Great Britain. The splendid achievement
of Macdonald, who led the "second army of reserve" from the Grisons
across the Splügen, and the subsequent success of the French under
Brune, who forced the passage of the Mincio and crossed the Adige,
enabled Bonaparte to dictate his own terms to Austria. By the treaty of
Lunéville, signed on February 9, 1801, Belgium and the left bank of the
Rhine were ceded to France, and the line of the Adige was made the
Austrian boundary in Italy; the grand-duchy of Tuscany was to be
transferred to the house of Parma, and Modena annexed to the Cisalpine
republic, and the independence of the Batavian, Helvetian, Cisalpine,
and Ligurian republics was acknowledged by Austria; they remained
practically under French domination.

In addition to the loss of her ally, new dangers threatened England in
the later part of the year. They arose from the animosity of the tsar.
He was angered by England's alliance with Austria, and by the certainty
that his hostile attitude would prevent her from handing over Malta to
him; for though the government would have ceded the island to him as
grand-master of the knights, if he had continued to co-operate with
England, it was not bound to do so by treaty, and would not cede it to a
sovereign who was fast becoming an open enemy. Paul was greatly enraged,
and on February 1, 1800, wrote to Vorontsov, his minister in England,
desiring that Whitworth (created Lord Whitworth in March) should be
recalled, as he did not want "liars as ministers at his court".[308] He
refused a passport to Whitworth's messenger in March, and behaved,
Whitworth wrote, in the way which showed that he was "literally not in
his senses".[309] At last, apparently on April 1, he demanded
Whitworth's recall.[310] After long delay Whitworth obtained a passport
and returned to England, leaving the embassy to a _chargé d'affaires_,
who was peremptorily dismissed by Paul, and left Russia with the embassy
in June. Bonaparte was quick to take advantage of Paul's anger against
England. After some overtures to him, begun as early as March,[311] he
proposed in July to restore to him 6,000, and, later, a larger number of
Russian prisoners taken in Holland and Switzerland, and suggested ceding
to him Malta, which was then hard pressed by the British fleet. Paul was
delighted, and made arrangements for garrisoning Valetta; but the place
was surrendered to Great Britain, and the British government would not
part with it.

[Sidenote: _THE ARMED NEUTRALITY._]

Paul had already laid his hand on the weapon forged by his mother
Catherine in 1780, an armed neutrality of the Baltic powers. The war put
many difficulties in the way of neutral commerce. England's maritime
supremacy gave the trade of Europe into her hands. For her own purposes
she encouraged neutral trade with herself to the great profit of those
who engaged in it, but she placed rigorous restrictions on the trade of
neutrals with her enemy. France, in a more lawless fashion, had
attempted to destroy neutral trade with England, but had only succeeded
in driving the ships of neutral states from her own ports.[312] England
could enforce her system in every sea. She refused to allow that an
enemy's goods were covered by a neutral flag, and insisted that naval
stores were contraband of war, and that no trade should be carried on
with a port of which she declared a blockade. In 1798 Sweden and Denmark
adopted the plan of sending their merchant ships under convoy to exempt
them from search. Paul saw his opportunity in the annoyance which the
British system caused to neutral states, and in May and June, 1800,
invited Sweden and Denmark to resist it. In July a Danish frigate, the
_Freya_, with a convoy was stopped by British ships in the Channel; her
captain refused to allow the ships under his convoy to be searched, and
after a short resistance the _Freya_ was captured and taken into the
Downs. The government despatched Whitworth to Copenhagen to remonstrate
on this act of war on the part of Denmark, and enforced his
representations by sending a squadron into the Sound.

Christian VII. gave way, and promised to send no more convoys until the
question was decided by treaty. He complained to Russia, and Paul in
November laid an embargo on all British ships, imprisoned the crews of
those in his ports, and seized British merchandise. He further invited
Denmark, Sweden, and Prussia to form an alliance for the protection of
their flags on the basis of insisting that the neutral flag should cover
an enemy's goods, not being contraband of war, that contraband should
not include naval stores, and that if a declaration of blockade was to
be respected, the blockade must be effectual, and that ships convoyed by
a man-of-war belonging to their sovereign should be exempt from search
by a belligerent on a declaration by the captain of the convoying ship
that they were not carrying contraband goods. This move was highly
gratifying to Bonaparte, for it struck at England's naval and commercial
ascendency, and a treaty which he concluded with the United States in
September contained provisions of a like kind. Frederick William III. of
Prussia, seeing that Austria was at its last gasp, was anxious to please
him, for he hoped to gain some advantage from him in Germany, and
specially coveted the possession of Hanover. He complained that a
Prussian ship, laden with timber and bound for Amsterdam, had been
seized by a British cruiser and taken into Cuxhaven, a port belonging to
the state of Hamburg, and he ordered his troops to occupy Cuxhaven, a
measure which threatened George's electoral dominions. That would not in
itself have concerned England, but Cuxhaven was at the mouth of the
Elbe, the principal route by which British commerce was carried on with
central Europe. In the existing state of affairs it was not advisable to
give the Prussian king a cause of grievance. The government, therefore,
directed the restoration of the ship in the hope of pacifying him, but
he nevertheless persisted in the occupation of the port. On December 16
the maritime confederacy was signed by Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, and
on the 18th by Prussia.

[Sidenote: _ENGLAND TO BE HUMBLED._]

In January, 1801, Paul sent an ambassador to Paris to arrange a treaty
of alliance. Bonaparte's hopes seemed likely to be more than fulfilled.
An attempt made on his life on December 24, which many Frenchmen
absurdly believed to have been abetted by the English government, gave
him the opportunity of crushing his domestic foes. England, the object
of his passionate hatred, was bereft of her Austrian ally; he was
pressing Spain to invade Portugal unless she would close her ports
against English ships; the northern powers were striking at England's
maritime lordship; her navy would be deprived of stores, and her people
of foreign wheat. An alliance with Russia would enable France to become
dominant in central Europe, to overthrow the British supremacy in the
Mediterranean, and to preserve her hold on Egypt. Soon every state would
shut its ports against British ships, and England's sea-power would be
overthrown by the power of France on land. Paul held out yet greater
hopes; he would undertake a joint invasion of India and drive the
British from the east. Though his wild schemes did not meet with
Bonaparte's approval, Paul set an army in motion for the conquest of
India. Yet neither the government nor the people of England was dismayed
by the isolation of their country nor the number of their foes. Nor had
they cause. Bonaparte, great general as he was, could not understand the
nature of England's strength, and was indeed profoundly ignorant of all
that concerned maritime power and commerce. The British navy was in
admirable condition, both as regards material and men; it was blockading
the Dutch in the Texel, and the ships of France and Spain in every port
in which they lay from Toulon to Flushing, and the thunder of its guns
was soon to be heard in the north. In India Lord Wellesley had not only
crushed resistance and added a vast territory to the company's
possessions, but was establishing the British rule on a firm basis, and
there, too, British ships would have to be reckoned with. On January 14
the government placed an embargo on the ships of Russia, Sweden, and
Denmark. Orders were sent for the capture of the Danish colonies in the
West Indies, and a fleet was prepared to sail for the Baltic under Sir
Hyde Parker, and with Nelson as second in command.

Yet, though undismayed by her foes, England was sorely dismayed by the
sufferings of her poor. Peace was very needful for her. Wealth indeed
was rapidly increasing; her foreign trade which in 1792 was £44,500,000
in value had risen to over £73,750,000. But the poor lacked bread. The
increase in the manufacturing population caused an increased demand for
food, and England depended on supplies of cereals from abroad. The war
restricted the importation of corn and sent up its price. The hopes
fixed on the harvest of 1800 were disappointed; the stock of the
previous year was exhausted, and wheat rose to the famine price of
120s. a quarter. Bread riots were raised in various places, and were in
some cases due to a belief, existing even among persons of education,
that the high price of corn was largely caused by the dealers. Some
dealers were prosecuted under the old statutes against "forestalling and
regrating," and when one named Rusby, charged with buying oats at 41s. a
quarter and selling them again in the same market at 44s., was found
guilty, Lord Kenyon congratulated the jury on the benefit which their
verdict conferred on the country. On appeal his law was questioned and
the proceedings dropped. The future looked even darker than the present,
for the Russian embargo cut off a main source of supply. The desire for
peace was general. Pitt, whose health was giving way, was full of
anxiety, for the scarcity seemed likely to embarrass the government in
its efforts to maintain the honour of England, and might even compel the
country to assent to a peace alike disadvantageous and fallacious. "The
question of peace or war," he wrote in October, "is not in itself so
formidable as that of the scarcity with which it is combined".

He determined on an early meeting of parliament, believing that some
relief might be afforded by legislation, and that, at the least, it
would quiet the public mind and check the rise of disaffection. Besides
measures for the encouragement of home agriculture, which would
necessarily operate slowly, he planned others to meet the immediate
crisis, for though as a disciple of Adam Smith he disliked interference
with the regular course of trade, he considered that the situation of
the country rendered some regulation necessary. Grenville differed from
him. He held closely to the maxims of political economy, and though he
did not oppose him in the cabinet, he urged on Pitt in private that all
interference with the process by which supply and demand counteracted
each other must be harmful. Pitt held to his own opinion. Parliament met
on November 11. The king's speech invited it to consider means by which
agriculture might be extended, and, for the present, the best means of
stimulating the importation of grain and promoting frugality in using
it, and checked the foolish and mischievous outcry against the dealers
by pointing out that the ordinary practices of buying and selling were
necessary in the existing state of society. Acting on the reports of
committees, parliament granted bounties on the importation of corn and
rice, and prohibited the use of corn in distillery and the manufacture
of starch, the exportation of provisions, the making of bread solely
from fine flour, and the sale of bread within twenty-four hours of its
baking. The opposition reproached the government, and especially Pitt,
with having caused the scarcity by the rejection of Bonaparte's
proposals for peace; but motions for an inquiry into the state of the
nation, for immediate negotiations with France, and for the dismissal of
the ministers received scarcely any support. It was not from parliament
that Pitt's ministry was to receive its death-blow.

[Sidenote: _IRISH UNION DESIRABLE._]

Almost as soon as the Irish rebellion was quelled, the project of a
legislative union with Great Britain was publicly discussed. Such a
union existed from 1654 to the restoration in 1660. At the time of the
union with Scotland, in 1703 and 1707, the Irish parliament proposed a
union, and its wish was disregarded. Since then various writers on
politics had recommended it, chiefly as a means of giving Ireland
freedom of trade. The improvement in the material condition of the
country which began in the fourth decade of the century strengthened the
spirit of nationality, the Irish interest became dominant in politics,
religious animosity decreased, and during the American war Ireland,
instead of looking to a union as a means of attaining prosperity, found
herself in a position to demand the concessions she desired. The
abolition of restrictions on her trade in 1779-80 removed the chief
motive which had impelled Scotland towards union; the grant of
legislative independence fostered the national pride. The constitution
of 1782 left Ireland connected with Great Britain only by the unity of
the executive in both countries. The Irish parliament might have
expressed disapproval of a war or alliance entered on by Great Britain
and might have refused supplies; it might have imposed excessive duties
on English goods, might have refused a commercial compact with Great
Britain, and did so in 1785; it might have taken a different course from
the British parliament on a constitutional question, and did so on the
regency question in 1789. The empire was weakened by lack of union.
English statesmen, and above all Pitt, saw that the tie, precarious in
quiet times, might break under some stress, and desired to strengthen it
by an incorporate union, and the king heartily agreed with them.

For Ireland a union afforded the only chance of tranquillity, for
catholic emancipation could not safely be granted without it. Since the
extension of the suffrage to Roman catholics in 1793, emancipation
unaccompanied by union would have placed the government of the country
in the hands of a popish democracy; for the catholics outnumbered the
protestants by three to one, and the act of 1793 established little
short of manhood suffrage. A catholic parliament would have made Ireland
no place for protestants, and would have provoked a civil war, in which,
unlike the late rebellion, England would probably have had almost the
whole catholic population arrayed against her. With a united parliament
the catholics might enjoy equal privileges with their protestant
neighbours, and would be powerless to oppress them. The war with France
revealed the dangers of the existing system; the rebellion left the two
religious parties at deadly feud; the protestants feared catholic
vengeance, the catholics held the protestant ascendency in deeper hatred
since the rise of Orangeism and the barbarities of '98. The time seemed
ripe for the fulfilment of Pitt's long-cherished hope of union. He
desired to do the catholics justice and intended that the union should
provide for emancipation, a provision for their priesthood, to be
accompanied by an increase of the _regium donum_, the endowment granted
by William III. for the support of the Irish presbyterian ministers, and
the commutation of tithe; and this comprehensive scheme was warmly
approved by Cornwallis. But the principal men of the government party in
Ireland were strongly opposed to the admission of catholics into the
united parliament, and in October, 1798, Clare convinced Pitt that the
proposal would wreck the chances of union. Pitt therefore dissociated
emancipation from union, adopted a scheme of union on a protestant
basis, and left the settlement of the just claims of the catholics,
which was necessary to the successful working of a union, to be effected
later.

[Sidenote: _CATHOLIC SUPPORT._]

The intended union was announced and advocated in a pamphlet by Cooke,
the Irish under-secretary. The protestants generally were hostile to the
scheme, some from feelings of national pride, others from dislike to the
threatened overthrow of the political ascendency of their party.
Catholic support might be gained if there was reason to expect that
union would be followed by emancipation, a provision for the clergy,
which would entail a royal power of veto over episcopal appointments,
and the commutation of tithe. Dublin was strongly against a measure
which would injure its position as a capital; and the lawyers, who would
also lose by it, were formidable opponents. In preparation for the
coming struggle the government informed the catholic bishops that,
though emancipation could not be included in the measure, they were
anxious to make provision for their clergy; a few anti-unionist
officials resigned or were dismissed, and the demands of some of the
government party, who, as usual, clamoured to be rewarded beforehand,
appeared to have been satisfied. The king's speech at the opening of the
Irish parliament on January 22, 1799, though not mentioning union,
recommended some effectual means of strengthening the connexion. The
address was carried in the lords by 52 votes to 17. In the commons it
was moved by Lord Castlereagh, the chief secretary, and was strongly
opposed by Plunket, Ponsonby, and others. After a debate which lasted
from 4 P.M. to 1 P.M. the next day, the government had a majority of
only one, and in a subsequent division was in a minority of 5. On the
31st Pitt, in an eloquent speech, moved resolutions for a union in the
British house of commons. Sheridan, Grey, and Burke's friend, Laurence,
fought hard against them, but were in a minority which varied from 45 to
15. In the lords they were agreed to without a division, and in April
both houses adopted an address in favour of union.

The failure of the government in the Irish parliament was hailed with
delight and rioting in Dublin. The prospects of the union soon began to
brighten. The cabinet made it clear that the measure would not be
abandoned. As it seemed likely that the protestants would offer the
catholics emancipation in order to induce them to combine against union,
Cornwallis was authorised to declare that the government would resist to
the utmost any concession to the catholics so long as a separate
parliament existed. No definite promise was made to the catholics, but
their hopes were excited. In the autumn, Castlereagh, who came over for
the purpose, represented to the cabinet the importance of gaining their
support; he was told to inform Cornwallis that the cabinet was
favourable to emancipation, and that without giving the catholics "any
direct assurance," he might safely solicit their support. This he did
with general success; and the catholic bishops and many of their
clergy, allured by the prospect of a provision from government, were
active on the unionist side. The unionist party was further strengthened
by the state of the country. Many districts were infested by bands of
men, survivals of the rebel armies, who murdered, robbed, and
intimidated their neighbours, and mutilated cattle. A fresh outbreak of
rebellion seemed likely in the spring; the large British force already
in Ireland was augmented, and an act was passed giving the
lord-lieutenant power to authorise the capital or other punishment of
those convicted by court-martial of rebellion or attacks on the king's
subjects. The opinion that Ireland needed a new system of government
gained ground. Yet the feeling against union remained overwhelmingly
general, specially among the protestants.

[Sidenote: _A MAJORITY SECURED._]

A majority in parliament had to be gained by the ministers. The county
members, who were independent, for the most part were, and remained,
anti-unionists. The preponderance of power lay with the 236 members for
the 118 boroughs, of which only eight were free from all patronage.
Nearly all the remainder belonged to borough-owners and were regarded as
their personal property. A large number of them would be disfranchised
by a union. Not to compensate the owners would have been contrary to the
general moral standard of the age when uninfluenced by party feelings,
and would have made union impossible. As Pitt in his reform bill of 1785
proposed to buy up the patronage of the English close boroughs, so the
government determined to compensate those Irish borough-owners whose
boroughs were to lose both members. The price of each borough was
eventually fixed at £15,000, the market value, and as eighty-four were
disfranchised, the sum paid for them was £1,260,000. This was not
bribery; it was an open transaction, and the money was paid alike to
opponents and supporters of the union. The services of great men were
secured by peerages and other dignities. During and at the end of the
struggle twenty new Irish peerages were created, sixteen peers were
promoted, and five received English peerages. Most of these grants were
mere bribes, and so too were the many places and pensions which helped
to swell the unionist party in parliament. Some money, though the amount
must have been small, was probably also spent in bribery. The government
would not risk a general election; the union was to be carried by the
existing parliament. Gradually sixty-three vacancies were created in the
commons, some by death, some by acceptance of office, most of them
doubtless by the resignation of members who would not follow their
patrons by becoming unionists, and others, probably, through the
purchase of seats by the government from sitting members. The vacancies
were eventually filled by supporters of the union. While, then, the
extent of the corruption practised by the government has been
exaggerated, the union was undoubtedly carried by corrupt means.

Nevertheless, Pitt did not corrupt the Irish parliament; it was corrupt
already: he merely continued the immemorial methods of dealing with it
on a larger scale than before. Nobles and gentry chose to sell
themselves, and, in order to rid Ireland of a source of trouble and
danger, and Great Britain of a cause of weakness, he paid them their
price. Cornwallis murmured at having to negotiate and job with "the most
corrupt people under heaven"; but he did his share of the work.
Castlereagh, personally not less honourable, who had much of it to do,
did it without compunction, for it was, he said, "to buy out and secure
to the crown for ever the fee-simple of Irish corruption, which has so
long enfeebled the powers of the government and endangered the
connection". It was essential to the welfare both of Great Britain and
Ireland that the union should be effected, and that it should be
effected without delay; and it could not have been effected by any other
means than those which Pitt adopted. It was better by giving these
greedy politicians their price to put an end to a system maintained by
perpetual corruption, worked in the interests of an ascendant minority,
distrusted by the mass of the people, incapable of affording the country
the blessings of domestic peace, and dangerous to the security of the
empire.

The Irish parliament began its last session on January 15, 1800, and the
address was hotly debated. Grattan, who had not appeared there since
1797, spoke with extraordinary eloquence in support of an amendment on
the side of legislative independence. Though the vacant seats were not
nearly all filled up, the amendment was rejected by 138 votes to 96. The
anti-unionists were furious; they raised a fund of £100,000, paid or
promised, for the purpose of out-buying the ministers, bought some
seats, and paid and offered bribes. The catholics, the yeomanry, and
the Orangemen were urged to combine to withstand the union. Some rioting
took place in Dublin, but there was no serious outbreak; for the Orange
grand lodge kept the society quiet, and the mass of the people, except
when excited by agitation, regarded the question with indifference. A
fierce struggle ensued in parliament, and it was not until March 28 that
the articles of union were carried and sent to England. They were
debated at some length in both houses of the English parliament, but
were carried by large majorities. They were next presented in the Irish
parliament in the form of a bill. It was vehemently opposed. In the
debate on the commitment, on May 26, Grattan delivered an oration
against it, splendid in diction and inflammatory in tone, and was
answered by Castlereagh who spoke, as indeed he spoke throughout these
debates, with conspicuous dignity and moderation. The majority for
committing the bill was 118 to 73. It was then passed by the English
parliament and received the royal assent on August 1. A new great seal
and a new royal standard were made for the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and on January 1, 1801, the king's new title was
proclaimed, from which the words "King of France," retained since the
time of Edward III., were omitted.

By the act of union Ireland was to be represented in the united
parliament, in the upper house by four spiritual lords sitting in
rotation and twenty-eight temporal lords elected for life by the Irish
peerage, and in the lower by 100 members.[313] The right of the crown to
create fresh Irish peerages was restricted. The established Church of
Ireland was declared one with the Church of England, and the
preservation of the united Church of England and Ireland was to be "an
essential and fundamental part of the union". Commercial interests were
mainly settled in accordance with the proposals of 1785, and some Irish
manufactures were temporarily protected from suffering by British
competition. The debts of the two countries were to be kept separate for
twenty years, or until they should be to each other in the same
proportion as the respective contributions of the two countries; and
until their amalgamation the annual contribution of Great Britain
towards the expenditure of the United Kingdom was fixed at fifteen parts
and of Ireland at two parts. The first session of the united parliament
was opened on January 22, 1801, the members for Great Britain being the
same as those of the previous parliament.

[Sidenote: _THE CATHOLIC QUESTION._]

The Irish catholics could have prevented the union. They made it
possible, some by giving active help, others by maintaining neutrality;
and though no definite promise had been made to them, they were led to
expect that union would be followed by emancipation, a provision for
their clergy, and the commutation of tithe. Pitt recognised this, and
further held that his work would be incomplete without these healing
measures, which would give "full effect to the great object of the
union--that of tranquillising Ireland and attaching it to this country".
Accordingly, in September, 1800, as soon as the union was effected, he
called a meeting of the cabinet to consider these questions. He said
nothing to the king on the subject, thinking, doubtless, that it would
be less difficult to gain his consent if a complete plan was presented
to him as the policy adopted by the cabinet. The risk was great, for in
1795 George, as we have seen, held that to consent to emancipation would
be a breach of his coronation oath, and so lately as the autumn of 1799
he told Dundas that he hoped the government was "not pledged to anything
in favour of the Roman catholics". Loughborough, the chancellor, saw an
opportunity for ingratiating himself by betraying the prime minister.
When he received Pitt's letter summoning him to the cabinet meeting on
the catholic question, he was with the king at Weymouth, where George
often resided in the summer since his recovery in 1789. He showed the
king Pitt's letter, excited him against emancipation, and furnished him
with arguments. Lord Auckland, the postmaster-general, who was allied
with the chief Irish anti-catholics, was his cousin, and, probably at
Auckland's suggestion, the Archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh wrote to
the king to strengthen him against emancipation. When the cabinet met,
Loughborough agreed to the commutation of tithe, but objected to any
further concession, and the matter was adjourned.

Pitt again brought it before the cabinet in January, 1801. The king's
feelings were then generally known, and the Duke of Portland and Lords
Westmorland and Liverpool more or less decidedly joined Loughborough in
opposing emancipation. On the 28th George attacked Dundas on the subject
at a levee: "I shall," he said, "reckon any man my personal enemy who
proposes such a measure". He requested Addington, the speaker, to
remonstrate with Pitt. On the 31st Pitt wrote him a long letter setting
forth the general grounds of his desire for emancipation, by the
substitution of a political oath for the sacramental test, and for a
provision for the catholic clergy, adding that if the king refused his
consent, he must resign office. George, after taking counsel with
Addington, replied that he was bound by his coronation oath to refuse
his consent, and proposed that both he and Pitt should say no more on
the subject. In answer Pitt wrote on February 3 that he must resign
office as soon as a new ministry could be formed. George, who was
incapable of appreciating his splendid services, and showed later that
he must often have chafed under his control, invited Addington, a dull
man after his own heart, to form a ministry. He consented, and on the
5th the king accepted Pitt's resignation. Dundas, Grenville, Spencer,
and Windham decided to go out with Pitt, so did Canning and others who
held minor offices, and Cornwallis and Castlereagh also retired. Pitt
promised his help to Addington, whose father had physicked the Pitt
family, and persuaded some of his followers to join the new ministry. As
it was to be an anti-catholic ministry, his conduct has been held to
prove that he was paving his way to a return to office, and that the
change, so far as he was concerned, was, to use Fox's expression, "a
juggle". It should be remembered that the country was engaged in a
deadly conflict, and that its safety was always Pitt's first
consideration. Emancipation was hopeless. He had felt bound in honour to
break up a strong ministry because he could not carry it, and it was his
duty to do what he could to strengthen the new ministry so long as it
did not prove incapable of guiding the country in critical times.

[Sidenote: _PITT'S IMPENDING RESIGNATION._]

In this, as in every part of these transactions, his conduct was
honourable and straightforward. He would not continue in office when
thwarted by the king on a question of great importance, nor would he
consent to disappoint hopes which he had encouraged and by which he had
benefited. That he was influenced by any other motive, such as that his
continuance in office would hinder peace, is a vain imagining. He has
been blamed by an eminent historian for not having persevered in his
attempt to overcome the king's determination, which on other occasions
had yielded to pressure.[314] On none of these occasions had George's
religious convictions been concerned. Some experience of the power
exercised by religious prejudice in strengthening the resistance which a
naturally obstinate person can make to reason, persuasion, and the force
of circumstances, leads me to believe that Pitt was right in accepting
the king's decision as final and in not engaging in a struggle which
might, especially at that time, have had disastrous consequences. Short
of such a struggle he did insist on his policy in the only way open to
him; he resigned. Where he was to blame, and he acknowledged it, was in
keeping his intentions secret from the king. Whether if he had
communicated them to the king at an early date, he would have gradually
won George over to his policy, it is impossible to say; he certainly
went the wrong way to work in disregarding the right of the crown to be
consulted on the policy which the prime minister hopes to carry out.

The impending resignations were announced in parliament, and Sir John
Mitford, the attorney-general, was chosen speaker in place of Addington,
but the completion of the ministerial arrangements was delayed, and Pitt
remained _de facto_ prime minister. To prevent public inconvenience he
brought forward his budget on the 18th. He announced a loan of
£25,500,000 for Great Britain and £1,500,000 for Ireland, afterwards
increased by another £1,000,000, which the commercial prosperity of the
country, though then in the ninth year of the war, had enabled him to
negotiate, at the rate of about 5-1/4 per cent., and he proposed
fourteen new taxes to defray the interest. The budget was well received.
The delay in the change of ministry was prolonged by the king's illness.
He had been much excited and distressed by the late events, and on the
20th again became insane. The Prince of Wales approached Pitt on the
subject of a regency, and Pitt told him that, if the necessity should
arise, he should propose the restrictions of 1789. By March 6 the
king's condition was materially improved and the question became of no
further importance. George bade Willis, his doctor, tell Pitt that he
was quite well, adding, "but what has he not to answer for who is the
cause of my having been ill at all?" Pitt was much distressed. Would an
assurance, he asked Willis, that he would not again trouble the king on
the catholic question "be material to his health?" "Certainly," Willis
replied, "and to his life also."[315] Pitt bade him give the king the
assurance. George was much comforted. Pitt's surrender has been blamed
in strong terms.[316] It cannot be defended completely. The question was
of deep importance to Ireland, and he treated it as a personal matter.
It is, however, unfair to represent his conduct as an attempt to resume
office. His followers constantly urged him to invite Addington to
retire, for they justly regarded him as incompetent, and when they heard
of Pitt's message to the king, they expected that their wish would be
fulfilled. But Addington had received his appointment, and was not
likely to resign it willingly, and Pitt, as Canning complained, would
not make any "forward movement towards the king". Nothing was to be got
from him except that, if the king and Addington earnestly wished him to
continue, he was ready to discuss matters. On the strength of this,
Dundas and others went to Addington, who rejected their proposal that he
should offer to make way for Pitt, and Pitt himself told them that their
action was improper.

[Sidenote: _PITT RESIGNS OFFICE._]

Pitt would willingly have continued in office. He loved power, and he
knew that England needed him and the strong ministry of which he was the
head and soul, but he was not a man to barter principle for office. His
message to the king is intelligible, as a prime minister of our own time
has pointed out, without so mean an interpretation.[317] He recognised
that while the king lived catholic emancipation could not be gained save
at too high a price. George was sixty-two, and his life was thought to
be precarious; no one could foresee that he would outlive Pitt, who was
twenty years younger. An attempt to force the question on him would
have again brought on insanity, and would perhaps have killed him. Pitt
was deeply moved by the king's words, and yielded to feelings of pity
and personal affection for the sovereign he had served for seventeen
years. On March 14 he gave back the seal of the exchequer into the
king's hands. Once again then, and not for the last time, did George
defeat the policy of his ministers and drive them from office. In this
case the blame chiefly rests on the traitor Loughborough, who, for his
own purposes, happily to be foiled, interfered between the king and Pitt
and excited the king's religious prejudices. But George's conduct at
this crisis cannot be viewed wholly apart from his earlier attempts at
personal rule, for it proves that he was unable to understand that his
ministers were responsible for his political acts. His refusal to assent
to emancipation deprived Ireland of the happy results which Pitt
expected, and brought much trouble on the country. As regards its effect
on the empire at large, it is enough to say that it took the helm of
state out of the hands of Pitt.

FOOTNOTES:

[301] Grenville to Whitworth, Nov. 1, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[302] Acton to Nelson, Aug. 1, 1799, _Nelson and the Neapolitan
Jacobins_, p. 325.

[303] The latest discussions on this affair are in Captain Mahan's _Life
of Nelson_, 2nd edition, 1899; _Engl. Hist. Rev._, April, 1898, July,
1899, October, 1900; _Athenæum_, July 8 and Aug. 5, 1899; Mr.
Gutteridge's _Nelson and the Neapolitan Jacobins_ (Navy Records Soc.),
1903, containing documents, with the _Diario Napol._ and the _Compendio
di Micheroux_ from the _Archivio Storico per le province Napol._, xxiv.
(1899), pt. iv.; Marchese Maresca's _Il Cavaliere Micheroux_, 1895;
Madame Giglioni's _Naples in 1799_, 1903, and two articles by Dr.
Hueffer in the _Revue Historique_, Sept.-Dec, 1903, and Jan.-April,
1904, to which I am indebted.

[304] Mahan, _Life of Nelson_, i., 439.

[305] Whitworth to Grenville, Nov. 1 and 13, and Dalrymple to Huskisson,
Dec. 31, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[306] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 5 and 24, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[307] Whitworth to Grenville, Dec. 13, 1799, MS. Russia, R.O.

[308] Martens, _Recueil des Traités conclus par la Russie_, xi., 5-7.

[309] Whitworth to Grenville, March 18, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.

[310] Same to same, April 2, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.

[311] Whitworth to Grenville, March 6, 1800, MS. Russia, R.O.

[312] Mahan, _Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution_, ii., 17,
18.

[313] In 1801 the population of Great Britain was about 10,500,000, and
of Ireland about 4,500,000; in 1901 the population of Great Britain was
36,999,946, and of Ireland 4,458,775.

[314] Lecky, _History_, viii., 512.

[315] Lord Colchester, _Diary_, i., 255-61. Malmesbury (_Diaries_, iv.,
31-32) says that Pitt wrote a contrite letter to the king, which seems a
mistake (see Stanhope, _Life_, iii., 303-4).

[316] Lecky, _Hist._, viii., 523. Pitt has been admirably defended by
Lord Rosebery (_Pitt_, pp. 226-28).

[317] Lord Rosebery, _u.s._




                               APPENDICES.


I. ON AUTHORITIES.

II. ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.

III. THE GRENVILLES.




                               APPENDIX I.

                             ON AUTHORITIES.


For the sake of convenience an attempt is made to classify the
authorities used in writing this volume under different heads; the plan
adopted is unscientific, and books noted under one head belong partly to
others, but it has, perhaps, the one merit of clearness. The editions
quoted here are those which have been used.

(1) General histories of England for the period 1760-1801:--LECKY,
_History of England in the 18th Century_, 8 vols., 1879-90, from which
much help has been obtained. It is a work to which every historian of
the period must be deeply indebted, and though faults may be found with
its plan, it holds a high place among our histories for learning,
moderation, and philosophical treatment. The history of England is
carried down to the outbreak of the war in 1793, that of Ireland to the
Union. ADOLPHUS, _History of England from the Accession of George III._,
8 vols., 1840-45, a laborious and impartial record of events, viewed
from a conservative standpoint. MASSEY, _History of England_, 4 vols.,
1855-63, ends 1803, chiefly treating of home affairs; neither animated
nor philosophic, written from a liberal point of view, unduly severe to
the king, but deriving some value from the author's legal and
parliamentary experience. Lord STANHOPE, _History_, 7 vols., edit. 1853,
vols. iv.-vii., ends 1783, trustworthy, dull, and whiggish. To these
must be added Sir T. E. MAY (Lord Farnborough), _Constitutional History
of England from 1760 to 1860_, 3 vols., 5th edit., 1875.

(2) The chief manuscript sources consulted:--The great collection of the
_Duke of Newcastle's Papers_ in Add. MSS., British Museum, extremely
important down to 1767, specially with reference to ministerial
intrigues, the old whig methods of government, the negotiations with
France in 1761-62, and the growth of the cabinet system. The _Pitt
Papers_, a mass of letters addressed to Pitt (Earl of Chatham) and
William Pitt, and some to Lady Chatham, together with various political
memoranda. These papers have been sorted into different bundles, to
which the numbers given in my footnotes refer, and a manuscript index of
them has been made by Mrs. Lomas of the Record Office, where they are at
present deposited by their owner. They have been used in the preparation
of the _Chatham Correspondence_, and by Lord Stanhope, but the field is
large and may be gleaned with profit. _Foreign Office Correspondence_
(despatches of ambassadors, etc.). With respect to these, the kind and
efficient help given me by Mr. Hubert Hall, of the Record Office, is
gratefully acknowledged.

(3) Akin to these sources are various publications of the Historical
Manuscripts Commission. Among these special reference should be made to
the Reports on Mr. Fortescue's _Dropmore MSS._, 3 vols., containing the
papers of Lord Grenville, of the highest interest and importance,
specially from 1793; the Duke of Rutland's _Belvoir MSS._, 3 vols., with
_inter alia_ the fourth Duke of Rutland's correspondence while
lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 1784-87; the _Charlemont MSS._, also
essential for Irish history; _Lord Dartmouth's MSS._, vol. 2, American
Papers to 1776, and Mrs. _Stopford-Sackville's MSS._, and Sir _E.
Strachey's MSS._, both throwing much light on the conduct of the war
with America.

(4) Of pre-eminent importance is the _Parliamentary History_, xv.-xxxv.,
and its complement, Sir HENRY CAVENDISH's _Debates of the House of
Commons_ during the parliament of 1768, 2 vols., edit. by Wright, 1841,
begins May, 1768, and ends March, 1771. It is much to be wished that the
remainder of these valuable reports should be published from the
manuscript in the British Museum. Dodsley's _Annual Register_ has
historical chapters written by Burke, perhaps to 1778, and chapters in
many later volumes probably written under his supervision; they are of
course generally excellent. The volumes for the later years of our
period contain many useful state papers. Burke's speeches, pamphlets,
and letters, of which the edition used here is his _Works and
Correspondence_, 8 vols., 1852. For his life see PRIOR, _Life of Burke_,
2 vols., 5th edit. (Bohn's Lib.), 1854, Mr. J. MORLEY, _Burke_, a
historical study, 1867, and _Burke_ (Engl. Men of Letters Series), 1879.

[Sidenote: _MEMOIRS AND CORRESPONDENCE._]

(5) Political and other memoirs and printed correspondence:--H. WALPOLE
(Lord Orford), _Letters_, edited by Cunningham, 9 vols., 1880, the
letters in vols. i. and ii. are of earlier dates than 1760. A more
complete edition, in 16 vols., by Mrs. P. TOYNBEE, is in course of
publication by the Clarendon Press. WALPOLE'S _Memoirs of the Reign of
George III._, 1760-72, edited by Mr. Russell Barker, 4 vols., 1894, and
his _Journals of the Reign_, 1771-83, edited by Doran, 2 vols., 1859.
These works are of considerable historical value, but Walpole was not a
politician; he was a whig for personal reasons rather than from
conviction, and his sentiments were largely determined by filial
prejudice and the interests of his friends; his views are generally
superficial, and his judgments of persons biassed, sometimes
contradictory, and often unjust. DODINGTON (Lord Melcombe), _Diary_,
edited by Wyndham, 1785, ending with 1761. HARRIS, _Life of Lord
Hardwicke_, 3 vols., 1847, useful to 1764, and with an account of the
circumstances preceding C. Yorke's death in 1770, written by his
brother. BISSET, _Memoirs of Sir Andrew Mitchell_, 2 vols., 1850.
Mitchell was ambassador at Berlin in 1760 and later. The Memoirs are
based on his correspondence (Add. MSS. British Museum and elsewhere),
and throw light on the causes of Frederick's angry feelings towards the
British government, and the negotiations for peace in 1762. _The
Grenville Papers_, edited by W. J. Smith, 4 vols., 1852, consisting
principally of the correspondence of Richard, Earl Temple, and his
brother George, first lord of the treasury, 1763-65, together with
George Grenville's diary of "memorable transactions" during his
administration, which gives a full account of the relations between the
king and his first minister. The Papers are of primary importance for
the first eleven years of the reign. [ALMON,] _History of the Late
Minority_, 1765, a clever account of the politics of the parliamentary
opposition from 1761, attributed to Lord Temple, and written in his
interest. _Correspondence of John, fourth Duke of Bedford_, 3 vols.,
1846, well edited by Lord John (Earl) Russell, the last part of vol. ii.
and vol. iii. cover from 1760 to 1770. The correspondence and extracts
from the duke's diary afford a striking picture of the whig system of
government by "connexion"; they have much on the negotiations for the
Peace of Paris, the ministerial crises of 1763 and 1765, and the discord
between the whigs which was fatal to their chance of effectually
resisting the king's policy. The work is a necessary complement to the
Grenville papers. _A Narrative of the Changes of Ministry, 1765-1767,
told by the Duke of Newcastle_, edited by Miss M. Bateson for the Royal
Hist. Soc. (Camden Series), 1898, from the Newcastle Papers (see sec.
2), giving an interesting account of the king's efforts to supply the
place of the Grenville ministry, the difficulties both on the king's
side and that of Pitt which kept Pitt out of office, the duke's
discomfiture when the king put Pitt in power in July, 1766, and his
attempt in 1767 to arrange a coalition between Grafton and the
Rockingham party.

The lack of any sufficient biography of Chatham renders _The Chatham
Correspondence_, 4 vols., 1840 (see sec. 2, _Pitt Papers_), well edited
by Taylor and Captain Pringle, of peculiar importance; vols. ii.-iv.
contain letters both from and to Chatham, which illustrate the whole of
his career during our period. Pitt's political position and conduct,
1761-65, and specially his relations with Bute, are the subject of an
interesting study, _William Pitt und Graf Bute_, by Dr. A. VON RUVILLE,
Berlin, 1895. _William Pitt, Earl of Chatham_ (Heroes of the Nation
Series), by Mr. W. D. GREEN, M.P., 1901, is good from 1760, so far as
its limits allow. Earl of ALBEMARLE, _Memoirs of the Marquis of
Rockingham_, 2 vols., 1852, an ill-arranged book, has letters of value,
exhibits the policy of the Rockingham whigs, their differences with Pitt
(Chatham), and their efforts for reform. _Autobiography and Political
Correspondence of the Duke of Grafton_, 1898, edited by Sir WILLIAM
ANSON, with an excellent introduction and useful footnotes, gives
valuable notices of the first Rockingham ministry, the weakness of the
administration formed under Chatham, the collapse of all ministerial
vigour during his illness and when Grafton was nominally at the head of
affairs, and the views of the whigs with regard to the constitution.
_The Correspondence of George III. with Lord North_, 1768-83, 2 vols.,
1867, edited by W. B. Donne, with copious notes and comments, shows the
king's system of personal rule through his ministers in full working,
the position held by North under it, and his unavailing attempts to
resign office when forced to carry out a policy he disapproved, together
with much that concerns the conduct of the war. Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE,
_Life of the Earl of Shelburne_ (Marquis of Lansdowne), 3 vols.,
1875-76, based on papers at Lansdowne House and elsewhere, represents
Shelburne's political conduct in as favourable a light as possible; the
parts relating to the quarrel between Shelburne and H. Fox in vol. i.,
the negotiations in Paris in 1782 and 1783, and the quarrel with C. J.
Fox, are perhaps specially useful, but the whole work down to 1784 is
necessary and authoritative.

Lord STANHOPE, _Life of Pitt_, 4 vols., 2nd edit., 1862, founded on
unpublished papers (see sec. 2, _Pitt Papers_); a good biography and a
standard and indispensable work. With this should be read Lord ROSEBERY,
_Pitt_ (Twelve English Statesmen Series), 1891, an admirable
appreciation of Pitt's work and character. Lord JOHN (Earl) RUSSELL,
_Memorials and Correspondence of C. J. Fox_, 4 vols., 1853, has many
letters of importance, but is otiosely edited, and _Life of C. J. Fox_,
3 vols., 1859-67, more concerned with politics, which it treats from a
strongly whig standpoint, than with biography. Sir G. O. TREVELYAN,
_Early History of C. J. Fox_, 1880, written on the whig side, ends with
1774. _Court and Cabinets of George III._, edited by the Duke of
Buckingham, 4 vols., 1853-55 (vol. i. begins at 1782, and 1801 is
reached early in vol. iii.), contains the correspondence of the brothers
Lord Temple (later Marquis of Buckingham), Thomas, and W. W. Grenville
(later Lord Grenville); the letters of the last named are of much value;
they are supplemented by the _Dropmore MSS._ (see sec. 2). _Diaries and
Correspondence of the First Earl of Malmesbury_, 4 vols., 1844, edited
by the third earl, chiefly concerned with the foreign relations of Great
Britain; his despatches, letters, and journal while minister at St.
Petersburg, 1770-80, at the Hague, 1784-88, at Berlin, 1793, and during
his mission to Paris in 1796, and to Lille in 1797, are of first-rate
importance. In vol. ii. are reports of two conferences with the Prince
of Wales on the subject of his debts in 1785. Malmesbury (Sir James
Harris) was one of the Portland whigs, joined in their secession, and
was much trusted by Pitt. _Correspondence of Marquis Cornwallis_, 3
vols., 1859, well edited by C. Ross, has several letters relating to the
war with America, an account of his interview with Frederick of Prussia
in 1785, many despatches and letters written by him as governor-general
of India, 1786-92, and a large mass of correspondence during his
vice-royalty of Ireland, 1798-1801. _Journal and Correspondence of Lord
Auckland_, 4 vols., 1861-62, edited feebly by Lord Auckland, Bishop of
Bath and Wells. Auckland (Eden) was a personal friend of Pitt until
1801. His letters while ambassador at Paris, 1785-87; correspondence
relating to the regency question, 1788; his letters from the Hague,
1792-93; some on the course of the war, and those referring to the
recall of Fitzwilliam and to the catholic question in 1801, are to be
noted. He was chief secretary for Ireland in 1780, and was closely
allied with Beresford and the protestant ascendency party. _Political
Memoranda of the Duke of Leeds_, edited by Mr. O. Browning for the
Camden Soc., 1884, specially valuable for its account of the whig scheme
for a coalition in 1792. Also edited by Mr. Browning, _Despatches of
Earl Gower_, 1885. Gower was ambassador at Paris, 1790-92. Lady MINTO,
_Life of Sir Gilbert Elliot, afterwards Lord Minto, to 1806_, 3 vols.,
1874; vol. i. contains information as to the illness of the king and the
regency question; vol. ii. as to the secession of the Portland whigs;
Elliot, whose sister married Lord Auckland, and whose wife was a sister
of Lady Malmesbury, was one of the party. His letters, while he was
employed on a diplomatic mission at Toulon during the siege, as viceroy
of Corsica, at Naples, and as minister at Vienna, 1799-1801, are worthy
of attention. Sir N. W. WRAXALL, _Historical and Posthumous Memoirs_,
1772-84, 5 vols., 1884, carefully edited by Mr. H. B. Wheatley, diffuse
and amusing. Wraxall's inaccuracies, or worse, have been exaggerated,
and his work, which goes to 1789, together with some later
"reminiscences," is of value, specially as regards its portraiture of
public men of a secondary rank. Wraxall was a follower of North until
1783, and afterwards, until he resigned his seat in 1794, generally
supported Pitt. _Diaries and Correspondence of George Rose_, 2 vols.,
1860, edited by L. V. Harcourt. Rose was secretary to the treasury
during the whole of Pitt's first administration, and was intimate with
him. Vol. i. contains, among other matters, an account of Pitt's
resignation; vol. ii. has some reminiscences which the king communicated
to Rose in 1804. _The Diary and Correspondence of Abbot, Lord
Colchester_, edited by his son, 3 vols., 1861, vol. i. and PELLEW, _Life
of Lord Sidmouth_ (Addington), 3 vols., 1847, vol. i. should be
consulted for the circumstances of Pitt's retirement. Lord HOLLAND,
_Memoirs of the Whig Party_, 2 vols., 1852, edited by his son, Lord
Holland. As the writer was the nephew of Fox, who was much attached to
him, and by 1800 was himself a prominent member of the party, these
papers have great authority; many of them refer to events and persons
belonging to our period. Along with much else which does not concern
political history, the _Life of William Wilberforce_, by his sons, 5
vols., 1838, contains some interesting notices of public affairs before
1801, along with a record of Wilberforce's efforts in and out of
parliament for the abolition of the slave trade. See also _Private
Papers of W. Wilberforce_, 1897, with a character of Pitt by
Wilberforce.

(6) Miscellaneous books, pamphlets, etc. On public finance, see
HAMILTON, _Inquiry concerning ... the National Debt_, 1813; NEWMARCH,
_On the Loans Raised by Mr. Pitt_, 1793-1801, a highly valuable and
interesting treatise; _Parliamentary Report, Accounts_, xxxiii., 1858,
on the national debt, and S. DOWELL, _History of Taxation in England_, 4
vols., 1884. On the commercial treaty with France of 1786, see Count DE
BUTENVAL, _Précis du Traité de Commerce_, 1786, Paris, 1869, and
Auckland Corr. as above. Some of the articles by Sir G. C. LEWIS,
_Administrations of Great Britain_, 1783-1830, edited by Sir E. Head,
1864, are founded on Memoirs, etc., noted in sec. 5, and are excellent
commentaries on them. The private life of the king is written by JESSE,
_Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III._, 3 vols., 2nd edit.,
1867, in itself scarcely to be reckoned as of historical value, but
giving copious references to authorities. Life at the court is vividly
described in Madame D'ARBLAY'S (Miss Burney's) _Diary_, 7 vols., 1854; a
new edition by Mr. Austin Dobson is in course of publication. The Diary
should be read with an allowance for the writer's dislike of her work at
court, which Macaulay does not perhaps sufficiently consider in his
essay. His other essays relating to this period should be read, but the
views of history which they present must not be accepted in all cases.
Bishop DOUGLAS, _Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man_, 1761; _Case of
the Troops Serving in Germany_, 1781; MAUDUIT, _Occasional Thoughts on
the Present German War_, 1761, and other pamphlets. Many of the
Caricatures of _Gillray_, _Rowlandson_, and others are valuable as
historical documents. In default of the originals, see WRIGHT, _England
under the House of Hanover_, 2 vols., 3rd edit., 1852, republished in
one vol. as _Caricature History of the Georges_ [1867?].

[Sidenote: _ON THE AMERICAN REBELLION._]

(7) Of books on the American revolutionary war the best general history
of a popular kind is by Mr. FISKE, _American Revolution_, 2 vols., 1891;
it is written with moderation and a desire for impartiality. GORDON,
_History of the Rise of the Independence of the United States_, 4 vols.,
1788, with many documents. G. BANCROFT, _History of the United States_,
centenary edition, 1879, vols. iii.-vi. containing the history of the
revolution, display wonderful industry, but are disfigured by violent
partisanship. _Narrative and Critical History of America_, edited by J.
Winsor, vol. vi., 1888, has some good papers by various writers.
_Cambridge Modern History_, vol. vii., _The United States_, 1903. TYLER,
_Literary History of the American Revolution_, 2 vols., 1879,
illustrates the course of American sentiment during the period. Sir G.
O. TREVELYAN, _The American Revolution_, pts. i. and ii., 3 vols., in
progress, written on the whig side: the views taken in the present book
as to the causes and character of the dispute, and as to some other
points are different from those advanced by this distinguished author.
For the loyalists, L. SABINE, _American Loyalists_, Boston, 1847,
revised edit., _Biographies, etc._, 2 vols., 1864, and Mr. FLICK,
_Loyalism in New York_ (Columbia University Studies, xiv.). The best
purely military history of the war is by STEDMAN, _History of the
American War_, 2 vols., 4to, 1794; he served under Howe, Clinton, and
Cornwallis, and his book is a standard authority. TARLETON, _Campaigns
of 1780, 1781 in the Southern Provinces, 1787._ Other books consulted
are _Washington's Writings and Life,_ by SPARKS, 12 vols., Boston,
1833-39; FRANKLIN, _Works_, edit. Bigelow, 10 vols., N.Y., 1887-88;
TUDOR, _Life of Otis_, Boston, 1823; _Diary and Letters of Thomas
Hutchinson_, edited by P. Hutchinson, 2 vols., 1883, 1886; FROTHINGHAM,
_Siege of Boston,_ 1849, a careful piece of work, though written in a
remarkably vainglorious tone; Mr. CODMAN, _Arnold's Expedition to
Quebec_, New York, 1902, an excellent and interesting monograph;
KINGSFORD, _History of Canada_, vol. v., 1892, also deals with the
expedition. JOHNSTON, _Campaign of_ 1776 (Long Island Hist. Soc.), 1878,
a good narrative well furnished with documentary proofs, and by the
same, _The Yorktown Campaign_, New York, 1881. Judge JONES, _History of
New York during the War_, 2 vols., New York, 1879-80, edited by Mr. De
Lancy, a book of special interest, for Jones was a loyalist; it is
written with vigour, and censures the misdeeds on both sides alike. For
Burgoyne's expedition--Sir J. BURGOYNE, _State of the Expedition from
Canada_, 1779, with his defence before the house of commons; FONBLANQUE,
_Episodes from the Life of Burgoyne_, 1876, and Lieut. HADDEN, _Journal
and Orderly-books_, 1886. For Howe's conduct of the war--_Examination of
Joseph Galloway before the House of Commons_, 1779; [Galloway,] _Letters
to a Nobleman_, 1779, Galloway, a Philadelphian lawyer of large
property, joined the British in 1776; Sir W. HOWE, _Narrative_ before a
committee of the house of commons, April 29, 1779, with _Observations on
Letters to a Nobleman_, 1780; _Detail and Conduct of the War_, including
the celebrated _Fugitive Pieces_, 1780. Mr. M'CRADY in his _History of
South Carolina_: i. _Under Royal Government_, New York, 1899, an able
book, shows how the desire for independence gained ground in the
provinces; vols. ii. and iii. _In the Revolution_, 1902, contain a
careful but tedious narrative, which seems to err in exalting the
partisan commanders, Marion and Sumter, at the expense of Greene. _The
Clinton-Cornwallis Controversy_, 2 vols., 1888, edited with minute care
by the late Mr. B. F. STEVENS, and containing all the official letters,
orders, and the like of the campaigns in the Carolinas; this elaborate
work is essential for forming a judgment on the controversy between the
two generals. Other authorities more or less bearing on the quarrel with
the colonies and the subsequent war are noted in other sections.

(8) On military matters generally:--Colonel the Hon. Sir EDWARD CUST,
_Annals of the Wars of the Eighteenth Century_, iii.-v., 3rd edit.,
1862; the Hon. J. W. FORTESCUE, _A History of the British Army_, 3
vols., 1899-1902, in progress, an important work to which this volume is
indebted, though the view with regard to Clinton and Cornwallis taken by
Mr. Fortescue is widely different from that adopted here; M. CHUQUET,
_La jeunesse de Napoleon, Toulon_, 1897, and _Guerres de la Révolution_,
11 vols., in progress, an important work, vol. x. _Valenciennes_, vol.
xi. _Hondschoote_; Sir H. BUNBURY, _Narratives of the Great War with
France_, 1854, begins with the campaign in Holland of 1799; DRINKWATER,
_History of the Siege of Gibraltar_, Dublin, 1793; C. J. FOX, _Napoleon
Bonaparte and the Siege of Toulon_, Washington, U.S.A., 1902; Dr.
HOLLAND ROSE, _Life of Napoleon I._, 2 vols., 1902, and some other
works.

[Sidenote: _ON NAVAL HISTORY._]

(9) For naval history:--Captain MAHAN, _Influence of Sea Power upon
History_, 1889, _Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution_, 2
vols., 4th edit., 1892, and _Life of Nelson_, 2 vols., 1897, books to
which all students of the history of the eighteenth century are deeply
indebted. JAMES, _Naval History of Great Britain_, 6 vols., edit. 1837;
vols. i.-iii. include from 1793 to 1801, a famous work which is still of
high authority on naval engagements and tactics, the size and classes of
ships, the number and character of their guns, etc., but it neither
explains nor criticises strategy. BRENTON, _Naval History of Great
Britain, 1783-1822_, 5 vols., 1823, uncritical and inaccurate, though as
the work of a naval officer in active service, who had a part in some of
the events it describes, it has a certain importance. Sir W. L. CLOWES,
_The Royal Navy_, vol. iv., 1899. T. KEPPEL, _Life of Viscount Keppel_,
2 vols., 1842. MUNDY, _Life of Rodney_, 2 vols., 1830. Mr. D. HANNAY,
_Rodney_ (English Men of Action Series), 1891, an admirable little book,
and his edition of the _Letters of Sir S. (Viscount) Hood_ (Navy Records
Soc.), 1895, exhibiting the determining effect of naval failure on the
part of England on the last phase of the war with America. BARROW, _Life
of Earl Howe_, 1838. Mr. J. K. LAUGHTON, _Nelson_ (English Men of Action
Series), 1895, by an acknowledged master of English naval history, and
his articles in the _Dict. of National Biography_ on the sea-captains of
the period. _Logs of the Great Sea Fights, 1794-1805_ (Navy Records
Soc.), vol. i., 1899, in progress, well edited by Rear-Admiral T.
Sturges Jackson, a delightful book of first-rate value. References to
the latest contributions to the subject of Nelson at Naples are given in
the text. CHEVALIER, _Histoire de la Marine Française pendant la Guerre
de l'Indépendence Americaine_, 1877, _Histoire, etc., sous la première
République_, 1886, most valuable works; a third vol., _Hist., etc., sous
le Consulat_. M. le Capitaine DESBRIÈRE, _Projets de Débarquement_, 2
vols., 1901, a phase of the great war told with all the care and
lucidity which distinguish the best French historical work.

(10) For European politics during the French revolution the best books
are by HEINRICH VON SYBEL, used here in the French translation,
_Histoire de l'Europe pendant la Révolution Française_, 6 vols.,
1869-88, and by M. ALBERT SOREL, _L'Europe et la Révolution Française_,
6 vols., 1903, in progress; vol. vi. covers 1800-5, a work distinguished
alike by learning, insight, and literary quality; the great collection
of G. F. VON MARTENS, _Recueil des Traités depuis 1761_, vols. i.-vi.,
1817-29; Comte DE GARDEN, _Histoire des Traités_, vols. iv.-vi.,
1848-87, and F. DE MARTENS, _Recueil des Traités conclus par la Russie_,
vols. ix., x. (_Angleterre_), 1892.

(11) In Irish history LECKY has generally been followed, supplemented by
PLOWDEN, _History of Ireland to the Union_, 2 vols., 1809; H. GRATTAN,
_Life of Grattan_, 5 vols., 1839; _Correspondence between Pitt and the
Duke of Rutland_, 1781-87, edit. 1890. Earl FITZWILLIAM, _First_ and
_Second Letters to the Earl of Carlisle_, 1795; TONE, _Life of T. W.
Tone_, 2 vols., 1826; MADDEN, _United Irishmen_, 2 vols., 2nd edit.,
1858; GORDON, _History of the Rebellion_, 2nd edit., 1803, a trustworthy
and graphic narrative by a protestant clergyman of co. Wexford; _Memoirs
and Correspondence of Viscount Castlereagh_ (Lord Londonderry), 12
vols., 1848-85, vols. ii.-iv.; INGRAM, _History of the Irish Union_,
1887, though failing in its hopeless attempt to prove that the union was
not effected by corrupt means, a book well worth reading; _Cornwallis
Correspondence_ and some other books already noted.

(12) For Indian matters:--MILL and WILSON, _History of British India_,
10 vols., 1858, vols. iii.-vi., a standard work; Sir J. F. STEPHEN,
_Story of Nuncomar_, 2 vols., 1885; Mr. G. FORREST, _Selections from
State Papers, India_, 1772-85, 3 vols., 1890, documents of first-rate
importance, well edited, with good introduction, which, perhaps,
attempts too complete a defence of Hastings; Sir A. LYALL, _Warren
Hastings_ (English Men of Action Series), 1902, a thoroughly sound and
well-considered biography; Mr. S. J. OWEN, _Selections from the
Despatches of Marquess Wellesley_, 1877, with the _Cornwallis
Correspondence_ already noted.

[Sidenote: _ON ECONOMIC PROGRESS._]

(13) For the social and economic history in chap, xiii., a general
account will be found in LECKY, _History_, vol. v., an admirable and
delightful piece of work; _Social England_, vol. v., 1896, edited by
TRAILL, papers of various merit by various authors; a new edition with
well-chosen illustrations is now (1904) published; and chapters at the
end of vols. vii. and ix. of the _Pictorial History of England_, edited
by CRAIK and MACFARLANE, 1841, 1843. Manners and customs are described
by Mr. SYDNEY, _England and the English in the Eighteenth Century_, 2
vols., 1891, and by Mr. ASHTON, whose _Old Times_, 1885, is almost
wholly composed of newspaper cuttings and caricatures, and is,
therefore, so far as it goes, a contemporary authority. Notices of the
gambling and frivolity of a portion of the upper class, some not before
printed, are given in Sir G. TREVELYAN'S _Early Life of C. J. Fox_ (see
above). An independent study should include the chronicle in the _Annual
Register, Walpole's Letters_, JESSE, _George Selwyn and his
Contemporaries_, 4 vols., 1843, and _Selwyn's Letters_, edited by Mr.
Roscoe and Miss Clergue, 1899; SMOLLETT, _Humphrey Clinker_, written in
1770; ANSTEY, _New Bath Guide_, "poetical epistles describing life at
Bath" in 1766; Miss BURNEY, _Evelina_, in 1778, and many other books. A
good introduction to the literary history of the period is given by Mr.
G. SAINTSBURY, _Short History of English Literature_, 1898. Though the
late Sir LESLIE STEPHEN in his _English Thought in the Eighteenth
Century_, 2 vols., 2nd edit., 1881, deals chiefly with the earlier part
of the century, he has much of the highest value, specially in chaps. x.
and xi., on writers of this period; see also his articles on them in the
_Dict. of National Biography_. Church history is carefully treated by
ABBEY and OVERTON, _The English Church in the Eighteenth Century_, ed.
1887. For the administration of the criminal law--Major GRIFFITH,
_Chronicles of Newgate_, 2 vols., 1884. For prisons--JOHN HOWARD, _The
State of the Prisons_, 4th edit., 1792. For the police arrangements of
London--COLQUHOUN, _Treatise on the Police_, 1795.

On economic and industrial history the latest and best authority is Dr.
CUNNINGHAM, _Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Modern Times_,
pts. i. and ii., 2 vols., 1903. Other books used are CRAIK, in
_Pictorial History_ as above, republished in his _History of British
Commerce_, 1844; MACPHERSON, _Annals of Commerce_, 4 vols., 1805;
MCCULLOCH, edition of ADAM SMITH, _Wealth of Nations_, 1863; ROGERS,
_Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, 2 vols., 1884, and his _Industrial
and Commercial History of England_, lectures, 2 vols., 1898, and WARNER,
_Landmarks in English Industrial History_, 1899, a useful and
well-arranged little book. For the cotton manufacture--Sir E. BAINES,
_History of the Cotton Manufacture_, 1836. With reference to agriculture
and the poor--A. YOUNG, _Six Weeks' Tour in the Southern Counties_,
1769, and _Tour through the North_, 4 vols., 1770, present the condition
of agriculture at the time, with lists of wages and the expenses of the
labouring class; Rev. J. HOWLETT, pamphlets on the _Influence of
Enclosures_, 1786, and the _Causes of the Increase of the Poor_, 1786;
Mr. R. E. PROTHERO, _Pioneers and Progress of English Farming_, 1888, an
excellent account; Sir G. A. NICHOLLS, _History of the English Poor
Law_, 2 vols., 1898, and Mr. and Mrs. S. WEBB, _History of Trades
Unionism_, 1902.


[Asterism]: Dr. A. von Ruville's important and masterly work, _William
Pitt, Graf von Chatham_, 3 vols., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1905, appeared
while this book was in the press.




                               APPENDIX II.

            ADMINISTRATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1760-1801.[318]


                   1. NEWCASTLE, AS IN NOVEMBER, 1760.

_First ld. treasury_              D. of Newcastle.
                 {_s. dept._      Pitt.
_Secs. of state_ {                E. of Egremont. _succ._ Oct., 1761.
                 {_n. dept._      E. of Holdernesse.
                 {                E. of Bute, _succ._ March, 1761.
_Ld. president_                   Ld. Granville.
_Ld. keeper_       }              Ld. Henley.
_Ld. chan._, 1761  }
_Ld. privy seal_                  E. Temple.
                                  D. of Bedford, _succ._ Nov., 1761.
_Ld. chamberlain_                 D. of Devonshire, _in cabinet_.
_Groom of the stole_              E. of Bute, _in cabinet_.
                                  E. of Huntingdon, _succ._ Oct., 1761.
_Board of trade_                  E. of Halifax, _in cabinet_.
                                  Ld. Sandys, _succ._ March, 1761,
                                       _not in cabt._
_Ch. exchequer_                   H. B. Legge.
                                  Ld. Barrington, _succ._ March, 1761.
_Admiralty_                       Ld. Anson.
_Ordnance_                        Visct. Ligonier.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              D. of Bedford.
                                  E. of Halifax, _succ._ 1761.
  _Unofficial_                    Ld. Hardwicke, _in cabinet_.
  _Unofficial_                    Ld. Mansfield, C. J., _in cabinet_.
_Secretary at war_[319]           Visct. Barrington.
                                  C. Townshend, _succ._ 1761.


                          2. BUTE, MAY, 1762.

_First ld. treasury_              E. of Bute.
                 {_s. dept._      E. of Egremont.
_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._      G. Grenville.
                 {                E. of Halifax, _succ._ Oct., 1762.
_Ld. president_                   Ld. Granville.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Ld. Henley.
_Ld. privy seal_                  D. of Bedford.
_Ch. exchequer_                   Sir F. Dashwood.
_Admiralty_                       E. of Halifax.
                                  G. Grenville, _succ._ Oct., 1762.
_Ordnance_                        Visct. Ligonier.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              E. of Halifax.
_Secretary at war_                C. Townshend.
                                  W. Ellis, _succ._ Dec., 1762.


                        3. GRENVILLE, MAY, 1763.

_First ld. treas. and ch._ }      G. Grenville.
               _exchequer_ }
                 {_s. dept._      E. of Egremont.
_Secs. of state_ {                E. of Halifax, _succ._ Sept., 1763.
                 {_n. dept._      E. of Sandwich, _succ._ Sept., 1763.
_Ld. president_                   Ld. Granville.
                                  D. of Bedford, _succ._ Sept., 1763.
_Ld. chancellor_                  E. of Northington (_before_ Henley).
_Ld. privy seal_                  D. of Marlborough.
_Admiralty_                       Ld. Egmont.
_Ordnance_                        M. of Granby.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              E. of Northumberland.
                                  Visct. Weymouth, _succ._ 1765.
_Secretary at war_                W. Ellis.


                       4. ROCKINGHAM, JULY, 1765.

_First ld. treasury_              M. of Rockingham.
                 {_s. dept._      H. S. Conway.
                 {                D. of Richmond, _succ._ May, 1766.
_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._      D. of Grafton.
                 {                H. S. Conway, _succ._ May, 1766.
_Ld. president_                   E. of Winchelsea.
_Ld. chancellor_                  E. of Northington.
_Ld. privy seal_                  D. of Newcastle.
_Ch. exchequer_                   W. Dowdeswell.
_Admiralty_                       Ld. Egmont.
_Ordnance_                        M. of Granby.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              M. of Hertford.
_Secretary at war_                Visct. Barrington.


                       5. CHATHAM, AUGUST, 1766.

_First ld. treasury_              D. of Grafton.
_Secs. of state_ {_s. dept._      E. of Shelburne.
                 {_n. dept._      H. S. Conway.
_Ld. president_                   E. of Northington.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Ld. Camden.
_Ld. privy seal_                  E. of Chatham.
_Ch. exchequer_                   C. Townshend.
                                  Ld. North, _succ._ Sept., 1767.
_Admiralty_                       Sir C. Saunders.
                                  Sir E. Hawke, _succ._ Dec, 1766.
_Ordnance_                        M. of Granby.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              E. of Bristol.
                                  Visct. Townshend,
                                       _succ._ Oct., 1767.
_Secretary at war_                Visct. Barrington.


                     6. GRAFTON, DECEMBER, 1767.

_First ld. treasury_              D. of Grafton.
                 {_s. dept._      E. of Shelburne.
                 {                Visct. Weymouth, _succ._ Oct., 1768.
_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._      Visct. Weymouth.
                 {                E. of Rochford, _succ._ Oct., 1768.
                 {_colonies_      E. of Hillsborough, _apptd._ Jan., 1768.
_Ld. president_                   E. Gower.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Ld. Camden.
                                  C. Yorke, _received great seal_, Jan. 17,
                                       _d._ 20th, 1770.
_Ld. privy seal_                  E. of Chatham.
                                  E. of Bristol, _succ._ Oct., 1768.
_Ch. exchequer_                   Ld. North.
_Admiralty_                       Sir E. Hawke.
_Ordnance_                        M. of Granby.
    _Unofficial_                  H. S. Conway, _in cabinet_.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              Visct. Townshend.
_Secretary at war_                Visct. Barrington.


                       7. NORTH, JANUARY, 1770.

_First ld. treas. and ch._ }      Ld. North.
               _exchequer_ }
                 {_s. dept._      Visct. Weymouth.
                 {                E. of Rochford, _succ._ Dec., 1770.
                 {                Visct. Weymouth, _succ._ Nov., 1775.
                 {                E. of Hillsborough, _succ._ Nov., 1779.
_Secs. of state_ {_n. dept._      E. of Rochford.
                 {                E. of Sandwich, _succ._ Dec., 1770.
                 {                E. of Halifax, _succ._ Jan., 1771.
                 {                E. of Suffolk, _succ._ June, 1771.
                 {                Visct. Stormont, _succ._ Oct., 1779.
                 {_colonies_      E. of Hillsborough.
                 {                E. of Dartmouth, _succ._ Aug., 1772.
                 {                Ld. G. Germain, _succ._ Nov., 1775.
                 {                W. Ellis, _succ._ March, 1782.
_Ld. president_                   E. Gower.
                                  E. Bathurst (_bef._ Apsley),
                                       _succ._ Nov., 1779.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Great seal in commission.
                                  Ld. Apsley, 1771.
                                  Ld. Thurlow, _succ._ June, 1778.
_Ld. privy seal_                  E. of Halifax.
                                  E. of Suffolk, _succ._ Jan., 1771.
                                  D. of Grafton, _succ._ June, 1771.
                                  E. of Dartmouth, _succ._ Nov., 1775.
_Admiralty_                       Sir E. Hawke.
                                  E. of Sandwich, _succ._ Jan., 1771.
_Ordnance_                        M. of Granby.
                                  Visct. Townshend, _succ._ Oct., 1772.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              Visct. Townshend.
                                  E. Harcourt, _succ._ 1772.
                                  E. of Buckinghamshire, _succ._ 1777.
                                  E. of Carlisle, _succ._ 1780.
_Secretary at war_                Visct. Barrington.
                                  C. Jenkinson, _succ._ Dec., 1778.


                      8. ROCKINGHAM, MARCH, 1782.

_First ld. treasury_              M. of Rockingham.
_Secs. of state_ {_home_          E. of Shelburne.
                 {_foreign_       C. J. Fox.
_Ch. exchequer_                   Ld. J. Cavendish.
_Ld. president_                   Ld. Camden.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Ld. Thurlow.
_Ld. privy seal_                  D. of Grafton.
_Admiralty_                       Visct. Keppel.
_Ordnance_                        D. of Richmond.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              D. of Portland.
_Secretary at war_                T. Townshend.


                       9. SHELBURNE, JULY, 1782.

_First ld. treasury_              E. of Shelburne.
_Secs. of state_ {_home_          T. Townshend.
                 {_foreign_       Ld. Grantham.
_Ld. president_                   Ld. Camden.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Ld. Thurlow.
_Ld. privy seal_                  D. of Grafton.
_Ch. exchequer_                   W. Pitt.
_Admiralty_                       Visct. Keppel.
_Ordnance_                        D. of Richmond.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              E. Temple.
_Secretary at war_                Sir G. Yonge.


               10. COALITION, NORTH AND FOX, APRIL, 1783.

_First ld. treasury_              D. of Portland.
_Secs. of state_ {_home_          Ld. North.
                 {_foreign_       C. J. Fox.
_Ld. president_                   Visct. Stormont.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Great seal in commission.
_Ld. privy seal_                  E. of Carlisle.
_Ch. exchequer_                   Ld. J. Cavendish.
_Admiralty_                       Visct. Keppel.
_Ordnance_                        Visct. Townshend.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              E. of Northington.
_Secretary at war_                R. Fitzpatrick.


                      11. PITT, DECEMBER, 1783.

_First ld. treas. and ch._ }      W. Pitt
               _exchequer_ }
                 {_home_          E. Temple, sole sec. for one day.
                 {                Lord Sydney (_before_ T. Townshend).
                 {                W. W. Grenville, _succ._ June, 1789.
                 {                H. Dundas, _succ._ June, 1791.
_Secs. of state_ {                D. of Portland, _succ._ July, 1794.
                 {_foreign_       M. of Carmarthen (1789 D. of Leeds).
                 {                Ld. Grenville (_before_ W. W. Grenville),
                 {                     _succ._ June, 1791.
                 {_war_           H. Dundas, _apptd._ July, 1794.
_Ld. president_                   E. Gower.
                                  Ld. Camden, _succ._ Dec, 1784.
                                  E. Fitzwilliam, _succ._ July, 1794.
                                  E. of Mansfield (_before_ Stormont),
                                       _succ._ Dec., 1794.
                                  E. of Chatham, _succ._ Dec, 1796.
_Ld. chancellor_                  Ld. Thurlow.
                                  Ld. Loughborough, _succ._ Jan., 1793.
_Ld. privy seal_                  D. of Rutland.
                                  E. Gower (1786 M. of Stafford),
                                       _succ._. Nov., 1784.
                                  E. Spencer, _succ._ July, 1794.
                                  E. of Chatham, _succ._ Dec., 1794.
                                  E. of Westmorland, _succ._ Feb., 1798.
_Admiralty_                       Visct. Howe.
                                  E. of Chatham, _succ._ July, 1788.
                                  E. Spencer, _succ._ Dec, 1794.
_Ordnance_                        E. of Richmond.
                                  M. Cornwallis, _succ._. Feb., 1795.
_Ld.-lieut. Ireland_              D. of Rutland.
                                  M. of Buckingham (before E. Temple),
                                       _succ._ 1787.
                                  E. of Westmorland, _succ._ 1790.
                                  E. Fitzwilliam, _succ._ 1794.
                                  E. Camden, _succ._ 1795.
                                  M. Cornwallis, _succ._ 1798.
_Secretary at war_                Sir G. Yonge, _not in cabinet_.
                                  W. Windham, _succ._ July, 1794,
                                       _in cabinet_.

FOOTNOTES:

[318] In preparing these lists I have derived much help from the _Book
of Dignities_, edited by Mr. Ockerby, 1890, though my lists do not
always agree with it. The division of the spheres of the secs. of state
into n. and s. depts. was merely a matter of convenience, and I am not
sure that my attempt to present the changes of depts. is accurate in
every case.

[319] Not a cabinet office.




                               APPENDIX III.

                              THE GRENVILLES.


                     Richard Grenville = Hester Temple,
                     of Wotton, Bucks, | _succ._ Visctess. Cobham,
                     _ob._ 1727.       | _cr._ Ctess. Temple.
            ___________________________|_____________________
            |                     |                |        |
Richard Grenville-Temple,[320]  George[321]      James     Hester = William
E. Temple, _o.s.v.p._, 1779.  _ob._ 1770.     _ob._ 1783  _cr._  | Pitt, E.
                                  |                |     Ctess.  | of
            ______________________|                |     Chatham.| Chatham,
            |            |        |                |             | _ob._
George, E. Temple,[322]  |  William Wyndham,[324]  |             | 1778.
_cr._ M. of Buckingham,  |  _cr._ Baron Grenville, |             |
1784, _ob._ 1813.        |  1790, _o.s.p.,_ 1834.  |             |
            |            |                         |             |
           /|\        Thomas,[323]              James, _cr._     |
                    _o.s.p._, 1846.         Baron Glastonbury,   |
                                             _o.s.p._, 1825.     |
                                                                 |
                                                _________________|
                                                |                |
                                           John, E. of       William Pitt,
                                            Chatham,     _ob. cael.,_ 1806.
                                         _o.s.p._, 1835.

FOOTNOTES:

[320] In 1760 ld. privy seal; resigned, 1761.

[321] In 1760 treas. of navy; sec. of state, 1762; first ld. of treas.
and ch. of exch., 1763-65.

[322] Ld.-lieut. of Ireland, 1782; one day sec. of state, 1783;
ld.-lieut. of Ireland, 1787.

[323] Minister plen. at Paris, 1782; ambassador at Vienna, 1793;
book-collector.

[324] Chief sec. for Ireland, 1782; paymaster-general, 1783; speaker,
1789; sec. of state, home, 1789; sec. of state, foreign, 1791; first ld.
of treas., 1806.




                               INDEX.


Abercromby, Sir Ralph, 377, 389;
  commander-in-chief in Ireland, 405, 406, 430, 436, 439.

Abington, Mrs., 258.

Abukir bay, 417, 439. See Nile, battle of the.

Academy, Royal, 262.

A'Court, General, 52.

Acre, siege of, 418, 419.

Acton, Sir John, 427.

Adam, William, advocate, 358.

Adam, Robert, architect, 262.

Adams, John, 132, 134.

Adams, Samuel, 60, 109, 124-126, 132, 142, 147.

Addington, Henry (afterwards Viscount Sidmouth), 187;
  speaker, 315, 452, 453;
  first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 454.

Agricultural revolution, 273-278.

Aiguillon, Duc d', 114, 115.

Aitken, James, "John the Painter," 170.

Albany (U.S.A.), 172, 173, 176, 178-180.

Albemarle, Earl of (Keppel), general, 37.

Alessandria, convention signed at, 437.

Alexandria taken by the French, 416.

Alien act, 341, 403.

Alkmaar, 430.

Allen, Ethan, 144, 151.

Almon, John, 116, 324.

Alvinzi, Austrian general, 382, 390.

Ambleteuse, 401.

Amboy (U.S.A.), 169.

American colonies, proposed taxation of, 54, 57;
  trade advantages of, 55;
  contraband trade of, 56;
  stamp duty imposed upon, 59, 60;
  troubles in, 61;
  claim exemption from taxation, 62, 63;
  the Townshend duties in, 83, 84;
  penal laws against Massachusetts, 128;
  quartering bill in, 129;
  first continental congress, 132;
  outbreak of war in, 139;
  second congress, the "United Colonies," 146;
  declaration of Independence, 158.

American War of Independence, 139-169, 172-188, 191, 193-198, 214-216,
    218-226, 238-244.

Amherst, Sir Jeffrey (later baron), 58, 89, 186.

Amsterdam, 209;
  pensionary of, 210.

Andover, parliamentary election for, 19.

André, Major, 215, 216.

Anson, George, Lord Anson, admiral, first lord of the admiralty, 8, 16,
    29, 35.

_Anti-jacobin_, the, 399.

Antwerp, conference at, 349.

Arbuthnot, Marriot, admiral, 219.

Architecture, state of, 261.

Arcola, battle of, 390.

Arcot, capture of, 196, 237;
  nawáb of, 232.

Arden, Pepper, master of the rolls, 306.

Arklow (Ireland), battle of, 411.

Arkwright, Richard, 271, 272.

Armagh, Archbishop of (William Stuart), 45.

Armed Neutrality, leagues of, 208-210, 441, 442.

Armistead, Mrs., 309.

Arnold, Benedict, 144, 151, 152, 156, 166, 178;
  treachery of, 215, 216, 221-223, 225.

Artois, Comte d', 376, 377.

Asaf-ud-Daulá, nawáb wazír of Oudh, 249.

Atholl, Duke of (Stewart Murray), 63.

Auckland, Earl of. See Eden, William.

Augsburg, proposed congress at, 23.

Austen, Jane, 260.

Austria. See Francis II.; Joseph II.; Leopold II.

Austria, makes war for Silesia, 17, 23, 24, 36;
  joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
  aggressive policy under Joseph II., 297-298;
  war with Turks, 325-326;
  agreement with Prussia against revolution in France, 334;
  war with France, 334, 337;
  joins the first coalition, 340;
  aims of, 351, 361;
  renews hostilities, 374;
  losses in Italy, 380;
  peace with France, 390, 397;
  joins second coalition, 423;
  deserts it, 440.

Austrian Netherlands, plan of exchange 297, 349, 351;
  revolt of, 325, 326;
  French party in, 331;
  French invasion of, 336, 337;
  occupation of, 342;
  French evacuate, 349;
  French conquest of, 360-363;
  surrender of proposed, 383;
  emperor surrenders, 397;
  Belgium ceded to France, 440.


Bacon, John, sculptor, 263.

Bahama islands, 217, 243.

Bakewell, Robert, grazier, 275.

Ballinamuck, battle of, 414.

Baltimore (U.S.A.), 168, 225.

Bank of England, suspension of cash payments, 387, 388;
  grants a loan, 435.

Banks, Sir Joseph, 263.

Barbadoes, 199, 227.

Barras, Comte de, 224.

Barré, Isaac, colonel, 52, 59, 107, 117, 130, 139, 238, 240, 253.

Barri, Madame du, 114.

Barrier treaty (1713), 297.

Barrington, Samuel, admiral, 195, 202.

Barrington, Viscount (Barrington), 20, 35;
  secretary at war, 68, 96, 153.

Basle, treaty between Prussia and France signed at, 374.

Bass, George, 264.

Bastia, captured by British, 363.

Bastille, fall of the, 316.

Bath, Earl of (Pulteney), 16.

Bathurst, Earl (previously Lord Apsley); lord chancellor, 115;
  lord president of council, 203.

Bavaria, Elector of, subsidiary treaty between Great Britain and, 436.
  See Austrian Netherlands for plan of exchange.

Baxár, battle of, 78.

Beaufoy, Henry, M.P., 295.

Beaumarchais, dramatist, 182.

Beckford, William, alderman, 32, 76, 100, 107, 110, 111;
  death of, 116, 260.

Bedford, Duke of (Russell), 8, 26, 31;
  privy seal, 32-34;
  ambassador at Paris, 38, 44, 46-48;
  lord president of the council, 49, 52, 65-67, 89, 100, 274, 359.

Belgium. See Austrian Netherlands.

Belle Ile, capture of, 15, 23, 24, 26, 40.

Bennington, battle at, 177.

Beresford, John, 369, 370.

Bergues, 353.

Bernard, Sir Francis, governor of Massachusetts, 82, 88;
  recalled, 91.

Bewick, John, 263.

Bewick, Thomas, 263.

Bill of Rights Society, 104.

Birmingham riots. See Riots.

Black, Joseph, 263.

Blackstock, battle at, 221.

Blackstone, Sir William, his _Commentaries on the Laws of England_, 6, 261.

Blake, William, artist poet, 260.

Blanca, Florida (_corr._ Florida Blanca), 210, 319, 320.

Bligh, Captain, 263.

Bloomsbury gang, 87.

Bloomsbury Square. See London.

Bolingbroke, Viscount (St. John), his _Idea of a Patriot King_, 6.

Bompard, Admiral, 415.

Bonaparte, Joseph, 439.

Bonaparte, Napoleon, 375;
  first Italian expedition, 380-383, 390, 397, 401, 402, 414;
  his Egyptian campaign, 415-417;
  his Syrian campaign, 418-420, 424, 431;
  first consul, 432;
  negotiates with England for peace, 433, 436;
  second Italian expedition, 437;
  offers peace to the emperor, 437, 438;
  proposes naval armistice with Great Britain, 440;
  makes a treaty with the United States, 442;
  schemes against England, 443, 445.

_Bonhomme Richard_, the, 197.

Boscawen, Admiral, 15.

Boston, opposition to stamp act, 60, 61;
  massacre, 109, 124, 125;
  riot, 126-128;
  port bill, 129;
  harbour closed, 132, 138;
  siege of, 139, 142;
  evacuation of, 155, 157, 161, 179, 194, 198.

Bouillé, Marquis de, 227.

Bounties, 273, 274;
  corn, 404;
  on importation of wheat, 435, 444, 445.

Bouquet, Colonel, 58.

Boydell, John, 263.

Braddock, General, 146.

Brandywine, battle of the, 174.

Brant, Joseph, Mohawk chief, 178.

Braxfield, Robert, Lord Braxfield (Macqueen), 357.

Breeds hill (U.S.A.), 148.

Bremen, 362.

Brest, 193, 197, 217, 226, 386, 390, 432.

Briand, Bishop, 152.

Bridgewater, Duke of (Egerton), 271.

Bridport, Viscount (Alexander Hood), admiral, 376, 387, 390.

Brindley, James, 271.

Bristol, Burke returned as member for, 136;
  rejected, 212;
  corporation of, 186;
  petition from, 138.

Bristol, Earl of (George William Hervey), ambassador at Madrid, 27-29, 32.

Bristol, Earl of (Frederick Augustus Hervey), Bishop of Derry, 289.

Broglie, Marshal de, 14.

Brooklyn (Long Island), battle of, 164, 169.

Bruce, James, 264.

Brueys, Admiral, 416, 417.

Brückenmühle, battle of, 36.

Brune, French general, 430, 440.

Brunswick (Canada), 167, 169.

Brunswick, Charles, Duke of, 154.

Brunswick, Charles William Ferdinand, Prince and Duke of, 300, 336, 351,
    354, 360.

Brunswick, Ferdinand, Prince of, 14, 36.

Brussels, 360;
  French occupation of, 361.

Buccarelli, governor of Buenos Ayres, 113, 114.

Buckingham House. See London.

Buckingham, Marquis of. See Temple, Earl.

Buckinghamshire, Earl of (Hobart), Viceroy of Ireland, 202.

Buckinghamshire, Lady, 257.

Buenos Ayres, expedition against, 38.

Bunbury, Sir Charles, 257, 260.

Bunker hill, battle of, 148-150, 152, 155, 185.

Burgoyne, Sir John, general, 37, 122, 145, 147, 155, 156, 166, 172-181,
    183, 186, 191.

Burke, Edmund, speech on American colonies, 70, 89, 99;
  opposed to parliamentary reform, 105;
  _Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents_, by, 106, 107, 110,
    116-121, 127-130, 136, 137, 139, 145, 160, 169, 170, 188, 192, 200-202;
  economical reform, 203, 204, 212, 213, 217, 226;
  paymaster of forces, 229, 240, 246, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 265,
    266, 268;
  opposes Pitt's India bill, 286, 288, 302-304, 314, 322, 327;
  _Reflections on the French Revolution_, by, 329;
  quarrel with Fox, 330;
  _Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs_, by, 330, 333, 339-342;
  on war with France, 347;
  retires from parliament, 366;
  urges relief of catholic disabilities, 367;
  _Letter on a Regicide Peace_, by, 382, 385;
  death of, 396.

Burkersdorf, battle of, 36.

Burney, Fanny (Madame d'Arblay), 260.

Burns, Robert, 260.

Bushy Run, Indians defeated at, 58.

Bussy, Comte de, 24-27.

Bute, Earl of (Stuart), 5;
  enters cabinet, 8, 11, 12;
  acts with Pitt, 15;
  his insincerity, 17;
  his peace policy, 17;
  his power secured, 19-20;
  secretary of state, 20-23, 26, 28, 29, 31-34;
  first lord of the treasury, 35, 42, 43;
  retires from office, 44, 45;
  king's private adviser, 45-49, 51-52, 65, 66;
  ceases to be, 67, 112, 187.

Butler, John, colonel, 178, 194.

Byron, Commodore, 263.


Cabinet, changes in the character of the, 7-9;
  system, 7-9, 33, 229;
  George III.'s first, how composed, 8;
  councils, reports and notices of, 8, 12, 28-30, 35, 60, 70, 76, 90,
    206, 229, 238, 246, 310, 312, 369, 383, 452;
  sovereign ceases to preside over council, 12.

Cadiz, 199, 211, 388, 390, 395, 439.

Cæsar's camp, capture of, 350, 351.

Caldiero, 390.

Calonne, French minister, 331.

Cambrai, 360.

Cambridge (U.S.A.), 143, 148, 151.

Camden, 219;
  battle of, 220, 223.

Camden, Charles, first Earl (Pratt), chief justice of the common pleas, 47;
  created Baron Camden, 68, 71;
  chancellor, 74, 76, 90, 100, 101;
  dismissed from office, 102, 116;
  lord president of the council, 229, 287, 324.

Camden, John Jeffries, second Earl, 370, 385, 412.

Campbell, Colonel, 195.

Camperdown, battle of, 398.

Campo Formio, treaty of, 397, 436, 437.

Canada, conquest of, 1, 2, 23, 26, 40, 57;
  Quebec act, 129-131, 133, 146;
  congress orders an invasion of, 151, 152, 155, 166, 172, 176;
  France renounces all claim on, 183;
  Franklin proposes the cession of, to the Americans, 239-240;
  Pitt's Canada bill, 329-330.

Canals, 271.

Canning, George, 372, 396;
  under secretary for foreign affairs, 399, 433, 452, 454.

Canterbury, Archbishops of, John Moore, 451;
  Thomas Seeker, 60.

Cape Breton, 23, 24, 26, 40, 129.

Cape de Verde islands, 237.

Cape Fear, 157.

Cape St. Vincent, battle of, 388, 389.

Caracciolo, Francesco, 429.

Carhampton, Earl of. See Luttrell, Henry Lawes.

Carleton, Sir Guy, 130, 151, 152, 155, 156, 166-168;
  resigns office, 173;
  at New York, 228, 242.

Carlisle, Earl of (Howard), 202;
  viceroy of Ireland, 232, 233, 243, 245, 340.

Carlton house. See London.

Carmarthen, Earl of (Osborne), afterwards Duke of Leeds, foreign secretary,
    251, 297, 298, 300, 321, 325;
  resigns office, 328, 333.

Carnot, organiser of victories, 353, 354, 396.

Caroline of Brunswick. See Wales, Princess of.

Caroline of Denmark, queen, sister of George III., 119.

Carronades, 233.

Carron ironworks, 270.

Cassano, battle of, 425.

Cassel, 14;
  surrender of, 36.

Carteret, Philip, R.N., 263.

Cartwright, Edmund, 273.

Castlebar, the race of, 413.

Castlereagh, Viscount (Stewart), secretary of state for Ireland, 447,
    449, 450, 452.

Catherine II., Empress of Russia, 36;
  alliance with Frederick of Prussia, 74, 75, 114, 208, 209, 296, 297,
    299, 324-328, 331, 338, 349, 351, 374;
  death of, 384, 390, 441.

Cavendish, Lord John, chancellor of the exchequer, 229, 240, 246, 263.

Cawdor, Lord (Campbell), 387.

Ceylon, Dutch settlements in, taken by the English, 378.

Chait Singh (rájá of Benares), 248, 249.

Chambers, Sir William, 262.

Chamblée (Canada), 151.

Charlemont, Earl of (Caulfield), 94, 202, 232, 289.

Charles, Archduke, 382, 425, 426, 439.

Charles Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, 349, 354, 425.

Charles VII., King of Denmark, 441.

Charles III., King of Spain, 24-25, 114.

Charleston (U.S.A.), 148, 149, 157, 198, 219, 221, 223.

Charlotte, Princess, 373.

Charlotte Sophia, queen of George III., 22, 313.

Charlotte (U.S.A.), 220.

Chatham, first Earl of. See Pitt, William, the elder.

Chatham, second Earl of. See Pitt, John.

Chatterton, Thomas, 259.

Chauvelin, French ambassador to England, 324, 336, 337, 339, 340-343.

Chesterfield, Earl of (Stanhope, Philip Dormer), 94, 261.

Choiseul, Duc de, 23-29, 74, 112, 114, 192.

Chouans, the, 376.

Christian, Admiral, 377.

Churchill, Charles, satirist, 43.

Cider tax, 43;
  repealed, 72.

Civil list settled, 13;
  arrears of, 80, 99, 108, 171, 231, 284;
  Burke's proposed reform of, 204, 213;
  curtailment of the expenditure of, 238.

Clairfait, Austrian general, 361, 375.

Clare, Earl of. See Fitzgibbon, John.

Clarkson, Thomas, philanthropist, 295.

Clerk of Eldin, naval tactician, 235.

Clinton, Sir Henry, 145, 149, 157, 164, 168, 174, 175, 178-181, 193-195,
    197-198, 215, 216, 218-226, 228.

Clive, Robert, Baron Clive, 1;
  returns to England, 76;
  succeeded in India by Vansittart, 77;
  made governor of Bengal, 78;
  returns to England, 79;
  parliamentary inquiry held into the conduct of, 122;
  death of, 123, 248.

Clubs. See London.

Coalition ministry, the, 244-246, 249-250;
  dismissed, 251.

Coalitions against France, the first, 349, 351, 363;
  the second, 420, 421, 423.

Cobenzl, imperial ambassador, 439, 440.

Coblentz, 331.

Coburg, Duke of, 350, 351, 353, 354, 360, 361.

Colberg, surrender of, 14.

Coleridge, Samuel T., 260.

Collier, Sir George, admiral, 197, 198.

Collingwood, Captain, R.N., 388, 389.

Colman, George (the younger), 258.

Colonial policy of Great Britain, 54-63, 69, 70-72, 84, 88-91, 109-110,
    121-128.

Colooney, Vereker defeated by French at, 414.

Commutation tax, 284.

Conciliation bills, 138, 139, 145, 146.

Concord (U.S.A.), 140, 144, 145.

Condé, Prince of, 316, 350, 354.

Connecticut (U.S.A.), 61, 134, 143, 144, 167, 197, 225.

Constantinople, 327, 328, 418.

Constitutional Information, Society for, 335, 338.

Conway, Henry Seymour, 52, 59;
  secretary of state, 68, 69, 73, 75, 80, 82;
  resigns office, 87, 102, 103, 112, 225;
  commander-in-chief, 229.

Cook, Captain, 263.

Cooke, Edward, Irish under-secretary, 446.

Coote, Sir Eyre, 237, 238.

Copenhagen Fields, meeting in. See London.

Córdova, Don Luis de, Spanish admiral, 211, 388.

Cornwall, Charles Wolfran, speaker, 213;
  death of, 313.

Cornwallis, Lord, general, 157, 167, 168, 174, 175, 198, 219-226, 249;
  his mission to Frederick II., 299;
  governor-general of India, 305;
  created marquis, 305, 328;
  master-general of ordnance, 366;
  lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 412-414, 419, 446, 447, 449, 452.

Corsica, 74;
  French annexation of, 98, 112;
  English conquest of, 363, 375;
  loss of, 382.

Cort of Gosport, 270.

Cowpens, battle at the, 221.

Cowper, William, 259, 265.

Crabbe, George, 259.

Crewe, Mrs., 283.

Crillon, Duc de, 236.

Crimea, conquest of, 327.

Criminal law, administration of the. See England.

Crompton, Samuel, inventor, 271.

Crosby, Brass, lord-mayor of London, 118.

Crown Point (Canada), fort, 144, 146, 166, 176.

Cuddalore, battle of, 237, 238.

Cumberland, William, Duke of (uncle of George III.), 4;
  head of section of whigs, 34, 40;
  helps the king to form a ministry, 65, 67;
  sudden death of, 69, 257.

Cumberland, Henry Frederick, Duke of (brother of George III.), 119.

Cumberland, Richard, dramatist, 258.

Curaçao, under British protection, 439.

Curtis, Captain, R.N., 236.

Customs duties, Pitt's bill for consolidation of the, 294, 295.
  For Colonial see American Colonies.

Cuxhaven occupied by Prussians, 442.


D'Aché, French commodore, 2.

Darby, Admiral, 211, 217.

Dashwood, Sir Francis (afterwards Lord Despencer), chancellor of the
    exchequer, 35, 43;
  retires from office, 45, 50.

Darlington, Countess of, 145.

Dartmouth, Earl of (William Legge), secretary for colonies, 124, 128,
    136-138, 145, 153, 156, 157;
  privy seal, 159, 265.

Daulat Ráo Sindhia (Maráthá lord), 419.

Dauphin, the. See Louis XVII.

Dawson, Nancy (afterwards Lady Maynard), 86.

Deane, Silas, 170, 181.

Debates, publication of. See Parliament.

Debating societies, bill for restricting, 434.

Declaratory act, American, 71, 72, 160.

Declaration of independence, American, 158, 182.

Denmark, proposed defensive alliance with, 75;
  joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
  quarrel with England, 441;
  joins the maritime confederacy, 442.

Derby race, the first, 257.

Devonshire, Duke of (Cavendish), 8, 20, 29, 31, 34, 35, 40, 48.

Devonshire, Duchess of, Georgiana, 283.

Diamond (Ireland), battle at, 385.

Dickinson, John, _The Farmer's Letters_ by, 85.

Dixon, Wexford rebel, 412.

Djezzar, pasha of Syria, 418.

Dogger Bank, battle off the, 212.

Dolben, Sir Samuel, 296.

Dominica, 14, 24, 40, 195;
  battle off (Battle of the Saints), 235, 243, 377.

Donegal, Lord (Chichester), 92.

Dorchester heights (near Boston), 148, 154.

Douglas, Dr. John, Bishop of Salisbury, his _Seasonable Hints_, 16.

Douglas, Sir Charles, captain of fleet, 234, 235.

Dowdeswell, William, chancellor of the exchequer, 68, 99, 107, 108, 116,
    117, 128.

Draper, Sir William, general, 38.

Dublin, 370, 407, 409, 447.

Duddingston, lieutenant, 125.

Duels and Duelling. See England.

Dugommier, 355.

Dumouriez, 334, 337, 349.

Duncan, Admiral, 390, 393, 394, 398;
  created Viscount Duncan of Camperdown, 398, 399, 400.

Dundas, Henry (first Viscount Melville), 247;
  India Bill introduced by, 249-250;
  treasurer of navy, 251, 284, 286, 303-306, 309;
  secretary of state, 366, 367, 377, 438, 451, 452, 454.

Dundas, Sir David, general, 362.

Dunkirk, 74, 243, 351;
  siege of, 353, 401.

Dunmore, Earl of (Murray), 156.

Dunning, John (afterwards Baron Ashburton), 102, 139, 169, 170, 204,
    229, 238.

Dutch. See Holland and United Provinces.

Dutens, Louis, 251.


East India Company. See India.

Economical reform, 203, 231;
  petitions for, from towns, 204.

Economic progress. See England.

Eden, William (afterwards Earl of Auckland), 233, 293;
  created Lord Auckland, 350;
  postmaster-general, 451.

Edgcumbe, Lord (Edgcumbe), treasurer of the household, 75.

Edgeworth, Maria, 260.

Effingham, Earl of (Howard), 159.

Egmont, Lord (Perceval), first lord of the admiralty, 54, 68.

Egremont, Earl of (Wyndham), secretary of state, 32, 46;
  death of, 47, 257.

El Arish, captured, 418;
  convention of, 432.

Eldon, Lord. See Scott, John.

Elections, general. See Parliament.

Elections, Grenville's act. See Parliament.

Eliott, George Augustus, general, 196, 211;
  created Baron Heathfield, 236, 341.

Elizabeth, Empress of Russia, 33.

Elliot, Sir Gilbert (afterwards Lord Minto), 341, 437.

Ellis, Welbore (afterwards Baron Mendip), treasurer of navy, 192;
  secretary of state, 228.

Emmet, Thomas, 368.

Emperor, the. See Francis II., Joseph II. and Leopold II.

Enclosures and enclosure acts. See England.

England:--
  Criminal law, administration of the, 265-266.
  Duels and duelling, 50, 204, 257, 403-404.
  Economic progress, 269-279, 281.
  Enclosures and enclosure acts, 274-276.
  Machinery and steam and water power, 270-273.
  Manufactures, 200, 207;
    glass, 202;
    woollen, 202;
    iron, 269;
    cotton, 269, 272, 273;
    silk, 276.
  Mercantile system, 269.
  Social progress, 255-268.
  Trade of, 268, 269, 270, 443.

Erskine, Thomas (afterwards Lord Erskine), 306, 324, 335, 358.

_Essay on Woman_, 50.

Estaing, Count d', 193, 195, 198, 199.

Eutaw springs, battle at, 223.

Ewart, Joseph, British ambassador at Berlin, 298, 299.


Factories, employment of children in, 278.

Falkland islands, Spain and the, 112-114.

Falmouth, Earl (Boscawen), 135.

Falmouth (Portland, Me.), 135, 154.

Family compact (Bourbon), 25, 28, 33, 74, 112, 320, 321.

Farren, Elizabeth (afterwards Countess of Derby), 288.

Feathers petition, the, 118, 119.

Ferdinand IV., King of Naples, 380, 382, 422, 423, 426-429, 431.

Ferguson, Major, 220.

Ferrol attacked, 439.

Fitzgerald, Lady Edward (Pamela), 386.

Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, 386, 406, 407.

Fitzgibbon, John (afterwards Earl of Clare), 369-371, 406, 446.

Fitzherbert, Mrs., 308.

Fitzwilliam, Earl (Wentworth-Fitzwilliam), 340;
  president of council, 366;
  lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 368, 369;
  recalled, 370, 372, 385.

Flaxman, John, 263.

Fleurus, battle of, 361.

Flinders, Matthew, discoverer, 264.

Flood, Henry, 94, 289, 232.

Floridas, 41, 195, 196;
  reduced, 197, 211;
  ceded to Spain, 243.

Foley, Sir Thomas, captain, R.N., 417.

Fontainebleau, treaty of, 299, 338.

Foote, Samuel, dramatist, 258, 427.

Fort Edward, surrender of, 176-178.

Fort George, 177, 178.

Fort Lee, surrender of, 167.

Fort Pitt, 58.

Fort Royal (Martinique), 218, 226, 234.

Fort St. James (Africa), 243.

Fort Stanwix, 176, 178.

Fort Washington, surrender of, 167.

Fort Western (Augusta, Me.), 151.

Fox, Charles James (son of Henry Fox, Baron Holland), 95, 118, 120;
  resigns office and re-enters the ministry, 121;
  dismissed from office, 127, 160, 162, 169, 170, 186, 190, 191, 202,
    204, 212-214, 226, 228;
  foreign secretary, 229, 230, 232, 233, 238, 239;
  resigns seals, 240, 243;
  forms a coalition with North, 244, 245;
  secretary of state, 246;
  India bills, 249, 254, 256-258, 280-284;
  opposes Pitt's India bill, 286, 288, 290, 291, 293-296, 302, 303,
    306-314;
  views on the French revolution, 317, 318, 322, 323;
  libel bill, 324, 327-330, 332, 333, 335-337, 340, 341, 343, 344, 347,
    356;
  desires peace, 357, 358-359, 373, 374, 378-380, 384, 388, 392, 399;
  opposes Pitt's budget, 400;
  removed from privy council, 402, 403, 404, 433, 434.

Fox, Henry (afterwards Lord Holland), 21, 35, 39-40, 43;
  created Baron Holland, 44, 49, 67, 95.

"Fox's Martyrs," 254.

Fox, Stephen, 256.

France, loss of her colonies and maritime power, 1-2;
  anxious for peace, 23;
  negotiations with, 23-27;
  alliance with Spain, 25-33;
  peace with, signed, 40, 41;
  Bourbon schemes of aggrandisement, 74;
  annexes Corsica, 98;
  navy of, 112;
  refuses to help Spain against England, 114;
  alliance with Americans, 181-183, 187, 191;
  philosophic movement in, 182;
  war between England and, 193, 195, 211, 217-220, 227-236;
  accepts the propositions of Russia with regard to neutrals, 208;
  schemes of conquests, 211, 236;
  peace between England and, 242, 243;
  commercial and navigation treaties with, 257, 293, 294;
  attempts upon Holland by, 295-301;
  war declared with Francis II., 324;
  treaty of commerce with, 1786, 341;
  war declared with England and Holland, 342;
  first coalition against, 349;
  treaty between the United Provinces and, 363;
  treaty with Grand Duke of Tuscany, 363;
  treaty with Spain, 363;
  second coalition against, 420.
  See French Revolution.

France, revolutionary army of, 350, 353.

Francis, Philip, 99, 100, 247, 286, 302.

Francis II. of Austria, 334, 336, 337, 349, 390, 397.

Frankfort, capture of, 337.

Franklin, Benjamin, 59, 125-127, 136, 138, 145, 155, 156, 182, 228, 239,
    240, 242, 243.

Frederick the Great, of Prussia, his
  alliance with England, 2;
  his Silesian war, 13-14;
  subsidy to, 2, 17, 23, 26, 27, 33;
  British subsidy refused, 34;
  offended, 40-42;
  declines Chatham's proposal for a defensive alliance, 75, 154, 160;
  America seeks help from, 182, 208;
  joins the league of armed neutrality, 208-209, 298;
  death of, 299.

Frederick William II. of Prussia, 299, 300, 325-328, 331, 334, 338-339,
    351, 354, 360, 361, 363, 374.

Frederick William III. of Prussia, 421, 423, 436, 437, 440, 442.

Freeman's Farm, battle of, 178.

French Revolution, 315;
  meeting of states-general at Versailles, 316;
  national assembly, 316;
  bread riots in Paris, 317;
  views of Burke on the, 318, 329;
  flight of Louis XVI., 330;
  the new constitution accepted, 331;
  insurrection in Paris, 336;
  king and queen imprisoned, 336;
  allied armies enter France, 337;
  revolutionary societies, 338, 339;
  execution of Louis XVI., 342;
  war declared against England, 342, 343;
  fighting in the Netherlands, 349-351;
  surrender of Toulon, 352;
  second committee of public safety, 353;
  the Vendeans appeal to England for help, 354;
  siege and evacuation of Toulon, 355;
  siege of Landrecies, 360;
  capitulation, 361;
  fall of Robespierre, 372;
  new constitution adopted, 375;
  expedition to Quiberon, 376;
  war in the West Indies, 377;
  campaign in Italy, 380;
  German campaign, 382;
  campaign in Spain, 388-390;
  preliminaries for peace, 396-398;
  projected invasion of England, 401;
  army of England, 402;
  Egyptian campaign, 415-417;
  Syrian campaign, 418, 419;
  occupation of Naples, 422;
  war of the second coalition, 425;
  conquest of Italy by Suvorov, 425;
  invasion of Holland, 429, 430;
  overthrow of the directory, 432;
  consulate, 432;
  Italian campaign, 436, 437;
  proposed armistice with Great Britain,
  438, 439;
  treaty of Lunéville, 440.

_Freya_, Danish ship, case of the, 441.

Freytag, Marshal, 353.

Friends of the People, Society of the, 324, 335, 357.

Frost, John, 357.

Fuentes, Comte de, 25, 28.

Fürstenbund, the, 298-300.


Gage, Thomas, general, 61, 88, 127;
  appointed governor of Massachusetts, 129, 131, 132, 137, 140, 143,
    145, 147, 148, 150-154, 184.

Gainsborough, Thomas, 262.

Galitzin, Prince, Russian ambassador in London, 34.

Gambia ceded to England, 243.

Gambling, 256, 257.

Garrick, David, 258.

_Gaspee_, ship, case of the, 125.

Gates, Horatio, general, 177-179, 219-221.

Geisberg, Austrians defeated at, 354.

Genlis, Madame de, 386.

Genoa, siege of, 436;
  capitulation of, 437.

George I., 6, 145.

George II., 1, 6.

George III., his accession, 1;
  his education and character, 3-5;
  his political system, 6, 7, 9, 10;
  his scheme of attack on the whigs, 11;
  first speech to parliament, 12;
  civil list, 13;
  love affair, 21;
  marriage and coronation of, 22;
  anger against Pitt, 29;
  his success against the whigs, 35;
  dissatisfied with Bute, 45;
  attack of mental disorder, 64;
  desires to make provision for a regency, 65;
  opposes his ministers, 71;
  disappointed by Chatham's illness, 85;
  growth of personal power, 87;
  his policy triumphant, 103;
  contest with the city of London, 110, 111;
  signs of mental excitement, 112;
  family troubles, 119;
  political predominance, 123;
  his American policy, 131-135;
  hires foreign troops, 154;
  refuses to call Chatham to office, 188-189;
  takes measures to suppress the Gordon riots, 206-207;
  end of personal government, 229;
  refuses to call Portland to office, 240;
  hostile to the coalition ministry, 245-246;
  unconstitutional move in the case of Fox's India bills, 250-251;
  creates new peers, 253;
  attempt on his life, 307;
  insane, 309, 310, 453;
  recovers, 314, 454;
  his feelings towards the emancipation
  of the Irish catholics, 451-452, 453.

Georgetown, 221.

Georgia, 132, 134, 150, 195, 198, 215.

Germain, Lord George. See Sackville, Lord George.

German troops employed in America, 154, 159, 176, 177, 186.

Germantown, battle of, 174.

Germany, Emperor of. See Francis II., Joseph II. and Leopold II.

Gibbon, Edward, 261.

Gibraltar, 154, 160, 196, 198, 199, 210, 217, 236, 241, 243.

Gilbert's act, 277, 278.

Gillray, James, 257, 399.

Girondists, 334, 350.

Girtin, Thomas, painter, 262.

Glasgow, petition from, 138.

Gloucester (U.S.A.), 224;
  surrender at, 225.

Gloucester, William Henry, Duke of (brother of the king), 119.

Glynn, Serjeant, 97, 104, 135.

Goddard, Colonel, 237.

Godoy, Emmanuel, "Prince of the Peace," 363.

Goldsmith, Oliver, 258-260, 262.

Gordon, Lord George, 205, 207.

Gordon riots. See Riots.

Goree (Africa), 2, 23, 24, 26, 41;
  ceded to France, 243;
  surrendered to the English, 439.

Gorey (Ireland), captured, 410.

Gower, second Earl (Leveson-Gower), afterwards Marquis of Stafford,
    president of the council, 87;
  resigns, 202, 229, 245, 251;
  privy seal, 287, 366.

Gower, Lord, 336, 337.

Gozo, surrender of, 422.

Grafton, Duke of (Fitzroy), 42, 47;
  secretary of state, 68, 69;
  resigns office, 73;
  first lord of the treasury, 74, 80, 85, 86, 89, 90, 95;
  resigns office, 102;
  privy seal, 115;
  resigns, 159, 160, 203;
  again lord privy seal, 229, 244, 257, 274.

Granard (Ireland), rebellion in, 414.

Granby, Marquis of (Manners), 14, 36, 53;
  commander-in-chief, 74, 90;
  resigns, 102, 116.

Grantham, Lord (Robinson), secretary of state, 240.

Granville, Lord (Carteret), 8, 29, 30, 49.

Grasse, Count de, 217, 218, 223, 224, 226, 227, 234, 235.

Grattan, Henry, 201, 202, 232, 233, 290, 291, 315, 368, 369, 449, 450.

Graves, Samuel, admiral, 151, 153.

Graves, Thomas, admiral (afterwards Lord Graves), 218, 224, 226.

Gray, Thomas, 259.

Greene, Nathaniel, American general, 221-223.

Grenada, conquest of, 37, 195, 197, 243, 377.

Grenville, George, 9, 20, 21, 32, 34;
  secretary of state, 35, 38;
  the "gentle shepherd," 43, 44;
  prime minister, 45, 46, 48-50, 53, 54;
  proposes to tax the American colonies, 54, 57-59;
  stamp act, 59, 60, 63-65;
  dismissed from office, 67, 83, 96, 99, 100, 107;
  elections act, 108, 109;
  death of, 115, 116.

Grenville, Thomas, 239, 423.

Grenville, William Wyndham (afterwards Lord Grenville), 250, 252, 313;
  home secretary, 315;
  created Baron Grenville, secretary of state, 322, 327, 328, 334, 336,
    338-340, 342, 343, 349, 352, 356, 359, 366, 373, 374, 379, 394,
    396-398, 421, 423, 433, 438, 444, 452.

Greville, Charles, 422.

Grey, Sir Charles, general (afterwards first earl), 363, 364.

Grey, Charles (afterwards second Earl Grey), 294, 308, 341, 357, 372-374;
  motion for parliamentary reform, 399, 447.

Grimaldi, Marquis, 25, 28, 29, 74, 112-114.

Guadaloupe, 2, 23, 24, 26, 40;
  surrendered to the English, 363;
  reconquered by the French, 364;
  reconquered by the English, 377.

Guichen, Comte de, 199, 200.

Guilford (U.S.A.), battle at, 222.

Gustavus III., King of Sweden, 115;
  war with Russia and Denmark, 325, 326;
  allied with _émigrés_, 330.


Haarlem Heights (U.S.A.), 165, 167.

_Habeas corpus_, suspension of, 169, 358, 385, 403;
  motion for repeal of, 372.

Hadfield, king's assailant, 435.

Haidar Alí, ruler of Mysore, 80, 196, 236, 237;
  death of, 238, 241.

Halifax, Earl of (Dunk), 8;
  first lord of admiralty, 35;
  secretary of state, 40, 46, 47, 65, 98, 115;
  death of, 115.

Halifax (Nova Scotia), 155, 164.

Hamilton, Lady, 422.

Hamilton, Sir William, 422.

Hancock, John, president of congress, 88, 147.

Hanover, 14, 18, 245, 298, 442.

Harcourt, Simon, Earl of, Viceroy of Ireland, 200.

Hardwicke, Earl of (Yorke), 8, 12, 20, 29, 34, 39, 48, 102, 264.

Hardy, French general, 414, 415.

Hardy, shoemaker, 358.

Hardy, Sir Charles, admiral, 196.

Hargreaves, James, 271, 272.

Harris, George, general (afterwards Lord Harris), 420.

Harris, Sir James (afterwards Earl of Malmesbury), 113, 298, 300, 301,
    307, 360, 373, 383, 396, 397.

Hartley, David, M.P., 160.

Harvey, Bagenal, 409, 410-412.

Harvey, Sir H., admiral, 389.

Hastings, Warren, governor-general of British India, 122, 236, 237;
  recalled, 247, 248, 249;
  resigns governor-generalship, 302;
  charges against, 303;
  trial of, 304, 305, 322, 323.

Havana, British capture of, 36, 37, 40-41.

Hawke, Sir Edward, admiral (afterwards Lord Hawke), 15, 75, 113, 115.

Hawkesbury, Lord. See Jenkinson, Charles.

Heliopolis, defeat of Turks at, 432.

Henley, Lord (afterwards Earl of Northington), lord keeper, 8;
  lord chancellor, 35, 46, 68;
  resigns office, 73;
  president of the council, 74, 76, 87.

Henry, Patrick, American, 61, 133, 142, 146.

Henry, Prince (brother of Frederick of Prussia), 14.

_Hermione_, Spanish ship captured, 38;
  frigate, mutiny on board the, 391.

Herschel, Sir William, astronomer royal, 263.

Hertford, Earl of (Seymour), 52.

Hervilly, Comte d', 376.

Hesse Cassel, landgrave of, 154, 300.

Hexham riots. See Riots.

Hillsborough, Earl of (Hill), president of board of trade, 49;
  secretary of state, 87, 88-91, 124, 203.

Hillsborough (U.S.A.), 222.

Hobskirk hill, battle of, 223.

Hoche, French general, 354, 376, 377, 386, 398.

Hohenlinden, battle of, 439, 440.

Holdernesse, Lord (D'Arcy), secretary of state, 8, 20.

Holland, Baron. See Fox, Henry.

Holland, province of, treaties with, 209;
  French party in, 297-299;
  invaded by Prussians, 300;
  invaded by French, 362;
  English and Russian expedition to, 429-431.
  See United Provinces.

Home, John, dramatist, 258.

Hondschoote, battle of, 353.

Honduras, 41;
  English expelled from, 196;
  English settle in, 318.

Hood, Alexander. See Bridport, Viscount.

Hood, Sir Samuel (afterwards Viscount Hood), 218, 224, 226, 227, 235,
    238, 283-284, 306, 352, 355, 356, 363, 375.

Hood, Samuel, 417.

Hoppner, John, 262.

Horne, John. See Tooke, Horne.

Horton, Mrs. (becomes Duchess of Cumberland), 119.

Hotham, Sir William, admiral, 375, 376, 381.

Houchard, French general, 353.

Howard, John, philanthropist, 267.

Howe, Richard, Earl, admiral, 138, 145, 163, 164;
  "Black Dick," 194, 236;
  first lord of the admiralty, 251;
  retires, 306, 352, 364-366, 392, 400.

Howe, Sir William, general (afterwards Viscount Howe), 145, 149, 150,
    153-155, 163-169, 172-176, 179, 181, 184-185.

Hubertsburg, peace of, 42.

Hughes, Sir Edward, admiral, 237, 238.

Humbert, French general, 413-415.

Hume, David, historian, 261.

Hunt, captain, R.N., 113.

Hunter, John, 263.

Huntingdon, Selina, Countess of, 264, 265.

Hutchinson, general, 413.

Hutchinson, Thomas (governor of Massachusetts), 91, 109, 124;
  letters by, 125-126;
  recalled, 129.

Hutton, James, 263.


Impey, Sir Elijah, 304.

Income tax, first imposed by W. Pitt, 434, 435.

India and East India Company, 2, 14;
  position of the East India Company, 76;
  Nawáb of Bengal deposed by the council, 77;
  revolt and reconquest of Bengal, 77;
  Mír Kásim made Nawáb of Bengal, 77;
  battle of Baxár, 78;
  heavy debts of the East India Company, 78-79, 81;
  revolt in Mysore, 80;
  famine in Bengal, 81;
  North's regulating act, 121, 122;
  Warren Hastings appointed governor-general, 122;
  Clive virtually acquitted, 122;
  act authorising the East India Company to export its surplus stock of
    tea to America, 126;
  Pondicherry taken, 196;
  Haidar makes war on the English, 196;
  Maráthá war, 236-238;
  Tipú Sahib succeeds Haidar Alí, 238;
  peace made, 238;
  charter of the East India Company renewed, 247;
  Hastings recalled, 247;
  work of Hastings, 248, 249;
  Dundas's India bill, 249;
  Fox's India bills, 249-251;
  Pitt's India bill, 252, 286;
  Warren Hastings resigns office, 302;
  Cornwallis appointed governor-general, 305;
  Tipú attacks the Rájá of Travancore, 305;
  Pitt's declaratory act, 306;
  revival of French influence, 419;
  fall of Seringapatam and death of Tipú, 420;
  Lord Wellesley in, 443.

Indians, North American, invade colonies, 57-58;
  employment of, in war, 140, 144, 176-178, 186;
  border warfare with, 194.

Industrial revolution, 269-273, 277-279.

Ireland, condition of, in 1760, 91-94;
  absentee tax proposed, 200;
  linen manufacture, 201;
  restrictions on trade, 201;
  volunteers, 202;
  trade opened, 202;
  legislative independence conceded, 232, 233;
  agitation for parliamentary reform, 288, 289;
  Pitt's trade propositions, 289, 291;
  question of the regency, 315;
  political condition in 1795, 367;
  United Irishmen Society founded, 367;
  catholics enfranchised, 368;
  Fitzwilliam, lord-lieutenant, 369;
  recalled, 370;
  Camden, lord-lieutenant, 370;
  complete relief rejected, 370;
  Maynooth college founded, 385;
  religious riots, 385;
  Orange Society founded, 385;
  attempted French invasion, 386;
  intended invasion by Dutch fleet, 397-398;
  condition of, in 1798, 404, 405;
  conspiracy in Ulster, 405-407;
  methods of enforcing disarmament, 407-408;
  rebellions in Kildare and Carlow, 408;
  in Wexford, 409;
  defeat of rebels at Arklow, 411;
  surrender of Wexford, 412;
  Humbert's invasion, 413;
  other attempts on, 414;
  union proposed, 445, 446;
  catholic support, 446, 447;
  extent of corruption, 448, 449;
  act of union, 450;
  catholic emancipation refused, 451, 452.

Irnham, Lord (Luttrell) afterwards Earl Carhampton, 119.

Ismail captured, 327.


Jaffa captured, 418, 419.

Jamaica, 181, 227, 234, 235.

Jassy, peace made between Russia and Turkey at, 328.

Jay, John, American minister, 378.

Jemappes, Austrians defeated at, 337.

Jenkinson, Charles (afterwards Lord Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool),
  president of board of trade, secretary at war, 202, 281, 323, 328,
    396, 452.

Jenner, Dr. Edward, 263.

Jersey, attacked by French, 196, 211.

Jervis, Sir John, admiral (afterwards Earl of St. Vincent), 363, 364,
    381, 382, 388-390, 395, 400, 416, 426, 429.

John, Archduke of Austria, 439.

Johnson, Dr., 38, 255, 261, 262.

Johnson, Sir John, 178, 194.

Johnston, general, 410.

Jones, Paul, 197, 209.

Jordan, Mrs., actress, 258.

Joseph II. of Austria, 296-298;
  declares war against the Turks, 325;
  death of, 325.

Joubert, French general, 390, 425.

Jourdan, French general, 353, 361, 375, 382, 423, 425.

June, battle of "the glorious first" of, 364, 366.

Junius, letters of, 99-101, 112, 116, 247.


Kalb, Baron de, 182.

Keith, Lord, admiral (George Keith Elphinstone), 429, 432, 439.

Kemble, John, 258.

Kempenfeldt, admiral, 227.

Kenyon, Lloyd, Lord Kenyon, chief justice, 257, 371, 444.

Keppel, Augustus, admiral (afterwards Viscount Keppel), 192, 193, 212, 213;
  first lord of the admiralty, 229, 240;
  resigns, 245.

Killala, French at, 413-415.

"King's friends," 10, 68, 107, 110, 172, 281.

Kirkwall, 284.

Kléber, French general, 432.

Korsakov, Russian general, 426.

Kosciusko, Thaddeus, 182.

Kray, Austrian general, 436.

Kutchuk Kainardji, treaty of, 296.


Lafayette, Marquis de, 182, 223, 225, 316.

Lake, General, 406, 411, 414.

Land tax, 83, 113, 162;
  commutation of, 403.

Landrecies, capitulation of, 360.

Lángara, Don Juan de, Spanish admiral, 199, 352.

Langrishe, Sir Hercules, Burke's letter to, 367.

Lansdowne, Marquis of. See Shelburne, Lord.

Lauderdale, Earl of (Maitland), 359.

Laurence, French, 447.

Laurens, Henry, American envoy, 210.

La Vendée, 351, 354, 432.

Lawrence, Thomas, painter, 262.

Lee, Charles, American general, 167, 168.

Lee, Henry, American general, 221, 223.

Lee, William, American envoy, 210.

Leeds, Duke of. See Carmarthen, Earl of.

Legge, Henry Bilson, chancellor of exchequer, 8, 20.

Leinster, Duke of (Fitzgerald), 202, 386.

Lennox, Lady Sarah, 21, 121.

Leoben, preliminaries of peace signed at, 390, 397.

Leopold II. of Austria, 325, 326, 330, 331;
  death of, 334, 343.

Le Quesnoy, 351, 353, 354.

Leslie, General, 220, 221.

L'Estrange, Colonel, 409, 410.

Lewis, "Monk," 260.

Lexington, skirmish at, 140, 141, 143-146.

Libel, law of, 115;
  Fox's bill, 324.

Liberty of the press. See Press, liberty of the.

Ligonier, Viscount (afterwards Earl), 8, 30.

Lille, negotiations at, 396, 397, 400.

Lincoln, American general, 195, 198.

Linen manufacture in Ireland. See Ireland.

Lippe-Bückeburg, Count of, general, 37, 145.

Liverpool, Earl of. See Jenkinson, Charles.

Liverpool, petition from, 138.

Loano, battle of, 376.

London:--
  Bloomsbury Square, 66.
  Buckingham House, 54.
  Carlton House, 11, 307, 309.
  Clubs: at Wildman's, 43;
    at Cocoa-Tree Tavern, 110;
    White's, 253;
    Brooks's, 253, 256.
  Copenhagen Fields, meeting in, 378.
  Correspondence Society, 335.
  Petitions from citizens of, 138, 158, 159, 186, 193, 435.
  St. George's Fields: riots, 96;
    meeting in, 378.
  Spitalfields riots, 66.
  Westminster election, 283, 284, 322;
    representation of, 286.

Long Island (N.Y.), 164, 165, 185, 187.

Long Island (S.C.), 157.

Longwy, captured, 337.

Loughborough, Earl. See Wedderburn, Alexander.

Louis XIV., 433.

Louis XV., 114.

Louis XVI., 181, 316, 320, 321, 324.

Louis XVII., 352, 363.

Louis XVIII. See Provence, Count of.

L'Ouverture, Toussaint, 424.

Lowther, M.P., 160.

Lowther, Sir James (afterwards Earl of Lonsdale), 87, 213, 256.

Loyalists (American), 134, 135, 329;
  treatment of, 242.

Lucas, Charles, Irish politician, 94.

Lucknow, 249.

Ludgershall, borough of, 94.

Lunéville, congress at, 438, 439;
  treaty of, 440.

Luttrell, Henry Lawes (second Earl Carhampton), colonel, 97, 100, 112,
    119, 405.

Luttrell, M.P., 160.

Luxemburg, 351.

Lyons, siege of, 355, 356.

Lyttelton, Lord, 67.


Macartney, George, Lord, 395.

Macaulay, Zachary, 324.

Macdonald, French general, 425, 427, 440.

Machinery and steam and water power. See England.

Mack (Austrian general), 360, 422.

Mackenzie, James Stuart (brother of the Earl of Bute), 67.

Mackintosh, Sir James, his _Vindiciæ Gallicæ_, 329.

Macklin, Charles, actor, 258.

Maclean, Colonel, 152.

Madras, 196, 237, 238;
  council of, 247.

Mahé (India), 196.

Mainz, Elector of, 436.

Mainz, surrender of, 337, 349, 350, 354;
  siege of, 375.

Malmesbury, Earl of (Harris). See Harris, Sir James.

Malta, 415;
  surrendered by the Knights of St. John, 416, 421, 423, 431, 438;
  becomes a British possession, 439, 441.

Malvalli, battle of, 420.

Mamelukes, defeat of, 416.

Manhattan island. See New York.

Manila, 38, 40, 41, 74, 112.

Mansfield, first Earl of (Murray), 8, 29;
  lord chief justice, 96, 100-101;
  speaker of the house of lords, 103, 116, 131, 205-207, 306, 324.

Mansfield, second Earl of. See Stormont, Lord.

Mantua, siege of, 381, 382;
  surrender of, 390.

Manufactures, 200, 207;
  silk, 66, 95, 276;
  glass, 202;
  woollen, 202;
  iron, 269;
  cotton, 269, 272, 273;
  linen (in Ireland), 290.

Maráthá wars, 236, 237, 247-248, 305.

March, Earl of (Douglas), afterwards Duke of Queensberry, 256.

Marengo, battle of, 437.

Maria Caroline, Queen of Naples, 422, 428.

Maria Theresa, empress-queen, 24, 296.

Marie Antoinette, queen of Louis XVI., 330, 334.

Maroons, insurrection of, in Jamaica, 377.

Marseilles, 352.

Martin, Joseph, governor of N. Carolina, 157.

Martin, Samuel, secretary to the treasury, 50.

Martinique, 36;
  captured by the British, 37;
  restored, 40-41, 195, 218, 227, 363.

Massachusetts, 84, 88-91;
  bill for regulating the government of, 128, 129, 132, 133, 137, 138;
  provincial congress, meeting of, 140-142;
  in arms, 143, 144, 198.

Masséna, French general, 390, 425, 426, 436, 437.

Masham, Lord (Masham), 256.

Mauduit, Israel, his Considerations on the German War, 18.

Maxwell, Colonel, at Vellinghausen, 14.

Maynooth College, foundation of. See Ireland.

McCrae, Jane, murder of, 177.

McDonald, merchant skipper, 320, 321.

Medows, General, 305.

Melas, Austrian general, 436, 437.

Menin, Dutch defeated at, 353.

Mercantile system. See England.

Methuen treaty, 257.

Micheroux, il cavaliere, 427, 428.

Middlebrook (U.S.A.), 173.

Middlesex elections, 95-99, 100, 101, 103, 107, 110, 135.

Militia, English, 2, 161, 162;
  Irish, 368.

Miller, printer, 117, 118.

Milner, Isaac (Dean of Carlisle), 265.

Ministries, Newcastle's, 8-35;
  Bute's, 35-45;
  Grenville's, 45-67;
  accession of the Bedford party to office, 49-67;
  Rockingham's, 67-73;
  Chatham's, 73-89;
  Grafton's, 89-102;
  North's, 102-229;
  Rockingham's, 229-240;
  Shelburne's, 240-244;
  Coalition, 245-251;
  Pitt's, 251-455.

Minorca, 23, 24, 26, 154, 160, 181, 196, 198, 211, 227, 243;
  British capture of, 422;
  British troops recalled from, 436.

Minto, Earl of. See Elliot, Sir Gilbert.

Miquelon island, 40;
  ceded to France, 243;
  British capture of, 356.

Mír Jafar, 78.

Mír Kásim, 77.

Mitchell, Sir Andrew, admiral, 430.

Mitford, John Freeman (afterwards Lord Redesdale), 323;
  speaker, 453.

Modena, Duke of, 380.

Mohawk valley, 176.

Moira, Earl of. See Rawdon, Lord.

Möllendorf, Prussian general, 360-362.

Monmouth (U.S.A.), battle at, 193.

Monongahela, battle of, 146.

Monro, Major Hector, 78.

Montagu, John, admiral, 364, 366.

Montenotte, Austrians defeated at, 380.

Montgomery, Richard, American general, 151, 152.

Montreal, 2;
  surrender of, 151.

Montserrat (W.I.), 243.

Moore, Sir John, 430.

Moreau, 325, 382, 436, 437, 439.

More, Hannah, 265.

Morgan, Daniel, American general, 221.

Morland, George, 262.

Mornington, Lord (Wellesley, R. C.), governor-general of India, 420;
  created Marquis Wellesley, 420;
  in India, 443.

Morristown (U.S.A.), 169.

Mosquito coast, 318.

Moultrie, William, American general, 157.

Mountjoy, Lord (Gardiner), 410.

Mount Tabor, defeat of Turks at, 419.

Mouscron, battle at, 361.

Moutray, captain, R.N., 211.

Mowat, lieutenant, 154.

Muir, Thomas, 358.

Mulgrave, Lord (Phipps), general, 355.

Murphy, Father John, 409.

Murray, Lindley, 165.

Musgrave, Colonel, 174.

Mutiny act, 253, 254;
  extended to America, 60.

Mutiny. See Navy, mutinies in the.

Mysore, conquest of, 420.


Nanda-Kumár (Nuncomar), execution of, 248, 304.

Naples, King of. See Ferdinand IV.

Naples, 349, 381, 421-423;
  revolution in, 422;
  jacobins of, and Nelson, 427-429.

Nassau. See Bahama islands.

National debt, the, in 1755, 18;
  in 1760, 18;
  in 1764, 53, 58, 136;
  in 1796, 384;
  in 1778, 200;
  in 1780, 203;
  in 1784, 280;
  in 1785, 284;
  sinking fund, 291-293;
  in 1793, 347;
  in 1794, 347.

Navigation acts, 55, 269.

Navy, British, state of in 1760, 2;
  in 1761, 18, 29;
  in 1764, 53;
  in 1770, 113;
  in 1771, 114;
  in 1172, 115;
  in 1774, 137;
  in 1775, 161;
  in 1776, 162, 163;
  in 1777, 170, 171;
  in 1778, 192, 193, 195;
  in 1782, 233, 235;
  in 1792, 332;
  in 1793, 351, 352;
  changes in material and tactics, 199, 233-235;
  manning of, 113, 114, 163, 170, 171, 192, 234, 332;
  mutinies in the, 193, 390, 391-395.

Necker, 316.

Needham, Francis Jack (Earl of Kilmorey), general, 411.

Neerwinden, battle of, 349.

Negapatam, 237, 243.

Nelson, Horatio (Viscount), 355, 363, 375, 381, 388, 389, 395;
  battle of the Nile, 416, 417;
  created Baron Nelson, 417, 418-422;
  at Naples, 422, 423, 426-429, 438, 443.

Nevis (W. I.), taken by French, 227;
  restored to England, 243.

Newcastle, Duke of (Pelham), first lord of treasury, 8, 10, 11;
  jealous of Pitt, 15;
  his fear of him, 17;
  his power diminished, 16, 19;
  becomes Bute's tool, 20, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32;
  driven from office, 34, 35, 39, 42, 47, 48;
  privy seal, 68, 69, 264.

New England, colonies, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 146, 147, 172,
    193.

Newfoundland (St. John), taken by French and retaken, 37, 129, 130, 144.

Newfoundland, fishery, 24-27, 40, 41, 139, 241, 243.

Newport (U.S.A.), 168, 194, 219, 224.

New Ross (Ireland), battle of, 410, 411.

New South Wales, colony of, 267.

Newtownbarry, 409, 410.

New York, meeting of congress of colonies at, 61, 131, 134, 136, 138,
    150, 153, 155, 158;
  occupation of by Howe, 165, 167, 169;
  Clinton in command, 174, 175, 179, 181, 193, 197, 198, 200, 215, 218,
    219, 223-225, 228, 242.

Nice annexed to France, 337.

Nicholson, Margaret, 307.

Nile, battle of the (Abukir bay), 416, 417.

Nimeguen, 362.

Nizám of Oudh, 419, 420.

Nollekens, Joseph, 263.

Nootka sound (Vancouver), affair of, 319.

Nore, mutiny at the, 393, 394.

Norfolk, Duke of (Howard), 402.

Norfolk (U.S.A.), 156.

_North Briton_, No. 45 of the, 46, 47, 50, 52.

Northesk, Earl of (Carnegie), captain, R.N., 394.

North, Frederick, Lord (afterwards Earl of Guilford), 83;
  chancellor of exchequer, 86, 90, 100;
  first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 102, 103, 106-113,
    115, 118, 119;
  policy towards India, 121, 122, 127;
  towards America, 128, 135, 136, 138, 139, 145;
  conciliation bill, 146, 153, 159, 160;
  prohibitory bill, 162, 163, 169, 170;
  desires to resign, 188-191;
  Irish policy, 200-202, 210, 212, 226, 227;
  resigns office, 228, 243;
  forms a coalition with Fox, 244;
  secretary of state, 245-247;
  leaves office, 251, 252, 254, 280, 288, 289, 291, 295.

Northington, Earl of. See Henley, Lord.

Norton, Sir Fletcher, speaker, 172, 213.

Nova Scotia, 129, 198.

Novi, battle of, 425.


Oakboys, 92.

Ochakov, 325-328.

O'Coighly, priest, 406.

O'Connor, Arthur, 386, 406.

O'Hara, general, 222, 355.

Oliver, Richard, alderman, 117, 118, 160.

Oliver, Thomas, 125, 126.

Omichand (Hindu merchant), 122.

Onslow, George, colonel, 117.

Orange, Prince of. See William V., Prince of Orange.

Orange, Princess of, 298-300.

Orange Society. See Ireland.

Orleans, Duke of, 386.

Orvilliers, Comte d', 193.

Ostend, 401, 402.

Oswald, Richard, British envoy, 239.

Oswego, 172, 177.

Otis, James, 56.

Otto, French agent, 438.


Paine, Thomas, his _Common Sense_, 156;
  his _Rights of Man_, 329, 335.

Paley, William, 261.

Palliser, Sir Hugh, 193.

Palmer, Samuel, dissenting preacher, 358.

Pampeluna, siege of, 363.

Panin, Count, Russian minister, 208, 423.

Paoli, Corsican general, 98, 363.

Parker, Richard, mutineer, 393, 394.

Parker, Sir Hyde, admiral, 212, 443.

Parker, Sir Peter, admiral, 157, 168.

Parma, Duke of, 380.

Paris, peace of, 42, 46, 74, 130;
  in 1789, 316-317;
  Malmesbury's mission to, 383;
  articles of peace signed by the Austrian envoy at, 437;
  Russian ambassador sent to arrange treaty of alliance at, 442.

Parliament, general elections of 1761, 16, 19, 20;
  of 1768, 94;
  of 1774, 135, 136;
  of 1781, 212, 213;
  of 1784, 280;
  of 1790, 322;
  Grenville's election act, 108, 109, 135;
  house of lords, changes in the character of the, 281, 282;
  privileges of members of, 47, 50, 51, 53, 72, 117, 118;
  publication of debates, 117, 118.

Parliamentary reform, demands for, 104;
  Chatham's plan of, 105;
  agreement concerning, 244;
  Pitt's motions for, 231-232, 246, 287, 288;
  Flood's motion for, 318;
  Grey's motion for, 399.

Patná, seized by the English, 77.

Paul, Tsar of Russia, 384, 421, 423, 425, 426, 429;
  anger against England, 431, 440;
  forms an armed neutrality, 441-443.

Pearson, Captain, R.N., 197.

Penn, Richard, 158.

Pennsylvania, mutiny of troops in, 214.

Percy, Lord (afterwards Duke of Northumberland), 141.

Percy, Thomas, Bishop of Dromore, 259.

Peter III., Tsar of Russia, 33, 36.

Phélypeaux, Colonel, 418.

Philadelphia, continental congress at, 132-134, 138, 146, 147, 156, 157,
    167;
  congress removes from, 168, 174, 179, 188;
  taken by Howe, 173, 174, 175, 179, 180;
  evacuated, 193, 225.

Philippine Islands, British conquest of, 38;
  restored to Spain, 40.

Phillip, Captain, R.N., 267.

Pichegru, 375.

Pierson, Major, 211.

Pigot, George, Lord, governor of Madras, 247.

Pigot, Hugh, admiral, 149, 238.

Pigot, Hugh, captain, R.N., 139.

Pilnitz, declaration of, 331.

Pitcairn, Major, 140.

Pitt, John (second Earl Chatham), 159;
  first lord of the admiralty, 306;
  privy seal, 366.

Pitt, Thomas (nephew of first Earl of Chatham), 245.

Pitt, William, the elder, afterwards Earl of Chatham, his influence
    before 1760, 1;
  secretary of state, 8;
  his political character, 10;
  his war policy, 11;
  acts with Bute, 15-16;
  against government by connexion, 16, 31;
  cabal against, 20-21;
  his part in negotiations of 1761, 23-27;
  demands war with Spain, 28;
  resignation, 30-32;
  pension and wife's peerage, 32;
  his schemes of conquest, 36;
  on the Peace of Paris, 42-44;
  king's negotiations with, 48, 53, 56, 59, 65, 66;
  refuses to take office, 67-69;
  speaks against enforcing stamp act, 69, 70;
  part in repeal of stamp act, 71;
  prime minister, 73;
  created Earl of Chatham, 73;
  quarrels with Temple, 74;
  foreign policy, 74;
  proposes defensive alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and Russia,
    75;
  his long illness, 76, 85;
  policy as regards India, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85;
  resigns office, 89;
  allied with the opposition, 100-102, 104;
  scheme for parliamentary reform, 105, 106-111, 128;
  opposes the quartering bill, 129-131, 136;
  conciliation bill, 138, 160, 170, 184-187;
  king refuses to send for, 188-189;
  death of, 190.

Pitt, William, the younger, 9;
  member for Appleby, 213;
  joins the opposition, 214, 228, 229;
  on parliamentary reform, 231;
  chancellor of exchequer, 240, 241, 243-246;
  first lord of treasury and chancellor of exchequer, 251, 252;
  India Bills, 252-254, 261, 265, 268, 269, 277, 280-283, 286, 287;
  his finance, 284, 285;
  his bill for parliamentary reform, 287, 288;
  his Irish trade proposals, 290, 291;
  sinking fund, 292, 293;
  commercial treaty with France, 293, 294;
  bill for consolidation of customs and excise, 294-295;
  his attitude towards the slave trade, 295, 296, 299, 300, 302-315;
  his views on the French Revolution, 317, 318, 321-325, 327, 328;
  Canada Bill, 329-336, 338, 339;
  warden of the Cinque Ports, 340;
  as war minister, 345-352;
  his loans, 348, 354, 357-359, 362, 366-367, 369, 370-372;
  disagreement with Grenville, 373-374, 376, 378, 379;
  budgets, 380, 384, 385, 400, 403, 434, 435;
  desires peace, 382, 383, 387, 388, 392, 395-397, 399, 401, 403, 433;
  duel with Tierney, 404;
  preparations for a union with Ireland, 412, 413, 420, 421, 436-438, 444;
  desires Irish union, 445-447, 449;
  and favours catholic emancipation, 369, 452;
  will resign, 452;
  budget of 1801, 453, 454;
  resignation, 455.

Pius VI., Pope, 420.

Plunket, William Conyngham, Lord, 447.

Plymouth, 196.

Pocock, Admiral, 37.

Point Judith (U.S.A.), 194.

Point Levi (Canada), 152.

Poland, partition of, 115, 296, 338, 349, 351, 363;
  invaded by Russia, 338;
  insurrection in, 361.

Police system, 267.

Political trials, 357, 358, 434.

Pondicherry, 1, 14;
  taken by English, 196, 356;
  French fleet at, 237.

Ponsonby, John, 368, 447.

Penthièvre, 377.

Pontiac, 58.

Poor law, 273, 277, 278.

Popham, Major, 237.

Port Egmont, 113, 114.

Portland, Duke of (Cavendish-Bentinck), 75, 87, 232, 233, 240;
  first lord of treasury, 245, 333, 334, 340;
  home secretary, 366, 368-371, 452.

Porto Novo, battle of, 237.

Porto Praya, naval action at, 237.

Portsmouth, 170, 192.

Portugal: ally of England, 33, 40, 257, 349, 381, 397, 442.

Pownall, Thomas, 89.

Pratt. See Camden, Lord.

Press, liberty of the, 116-118, 324.

Preston, Captain, 109.

Pretender, the Old, 1.

Pretender, the Young, 1.

Prevost, Augustine, general, 195, 198.

Price, Richard, 291, 292.

Priestley, Joseph, 263, 331, 332.

Prime Minister, title and functions of, 9, 64, 85-86, 90, 103, 189, 229,
    230, 244, 281, 332.

Printers, the House of Commons and the, 117, 118.

Prisons, 267.

Provence, Count of (Louis XVIII.), 352, 432.

Providence. See Bahama Islands.

Prussia, 75, 115, 300;
  declares war against France, 336;
  peace with France, 374.

_Public Advertiser_, newspaper, 99.

Puerto-rico, 389.

Puisaye, Comte de, 376, 377.

Pulaski, Count, 182.

Pulteney, Sir James, general, 439.

Putnam, Israel, American general, 164.

Pyramids, battle of the, 416.


Quebec act, 129, 145, 146, 151, 166;
  siege of, 152, 155, 205, 329.

Quiberon bay, 376.

Queensberry, Duke of. See March, Earl of.


Radcliffe, Ann, 260.

Raeburn, Henry, 262.

Raikes, Robert, 265.

Rawdon, Lord (Hastings), later Earl of Moira and Marquis of Hastings,
    219, 220, 223, 354, 361, 376, 406.

Reeve, Clara, 260.

Regency bill, 64, 65;
  later question of the, 309-314, 453.

Regulating act, North's, 121, 122, 273.

Regulators' war, 124.

Reichenbach, congress at, 326.

Religion and Church of England, 264.

Revolutionary society, 335;
  bill for suppressing, 434.

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 262, 407.

Rhode Island, 61, 125, 139, 143, 153, 168, 194, 198, 219, 224.

Richmond, Duke of (Lennox), secretary of state, 73, 145, 160, 190, 203,
    204, 229, 240;
  resigns office, 243;
  master-general of ordnance, 251, 257, 291, 359;
  resigns ordnance, 366.

Ridgway, bookseller, 357.

Rigby, Richard, 27, 107.

Riots:--
  American, 61, 89, 126.
  Birmingham, 331-332.
  Bread, 75, 378, 444.
  Carlisle and other towns, 339.
  Coal-heavers and others, 95.
  Dublin, 447, 450.
  Gordon, 205-207.
  Hexham, 18.
  St. George's Fields, 96.
  Silk-weavers, 66, 95.
  Wilkes, 96, 97.
  Duty of soldiers in, 207.

Robertson, William, historian, 261.

Robespierre, fall of, 372.

Rochambeau, Comte de, 218, 219, 224.

Roche, Philip, 411, 412.

Rochford, Earl of (Nassau), secretary of state, 89, 90, 115;
  resigns, 159.

Rockingham, Marquis of (Watson-Wentworth), 40, 42, 48;
  first ministry, 67-72;
  resigns office, 73, 74, 85, 86, 102, 106, 107, 110, 118, 128, 158,
    160, 169, 187, 191, 212;
  second ministry, 228, 229, 232, 233;
  death of, 240, 257, 274.

Rodney, afterwards Sir George and Lord Rodney, admiral, 37, 198, 200,
    212, 216, 219, 226, 227, 234, 235;
  created baron, 238, 239, 365.

Rohillás (Afghan tribe), 248.

Rolle, John, M.P., 308.

Rollo, Lord (Rollo), takes Dominica, 14.

Roman Catholics: relief from disabilities of, 205, 323;
  grant of franchise to Irish, 367, 368;
  question of emancipation of in Ireland, 369-371, 385, 446, 447, 451,
    453-455.

Romney, George, 262.

Rousseau, 315.

Roussillon invaded, 350.

Rowan, Archibald Hamilton, 368.

Roxbury (U.S.A.), 143.

Royal marriage act, 119, 120, 308.

Ruffo, Cardinal, 426-429.

Rusby (corn dealer), 444.

Russia, Empress of. See Catherine II.

Russia in seven years' war, 33;
  commercial treaty with, 72;
  Chatham's policy towards, 75, 326;
  Russian policy, 115;
  Pitt's policy towards, 326;
  treaty of alliance with Great Britain, 423;
  withdrawal of, from the second coalition, 431.

Russia, Tsar of. See Paul and Peter III.

Russian armament, the, 327-328.

Rutland, Duke of (Manners), viceroy of Ireland, 287, 289, 290;
  lord steward, 244;
  privy seal, 251.

Ryder, Dudley, afterwards Lord Harrowby, 404.


Sackville, Lord George, 15, 22, 83, 87;
  takes name Germain, 159;
  secretary of state, 159, 166, 173, 176, 179, 180, 184, 185, 191, 202,
    210, 225-227;
  created Viscount Sackville, 228.

St. Eustatius, island of, 216;
  surrender, 217-218;
  retaken by French, 227.

St. George's Fields. See London.

St. Kitts, island of, captured by French, 227;
  ceded to Great Britain, 243.

St. Leger, Colonel, 176, 177.

St. Lucia, island of, 24;
  conquest of, 37, 40, 195, 218;
  restored to France, 242;
  surrender of, 363, 377.

St. Marcouf, islands of, 402.

St. Philips. See Minorca.

St. Pierre, island of, 27, 40;
  ceded to France, 243;
  taken by English, 356.

St. Valentine's Day, battle of. See Cape St. Vincent, battle of.

St. Vincent, Earl of. See Jervis, Sir John.

St. Vincent, island of, conquest of, 37, 40;
  captured by French, 195, 197, 198;
  ceded to Great Britain, 243;
  insurrection in, 377.

Salbái, treaty of, 237, 238.

Salem, seat of government transferred from Boston to, 128, 140.

San Domingo, island of, 200, 234;
  massacre at, 323, 364, 424.

Sandwich, Earl of (Montagu), secretary of state, 49, 50, 65, 100, 115;
  first lord of the admiralty, 131, 161, 191-193, 212.

Sandy Hook (N.Y.), 174, 193, 224.

Santa Cruz, attack on, 395.

Saratoga, convention of, 178, 179.

Sardinia, King of. See Charles Emmanuel.

Saumarez, Captain, 388.

Saumur, 351.

Saunders, Sir Charles, first lord of the admiralty, 74, 75, 98.

Savannah, capture of, 195, 198.

Savary, French captain, 413, 415.

Savile, Sir George, 203, 205, 206.

Savoy, annexed by the French, 337.

Sawbridge, John, 107, 160.

Scheldt, opening of the, 297, 342-344.

Schuyler, Philip, American general, 176, 177, 180.

Schweidnitz, capture of, 14.

Scott, John (afterwards Earl of Eldon), solicitor-general, 206, 371;
  chief justice of common pleas, 434;
  created baron, 434.

Scott, John (afterwards Scott-Waring), major, 303.

Secker, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 60.

Secretaries of state, division of departments of, 10, 87, 229, 336.

Seditious meetings bill, 379, 380.

Selim III. (Turkish sultan), 418.

Selwyn, George, 94, 256.

Senegal, 23, 24, 26;
  seized by the French, 197;
  ceded to France, 243.

Seringapatam, siege of, 305;
  taken, 420.

Seymour, Lord Hugh, admiral, 431.

Sháh Alam, Mughal emperor, 78.

Sharp, Granville, philanthropist, 295.

Sheares, Henry, 408.

Sheares, John, 408.

Sheerness, 393, 394.

Shelburne, Earl of (Fitzmaurice), afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne, 49, 52;
  secretary of state, 73, 80, 82;
  resigns, 89, 128, 160, 188, 203, 204, 213, 228;
  home secretary, 229, 230, 231, 238, 239;
  first lord of the treasury, 240-245, 251, 287, 293, 336, 341, 359.

Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 246, 258, 286, 291, 294, 304, 308-311, 318,
    335, 336, 359, 406, 447.

Shore, Sir John (afterwards Lord Teignmouth), 419.

Shujá-ud-Daulá, 77, 248.

Siddons, Mrs., 258.

Sinking fund, 291-293, 332, 347.

Sistova, peace of, 326.

Skenesborough (U.S.A.), 177.

Slave trade, 295, 296, 323, 324, 404.

Smith, Adam, his _Wealth of Nations_, 137, 261, 269, 276, 277.

Smith, Colonel, 140.

Smith, Sir Sidney, 355, 402, 418, 419, 431, 432.

Smuggling, 267-268, 284;
  hovering act against, 285.

Social progress. See England.

Societies, revolutionary, 335, 338, 358.

Somers, Lord, 352.

Soubise, Prince, 14, 36.

Spain, King of. See Charles III.

Spain, grievances of, against Great Britain, 24;
  alliance with France, 24-30;
  Great Britain declares war against, 33;
  war with, 37-38;
  navy of, 112;
  dispute with Great Britain concerning the Falkland islands, 113, 114;
  alliance of, with America, 181-183;
  alliance with France against Great Britain, 196;
  declares war against Great Britain, 196-200, 203, 208;
  peace between Great Britain and, 242-243;
  convention of 1786 with, 318;
  discontent in Spanish America with, 319, 320;
  treaty with Great Britain, 321;
  joins the first coalition, 349;
  abandons coalition, 363;
  alliance of, with France, 381.

Spanish America. See Spain.

Speenhamland, 278.

Spencer, Earl, 340;
  privy seal, 366;
  first lord of the admiralty, 366, 393, 452.

Speyer, surrender of, 337.

Spitalfields riots. See London.

Spithead, 209;
  mutiny at, 392, 393.

Stafford, Marquis of. See Gower, Earl.

Stamp act, 59-63, 69-71, 134.

Stanhope, Earl, 317, 359.

Stanley, Hans, diplomatist, 24-29, 32.

Staten island, 164.

Stephen, James, 324.

Sterne, Laurence, 260.

Steuben, Baron, 182.

Steyer, armistice signed at, 439.

Stirling, Lord (so-called), William Alexander, American general, 165.

Stockdale, John, publisher, 324.

Stormont, Lord (afterwards Earl of Mansfield), 115, 183;
  secretary of state, 203, 210;
  president of the council, 245, 369.

Strange, Lord, 71.

Stuart, James, general, 238.

Stuart, Sir Charles, general, 363.

Suchet, French general, 436.

Sudbury, the borough of, 19.

Suffolk, Earl of (Howard), privy seal, later secretary of state, 115;
  death of, 203.

Suffren, Bailli de, French admiral, 238.

Sullivan, John, American general, 155, 165, 194.

Sumter, American partisan leader, 219-221, 223.

Surinam, surrender of, 431.

Suvorov (Suwarrow), Russian general, 327, 425, 426.

Sweden, King of. See Gustavus III.

Sweden, proposed defensive alliance with, 75;
  revolution in, 115;
  joins the league of armed neutrality, 208;
  invaded by Denmark, 325;
  makes a treaty with Russia, 326;
  joins the maritime confederacy, 442.

Sydney, Lord. See Townshend, Thomas.

Syria, Bonaparte's campaign in, 418.


Talbot, Earl (Talbot), lord steward, 97.

Talleyrand, French statesman, 333, 334, 336, 337, 433, 437.

Tandy, Napper, 414.

Tarleton, Sir Banastre, colonel, 220, 221.

Taxation, right of colonial, 62-63, 69.

Tea-duty, 90, 109, 110, 129, 162;
  Chatham urges repeal of, 188, 284.

Tchernitchev, Russian general, 33, 35, 36.

Temple, Earl, first (Richard Grenville-Temple), 20, 28, 30, 39, 43, 44,
    46, 49, 50, 66, 67, 73, 74, 99, 100.

Temple, Earl, second (George Grenville), afterwards Marquis of
    Buckingham, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 240;
  secretary of state, 250, 251;
  created Marquis of Buckingham, 287, 315, 367.

Thelwall, John, lecturer, 359.

Thompson, printer, 117.

Three Rivers (Canada), 156.

Thugut, Baron, Austrian minister, 351, 360, 421-423, 425, 431, 436.

Thurlow, Edward, Lord (Baron), solicitor-general, 103, 115, 116, 118;
  attacks Clive, 123, 125;
  lord chancellor, 191, 203, 228, 231, 245, 250-251;
  the great seal stolen, 254, 286, 302, 306, 309, 310, 312, 323, 324;
  dismissed, 332.

Ticonderoga, 144, 146, 151, 166, 168, 170, 173;
  surrender of, 176, 177.

Tierney, George, 399;
  duel with Pitt, 403-404, 435.

Tipú, Sultán, 237;
  succeeds Haidar Alí, 238, 305, 397, 418-420.

Tobago, 24, 40, 218, 243, 333, 334;
  taken by English, 356.

Tolerance, religious, subscription to thirty-nine articles, 118, 119,
    205, 323;
  bill for relief of dissenters, 295.

Tone, Wolfe, 367, 368, 386;
  death of, 415.

Tooke, Horne (previously Horne), 104, 127, 145, 322, 358.

Torgau, battle of, 14.

Toulon, surrenders to Hood, 352;
  evacuation of, 355, 356, 375, 381, 415, 418, 427, 428.

Tourcoing, battle of, 361.

Tournai, 361.

Townshend, Charles, 20;
  paymaster of forces, 67;
  chancellor of the exchequer, 74, 80, 82, 83;
  death of, 86.

Townshend, Marquis, 274;
  viceroy of Ireland, 94.

Townshend (Thomas), afterwards Lord Sydney, home secretary, 240, 251, 267;
  resigns, 315.

Traitorous correspondence bill, 357.

Transportation of criminals, 267.

Travancore, rájá of, 305.

Treasonable practices bill, 379, 380.

Trebbia, battle of the, 425.

Trecothick, lord mayor, 113.

Trenton, 168, 173.

Trincomali, 237.

Trinidad, captured by the English, 389.

Triple alliance of 1786, 301, 320, 324-326;
  comes to an end, 328, 374.

Troubridge, Sir Thomas, admiral, 388, 389, 427.

Tryon, William, governor of New York, 124, 130.

Tucker, Joseph (Dean of Gloucester), 137.

Turks, wars between Russia and, 114;
  Austria declares war against, 325;
  capture of Ochakov, 325;
  treaty with Prussia, 326;
  peace with Austria, 326;
  war continued with Russia, 327;
  war with France, 418-419, 421, 427, 432.

Turner, Joseph, 262.

Tuscany, Grand Duke of, 363, 380.


Ulm, capitulation of, 436.

Ulster, conspiracy in, 405.

Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 450.

United Irishmen, 367, 368, 385, 386, 398, 405, 406, 409, 414.

United Provinces, 297, 299-301, 324-325;
  threatened by French, 336-340, 343;
  invaded, 349;
  subject to France, 363;
  form Batavian republic, 440.
  See also Holland.

United States, commercial treaty between England and the, 378.

Ushant, naval fight off, 193.


Valenciennes, 350, 354.

Valetta, siege of, 426, 431;
  surrender of, 438, 439;
  the Tsar's designs on, thwarted, 441.

Valley Forge, 175.

Valmy, battle of, 337.

Vansittart, Henry, his government of Bengal, 77.

Vellinghausen, battle of, 14.

Venice, 349, 390, 397.

Verdun, 337.

Vereker, Colonel, 414.

Vergennes, Comte de, 181-183, 215, 239, 241.

Versailles, treaty of, 236, 241, 244, 292, 296.

Villaret-Joyeuse, rear-admiral, 364-366.

Vinegar Hill, battle of, 409-411.

Viri, Comte de, Sardinian minister, 17, 20, 38.

Vorontsov (Woronzow), Count, Russian ambassador, 394, 440.

Voltaire, 315.

Volunteers, Irish, 202, 232, 289.


Wages, agricultural labourers, 273, 276, 435;
  bill for the regulation of, 378;
  combinations to raise, 277;
  fixed by statute, 276;
  law against combinations of workmen, 434;
  sailors, 392;
  weavers, 272, 273.

Wakefield, Gilbert, 434.

Waldeck, Prince of, 154.

Waldegrave, John, third Earl, 4, 119.

Waldegrave, Maria, Countess of (afterwards Duchess of Gloucester), 119.

Wales, George, Prince of (afterwards George IV.), 38, 246, 283, 307,
    308-312, 313-315, 372, 373, 406, 453.

Wales, Prince of (George II.'s son), 3.

Wales, Princess of, Caroline of Brunswick, wife of George, Prince of
    Wales, 373.

Wales, Princess Dowager of (George III.'s mother), her character and
    influence on George III., 3, 4, 21, 42, 51, 65, 112;
  death of, 119.

Wallis, Samuel, discoverer, 263.

Wall, Richard, General (Spanish minister), 27-30, 32, 74.

Walmoden, General, 362.

Walpole, George, colonel, 404.

Walpole, Horace, 52, 75, 260-262, 267.

Walpole, Sir Robert, 6, 43, 57, 191, 292.

Warburton, William, Bishop of Gloucester, 50.

Warrants, general, 46;
  declared illegal, 47, 52, 66, 72.

Warren, Richard, Dr., 313.

Warren, Sir John, admiral, 376, 415.

Washington, George, 133;
  American commander-in-chief, 146, 147, 150, 154, 155, 164-169,
    173-176, 180, 186, 193, 194, 197, 198, 214-216, 218, 219, 223-226, 402.

Waterloo, 361.

Wattignies, 354.

Watt, James, 270, 358.

Wedderburn, Alexander (afterwards Lord Loughborough and Earl of
    Rosslyn), 107;
  solicitor-general, 115, 123, 126, 170;
  attorney-general, 191;
  created Lord Loughborough, 207, 309, 333;
  lord chancellor, 341, 371;
  his treachery, 451, 452, 455.

Wedgwood, Josiah, 270, 290.

Wellesley, Sir Arthur (afterwards Duke of Wellington), 420.

Werela, peace made between Russia and Sweden at, 326.

Wesley, John, 264.

Westminster election of 1785. See London.

Westmorland, Earl of (Fane), lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 366-369, 371, 452.

West Point, 197, 215.

Wexford, rebellion in, 409, 412.

Weymouth, Viscount (Thynne), secretary of state, 87, 89, 90, 95, 96, 102;
  resigns office, 115;
  again in office, 159, 203.

Whately, Thomas, 125-127.

Wheble, printer, 117.

Whitbread, Samuel, 378, 435.

Whiteboys, 92.

White Plains, battle of, 167, 224.

Whitworth, Sir Charles (afterwards Lord), British ambassador at St.
    Petersburg, 421, 440;
  sent to Copenhagen, 441.

Wickham, William, British ambassador at Berne, 383.

Wilberforce, William, philanthropist, 254, 265, 287, 295, 296, 323, 324,
    372, 384, 404.

Wilhelmsthal, battle of, 36.

Wilkes, John, 39, 43;
  case of, 46, 47, 50-52;
  returned for Middlesex, 95-98, 104, 108, 117, 118, 135, 142, 170, 206,
    231, 312.

William V., Prince of Orange, stadholder of Holland, 298, 299, 300, 362,
    430, 431.

Willis, Francis, Dr., 310, 312, 313, 453.

Wilmington (U.S.A.), 222.

Wilson, Richard, 262.

Windham, William, 258, 318, 335, 340, 341, 382, 396, 452.

Windsor, borough of, 212.

Winnsborough (U.S.A.), 221.

Wood, John, architect, 262.

Wood, Robert, under-secretary of state, sued by Wilkes, 47.

Wordsworth, William, 260.

Worms, surrender of, 337.

Wray, Sir Christopher, 283.

Wright, cruel treatment of, 408.

Wurmser, Austrian general, 354, 381, 390.

Würtemberg, Duke of, subsidiary treaty between England and the, 436.

Wyatt, James, architect, 262.


York (Edward), Duke of (brother of George III.), 4.

York (Frederick), Duke of (son of George III.), 309, 311, 314, 346, 350,
    351, 353, 361, 362;
  appointed field-marshal, 366, 390, 391, 430.

York, petition from, 203.

Yorke, Charles, 8, 102, 130.

Yorke, Sir Joseph, 209.

Yorktown, 224;
  surrender at, 225, 226.

Young, Arthur, agriculturist, 259, 274-276.


                 THE ABERDEEN UNIVERSITY PRESS LIMITED.


[Illustration: GREAT BRITAIN showing PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION]

[Illustration: Map of United States of America (Northern Section)]

[Illustration: Map of United States of America (Southern Section)]




TRANSCRIBERS' NOTES

General  : Errata listed have been applied to the text

           Unique page headers interpreted as sidenotes

           Changes to punctuation have not been individually documented

           No attempt made to standardise chief justice/chief-justice as
               both forms used approximately equally.

Pages 41, 295, 323, 345 : slave-trade standardised to slave trade.

Page  45 : hardworking standardised to hard-working

Page  77 : "A little army under Major Adams," as in original.

Page  96 : ring-leader standardised to ringleader

Page 101 : wide-spread standardised to widespread

Page 114 : counter-balanced standardised to counterbalanced

Page 127 : unpremediated changed to unpremeditated

Page 140 : war-like standardised to warlike

Page 154 : smallpox standardised to small-pox

Page 157, 364, 365 : Flag-ship standardised to flagship

Page 166 : gun-boats standardised to gunboats

Page 194 : outmanoeuvred standardised to out-manoeuvred

Page 243 : log-wood standardised to logwood

Page 248 : Afghán standardised to Afghan

Page 377, 491 : Ponthièvre standardised to Penthièvre

Page 376: Sombrueil replaced by Sombreuil

Page 384 : Befal corrected to befall

Page 417 : Sentence "Her assailants poured so fierce a storm of shot upon
her that her crew could not get the fire under." as in original. Probably
missing final word control.

Page 471 : Application of errata here has meant that the office of
secretary of state for the northern department was not listed May-Oct 1763.
This may or may not be correct.

Page 473 : Lt.-lieut. corrected to Ld.-lieut.

Page 477 : Asuf-ud-Daulá standardised to Asaf-ud-Daulá

Page 481 : Drapier corrected to Draper

Page 484 : Index entry for Admiral Thomas Graves corrected from 216 to 226.

Page 487 : Kempenfeldt moved to correct place in index.

Page 490 : Patna standardised to Patná

Page 492 : Salbai standardised to Salbái

Page 494 : Sultan standardised to Sultán

Page 495 : Whateley standardised to Whately