Produced by Cathy Maxam, Heather Clark and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) FARMER GEORGE [Illustration: _From a caricature (circa 1810) in the British Museum_ GEORGE THE THIRD] FARMER GEORGE BY LEWIS MELVILLE _Author of "The First Gentleman of Europe," "The Life of William Makepeace Thackeray," &c., &c._ WITH FIFTY-THREE PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. II LONDON: SIR ISAAC PITMAN AND SONS, LTD. NO. 1 AMEN CORNER, E. C. 1907 PRINTED BY SIR ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, LTD BATH. (2002) CONTENTS VOL. II CHAP. PAGE XIII. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. I. THE STAMP ACT 1 XIV. THE KING _versus_ ROCKINGHAM AND THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT 26 XV. THE "KING'S FRIENDS" 46 XVI. THE KING'S RULE 65 XVII. THE ROYAL FAMILY 98 XVIII. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. II. THE KING'S WAR 126 XIX. ENGLAND AND AMERICA. III. THE LOSS OF AMERICA 155 XX. CHARLES JAMES FOX AND WILLIAM PITT 173 XXI. THE KING'S MALADY 202 XXII. THE KING'S RECOVERY 222 XXIII. THE KING'S CHILDREN 237 XXIV. 1789-1806 251 XXV. LAST YEARS 263 AUTHORITIES 293 ILLUSTRATIONS VOL. II PAGE GEORGE III _frontispiece_ CHARLES WATSON WENTWORTH, SECOND MARQUESS OF ROCKINGHAM _facing_ 26 WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM " 46 AUGUSTUS HENRY, DUKE OF GRAFTON " 61 FREDERICK NORTH, SECOND EARL OF GUILFORD " 72 ADMIRAL THE HON. AUGUSTUS KEPPEL " 94 HENRY FREDERICK, DUKE OF CUMBERLAND " 102 WILLIAM HENRY, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER " 102 MARIA, DUCHESS OF GLOUCESTER " 104 ANNE, DUCHESS OF CUMBERLAND " 109 AUGUSTA, DUCHESS OF BRUNSWICK " 120 CAROLINA MATILDA, QUEEN OF DENMARK " 120 CHARLES JAMES FOX " 180 "THE UNFORTUNATE ASS" " 183 "THE CAPTIVE PRINCE, OR, LIBERTY GONE MAD" " 186 EDMUND BURKE " 187 WILLIAM PETTY, EARL OF SHELBURNE " 189 WILLIAM PITT " 192 GEORGE III " 202 GEORGE III " 222 THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ENGLAND IN 1787 " 237 THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1793 " 251 GEORGE III IN HIS STUDY " 287 QUEEN CHARLOTTE " 289 FARMER GEORGE VOL. II CHAPTER XIII ENGLAND AND AMERICA. I. THE STAMP ACT George Grenville will live in history as the statesman who took the first step seriously to alienate the American colonies from the motherland. He was, indeed, an unfortunate man, for he is doomed to be remembered only by the magnitude of his mistakes. He attacked Wilkes, and that demagogue at once took a place in the line of heroes who have fought for the liberty of the subject against the oppression of the Crown; he taxed a colony, and not long after England had to deplore the loss of the United States: indeed, the only act that Dr. Hunt can find to the credit of Grenville's judgment was the purchase, for £70,000 from the Duke and Duchess of Athol, of the Isle of Man, which then for the first time came completely under the royal authority.[1] [1] _Political History of England, vol. X, 1760-1801._ Of course, the idea to tax the American colonies did not arise with Grenville. It had been suggested by an American governor to Walpole, who, however, was too wary to entertain the scheme. "No, it is too hazardous a measure for me," he said drily; "I shall leave it to my successors."[2] But those who guided the helm of State immediately after him were also careful not to deal with the question except by ignoring it, and consequently it was left for Grenville to undertake, under pressure, it is said, from the King.[3] "I have heard it doubted whether the measure originated with Mr. George Grenville," John Nicholls has written. "I have heard it intimated the measure originated with the King, that is to say, with the King's secret advisers; and that Mr. Grenville acceded to the plan with considerable reluctance. I have no means of knowing whether the measure originated with Mr. Grenville or with the King. But from the unremitting obstinacy with which the King persevered in the wish to impose taxes on the Colonies by a British Parliament, every man must see that it may fairly be called the favourite measure of his reign."[4] [2] Coxe: _Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole_. [3] "The idea to tax the colonies seems to have been the King's, and it is said that Grenville believed that even the attempt must have alarming consequences." Galt: _George III, his Court and Family_. [4] _Recollections and Reflections._ It is an axiom of the constitution that the King can do no wrong, and therefore, whoever proposed the scheme, the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the responsible ministers of the Crown, who, on March 10, 1764, laid before Parliament resolutions for further regulating American commerce, for the prevention of smuggling, and for the maintenance of a small standing army of 10,000 men. Certain port dues were to be raised, though they were to be counterbalanced by concessions in other directions; but the increase in revenue from this source would not suffice to maintain the garrison, the cost of which was estimated at £350,000 a year; and it was proposed to raise £100,000 by an Act requiring that all legal documents should have stamps. This was, indeed, an innovation, for hitherto custom duties had been imposed upon the colonists solely for the purpose of regulating trade: the Stamp Act would raise revenues from them. There was something to be said in defence of the Act, for though the late war had not been undertaken solely as a defence of the colonies, yet a great expense had been incurred by the operations necessary to repress the intrusions of the French Canadians. Was it right, Grenville asked, that the colonies should be defended by England, and should contribute nothing towards the cost of their defence? To Grenville, who never looked ahead, this seemed unreasonable, for, he contended, since the money raised in America was to be spent there, there could be no justifiable objection to the tax which it was proposed to impose; but, while he pointed out to the colonial agents resident in London that the tax was reasonable and an easy and equitable way to raise the money, he expressed his willingness, if the colonists disliked the scheme, to abandon it if the colonists would raise the money themselves in some other way. In his desire to be conciliatory he decided to defer the introduction of the Stamp Act until America had time to express an opinion.[5] [5] The King's Speech at the prorogation of Parliament on April 19, 1764, contained a reference to the measures respecting America. "The wise regulations which have been established to augment the public revenues, to unite the interests of the most distant possessions of my crown, and to encourage and secure their commerce with Great Britain, call for my hearty approbation." Early in 1765 the Stamp Act was introduced, and passed the House of Commons with but forty dissentients. The debate, Burke says, was extremely languid. Pitt, suffering from gout, was unable to be present, but Conway[6] and Beckford protested against the measure, and Barré[7], more far-seeing than most, denounced it in a startling speech, in which he referred to the colonists as "sons of liberty." "Children planted by your care!" he exclaimed. "No! your oppressions planted them in America; they fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated and inhospitable country! They nourished by your indulgence! They grew by your neglect of them! They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in your defence." The Bill, which was to come into operation on November 1, passed the House of Lords without a division, and the Royal Assent was given on March 22. [6] Henry Seymour Conway (1721-1795), lieutenant-general 1759, general 1772, field-marshal 1793. [7] Colonel Isaac Barré (1726-1802). The question, however, was in England "little understood and less attended to";[8] and contemporary memoirs may be ransacked in vain for any reference thereto. Even Walpole, whose letters form so detailed a chronicle of events, dismissed it cavalierly. "There has been nothing of note in Parliament," he wrote to Lord Hertford on February 12, 1765, "but one slight day on the American taxes, which Charles Townshend supporting, received a pretty heavy thump from Barré, who is the present Pitt and the dread of all vociferous Norths and Rigbys, on whose lungs depended so much of Mr. Grenville's power." The fact of the matter was that England had not realized the importance of colonies, and practically nothing was known in the motherland of her possession. "I suppose you are violent for your American friends," Lady Sarah Bunbury, so late as July 6, 1775, wrote to Lady Susan O'Brien. "I hope they are good sort of people, but I don't love Presbyterians and I love the English soldiers, so that I at present have a horror of those who use them ill beyond the laws of war, which _scalping_ certainly is, and I don't believe a word of the soldiers doing more than they ought; you know one is always unreasonable when one's prejudiced."[9] [8] Horace Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_. [9] _Life and Letters of Lady Sarah Lennox._ Now the colonists were, of course, no more addicted to scalping and other practices "beyond the laws of war" than the English; and the knowledge that these and similar ideas prevailed at home undoubtedly infused a feeling of bitterness into their love for the country of their descent. Moreover, very naturally, they resented the almost ostentatious display of their unimportance in the eyes of English ministers, which became known to them when, to give one example from many, on the resignation of the Duke of Newcastle, a whole closetful of American despatches was found unopened.[10] They were English, and proud of their descent, a hardy, frugal, independent folk, determined not to be treated as a subject race; the last people in the world to brook interference, and the first to remember that they were colonies, not conquests, brothers, not slaves. They were simple in their habits and in their ideas, and, in some places, Puritanical to excess--the stool of repentance and the scold's gag were still in use, and they had anticipated the publican's "black list"; but as a nation they were thriving, and the towns of Boston, New York, Charleston, and Philadelphia were so many convincing proofs of their increasing wealth. [10] _Walpoliana._ "Lord Sussex told Sir Denis le Marchant that one of the Under-Secretaries of that day said to him, 'Mr. Grenville lost America because he read the American despatches, which his predecessors had never done;' and so complete a sinecure was the Board of Trade then considered, that a Colonel Bladen, one of the commissioners, happening to apply himself to the duties of his office, the Colonel went by the name of 'Trade,' while his colleagues were called 'The Board.'"--Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_. The colonists were bound to the motherland by a strong feeling of loyalty, by fear of the French-Canadians, whose aggressions they were not strong (or perhaps, it is more accurate to say did not realize they were strong) enough to repel, and also by the prevailing jealousy between the different provinces which was so strong that Otis in 1765 declared that, if left to itself, "America would be a mere shambles of blood and confusion." England's treatment of the colonies was not harsh, but the tactless treatment aroused even more discontent than an illiberal policy. The Americans were continually being irritated by the attitude of the governors sent out by the committee of the Privy Council responsible for colonial government, but paid by the provinces over which they ruled, who did not understand them, made no attempt to learn their habits, and showed little or no regard for the Assemblies in their districts. "Such wrong-headed people," said one of these officers, "I thank God I never had to do with before." The Americans, on the other hand, complained of many of the people who were sent from England to occupy official positions. "For many years past most of the places in the gift of the Crown have been filled with broken Members of Parliament, of bad, if any, principles, pimps, _valets-de-chambre_, electioneering scoundrels, and even livery servants." General Huske wrote about 1758: "In one word, America has been for many years made the hospital of Great Britain for her decayed courtiers and abandoned, worn-out dependants. I can point you out a chief justice of a province appointed from home for no other reason than publicly prostituting his honour and conscience at an election; a livery servant that is secretary of a province, appointed from hence; a pimp, collector of a whole province, who got this place of the man in power for prostituting his handsome wife to his embraces and procuring him other means of gratifying his lust. Innumerable are instances of this sort in places of great trust."[11] [11] Phillimore: _Life of Lyttelton_. These annoyances were but pin-pricks, compared with many restrictions placed upon their trade. There were laws ordaining that all trade between the colonies should be carried in ships built in England or the colonies, and forbidding the exportation of tobacco, sugar, cotton, wool, and other articles except to England and her other colonies, as well as a host of minor regulations, such as that in the woods of Maine no tree with a diameter greater than two feet at a foot above ground should be cut down, except to make a mast for a ship of the royal navy. It is true that on the other hand no Englishman might buy tobacco that was not grown in America or Bermuda, that the export trade to the motherland was encouraged by bounties, and that owing to a system by which duties were remitted on exportation to America they could purchase continental goods more cheaply than they could be obtained in England[12]; but these compensations did not make amends, in the colonists' eyes, for the regulations that cramped their trade. [12] William Hunt: _Political History of England, 1760-1801_. These restrictions were much resented, and, as the volume of their commerce increased, might well have goaded the colonists into rebellion, had they not chosen the path of least resistance, and evaded them through the simple device of smuggling. The Sugar Act of 1733, designed in the interests of British merchants, forbidding the importation of sugar and molasses from the French West Indies except on payment of a prohibitive duty, aroused the ire of the Americans, who, realizing the uselessness of petitions,[13] only plunged still deeper into the contraband trade. This, in turn, angered those who had expected to benefit by the Act, and many protests to enforce the law were made to the home government, who turned a deaf ear to such representations until after the Peace of Paris, when Bute sent revenue cutters to cruise off the American coast. The officers of these ships were sworn to act as revenue officers and smuggling was somewhat checked at the cost of a vast deal of irritation at the summary methods of the sailors. [13] Petitions from Provincial Assemblies were ignored by ministers at home, and even memorials from such important states as Massachusetts and New York, ordered by the King in Council to be laid before Parliament, were suppressed. The easy passage of the Stamp Act showed that Parliament did not anticipate any considerable opposition from America, and even the agents of the colonies, including Benjamin Franklin, who represented Pennsylvania, thought that a small standing army was desirable, and believed the colonies had no choice but to submit. The colonists themselves, however, were not slow to express a very decided opposition to the Act, and perhaps their objection was not the less vehement because Grenville had prefaced the introduction of the resolutions by stating that they were an "experiment towards further aid." That, though, was but a trifle beside the main issue. Hitherto all taxes in the colonies had been voted by the several Provincial Assemblies: now was asserted the right of England to tax her colonies. Not to protest was tacitly to admit the theory of the absolute dominion of the motherland, and at once a stand was made against the infringement of the doctrine that in free nations taxation and representation go hand in hand. Some attempt was made in England to show that America was virtually represented in Parliament, but this fallacy was exposed by Pitt: "There is an idea in some minds that the colonies are virtually represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation were augmented to a greater number! Or, will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough? a borough which perhaps its own representatives never saw. This is what is called _the rotten part of the constitution_. It cannot continue a century. If it does not drop it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of man; it does not deserve a serious refutation."[14] [14] _Speech during the Debate on the Address, January 14, 1766._ It was not denied by the colonists that the money raised in their country would be spent in their country, but this was only a further aggravation, for they resented the idea of a standing army, perhaps remembering the abuses which in earlier days it had been called upon to support in England. They contended that in time of war they had shown themselves willing and able to raise a force at the request of the governors, for which act they had been thanked by Parliament; and they asserted that in times of peace their militia was sufficient to protect them. The fact that the Stamp Act relaxed certain restrictions on their trades weighed as nothing against a subsequent measure obliging them to provide the British troops stationed amongst them with quarters and also with fire, candles, beds, vinegar and salt. This was an invasion of the privacy of their homes that, in time of peace, they would not endure. "Sad news in the papers--G----d knows who's to blame! The Colonies seem to be all in a flame, This Stamp Act, no doubt, might be good for the Crown, But I fear 'tis a pill that will never go down."[15] [15] Anstey: _The New Bath Guide_. No sooner did the colonists learn of the passing of the Stamp Act than a cry of protest rang out from all over the country. James Otis, the King's Advocate, resigned his official position in order to be at liberty to denounce the action of the home Government, a task in which he was ably seconded by John Adams; while Patrick Henry, whom Byron described as "the forest-born Demosthenes, Whose thunder shook the Philip of the seas," introduced into the Virginian House of Burgesses a set of resolutions, that the first settlers in that province had brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity, all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the people of England, that they enjoyed the right of being governed by their own assembly in the article of taxes and internal police, and that the Stamp Act was illegal, unconstitutional and unjust.[16] "Cæsar had his Brutus," Henry concluded a violent speech. "Charles the First his Cromwell, George the Third"--here he was interrupted by cries of "Treason" which disconcerted him for a moment when he recovered himself and continued--"may profit by their example. If this be treason make the most of it." It showed the temper of the nation that Virginia, hitherto regarded as the most loyal state, approved the resolutions by a large majority. The Governor immediately dissolved the assembly, but, like all the acts of the English in America at this time, this move was too late to be effective, for the resolutions were regarded by other provinces as a precedent, and were adopted by numerous other legislative bodies. [16] Adolphus: _History of England_. Boston, which had had experience of the utter futility of petitions to the King and to Parliament, flamed at once into violence. The Assembly there voted thanks to General Conway and Colonel Barré for their opposition in the House of Commons to the Stamp Act, and ordered their portraits to be placed in the Town Hall. On August 26 a mob destroyed the Stamp Office, the Admiralty records, and the houses of public officials who had given offence by accepting the objectionable Act. Hutchinson, the Lieutenant-Governor and Chief-Justice of Massachusetts, was maltreated; while Oliver, the Secretary of the province, who had accepted the post of Stamp-Distributor, was hung in effigy on a tree in the main street of the town, his house destroyed and himself compelled by the threatening crowd to resign his new appointment, and to swear--beneath the tree where his effigy swung in the breeze--that under no circumstances would he ever resume it. The rioters were supported by the overt sympathy of their countrymen. Mayhew, a popular preacher, chose for the text of a sermon, "I would that they were even cut off which trouble you"; the Governor, who had arrested a prominent merchant, one of the ring-leaders of the disturbances, was compelled to release him, under threat from the civic guard that otherwise they would disband themselves; while some other imprisoned citizens were set free by the mob, which forced the gaolers to surrender the keys. November 1, when the Stamp Act came into operation, was kept as a day of mourning. The bells were muffled and tolled and mock funerals passed through the streets; copies of the Act were hawked through the towns with the title of "England's Folly and the Ruin of America"; while the newspapers appeared with a death's-head in place of the stamp which by the new measure they had to bear. Boston was content to hoist half-mast the colours of the shipping in its harbour, but Philadelphia spiked the government guns in the town and in the barracks, and other towns displayed their resentment in similar practical ways.[17] [17] Almon: _Collection of Papers_. It was found impossible, however, to distribute the stamps; nay, more, it was impossible even to keep them, for the rioters kept strict watch and as each box was landed, wrested it from the authorities, and consigned it to the flames. The Governor of New Jersey had to request that the stamps should be kept on a man-of-war, while on November 7, Francis Bernard, the Governor of Massachusetts, informed Admiral Lord Colville that such was the "increasing licentiousness" of the people that he feared that he would be obliged to quit his post. The position indeed was untenable. Every legal document to be valid required a stamp, but there was no stamped paper to be had. The law courts could proceed only with criminal cases, for which no stamps were required; and business was at a standstill, until the Governors, realizing the danger of allowing this state of affairs to continue, on the ground that it was impossible to secure stamps, issued certificates to the merchants permitting them to send their ships on voyages without complying with the Act. Not content with this licence, however, the Council of Massachusetts went so far as to enter a resolution in their journals that it was lawful to transact business without stamps.[18] A more fatal blow to the mother-country was delivered by the principal colonial merchants, who agreed in solemn conclave to order no more goods from England, to cancel all orders already given, and to send no more remittances to England in payment of debts until the Stamp Act was repealed--which last resolution could be excused only on the ground that all is fair in war. [18] Stedman: _History of the American War_; Andrews: _History of the American War_. Opposition in the colonies had been fanned by the change of government at home. The news of Grenville's fall in July had been received with delight, and the joy was intense when it became known that in the succeeding Rockingham administration, Conway, who had opposed the Stamp Act, had accepted the office of Secretary of State for the southern department. The occurrences in America were, however, still viewed with indifference in England, and the King in a letter to Conway, dated December 5, was one of the first to sound the note of alarm. "I am more and more grieved at the accounts of America. Where this spirit will end is not to be said. It is undoubtedly the most serious matter that ever came before Parliament; it requires more deliberation, candour, and temper than I fear it will meet with."[19] The trouble was alluded to in the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament on December 17. "Matters of importance," it was said, "had lately occurred in some of the colonies in America, which demand serious attention"; but such a reference was resented by George Grenville and his supporters, who attacked ministers for attempting to gloss over the recent events in America as "matters of importance," when, as a matter of fact, they contended, the colonies were in a state of rebellion. [19] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_. In spite of the conviction in America that General Conway would remove the obnoxious tax, ministers were undecided what course to pursue, and when at last they realized the seriousness of the position, they found themselves face to face with only a choice between the disconcerting tasks of repealing the Stamp Act or enforcing it at the point of the sword. They were not given long to decide, for pressure was brought to bear upon them by the great body of English merchants who were suffering from the suspension of the American trade. Petitions were presented from London, Liverpool, Glasgow and other manufacturing towns, pointing out that the debts that America refused to discharge amounted to four millions sterling--an eighth of the entire amount was owed to Glasgow shippers by the states of Maryland and Virginia alone--that further orders were withheld, and that consequently, artisans were thrown out of work, and many merchants would shortly be reduced to bankruptcy. The only remedy for this disastrous state of affairs, the petitioners represented, was a speedy repeal of the Stamp Act. It remained, however, for Pitt to force the hands of the new administration. "My resolution is taken," he wrote to Nuthall[20] on January 9, 1766; "and if I can crawl or be carried, I will deliver my mind and heart upon the state of America." Pitt stated his opinion very openly in the debate on the Address, when he declared that England had no right to lay a tax on the colonies, although the authority of England over them was sovereign and supreme in every case of legislation. [20] Thomas Nuthall, died 1775, appointed by Rockingham Solicitor to the Treasury, 1765. "The colonists are subjects of this kingdom equally entitled with yourselves to all the national rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally bound by its laws and equally participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans are the sons, not the bastards, of England. Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. Taxes are the voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation, the three estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the Crown to a tax, is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law; the gift and grant is of the Commons alone. In ancient days, the Crown, the barons, and the clergy possessed the lands. In those days the barons and the clergy granted to the Crown, they gave and granted what was their own. At present, since the discovery of America, and other circumstances permitting, the Commons are become the proprietors of the land; the Church has but a pittance; the property of the Lords, compared with that of the Commons is as a drop of water in the ocean; and this House represents those Commons, the proprietors of the lands; and those proprietors virtually represent the rest of the inhabitants. When, therefore, in this House we give a grant, we give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what do we do? We, your Majesty's Commons for Great Britain, give a grant to your Majesty, what? Our own property? No; we give a grant to your Majesty the property of your Majesty's Commons of America. It is an absurdity in terms. The distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty. The Crown, the peers, are equally legislative powers with the Commons. If taxation be a part of simple legislation, the Crown, the peers, have rights in taxation as well as yourselves; rights which they will claim, which they will exercise when the principle can be supported by power.... The commoners of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession, in the exercise of this, their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it. At the same time this kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws, by her regulations and restrictions, in trade, in navigation, in manufactures; in everything, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would draw the line, '_quam ulira citraque requit consistere rectum_.'" George Grenville at once spoke to oppose this view, only to bring down upon him a scathing attack from Pitt. "The gentleman tells us that America is obstinate; that America is almost in open rebellion. Sir, I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people so dead to all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to have made slaves of all the rest." The Great Commoner's uncompromising declaration of the inability of the English Parliament legally to tax the colonies, however, was not allowed to escape criticism. Burke[21] opposed the theory, "Junius" attacked it, and in the House of Lords Lord Mansfield denied it; while, later, Macaulay denounced it. "The Stamp Act," he said, "was indefensible, not because it was beyond the unconstitutional competence of Parliament, but because it was unjust and impolitic, sterile of revenue, and fertile of discontent."[22] [21] In this debate Edmund Burke, who was at the time Secretary to the Prime Minister, made his first speech, upon which he was congratulated by Pitt, who said, "It was seasonable, reasonable, and eloquent." Through it he first sprang into fame, but when some one expressed surprise at this sudden elevation, Dr. Johnson, who knew Burke and of course had read "The Vindication of Natural Society" and "On the Sublime and Beautiful," exclaimed, "Sir, there is no wonder at all. We, who know Mr. Burke, know that he will be one of the first men in the country." [22] _Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham._ Whether Pitt was right or wrong, his influence was such that Lord Rockingham realised the importance of conciliating him.[23] [23] "The events of yesterday in the House of Commons have shown the amazing power and influence which Mr. Pitt has whenever he takes part in debate."--Lord Rockingham to the King. At the same time, however, the Prime Minister desired to steer a middle course, and eventually resolved to repeal the Stamp Act, but to preface the measure by a Declaratory Act, enunciating the undoubted right of Parliament to make laws binding the British in all cases. Benjamin Franklin, examined before a Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the American question, while denouncing the Stamp duty as impolitic and injurious to the colonies and expressing his belief that his countrymen would never submit to it in any form, unless compelled by arms, expressed his opinion that, while nothing would induce the Assemblies to revoke their resolutions, they would not object to an act asserting the abstract rights of Parliament to impose taxes as long as the Stamp Act was repealed. Rockingham, thus encouraged, thereupon introduced the Declaratory Act, not because he had any liking for it, but because in his opinion many people of high principles would never have been brought to repeal the Stamp Act without it.[24] "It was not the inclination of Lord Rockingham," said Charles James Fox some years later, "but the necessity of his situation, which was the cause of the Declaratory Act. The Act passed the House of Commons without a division, and, in the House of Lords, when Lord Camden insisted on a division, there were only four peers who voted with him 'non-content.'"[25] [24] _Life of Lord Camden._ [25] _Chatham Correspondence._ "My position is this. I repeat it. I will maintain it to my latest hour. Taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on the laws of nature. It is more. It is an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own is absolutely his own. No man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or his representatives. Whoever attempts to do so attempts an injury. Whoever does it commits a robbery. He throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery."--Lord Camden in the House of Lords, February 24, 1766. The House of Commons had on January 21 given leave to Conway to bring in a bill to repeal the Stamp duty, and had rejected by 275 to 167 Grenville's amendment to substitute "explain and amend" for "repeal." The Bill was read for the first time on February 21 and in the long and fierce debates that ensued Grenville took an active part in defence of his measure. "It was," said Horace Walpole, "too much to give up his favourite Bill and his favourite occupation, talking, both at once." Though vigorously contested to the end, the Bill passed the lower chamber, and was on March 4 carried to the House of Lords, where, says George Onslow, it met "with not quite so civil a reception as such a bill, so carried in our House, and so conveyed as it was, by a hundred and fifty members to the other House, did, in my opinion, deserve." After two divisions, each of which resulted in a majority for ministers, the Bill passed the House of Lords and on March 18 received the Royal Assent, "an event that caused more universal joy," Burke said, "throughout the British dominions" than perhaps any other that can be remembered, and left Grenville to lament that "it was clear that both England and America were now governed by the mob." CHAPTER XIV THE KING _versus_ ROCKINGHAM AND THE REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT Though in his farewell interview with Grenville, in answer to a question of the departing minister as to how he had incurred his Majesty's displeasure, the King stated that his late ministers had put too much "constraint" upon him, and instead of asking or tendering advice, had expected obedience, Grenville insisted in attributing his fall to the machinations of Lord Bute--and this in spite of the fact that George assured him that Lord Bute "had no hand in advising the present change."[26] [26] _Grenville Papers._ [Illustration: _Photo by Emery Walker._ _From a portrait after Sir Joshua Reynolds_ CHARLES WATSON WENTWORTH, SECOND MARQUESS OF ROCKINGHAM _To face p. 26, Vol. II_] There is scarcely any doubt that the King spoke the truth, for his dislike of Grenville was alone sufficient to explain his desire for a change of ministers. "I had rather see the devil in my closet than George Grenville", he said emphatically; and though in later years he spoke with some appreciation of Grenville's talents, he could never bring himself to forgive the minister's conduct in the last weeks of his administration. Grenville, however, was by no means alone in his belief that Bute was even so late as July, 1766, a member of the King's private junto.[27] The Rockingham Whigs believed it, and made it a condition of their taking office that Lord Bute neither directly nor indirectly should interfere in affairs of state. Walpole declared that the Lord Strange episode early in 1776[28] "proved that notwithstanding all his Majesty's and Lord Bute's own solemn professions, the latter was really Minister still; and that no favour could be obtained but by paying court to him. In such circumstances is it wonderful that the nation fell into disgrace and confusion, or that the Crown itself suffered such humiliations? A King to humour a timid yet overbearing Favourite, encouraging opposition to his own Ministers? What a picture of weakness!"[29] [27] "Lord Northumberland's son, Lord Warkworth, having married Lord Bute's daughter, was admitted to the King's private junto, which met daily at this time at Mr. Stow's. It consisted of Lord Bute, Lord Northumberland, Lord Mansfield, Sir Fletcher Norton, Mr. Stow, and Mr. Stow's brother, the Primate of Ireland."--_Rockingham Memoirs, 1765._ [28] See _supra_, vol. ii, pp. 41-2. [29] _Memoirs of George III._ The Duke of Richmond, too, was a firm believer in the Bute bogey. "I was told that Lord Bute went this day about noon to his own house at Kew. He did not go to the common road over the bridge, but came by riverside in his coach; from his own garden he crossed alone to that of the Princess of Wales's at Kew. The King also about the same time went to the Princess of Wales's at Kew, and stayed there two hours. 'Tis remarkable, that 'tis said that the Princess was not herself at Kew, so that this was not accidental, but evidently a meeting of the King's with Lord Bute settled so beforehand." So runs an extract on July 7, 1766, in the Duke of Richmond's _Journal_; and five days later appears a corroborative entry: "The King at about eleven went to the Princess at Kew, although she was not there. At about one, Lord Bute was seen coming from Ealing by a by-road, so that 'tis probable he had again been to meet his Majesty at Kew. Lord Bute had been at Luton between the Monday and the Saturday; and Martin, who came to London from thence on Thursday or Friday, knew nothing of Mr. Pitt's being sent for; but that proves clearly only that Lord Bute did not tell it him; it seems clear, though, that he knew it by these two meetings with the King, and doubtless he advised it." The weak point of these statements is that the Duke of Richmond does not state his authority, who, it seems probable, was merely a hired spy, not unlikely to so report what he thought would best please his employers.[30] [30] For a full investigation of this question, see Jesse: _Memoirs of George III_. (Second edition, 1867; vol. I, p. 360 _et supra_.) Even so late as 1782, about the time of the formation of the second Rockingham administration, Walpole states that, "It was thought the King saw Lord Bute on that occasion."[31] The truth probably is that Bute never saw the King in private after Lord Rockingham accepted office, and in confirmation of this may be quoted a letter of Lord Bute and a statement addressed by his eldest son, Lord Mountstuart, to the newspapers in October, 1778. "I know as little, save from newspapers, of the present busy scene, as I do of transactions in Persia," Bute wrote to Lord Hardwicke on July 26, 1766, when Lord Chatham became Prime Minister, "and yet am destined for ever to be a double uneasiness, that of incapacity to serve those I love, and yet to be continually censured for every public transaction, though totally retired from courts and public business." "He, Lord Bute, does authorize me to say," so ran the circular letter of Lord Mountstuart, "that he declares upon his solemn word of honour that he has not had the honour of waiting upon his Majesty but at his _levée_ or Drawing-room; nor has he presumed to offer an advice or opinion concerning the disposition of offices, or the conduct of measures either directly or indirectly, by himself or any other from the time when the late Duke of Cumberland was consulted in the arrangement of a ministry, 1765, to the present hour." [31] _Last Journals._ This is supported by Brougham, who states explicitly that the King, after the period specified, never had any connexion with Lord Bute directly or indirectly. "Nor did he ever see him but once; and this history of that occurrence suddenly puts the greater part of the stories to flight which are current upon this subject. His aunt, the Princess Amelia, had some plan of again bringing the two parties together; and on a day when George III was to pay her a visit at her villa at Gunnersbury, near Brentford, she invited Lord Bute, whom she probably had never informed of her foolish intentions. He was walking in the garden when she took her nephew downstairs to view it, saying there was no one there but an old friend of his, whom he had not seen for some years. He had not time to ask who it might be, when on entering the garden he saw his former minister walking up an alley. The King instantly turned back to avoid him, reproved the silly old woman sharply, and declared that, if ever she repeated such experiments, she had seen him for the last time in her house."[32] [32] _Historical Sketches of Statesmen._ It is further related by Galt, how the Princess Dowager and Lord Bute laid a plan to take the King by surprise, "so that Lord Bute should, as if by chance, obtain permission to see the first dispatches received by the King while at Carlton House; it being frequently the custom for the Secretary of State to transmit them at those periods. When the green box was brought to the King, he, as usual, was about to retire to read the papers contained therein, when 'The Favourite' took up two candles, and made as if to precede the King to his closet, in the hope that, when there, he would be invited to remain and acquaint himself with the contents of the documents, by which means he might informally return to political business. But the young monarch was on his guard," says the chronicler, "and stopping at the door of his apartment, took the candles himself, bowed dismissal to the candidate, and shut the door: a hint fully understood, and considered as a final rejection." This episode presumably took place in the latter part of 1765, after which year we are assured, when his Majesty was announced at Carlton House, Bute always retired by the private staircase.[33] [33] _George III, his Court and Family._ * * * * * The offer made to Lord Rockingham to form a government took most people by surprise, for that peer had not been marked out as a Prime Minister, being, indeed, in the public eye associated less with politics than with the turf, and distinguished chiefly by his singular wager with Lord Orford on a race between two geese at Newmarket. Devoid of ambition, he had no craving for power, and was reluctant to accept office when that course was proposed to him by the Duke of Cumberland, who detected in him sterling ability, which, however, was not visible to the King. "I thought that I had not two men in my Bedchamber of less parts than Lord Rockingham,"[34] said the sovereign, who later twitted the Prime Minister with his silence in Parliament: "I am much pleased the Opposition has forced you to hear your own voice, which I hope will encourage you to stand forth in other debates."[35] [34] Walpole: _Memoirs of George III_. [35] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_. The Rockingham administration was undeniably weak--"a lutestring ministry, fit only for summer wear," Charles Townshend called it. The Duke of Grafton, one of the Secretaries of State, was unreliable, and Conway, the other, whose courage on the field was imperturbable,[36] on the Treasury Bench was infirm of purpose; while the Duke of Newcastle, who had reluctantly yielded his claim to the Treasury and accepted the post of Lord Privy Seal (to which, as a propitiatory gift, was for the nonce attached the patronage of the Church), and Lord Winchelsea, President of the Council, were old men. Every effort was made to secure the support, or at least the neutrality, of Pitt, and, with this object in view, places were found for his friends--the Duke of Grafton and General Conway, as already mentioned, were made Secretaries of State, his brother-in-law, James Grenville, was appointed Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, and his confidential legal adviser, Nuthall, one of the Secretaries of the Treasury, while Lord Lyttelton was offered the post of Cofferer of the Household, and Chief Justice Pratt was raised to the peerage as Baron Camden. Pitt, however, had no kindly feeling for an administration that divided the Whigs, and, though not actually hostile, he let it be clearly known that he had no confidence in it. "The openings from Lord Rockingham to your Lordship and Colonel Barré, you will easily believe do not surprise me," he wrote in reply to Lord Shelburne in December, 1765; "nothing being so natural as for ministers, under the double pressure of affairs all in confusion, and doubtful internal situation to recur to distinguished abilities for assistance." [36] "I don't pretend to be like Henry Conway, who walks up to the mouth of a cannon with as much coolness and grace as if he was going to dance a minuet."--George Stanhope. It was not long after this letter was written that Lord Rockingham, in the desire to counteract the dislike of the Court and to convert a part of the strong opposition into supporters, obtained the reluctant consent of the King to make overtures to Pitt to join the ministry. "I have resolved, most coolly and attentively, the business now before me," George wrote to Lord Rockingham on January 9, "and am of opinion that so loose a conversation as that of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Townshend is not sufficient to risk either my dignity or the continuance of my administration, by a fresh treaty with that gentleman, for if it should miscarry, all public opinion of this ministry would be destroyed by such an attempt." Rockingham, however, was firm, and pointed out that, "Your Majesty's administration will be shook to the greatest degree, if no further attempt is made to get Mr. Pitt to take a cordial part, is much too apparent to be disguised."[37] The King's objection however, was amply justified, for, as he had anticipated, Pitt refused to introduce his opinion, unless in the royal presence and by the royal command, an offer which was declined by the Prime Minister, who sought an ally and not a successor.[38] Not content with the rejection of Lord Rockingham's overtures, Pitt dealt a blow at the ministry when he publicly stated he had no confidence in it. "Pardon me, gentlemen, confidence is a plant of slow growth in an aged bosom; youth is the season of credulity," he said in his speech in the debate on the Address, January 14. "By comparing events with each other, reasoning from effects to causes, methinks I plainly discover the traces of an over-ruling influence.[39] There is a clause in the Act of Settlement obliging every minister to sign his name to the advice which he gives to his sovereign. Would it were observed! I have had the honour to serve the Crown, and if I could have submitted to influence, I might still have continued to serve; but I would not be responsible to others." [37] Albemarle: _Memoirs of Rockingham_. [38] _Chatham Correspondence._ [39] Dr. Hunt believes that the "over-ruling influence" Pitt thought he detected was that of the Duke of Newcastle. In the endeavour to secure the repeal of the Stamp Act Lord Rockingham had more to contend against than a refractory House of Commons, for the King threw the weight of his influence against the measure, and though this was not openly avowed, yet it militated none the less effectually against the administration. That George interfered in this matter has been denied by some writers, but the best authorities, almost without exception, agree that this was the case, and, indeed, a perusal of the memoirs of those who were concerned in the American question confirms this view. Nicholls remarks: "Lord Rockingham repealed the Stamp Act, and from that hour the King determined to remove him";[40] but as a matter of fact George's efforts to displace the Prime Minister dated from the day he became acquainted with the latter's determination to carry the repeal; and, as will be seen, he left no stone unturned to achieve his object. "From a
{'title': 'Farmer George, Volume 2 by Lewis Melville', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}