Read Ebook: The History of England in Three Volumes Vol.III. From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria by Farr Edward Nolan E H Edward Henry

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 4290 lines and 1147757 words, and 86 pages

IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

There was great occasion for his majesty's advice to the members of parliament, but they were powerless to effect that which he desired, and which was a "consummation devoutly to be wished" by every lover of good order. During this summer, discontent was more prevalent than at any preceding period of this reign. The disputes with the Americans, and the expulsion of Wilkes from his seat in parliament, had the effect of keeping the public mind in a state of constant excitement. This latter cause gave the greater umbrage to the people, because a man was sitting in his place who was supported only by a minority. This involved a constitutional right of great importance, and a question was mooted, whether expulsion constituted disqualification during the current parliament. The pen of Dr. Johnson was employed in proving the affirmative; his chief argument being, that the power of disqualification was necessary to the house of commons, for otherwise expulsion would not be a real, but a nominal punishment. Other pens were employed in proving the contrary; and among them was that of Junius, whose argument rested on the axiom that political expediency does not prove existing law, and who defied his opponents to produce any statute applicable to the subject. Junius also argued that, although the house of commons could expel, the concurrence of every branch of the legislature was necessary to incapacitate. Junius, whose extraordinary powers as a writer on politics have rarely, if ever, been surpassed, was the most bitter antagonist of the present government. The Middlesex election was eagerly embraced by him as an opportunity of advancing the great object he had in view--namely, that of the restoration of the Whig aristocracy to power. He dipped his pen in gall for this purpose, attacking the Duke of Grafton's administration with virulent invective and energetic eloquence, if haply he might effect its overthrow. He marred his fame, however, by an exhibition of personal resentment against individual members of the cabinet, and by putting forth foul calumnies from his secret hiding-place against the highest characters in the realm. Political writers may be bold in uttering truth, but when they use slander as one of their most powerful weapons, then they sink their characters as men, and forfeit their claim to be heard by society. But this was not the opinion in those days of turbulent excitement. Junius was heard and heeded by the mass, and though he did not break up the administration, which was the main object he had in view, his writings had the effect of confirming the people in their opposition to government. Faction was so prevalent that ministers sought to counteract it by procuring loyal addresses from various parts of the country. Only four counties, a few corporations, and the two universities responded to their call; while, on the other hand, numerous petitions of a contrary tendency, were got up without any difficulty. Discontent ruled dominant before the legislature reassembled, both in the city of London, and throughout the whole country. With a view of embarrassing government, Alderman Beckford was again elected to the mayoralty, although some ancient by-laws forbade the same person to be chosen twice within the space of seven years. This objection was urged, but overruled by precedents. Ministerial troubles grew on every side. Ireland, as well as England and America, was in a state of trouble and commotion. At this time it was overrun by Levellers, White-boys, Oak-boys, and Hearts-of-Steel--factions which were bound together by secret oaths and a mutual detestation of tithes. Nor was the Irish parliament less disorderly. In the month of October a bill was brought into the Irish house of commons for increasing the military establishment in that country, which was recommended by the lord-lieutenant, and although it was carried, it was not till after it had encountered a violent opposition. In the month of November, also, the Irish commons claimed the right of framing all money-bills, which hitherto had been sent over to them by the English cabinet. They rejected the one sent over this year, and although they voted a more liberal supply of their own freewill, the lord-lieutenant would not recognise the newly-claimed right. He called it a violation of the law, and an encroachment upon the king's prerogative. He entered his protest against it, and he then suddenly prorogued parliament before it had done any business. Thus his majesty was surrounded by troubles in almost every part of his dominions. England, Ireland, and America were all arrayed against him, and insubordination was the order of the day. What made his situation more critical was, that he had not a minister of sufficient ability to guide the helm of the state, so as to keep it clear from the rocks and the shoals by which it was surrounded.

The Affairs of America..... Meeting of Parliament..... Dissolution of the Grafton Cabinet..... Debates on the Middlesex Election, &c...... The Question of Controverted Elections..... Debates on America..... Release of Wilkes..... American Affairs..... Riots at Boston..... The Prorogation of Parliament..... Remonstrance of Beckford to the King..... Prosecution of Woodfall and Almon..... Disputes respecting Falkland Islands..... Affairs of America..... Meeting of Parliament..... Debate concerning the Falkland Islands..... Parliamentary Proceedings on the Law of Libel..... Quarrels between the Lords and Commons..... Convention with Spain...... Changes in the Ministry.

THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

It has been seen how the Americans were affected by the Declaratory Bill, which accompanied the repeal of the Stamp Act. Had government been wise, their disaffection would have taught its members to have devised some conciliatory measures in order to prevent the threatened outbreak. The conduct of the government, however, was the very reverse from this. Instead of allaying the discontents of our colonists, ministers increased them by resolving to enforce what they called the Mutiny Act. This was carried hurriedly through the house at the close of the session; and though the consequences of such a course must have been as clear as daylight, yet ministers resolved to put it into execution. For the Mutiny Act was, more properly speaking, an act for quartering and better providing for the troops at the expense of the colonies. It gave power to the military to billet themselves on private houses, as was done in the war, and therefore was naturally offensive to the whole of the American population, whether friendly or adverse to the English government. It was calculated to make foes of friends, and to confirm those who were already foes, in their opposition to the mother country. The design of this measure, doubtless, was to overawe the colonists; but the spirit of freedom had taken too deep root in America thus to be overawed. Matters, in truth, grew worse and worse daily in that country. The minds of the Americans had been chafed to such a degree by their original grievances, and the measures which had been adopted to enforce their quiescence, that they became every day more and more disaffected toward the English government. How full fraught the country was with rebellion became manifest on the arrival of the newly-formed American board of commissioners, at Boston, to enforce the payment of the duties recently imposed upon them, and to put an end to smuggling. In the preamble to Charles Townshend's Act, the colonists read, that these duties were laid "for the better support of the government, and the administration of the colonies;" and in the bill itself they found a clause which seemed to empower the king, by sign manual, to establish a general civil list in every province in North America, with salaries, pensions, and everything that could be obnoxious to a free-thinking people. This was instantly declared to be unnecessary, unjust, and dangerous to the rights of Americans; while the establishment of a civil list in America, independent of the assemblies, was pronounced illegal. Measures were taken by the people of Boston for putting into effect the non-importation agreements, which had been before suggested; the press was employed to demonstrate the iniquity of the taxing acts; and the assembly of Massachusets addressed a circular letter to all the other colonies to invite them to combine in taking measures to defeat the obnoxious act. Every assembly, except that of New Hampshire, adopted the sentiments and the plan contained in the circular of the assembly of Massachusets, and passed votes of thanks to the authors of it. How effective it was in exciting opposition is manifest from the following circumstance. Bernard, the governor of Massachusets, was instructed to require the house of representatives to rescind the resolution which gave birth to the letter, and to declare the king's disapprobation of it. But instead of rescinding the resolution, it received the emphatic confirmation of the assembly. This reply was sent to the governor:--"If the votes of this house are to be controlled by the direction of a minister, we have left us but a vain semblance of liberty. We have now only to inform you that this house have voted not to rescind, and that, on a division on the question, there were ninety-two nays, and seventeen yeas."

The next day, Governor Bernard received positive instructions to dissolve the assembly of Massachusets. But it was in vain that the arm of power sought to quell the general disaffection: when employed it had only the effect of making the colonists more resolute in their opposition. Associations and committees were formed in most of the provinces, and smuggling was carried on in the broad face of day. Some months before, one Malcolm had fought with the custom-house officers, and had landed sixty pipes of Madeira at Boston without paying duty. In the month of June another cargo arrived at Boston, and when the excise-officer stepped on board he was seized and confined below, while the wine was sent on shore. The officer was afterwards liberated, and on the following morning the skipper of the sloop entered four or five pipes at the custom-house, declaring that this was the whole of his cargo. Aware of the falsehood of this statement, the commissioners ordered a comptroller to seize the sloop, and to fix the king's broad arrow upon her. This was the signal for a riot. A mob, headed by Malcolm, beat and nearly killed several of the revenue officers, and the commissioners themselves were compelled to seek safety in flight. The sloop was, however, seized; the excise being assisted by the captain of the Romney man-of-war, then lying at anchor off Boston. This was on a Friday, and the two following days were comparatively quiet, but on Monday an immense mob gathered in the streets at Boston, and placards were stuck up, calling upon the "sons of liberty" to meet on the following morning. At this meeting a committee was appointed to wait upon the governor, to inquire why the sloop had been seized? This committee pretended that it was an affront offered to the town of Boston to act thus arbitrarily, since the sloop might have been left in safety at the wharf. The committee affected likewise to disapprove of the riot, and some few of the ringleaders were sought for and found, under the pretence of bringing them to condign punishment. But the whole was a farce. Malcolm, the smuggler, and others of a similar stamp, sate upon the grand jury, and quashed all prosecution.

In the month of September a committee waited upon Governor Bernard, praying him to convene a general assembly. Then it was that they were informed that a military force was coming; and that, consequently, another assembly could not be convened till the governor had received the commands of his majesty. The inhabitants of Boston now resolved, at the peril of their lives and fortunes, to take all legal and constitutional measures to defend the rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities granted in their royal charter. They also agreed, that a certain number of persons should be chosen to act for them as a committee in convention, and to consult and advise with such as might be sent from other towns in the province. Finally, they fixed a convention, to be held in Faneuil-hall, on the 22nd of September, and voted that all the inhabitants not provided with arms should be requested to obtain some forthwith, as there was an apprehension in the minds of many of an approaching war with France.

The convention met on the day appointed. It consisted of deputies from eight districts and ninety-six towns, and its chief business was to petition the governor, make sundry loyal professions, and express an aversion to tumults and standing armies. Its deliberations were cut short by the arrival of the troops, under Colonel Dalrymple, who anchored in Nantasket Roads, near Boston. The governor requested the town-council to provide quarters for these troops in Boston, but they refused; stating, that by act of parliament all troops were to be quartered in the barracks, and that it was illegal to bring them into the town. Colonel Dalrymple led his soldiers to the common on the outside of Boston, and the town-council was again requested to quarter them in the town, which they again refused. He had two regiments under his command, and one of these took possession of Faneuil-hall--the other lay out on the cold common all night. On the evening of the next day, however, the governor ordered the town or state-house to be opened to the other regiment; and the soldiers took possession of every part of it, except the great council-chamber. These proceedings excited deep resentment, and when the governor and Colonel Dalrymple required the council to provide barrack provisions, as regulated by the Mutiny Act, the request was flatly refused. Still the inhabitants of Boston repressed their vindictive feelings. Care was taken by them, however, to make known their injuries, and the insults to which they were subjected in every part of British America. The picture they drew was, doubtless, exaggerated; but that they had grievances there can be no question. At all events they found the sympathy they desired in the various states of America. The Philadelphians, the Georgians, the Rhode-Islanders, and, in short, all the other colonies and towns, with the single exception of Portsmouth, the sole sea-port of New Hampshire, now followed their example, as regards the non-importation of goods from Great Britain. The very females of America partook of the general spirit of resistance; for they entered into associations among themselves, proscribing the use of tea. Some there were among the merchants who showed a reluctance to comply with the terms of the agreement; but their houses were surrounded by organised mobs, and they were compelled to give up trade rather than risk the forfeiture of their property and lives by selling British goods.

Thus encouraged, the Bostonians became more bold in their opposition to government. The assembly being called together in May, 1769, a committee from the house of representatives remonstrated with the governor, complaining of an armament investing their city--of the military guard--of cannon pointed at the door of their state-house--and requesting him, as his majesty's representative, to order the removal of the ships and the troops. The answer they received was, that he had no authority over his majesty's ships, or over his troops, within the town of Boston. A few days after the house declared that the use of a military force in the execution of the laws was inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, and that they would not transact any business while thus menaced by soldiers. In order to obviate this objection to business, the governor adjourned the assembly to Cambridge, a town separated from Boston by a narrow arm of the sea, but they were not more disposed for business at Cambridge than at Boston. The only vote passed by them was to this effect:--"That the establishment of a standing army in this colony in time of peace is an invasion of natural rights; that a standing army is not known as a part of the British constitution; that sending an armed force into the colony, under a pretence of assisting the civil authority, is highly dangerous to the people, unprecedented, and unconstitutional." When requested by the governor to make provision for the troops, after an indignant denunciation of the Mutiny Act, and observing, that of all the new regulations, not excepting the Stamp Act, this was the most unreasonable, they thus declared their resolution:--"Your excellency must excuse us in this express declaration--that as we cannot consistently with our honour and our interest, and much less with the duty we owe to our constituents, so we never will make provision for the purposes in your several messages mentioned." Finding the assembly thus refractory, the governor prorogued them, taking his leave in the following terms:--"To his majesty, therefore, and if he pleases, to his parliament, must be referred your invasion of the rights of the imperial sovereignty: you need not be apprehensive of any misrepresentations, as it is not in the power of your enemies, if you have any, to add to your publications--they are plain and explicit and need no comment. It is my duty, and I shall do it with regret, to transmit to the king true copies of your proceedings: and that his majesty may have an opportunity to signify his pleasure thereon before you meet again, I think it necessary to prorogue this general court immediately, to the usual time of the winter session."

Before governor Bernard prorogued the assembly, his majesty had requested his presence in England for the purpose of ascertaining the real state of the province; at the same time testifying his approbation of his conduct, and as a mark of his favour, creating him baronet. Sir Francis left the colony on the 1st of August, and at his departure, the powers of government devolved on lieutenant-governor Hutchinson, a native of the province; a man of great abilities, but influenced in his conduct by a grasping ambition, and an inordinate love of office and aggrandisement. On his return, Sir Francis had no very favourable report to make of his province. Notwithstanding every precaution had been adopted, smuggling was still carried on to a very great extent. The Bostonians had even adopted the practice of tarring and feathering all informers, or all who attempted to assist the government: a brutal operation, which was often attended with a violence that destroyed life. Nor was smuggling carried on in the province of Boston alone. Associations against British commerce were organized to such an extent, that the exports to America were found to fall short of those in the preceding year by ?740,000, and the revenue derived from that country was reduced from ?701,000 to ?30,000. In this the Americans were aided by other countries, who sent them their manufactures in great abundance, so that the narrow views of ministers not only destroyed the resources of Great Britain, but tended to enrich its commercial and political rivals. This greatly alarmed the English merchants, and Lord Hillsborough thought proper to issue a circular letter to the colonies, stating that his majesty's ministers intended, during the next session, to take off the duties upon glass, paper, and painters' colours, they having been enacted contrary to the true principles of commerce. No mention, however, was made of the duty upon tea, and the Americans looked upon this omission as having been purposely and invidiously made, as a mark of the legislative supremacy of Great Britain. Nothing, moreover, was said about repealing the odious clauses in the Mutiny Act, and the colonists likewise complained that the circular spoke of commercial expediency, and not of the right which they claimed of imposing taxes upon the colonies by their own act alone In truth, if this circular was intended to conciliate the inhabitants of British America, it was a total failure. The universal mind was too much irritated to be soothed by such an impotent palliative.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Although America was almost in a state of open rebellion, and England itself, with Ireland, were rent with faction, yet the parliament did not assemble till the 9th of January. This delay naturally excited surprise, and this was still further heightened by the tenor of the king's speech. Taking no notice of the public discontents, though it feelingly lamented the general distress, it chiefly adverted to a general distemper which had broken out among the horned cattle, which the king gravely assured the lords and commons, he had, by the advice of his privy-council, endeavoured to check. And this was solemnly uttered when wits and scoffers abounded on every hand--when Junius had his pen in his hand full fraught with gall, and Wilkes was bandying about his bon-mots and sarcasms. "While the whole kingdom," says Junius, in a letter to the Duke of Grafton, "was agitated with anxious expectation upon one great point, you meanly evaded the question, and instead of the explicit firmness of a king, gave us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier." Never was a speech from the throne more unfortunate, indeed, than this, for though it slightly adverted to the disturbances in America, yet the subject of the disease existing among horned cattle was its prominent feature. It was no wonder, therefore, that it became the jest of the whole nation. Newspapers, pamphlets, and periodicals teemed with biting sarcasm on this most extraordinary circumstance. The king's love of farming was bitterly descanted upon, and he was represented as attending to cows, stalls, dairies, and farms, while his people were misgoverned and discontented, and his empire, like a ship in a furious storm, in danger every minute of being dashed to pieces. In fine, to show the most profound contempt of such a speech from the mouth of the monarch, at such a season, the session was nicknamed "the horned cattle session."

Before the opening of parliament, one day the Earl of Chatham stalked into the drawing-room of St. James's, and after the levee had some private conversation with the king. What passed between them is unknown, but Horace Walpole says, that his reception was most flattering, and the king all condescension and goodness. It does not appear, however, that the interview satisfied Chatham, for it by no means tended to soften his opposition. When parliament met, indeed, he took his place in the house of lords, vigorous and more eloquent than ever, and the administration was doomed to feel his power, like that of a giant refreshed with wine.

The address, which was moved in the upper house by the Duke of Ancaster, and seconded by Lord Dun-more, was as general and unmeaning as the king's speech. Chatham rose to reply, and after glancing at his age and infirmities, he took a general review of measures since the year 1763. There never was a period, he asserted, when the serious attention of the house to public affairs was more imperatively demanded, and he boldly maintained that it was the duty of their lordships to lay the true state and condition of the country before his majesty. After indulging in a quiet sneer at the care the council had bestowed upon horned cattle, he remarked, that he was glad to hear that the king had reason to believe the peace of the country would be preserved, since peace could never be more desirable to a kingdom, than when it was torn to pieces by divisions and distractions, as England was at the passing hour. He then criticised the last treaty with France and Spain, asserting that England had not obtained what she had a right to expect from the success of our arms, and the feeble condition of our enemies. He also maintained, that having deserted our ally the King of Prussia, we had left ourselves without alliances on the continent, and, consequently, had been every moment on the verge of a new war, during a seven years' peace. This war, he said, might be unavoidable, and must be unfavourable to England, as the princes of the house of Bourbon, while we stood in an isolated position, had become closely united among themselves, and had formed the closest connexion with the powers of Europe. He, however, lamented still more the unhappy acts which had severed the affections of the American colonists from Great Britain; and the internal discontents of the country. To these he earnestly called the attention of their lordships, since their privileges, however transcendent and appropriate in themselves, stood in fact on the people as a basis. The rights of the highest and the meanest subject, he said, had the same foundation, the security of the law, which was common to all. He maintained that the liberty of the subject was invaded both at home and in the colonies, and that the people who were loud in their complaints, would not be pacified without a redress of their grievances. Liberty, he observed, was a plant that deserved to be cherished; that he loved the tree himself, and wished well to all its branches; that, like the vine in scripture, it had spread from east to west, had embraced whole nations with its branches, and sheltered them under its leaves. Concerning the discontents of the colonists, he conceived that they arose from the measures of government. These had driven them into excesses which could not be justified, but for which, he, for one, was inclined to make some allowance. As to their combinations, and their success in supplying themselves with goods, this, he said, had alarmed him for the commercial interests of the mother country, but he could not conceive in what sense they could be deemed illegal, or how the house by any declaration could remove the evil. Other remedies must be looked for, as the discontents of two millions of people could only be removed by a removal of their causes. Finally, on the subject of discontent in England, he attributed it to the proceedings of the house of commons in the matter of Mr. Wilkes, and he concluded by submitting the following amendment:--"That after the words, 'and which alone can render our deliberations respectable and effectual,' be inserted these words, 'and for these great and essential purposes, we will, with all convenient speed, take into our most serious consideration the causes of the discontents which prevail in so many parts of your majesty's dominions, and particularly the late proceedings of the house of commons, touching the incapacity of John Wilkes, Esq., expelled by that house, to be elected a member to serve in this present parliament, thereby refusing, by a resolution of one branch of the legislature only, to the subject his common right, and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a representative."

This amendment was opposed by Lord Mansfield, he considering that it was a gross attack on the privileges of the commons, and calculated to create a quarrel between the two houses, or between the king and the commons. A question, he said, relating to the seat of a member, could only be determined by the house itself, whose judgment was final, and must be received as the law of the land. The arguments which he used in his speech to support his opinions were ably answered by Chatham. The noble lord began his reply by extolling common sense above subtilty and ingenious refinement. The constitution had been invaded, and he heard with astonishment that invasion defended on principle. He denied that the commons had a supreme jurisdiction, or that its decision must be received as the law of the land; for why, he pertinently asked, were the generous exertions of our ancestors made to secure and transmit to their posterity a known law and a certain rule of living, if, instead of the arbitrary power of a king, we must submit to that of a house of commons? Tyranny was detestable in any shape, but especially when exercised by a number of tyrants. But that, he triumphantly asserted, was not the fact or the constitution of England, and he pointed out where the law of parliament might be found by every honest man; namely, in Magna Charta, in the statute-book, and in the Bill of Rights. The first principle of the constitution is, he observed, that the subject shall not be governed by the will of any man or body of men, but by the whole legislature, and by certain laws to which he has given his assent: laws which were open to him to examine, and not beyond his ability to understand. He then denounced the late decision as destitute of every condition essential to its legality, and as being unsupported by reason, precedent, Magna Charta, or the Bill of Rights. Whether it be questioned by the legislature, he continued, will depend on the resolution of the house; but that it violates the constitution, no man who had listened to the debate could deny. He then expressed his confidence in the wisdom and constitutional authority of the house, and after praising the ancient nobility as founders of the constitution, and invoking the house to follow their brilliant example, he thus concluded:--"Those iron barons--for so I may call them when compared with the silken barons of modern days--were the guardians of the people; yet their virtues were never engaged in a question of such importance as the present. A breach has been made in the constitution--the battlements are dismantled--the citadel is open to the first invader--the walls totter--the constitution is not tenable. What remains, then, but for us to stand foremost in the breach, to repair, or to perish in it?"

The address in the house of commons was moved by Sir George Osborne In opposition, Mr. Dowdeswell moved for the insertion into the address of words, intimating the necessity of inquiring into the causes of the prevailing discontents in every part of his majesty's dominions. The debate on this motion was most violent, and lasted many hours. Colonel Barr? observed, "that a great part of the king's subjects were alienated from him; England was in opposition to its own representatives; in Ireland the parliament was prorogued because it had supported the true constitutional right of taxation; the colonies were in actual rebellion on account of taxes confessedly imposed, not for gain, but as a mere test of obedience; and, perhaps to crown the whole, France was on the eve of a war with us." The Marquis of Granby expressed his regret for having, in the preceding session, voted with ministers on the question of the disqualification of Mr. Wilkes, and wished the house would re-examine their resolution. General Conway opposed the amendment; and Lord North, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Charles James Fox took the same side of the question, and the amendment was rejected by a majority of 254 to 138. Another warm debate arose on the morrow, on the question of receiving the report of the address. Sir William Meredith said, that thanking the king for his approbation of their conduct would imply an approval of the vote respecting the Middlesex election. Sir George Sackville accused the house of betraying the rights of the people; and being threatened with the tower by General Conway, he was defended by Sergeant Glynn and Mr. Burke, the latter of whom dared ministers to punish Sir George, and told them that they were abhorred by the people. Thus supported, Sackville repeated the charge, and he was followed by Fox, who deprecated the licentious language introduced in the house. Burke replied, but there was no division.

DISSOLUTION OF THE GRAFTON CABINET.

Before the declarations made by Lord-chancellor Camden in the house of lords, his conduct had been so displeasing to his colleagues that he was not consulted in any of their measures, and he had not even a voice in the preparation of the king's speech. When, therefore, he stood openly forward as an opponent of the cabinet, it was not to be expected that the seals would be long left in his possession. The opposition knew this, and their only fear was that he would anticipate ministers by a spontaneous resignation, and thereby free the ministers from the odium which they would obtain from the public by his dismissal. Camden, however, seems to have had no thoughts of taking such a step, and the ministers had no alternative left but to remove him from office. Accordingly he was dismissed, and Lord Shelburne's prediction was literally verified--the great seals went a begging. The Honourable Charles Yorke, indeed, reluctantly accepted them, but before his patent of peerage could be completed, he committed suicide, and the government had to seek another chancellor. The seals were successively offered to Sir Eardley Wilmot and Lord Mansfield, who would not accept them, and nothing remained but to put them in commission, and to appoint a speaker in the house of lords in the interim. This latter office was accepted by Lord Mansfield, and some time after, Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe, one of the barons of the exchequer; the Honourable Henry Bathurst, one of the justices of the common pleas; and Sir Richard Aston, one of the justices of the king's bench, were appointed commissioners. But the embarrassment of government did not end here. While business was suspended in the house of lords by the want of a chancellor, it was also suspended in the commons by the illness of the speaker, Sir John Cust. Moreover, the removal of Lord Camden was followed by the resignation of his friend Mr. Dunning, the solicitor-general; of the Marquess of Granby, as master-general of the ordnance, and commander-in-chief of the forces; of Mr. James Grenville, who held the office of one of the vice-treasurers for Ireland; and of several noblemen who held offices in the household. The greatest blow to the existence of the ministry seems to have been the resignation of Granby--a blow which the king and the ministers in vain sought to avert. Urged by some of the leading members of the opposition, who as earnestly desired him to adopt this line of conduct, as the king and his ministers entreated him not to resign, he gave up everything except his regiment--the Blues. The ordnance was then offered to General Conway, who refused to accept any of "Lord Granby's spoils," and the fragment of the ministry still left in office had to brave the storm of opposition as they best could.

After the adjournment which had taken place during these changes, on the 22nd of January, the Marquess of Rockingham moved in the house of lords, that the house should, on the 24th, take into consideration the lamentable state of the nation. In reply, the Duke of Grafton remarked, that he did not intend to oppose this inquiry, and that he was ready at any time to enter into the question. The Earl of Chatham then rose, and in a long and eloquent speech, complained of a breach made in the constitution. There was a capital mischief fixed at home, which corrupted the very foundation of our political existence, and preyed upon the very vitals of the state. "The constitution," he exclaimed vehemently, "has been grossly violated--the constitution at this moment stands violated! Until that wound be healed, until the grievances be redressed, it is in vain to recommend union to parliament--in vain to promote concord among the people. If we mean seriously to unite the nation within itself, we must convince them that their complaints are regarded, that their injuries shall be redressed. On that foundation I would take the lead in recommending peace and harmony to the people. On any other I would never wish to see them united again. If the breach in the constitution be effectually repaired, the people will of themselves return to a state of tranquillity; if not, may discord prevail for ever! I know to what point this doctrine and this language will appear directed; but I feel the principles of an Englishman, and I utter them without apprehension or reserve. The crisis is indeed alarming--so much the more does it require a prudent relaxation on the part of government. If the king's servants will not permit a constitutional question to be decided on according to the forms, and on the principles of the constitution, it must then be decided in some other manner; and rather than it should be given up--rather than the nation should surrender their birthright to a despotic minister, I hope, my lords, old as I am, I shall see the question brought to issue, and fairly tried between the people and the government." The Earl of Chatham next offered some severe remarks on the surrender of Corsica, the augmentation of troops in Ireland, the arrears of the civil list, the waste of the public revenues, and the evils arising from the riches of Asia. "The importers of foreign gold," said he, "have forced their way into parliament by such a torrent of private corruption, as no private hereditary fortune could resist." He then offered several suggestions on the propriety of a reform in parliament--suggestions, he observed, not crude and undigested, but ripe and well-considered, as the subject had long occupied his attention. His scheme was, not that the rotten boroughs should be disfranchised, though he considered them as the rotten part of the constitution; nor that the unrepresented towns should be allowed members, though he admitted that in them great part of the strength and vigour of the constitution resided--but that each county should elect three members instead of two, he considering that the knights of the shires approached the nearest to the constitutional representation of the country, because they represent the soil. At the same time, he recommended that the city representatives should be augmented, and that in increasing the number of representatives for the English counties, the shires of Scotland should be allowed an equal privilege, in order to prevent any jealousy which might arise from an apparent violation of the union. In concluding his speech, he proclaimed his coalition with the Marquess of Rockingham, whom, on a previous occasion he had overthrown as an incapable statesman; justifying the union formed between them, on the grounds that it was formed for the good of the country; or, in his own words, "to save the state."

It must be admitted that the scheme of parliamentary reform divulged by the Earl of Chatham was by no means enlightened or impartial. In it no allowance was to be made for the growing importance of the commercial and manufacturing interests, the landed interests alone were consulted, and the country gentlemen, who had never been celebrated for liberal measures in their legislation, were to crowd the house of commons, and to decide upon the affairs of the nation. The Earl of Chatham himself, at a later period, seems to have doubted the efficacy of his plan of reform, for he admitted that the knights of the shires or the country members of the house of commons, "were not the most enlightened or spirited part of the house." All history, indeed, tends to prove that such a plan of reform would have proved abortive, so far as regards the liberty and well-being of the great body of the people, and the perfecting of the theory of the English constitution, so far as to make its political practice agree with its principles. There can be no question, indeed, but that all other interests would have been secondary to that of the agricultural in the consideration of a parliament thus constituted; whereas the aim of an enlightened legislature should be to secure the interests of every section of the community, whether agricultural, commercial, or manufacturing.

The Earl of Chatham signified his intention of supporting the Marquess of Rockingham on the 24th, when the great question mooted by him was to be discussed. On that day, however, it was announced that he was too ill to attend, and Rockingham also was distressed in mind by the melancholy suicide of the Honourable Charles Yorke. Under these circumstances, he moved the adjournment of the question to the 2nd of February, which was granted by the house; but before that time the Duke of Grafton, harassed by these commotions and scourged by the press, especially by the writings of Junius, had resigned his office, and the king had committed the charge of government to Lord North. At the same time, the state of the health of Sir John Cust, having induced him to resign the speaker's chair, Sir Fletcher Norton was elected his successor. The Earl of Halifax, moreover, was appointed privy seal in the room of Lord Bristol; Mr. Wellbore Ellis was selected to be a vice-treasurer in Ireland; Charles Fox was made a lord of the admiralty; and Mr. Thurlow was created solicitor-general instead of Mr. Dunning. There were a few minor substitutions and interchanges of offices, but these were the principal; and Lord North's ministry was, therefore, for the most part a continuation of that of the Duke of Grafton. The Marquess of Gran by's places of the ordnance and commander-in-chief were left vacant for the present, and the great seal was left in commission, with the commissioners already named.

DEBATES ON THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION, ETC.

Lord North, with whose administration commences a momentous era in the annals of Great Britain, was eldest son to the Earl of Guildford. In private life he was one of the most amiable and worthy of men, and he was a man of elegant acquirements. In public life, also, he was scarcely less honoured. Brought up amidst official duties, and aiming constantly at legislatorial distinction, he had acquired eminent skill in managing a debate, while his good humour and equanimity of temper secured to him a greater share of esteem and affection than was perhaps ever possessed by any other minister. Yet his estimable qualities and his political skill had not sufficient potency to disarm opposition. In the very outset of his administration, indeed, the opposition made him feel that he had not taken possession of a bed of roses; or, at least, roses without thorns. The principal object of the late debates in the house of lords was to procure a vote in favour of the Middlesex electors: with the same end in view, Mr. Dowdeswell now moved another resolution in the commons; namely, "That by the law of the land, and the law and usage of parliament, no person eligible of common right can be incapacitated by a resolution of the house, but by an express act of parliament only." This undeniable proposition placed ministers in a dilemma, for it was only a prelude to others, and if they agreed to it and rejected those that followed, they would seem to resist conclusions from premises they had themselves conceded; while if they rejected it, it would appear as if the house of commons was a capricious court; a court neither bound by law nor by the usages of parliament. The debate on the question was one of great violence; and in the course of it, Colonel Barre compared the state to a vessel in a storm which had parted with her mainmast and was trying to sail under a jury-mast . The new premier acknowledged that the storm was great, but asserted that the ship was not compelled to hang out lights for pilots, as her own crew were capable of conducting her safely into port. And so it proved. North avoided the snare laid for him by moving as an amendment, "That the judgment of the house on the Middlesex election is conformable to law and the usage of parliament," which was eventually carried by a large majority.

On the 2nd of February, pursuant to notice, the Marquess of Rockingham made a similar motion to that of Mr. Dowdeswell in the house of lords. He moved, "That the house of commons, in the exercise of its judicature in matters of elections, is bound to judge according to the law of the land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which is part thereof" This was opposed by Lord Sandwich on the ground of improper interference with the lower house, which, if aggrieved, had the means of redress in its own power. Lord Sandwich was answered by Lord Chatham. In the course of his speech, Sandwich had alluded to the expulsion of Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, and the great Lord Bacon, "for certain crimes and misdemeanours," from which he argued that the peers now ought to take no more notice of the expulsion of Wilkes, than the commons then had taken notice of the expulsion pronounced by their lordships on the above-named noble offenders. To this point Chatham replied: "Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case. They affected only themselves: the rights of no constituent body were affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes we complain of; as an individual he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of complaint, the great cause is, that the inherent rights and franchises of the people are in this case invaded, trampled upon, annihilated. Lord Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county or city: the rights of no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their expulsion!" In his speech, Chatham declaimed with great severity against the gross dereliction of principle shown by the commons. They were, indeed, he said, the proper protectors of their own rights and privileges; but he lamented that they had, by their recent conduct, forgotten those privileges, and had added to the long list of venality from Esau to the present day. The vote of the commons which made Colonel Luttrell representative for Middlesex, he maintained, was a gross invasion of law and of the rights of election; a dangerous violation of the constitution; a treacherous surrender of privileges; and a corrupt sacrifice of honour. He added, that to gratify the resentment of certain individuals, the laws had been despised and destroyed, and that since the commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his majesty's ministers, and proved themselves corrupt, it was necessary for their lordships to step forward and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the justly incensed and intemperate rage of the people, and, on the other to the criminal and malignant conduct of his majesty's ministers: their lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes of liberty and prerogative. The house was excited, but the motion was negatived by a large majority. On the ministerial side, the Earl of March-mont then moved, "That any resolution of the lords directly or indirectly impeaching a judgment of the house of commons, in a matter where their jurisdiction is competent final, and conclusive, would be a violation of the constitutional right of the commons, tend-, ing to make a breach between the two houses of parliament, and leading to general confusion." In his speech, the Earl lost his temper and his discretion, imprudently hinting that if the opposition went one step further it would be necessary to call in the aid of Foreign assistance. He was called to order by the Duke of Richmond, and when he attempted to explain, he found himself unable, and Lord Mansfield was compelled to relieve him, by declaring as a lawyer and a statesman, that their lordships had no right to interfere in any determination of the commons. The Earl of Egmont pursued the same course, and declared that the people were guilty of treason in offering such petitions as they had recently offered to his majesty. The Earl of Chatham again rose, and after thanking Lord Egmont in an ironical strain for his lenity in allowing the petitioners to wear their heads, he defended the petitions as praiseworthy and constitutional, and re-asserted that the house of lords had a right to interfere, when either an invasion of the people's liberty was attempted, or an unconstitutional determination made. This was in reply to the statement of Lord Mansfield, and he then praised the abilities of that nobleman at the expense of his honour, honesty, and patriotism. Chatham next complained of the ministerial motion, and of the late hour--for it was midnight--at which it had been made. He proposed an adjournment for two days. "If," he exclaimed, "the constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at this dark hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only felons and assassins are seeking for prey." Ministers, however, seem to have acted upon the well-known adage, that "delays are dangerous." The adjournment was rejected, and at two o'clock in the morning Marchmont's motion was carried. Protests were entered against both decisions, the former being signed by forty-two, and the latter by forty peers.

Similar discussions led to similar results in the house of commons. On the 5th of February a debate was there entered upon, in which the opposition urged that the expulsion of Wilkes had been determined by ministers in council, and a motion was also made to bring in a bill to regulate and define the consequences of expulsion from the house; but the ministers in each instance were victorious. The exertions of the opposition, however, were warmly supported by a large majority of the liverymen of London, who busied themselves in getting up memorials and remonstrances, and hence they were nothing daunted by their repeated defeats. Ministers were, indeed, attacked upon other points of their policy besides the matter of Wilkes Thus, on the 2nd of March, Lord Craven, acting with the opposition, moved an address to the throne, beseeching his majesty forthwith to take proper steps for such an increase of seamen in the royal navy as should effectually preserve the honour and security of his; majesty's kingdom and colonies. This was made the medium of severe censures on the dismissal of able officers for their votes in parliament, and also on the entire management of the navy. Earl Chatham supported the motion, and condemned the conduct of ministers in this particular branch of the national service, as base and unworthy. In his speech he again adverted to his favourite topic; that of the secret influence which was at work near the throne. This influence he denounced as dangerous, base, unconstitutional, and wicked; and maintained that it had occasioned all the unhappiness of the nation, and created confusion in the government of the colonies. He then asserted that this invisible influence was still working for evil, for although the favourite was gone to Turin, Mazarine absent was Mazarine still; and his influence by means of agents was potent as ever. Then, raising his voice, he exclaimed, "This country was sold at the late peace! We were sold by the court of Turin to the court of France!" Chatham then indirectly accused the king of insincerity and treachery to himself, personally, during the time that he was minister; asserting that after he had given his approbation to plans and measures one week, he would let them vanish into air the next, and that all his promises and assurances were broken through an in-invisible influence. The king was defended by the Duke of Grafton, who hinted that the intellect of Chatham was affected; but this only drew forth a repetition of the accusation in stronger language. "I rise," said he, "neither to deny nor retract, nor to explain away the words I have spoken. As for his majesty, I have always found him everything gracious and amiable in the closet; so amiably condescending as to promise, in every repeated audience, not only to forgive, but to supply the defects of health by his cheerful support, and by the ready assistance of all his immediate dependents. Instead of this, all the obstacles and difficulties which attended every great and public measure did not arise from those out of government: they were suggested, nourished, and supported by that secret influence I have mentioned, and by the industry of those very dependents; first by secret treachery, then by official influence, and afterwards in public councils. A long train of these practices has at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself."

THE QUESTION OF CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS, ETC.

Ever since the famous Aylesbury case, in 1704, the house of commons had been sole judge of the qualification of electors, and of all other matters regarding the election of their own members. All controverted elections were tried before a committee of the whole house, the members not being bound to impartiality, either by oath, promise, or pledge. On the 2nd of April, Mr. George Grenville brought in a bill for regulating the trial of controverted elections, which provided that, in every case, the judicature should be transferred from the house to a sworn committee of fifteen members, whereof thirteen were to be chosen by the contesting claimants for the seat, out of a list of forty-five chosen by ballot by the whole house, and the other two named by the contesting parties themselves; one for each. The committee were to have full power to examine witnesses, papers, and records, and their oath bound them to a strict impartiality. This bill met with stern opposition from the ministers, and at one stage it was moved by Mr. Welbore Ellis, that it should be rejected, which was seconded by Mr. Charles Fox; but the bill was eloquently defended by Burke, and it passed into a law. It was carried up to the lords by Mr. Grenville on the 5th of April, where, as Lord Mansfield had expressed his approbation of it, and promised its support, no opposition was feared. It passed unanimously, and it seems to have had a very beneficial effect on the legislature.

Previously to the passing of this act, a bill was proposed by Mr. Dowdeswell to disqualify officers of the excise and customs from voting at elections The mover stated, that both classes were under the influence of the crown, and that the departments of the revenue were becoming so numerous as to render that influence incompatible with a free constitution. There was no attempt, however, to prove corruption, and the motion was rejected, as unfair in its attempt to deprive individuals of the rights of British subjects, on the mere presumption of venality. An act at the same time was passed for altering the law of privilege, so far as it extended to the effects and domestics of the members of either house. In the house of lords this bill was warmly supported by Lord Mansfield, and as warmly opposed by Lord Sandwich, who argued, that it was an encroachment upon the privileges of the peers. An inquiry into the accounts of the civil list, during the year 1769, was a popular subject in both houses about the same time. The expenses having greatly increased, it was inferred that the money was employed in the corruption of electors. Ministers opposed this inquiry, arguing, that as the civil list was solely the revenue of the crown, the crown had a right to expend it as it pleased; and that if an additional grant had been asked, then, and not till then, the expenditure might have been investigated, for the purpose of ascertaining the necessity of the grant, and how the money was spent. The motion was negatived, and other attempts to interfere with the management of the king's revenue met with a similar fate.

The debate in the house of lords on this question is rendered remarkable by the eloquent speech uttered by the Earl of Chatham. In the course of this speech he asserted that the minister who was bold enough to spend the money of the people before it was granted, though it might not be used for the purpose of corrupting their representatives, deserved death. Fie was reminded that he, too, when in office, had granted pensions, to which he replied, "It is true, and here is a list of them: you will find there the names of General Amherst, Sir Edward Hawke, and several others of the same nature--they were given as rewards for real services, and as encouragements to other gallant heroes. They were honourably earned in a different sort of campaign than those at Westminster; they were gained by actions full of danger to themselves, of glory and of benefit to this nation--not by corrupt votes of baseness and of destruction to their country. You will find no secret service there; and you will find that, when the warrior was recompensed, the member of parliament was left free. You will likewise find a pension of ?1,500 a year to Lord Camden. I recommended his lordship to be chancellor; his public and private virtues were acknowledged by all; they made his station more precarious. I could not reasonably expect from him that he would quit the chief-justiceship of the common pleas, which he held for life, and put himself in the power of those who were not to be trusted, to be dismissed from the chancery perhaps the day after his appointment. The public has not been deceived by his conduct. My suspicions have been justified. His integrity has made him once more a poor and private man; he was dismissed for the opinion he gave in favour of the right of election in the people." Here the noble orator was interrupted by loud cries of "To the bar, to the bar," and Lord Marchmont moved that his words should be taken down. Chatham himself seconded this motion: "My words," he thundered forth in an indignant tone, "My words remain unretracted, unexplained, and reaffirmed. I desire to know whether I am condemned or acquitted, and whether I may still presume to hold up my head as high as the noble lord who moved to have my words taken down." Chatham paused for a reply, and none being given, he continued, "I will trust no sovereign in the world with the means of purchasing the liberties of the people. When I had the honour of being the confidential keeper of the king's intention, he assured me that he never intended to exceed the allowance which was made by parliament, and therefore, my lords, at a time when there are no marks of personal dissipation in the king--at a time when there are no marks of any considerable sums having been expended to procure the secrets of our enemies--that a request of an inquiry into the expenditure of the civil list should be refused, is to me most extraordinary. Does the King of England want to build a palace equal to his rank and dignity? Does he want to encourage the polite and useful arts? Does he mean to reward the hardy veteran who has defended his quarrel in many a rough campaign, whose salary does not equal that of some of your servants? Or does he mean, by drawing the purse-strings of his subjects, to spread corruption through the people, to procure a parliament, like a packed jury, ready to acquit his ministers at all adventures? I do not say, my lords, that corruption lies here, or that corruption lies there; but if any gentleman in England were to ask me whether I thought both houses of parliament were bribed, I should laugh in his face and say, 'Sir it is not so.'" Chatham concluded by saying that an inquiry into the state and expenditure of the civil list was proper, just, and expedient; and that a refusal of it would elicit ridicule and exhibit folly. Nevertheless the motion was negatived.

DEBATES ON AMERICA.

A petition was presented to parliament by the English merchants trading with America, representing that, in consequence of the duties and taxes, the discontents of the Americans, and their combinations to prevent the importation of goods from England, their trade had gone to ruin; and praying for the intervention of the legislature. In consequence of this, a bill was proposed by Lord North, to repeal all the American taxes and duties except tea. In proposing this repeal he censured the Revenue Act only as an inexpedient or unproductive impost, and not as an illegal or impolitic claim. The duty on tea, he said, was continued to maintain the right of taxing the Americans, and it could not be supposed that an impost of three pence per pound on an article from which one shilling was deducted when exported to America, would offend the colonists, unless they were determined upon a rebellion. Mr. Grenville, the parent of the Stamp Act, argued that he had at least acted systematically, and that in imposing the stamp duties he had reason to think that they would be paid. The succeeding ministry, he said, had repealed that act, but had re-affirmed the right of parliament to tax the colonies, by laying duties upon unwise and anti-commercial principles: duties which were far more odious to the colonies than his Stamp Act. His opinion was, therefore, that the ministers must now give up, or stand by the whole. A partial repeal, he added, will not do: the Americans would not rest satisfied with any thing short of the renunciation by parliament of the right to tax them in any way, either externally or internally. In this General Pownall coincided, and he proposed as an amendment, that the repeal should be extended to all articles, as the only way of quieting the colonies. This amendment was supported by General Conway, Colonel Barre, and Sir William Meredith, but it was rejected, and leave was given to bring in North's bill. A subsequent motion to repeal the duty on tea was also lost, and the act passed according to North's first proposal.

RELEASE OF WILKES.

When this bill was lost, the Earl of Chatham demanded that the house should be summoned on the 4th, as he had a motion to make of great importance relative to the king. On the day appointed, his lordship moved, "That the advice inducing his majesty to give the answer to the late address, remonstrance, and petition of the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of London, was of a most dangerous tendency, inasmuch as thereby the exercise of the rights of the subject to petition the king for redress of grievances, to complain of violations of the freedom of election, to pray dissolution of parliament, and to point out malpractices in administration, to urge the removal of evil ministers, etc., had been indiscriminately checked with reprimand; and the afflicted citizens of London had heard from the throne itself, that the contents of their humble addresses could not but be considered by his majesty as disrespectful, injurious, etc." The noble lord said that an answer so harsh as this exceeded all precedent in the history of this country; that the very essence of the constitution not only permitted, but required petitioning; and that the Stuarts themselves never dared to prevent the practice. He then eulogized the lord mayor and the liverymen of London, and in conclusion, pronounced Colonel Luttrell as a mere nominee thrust in by the enemies of the law and constitution. The motion was negatived by a large majority.

AMERICAN AFFAIRS.

On the 1st of May, the opposition in the house of commons called for the correspondence of the American colonies, and subsequently Mr. Burke moved eight resolutions relating to the troubles in those colonies, and censuring the plan ministers were pursuing. The previous question was carried against the first of these resolutions, the second, third, and fourth were negatived, and the previous question was carried against the remainder. Similar resolutions were moved in the house of lords by the Duke of Richmond; but they were all negatived by a large majority. On the 14th, however, nothing daunted, the Earl of Chatham coupled the discontents of America with those in England and Ireland, and founded a motion on them for an address to dissolve the parliament. He moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, most dutifully and earnestly beseeching him, that in the dangerous state wherein his kingdoms are involved, from the high dissatisfactions generally prevailing at home, and from the most alarming disorders which have unhappily manifested themselves in his American dominions, his majesty will, in his great wisdom and necessary care, to prevent more fatal mischiefs, be graciously pleased to take the recent and genuine sense of his people, by dissolving this present parliament, and calling, with all convenient dispatch, a new parliament." In his speech he declared that the house of commons had not the confidence of the people; and in speaking of the mode of reforming that assembly, he said, "Instead of depriving a county of its representatives, one or more members ought to be added to its representation, in order to counter-balance the weight of corrupt and venal boroughs." The house, however, would not listen to his arguments: a loud cry of "Question, question," was raised, and the motion was rudely negatived. But if Chatham was not listened to in parliament, he was venerated for his recent opposition to the measures of government by the people. On the same day, the common council of London carried a vote of thanks to him, for the zeal he had exhibited in support of their sacred privileges and the right of election; and also for his declaration that he would use his best endeavours to restore the house of commons to its purity, by shortening the duration of its term, and introducing a more equal representation.

RIOTS AT BOSTON.

While both houses of parliament were carrying on a wordy war, matters had assumed a more serious aspect in America. Committees had been appointed in nearly all the principal sea-ports of the colonies, to examine cargoes arriving from Great Britain, and to report to their constituents how far the act of association was carried into effect, or how far infringed Meetings of the association were regularly held at Faneuil Hall, Boston, and votes of censure were passed upon all who introduced or sold any of the prohibited goods. The names of such offenders were, indeed, regularly published in the newspapers, with comments appended to them, holding them up to the public as selfish slaves and traitors. A few, however, it would appear, were permitted to make a market, by selling the prohibited articles, which could only be purchased from their shops; and this becoming notorious, one Theophius Lillie, a tradesman at Boston, resolved to sell what was thus sold by others. In order to point him out as one whose shop was to be shunned, the mob placed a rude figure at his door, and a person named Richardson, either a friend or a servant of Lillies, attempted to remove the nuisance, and being defeated in his design by the mob, who pelted him with stones, he took up a loaded gun and fired upon his assailants from within doors. The shot killed a boy, who was forthwith recorded in the newspapers as the first martyr in the cause of liberty. He was, in truth, the first that was sacrificed, but the blow proceeded from the hand of a persecuted American, and not from the hand of an Englishman. It was not long, however, before the English were involved in quarrels with the Americans, which resulted in the loss of life. The boldness of the Bostonians seems daily to have increased after the above-mentioned incident. It was in vain that merchants implored even to keep the goods they had imported in store, as if bonded, until the duties in England should be repealed: they were compelled to send them back to those who had shipped them. At the same time, it was shrewdly suspected that several of the Bostonian leaders still imported and sold goods largely; or, at least, permitted goods to be imported in their vessels. The people of New York, indeed, taxed the Bostonians with unfair and selfish dealings, and renounced the non-importation agreement. This gave rise to mutual recrimination between these two states: the New Yorkers called the Bostonians pedlars, and the Bostonians said that the New Yorkers were no patriots. At the same time, the Bostonians were fierce in their hatred of the English government and its measures. If they acted with duplicity in the matter of trade, they were at least consistent in their denunciations against all connection with England. The soldiers quartered in Boston were subject to constant insults from them, and were continually interrupted in their duty. All classes conceived that as they had not been called in by the civil magistrates of the place, that their presence was illegal, and that every means employed to hasten their departure, or make their stay uncomfortable was laudable. Hence, no sentinel could stand in his place without being insulted; and it was too much to expect from human nature, that the soldiers should suffer continual insult without retorting upon theis adversaries. Some alleged that Colonel Dalrymple and his officers should have kept their men separate from the inhabitants; but this could not have been done, except by keeping them prisoners in their quarters, and by discontinuing the practice of mounting guard at the government offices. It was easy to foresee, therefore, that sooner or later disastrous consequences would ensue. And this was rendered more certain, because government had not sent a sufficient number of troops to keep the populace of Boston in awe. As soon as the arrival of troops at Boston was known at home, General Pownal had pointed out the error, stating that if they intended to govern the country by military force, they had not sent sufficient troops; and that if they did not intend this, they had sent too many. The people of Boston, he said, were set in array against the military; that though the sword was not drawn, it was ready to leap from the scabbard; and that though the word for action was not yet given, mischief was on tip-toe, and the slightest circumstance would set it on foot. These remarks were founded in truth. The Boston newspapers gave insertion to a fictitious narrative of a defeat of a body of soldiers by the people of New York, and to a series of fictions which represented the English troops as a set of poltroons who would quail before the sons of liberty. While these reflections were fresh in the minds of the soldiers, one of them was involved in a quarrel, and was beaten by several Bostonians, who were rope-makers belonging to the establishment of Mr. John Gray. Incensed at the ill-treatment he had received, twelve of his comrades returned with him to the spot and fell upon the rope-makers, and compelled them to take refuge in flight. This served as a prelude to a more serious conflict. Meetings were held by the mob, who decided upon attacking the soldiers, and driving them out of Boston. The day appointed for this was the 5th of March, and on the evening of that day parties from all quarters assembled, armed with sticks and clubs, and made an attack upon some of the troops in Dock-square. An officer appeared, who ordered the men to their bai--racks, and they with difficulty escaped thither. They were followed by the mob, who dared them to come out; and their rage increasing, the mob began to tear up the stalls of the market-place in Dock-square, and swore that they would attack the main-guard. Some peaceable citizens exerted themselves to allay their fury, and they had well nigh succeeded in persuading many of them to retire, when a tall man in a red cloak and white wig appeared among them, and incited them by a brief harangue to carry out their design. His discourse was followed by shouts of "To the main guard! To the main guard! We will destroy the soldiers!" The mob then separated into three divisions, each of which took separate roads. One of these divisions in their route passed by the Custom-house, and a boy pointing to the sentinel on duty there, asserted that he was the man who had knocked him down. A loud cry was instantly raised to kill him, and the sentinel loaded his gun by way of intimidating them. Nothing daunted, however, they first pelted him with every thing that came to hand, and then, seeing his reluctance to fire, closed upon him, and compelled him to retreat to the door of the Custom-house. He sought admittance, but those within were afraid of opening the door, and the sentinel then shouted for assistance to the main guard which was within hearing. A corporal and six privates were sent by Captain Preston to his rescue, while he followed at a short distance. Their guns were unloaded; but as they advanced, they found the mob increasing, and were pelted so pitilessly by them on every hand, and so grossly insulted by opprobrious language, that they loaded them and fixed on their bayonets. Still they were reluctant to fire; and when the mob pressed in upon them, they merely used their weapons to keep them off. At length a certain mulatto named Crispus Attucks, with others dressed like sailors, gave three cheers, hemmed in the soldiers, and struck at their muskets with clubs, exclaiming to those behind, "Come forward, they dare not fire; let us kill them, etc." Attucks aimed a blow at Captain Preston, who was begging the rioters to desist, and keeping his men quiet, and in doing so he not only hit the Captain on his arm, but struck down one of the men's muskets, and then seized his bayonet. Some persons behind Captain Preston now urged the soldiers to fire, and the private whose musket had been knocked out of his hand having recovered it, fired at the mulatto, who fell mortally wounded. The other soldiers now successively fired off their pieces, and three persons were killed, while others were wounded more or less dangerously. The mob retreated, but they re-collected in an adjoining street, with dreadful yells, and the drums beat to arms. It seemed as if a combat of the fiercest kind was about to take place; but certain persons who had been gliding about the mob, urging them on to acts of violence, now thought proper to persuade them to retire. The storm was hushed for that night; but early in the morning the mob again collected in large numbers. At the same time, the lieutenant-governor held a council, and the magistrates and chief citizens met in full assembly, and chose a committee. The committee soon waited upon the governor and council, and declared that nothing could restore peace to the town but the immediate removal of the troops. Colonel Dalrymple proposed that the 29th regiment, whose men had been engaged in the riot, should remove to Castle William, and that the 14th regiment should remain. This was reported to the assembly; but another deputation demanded the total and immediate removal of all the troops, as the only means of tranquillizing the town. The governor was told that he must not think the demand proceeded from a set of vagabonds, for that people of the best character were determined, that if the troops were not voluntarily removed, they should be expelled by force. A force of ten thousand men, it was stated, were at their beck, and these were determined to destroy the troops if not removed, albeit it might be called rebellion. The governor first flatly refused to accede to this demand; he then wavered in his determination, and finally he agreeded to divide the responsibility of removing them with Colonel Dalrymple and the members of the council, and the troops were ordered to march to Castle William. Thus successful the Bostonians grew more bold in their opposition to the English government. The newspapers represented the affair of the 5th of March as a deliberate murder on the part of the troops, and nothing was neglected to exasperate the public mind and perpetuate the memory of "the bloody and inhuman massacre." Yet when Captain Preston and his men were put upon their trials, American judges and a jury from among the citizens of Boston, were compelled to admit that they had acted only in self-defence. Their verdict was, that Captain Preston and six of the solders were not guilty, and that two, Montgomery, who shot Crispus Attucks, and Killroy, who was proved to have shot another man, were not guilty of murder but of manslaughter only. These two prayed the benefit of clergy, which was allowed, and each being burnt in the hand in open court, they were discharged like their comrades. In the course of the trial, Judge Lynde declared that the affair turned out to the disgrace of every person concerned against Captain Preston, and to the shame of the people of Boston in general.

THE PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

News of the disturbances in Boston arrived before the close of this session; but hopes being entertained that the late bill would have the effect of conciliating the Americans, it was deemed proper to abstain from any investigation, lest it should relight the torch of discord. The session terminated on the 19th of May.

REMONSTRANCE OF BECKFORD TO THE KING.

The answer which the king had given to the good citizens of London at the presentation of their recent memorial had given them great umbrage, and on the 23rd of May, the lord mayor and some aldermen, with a numerous train, went again to St. James's with another petition, complaining of this answer. The address stated that it was, as well as the general acts of government, "against the clearest principles of the constitution, and the result of insidious attempts made by evil counsellors, to perplex, confound and shake the rights of the people." It concluded with a renewed demand for the dissolution of parliament, and the removal of the present ministers. The king replied that it was his duty to express dissatisfaction at their last address, and that his sentiments on the subject were still the same. It was anticipated that the deputation would not be very graciously received, and that the king would not retract his former sentiments. Hence a remonstrance had been prepared in the shape of a reply, and to the astonishment of the court, Beckford, instead of retiring with the usual etiquette from the royal presence, approached the throne, and thus addressed the king: "Most gracious sovereign, will your majesty be pleased so far to condescend, as to permit the mayor of your loyal city of London to declare in your royal presence, in behalf of his fellow-citizens, how much the bare apprehension of your majesty's displeasure would at all times affect their minds. The declaration of that displeasure has already filled them with inexpressible anxiety and with the deepest affliction. Permit me to assure your majesty, that your majesty has not in all your dominions any subjects more faithful, more dutiful, or more ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in the maintenance of the true honour and dignity of your crown. We do therefore, with the greatest humility and submission, most earnestly supplicate your majesty that you will not dismiss us from your presence, without expressing a more favourable opinion of your faithful citizens, and without some comfort, or at least some prospect of redress." Had the remonstrance stopped here, Beckford might have obtained the smiles of the king; but he continued: "Permit me, sire, to observe, that whoever has already dared, or shall hereafter endeavour by false insinuations and suggestions to alienate your majesty's affections from your loyal subjects in general, and from the city of London in particular, is an enemy to your majesty's person and family; a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy constitution, as it was established at the glorious Revolution." Beckford prayed for a reply, but none being given, the deputation withdrew. The king appears, indeed, to have been too angry to reply with courtesy, for he immediately issued orders, through the medium of the lord chamberlain, that lord mayors should in future confine themselves to delivering their papers, and not presume to make speeches. But if Beckford did not please the king, he gained great credit with the people for his conduct. The Earl of Chatham warmly applauded him for asserting the rights of the city with weight and spirit. On the other hand, the king increased his unpopularity by his conduct towards the deputation. The common council were so incensed, that they demurred about voting an address of congratulation on the birth of the Princess Elizabeth, which happened about this time. Wilkes in particular, who was made an alderman even while in the King's Bench, and who now wore the civic gown, opposed such an address, and when the good feelings of the citizens prevailed over their anger, and they voted an address, he did what he could to render it unpopular. The address, however, was presented in the usual form, and his majesty observed in reply, "that the city of London, entertaining such loyal sentiments, might always feel assured of his protection." A few days after this Beckford died, and the city voted that he should be honoured with a statue in Guildhall, and that the speech he had delivered to the king should be engraved on the pedestal. His death was considered a serious blow to the opposition, as no one could be found possessing the weight which he derived from his wealth and munificence, or who could supply his ardour and fearlessness.

PROSECUTION OF WOODFALL AND ALMON.

Almost every act which the government now committed tended only to excite the public clamour and indignation. During this summer it involved itself in new troubles, and exposed itself to fiercer attacks, by prosecuting the printers and publishers of Junius's Letters. In the month of June Woodfall was tried for printing in his newspaper, the "Public Advertiser," one of these letters, which was addressed to his majesty, and was considered a scandalous libel; and Almon was tried for selling a re-publication of it in the "London Museum." Almon was found guilty of publishing, and was sentenced to pay a fine of ten marks, and find security for his good behaviour for two years. Wood-fall was found "guilty of printing and publishing only" and in his case, the defendant moved to stay the entering of judgment on the verdict, while the attorney-general moved for a rule on the defendant, to show cause why the verdict should not be entered according to the legal import of the words. The attorney-general's motion was attended to first; and when the matter came to be argued in the court of King's Bench, Lord Mansfield, before whom both cases had been tried, went regularly through the whole evidence, as well as his own charge to the jury. After recapitulating the defence on the trial, his lordship remarked: "I directed the jury, that if they believed the innuendoes, as to persons and things, to have been properly filled up in the information, and to be the true meaning of the paper, and if they gave credit to the witnesses, they must find the defendant guilty. If the jury were obliged to determine whether the paper was in law a libel or not, or to judge whether it was criminal, or to what degree; or if they were to require proofs of a criminal intention--then this direction was wrong. I told them, as I have always told them before, that whether a libel or not, was a mere question of law arising out of the record, and that all the epithets inserted in the information were formal inferences of law. A general verdict of the jury finds only what the law implies from the fact, for that is scarcely possible to be produced: the law implies from the act of publication, a criminal intent." After some further remarks of minor importance his lordship continued: "The motion of the attorney-general divides itself into two parts; first, to fill up the finding of the jury with the usual words of reference, so as to connect the verdict with the information: the omission of these words, we are of opinion, is a technical mistake of the clerk, and may be now supplied. The second head of the argument is to omit the word 'only' in the entry of the verdict: this we are all of opinion cannot be done. The word 'only' must stand in the verdict; if this word was omitted, the verdict would then be, 'guilty of printing and publishing,' which is a general verdict of guilty; for there is no other charge in the information but printing and publishing, and that alone the jury had to inquire. We are all of opinion, that my direction to the jury is right and according to law; the positions contained in it never were doubted; it never has been, nor is it now complained of in this court. There clearly can be no judgment of acquittal, because the fact found by the jury is the only question they had to try; the single doubt that remains, is concerning the meaning of the word 'only.'" The court considering that the word "only" had been used in an ambiguous sense, ordered Woodfall a new trial on that ground; but when it came on, the attorney-general remarked that he had not the original newspaper by which he could prove the publication Thus terminated the second trial: the want of this was fatal to the cause.

DISPUTES RESPECTING FALKLAND ISLANDS.

During the summer and autumn of the present year the attention of government was absorbed by a subject, which at one time threatened a new war with France and Spain--this was the affair of the Falkland Islands.

AFFAIRS OF AMERICA.

When the news arrived of the repeal of the taxes by the British parliament, the people of Boston were by no means thankful for that act. The retention of the duty on tea, it was said, did away with all its merits, as it proved the unalterable resolution of asserting the disputed right. As, however, they could not hope to keep up the whole of the non-importation agreement, it was resolved, in a meeting of merchants, to import every thing but tea. This resolve was also entered into by the Philadelphian merchants, and great efforts were made by the leaders of the movement, to induce the people to adhere strictly to this agreement, until the tea duty should be repealed. But most of the provinces were not desirous of persevering in the quarrel, and consequently renewed their commercial intercourse with the mother country: orders came over to England, indeed, to such an extent, that our exports to the colonies in this and the following year exceeded in amount what they had ever been before. Still the progress of a revolution was not impeded. There were many zealots in America, who could not rest satisfied while a connexion subsisted between England and her colonies, and who were still busied in sowing the seeds of discontent. Some such zealots existed in every colony, but it was in New England and in Virginia that that they were chiefly to be found. In the great southern province they were headed by Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, and by their means the popular party in Virginia were led to deplore the massacre at Boston, and to uphold that city as a new Sparta and the seat of liberty. The assembly of Virginia, in a petition or remonstrance to his majesty, ventured to express their strong dissatisfaction at Lord North's imperfect Repeal Act, and their deep affliction at seeing that the pretension of the mother country to the right of taxing the colonies was persevered in by the retention of duty upon tea. They also criticised the conduct of Lord Bottetourt, their governor, and represented that no alliance was to be placed upon the good-will or moderation of those who managed the affairs of the mother country. All the houses of assembly, now re-opened, were, in truth, scarcely less difficult to manage than they had been the year before, and in almost every instance they were prorogued by the governors. In the assembly of Massachusets, especially, there were great commotions, arising partly from communications received from England, which represented that the state and conduct of the colony was likely to be submitted to the consideration of parliament in the present session, and partly from the dismissal of the provincial forces from Castle William, and the establishment of the royal troops in that fortress. It was suspected that measures were in train to reduce the province to a state of utter dependence on Great Britain, and they proceeded to prepare instructions for their agent in London, in order to prevent the blow. But before they proceeded to business the house made another attempt to obtain a removal of the seat of government to Boston; and having failed in this, they made a strong protest against their conduct being drawn into a precedent. Soon after this Mr. Hutchinson was appointed governor of the province; but the subject of the assembly's removal afforded matter of dispute in the remonstrances of the house at the opening of every session.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

The king opened parliament on the 13th of November. The prominent part of his speech related to the Falkland Islands, a question that was still in abeyance. His majesty informed the lords and commons, that by an act of the governor of Buenos Ayres, in seizing one of his possessions by force, the honour of the crown and the rights of the people were deeply affected; and he called on them for advice and assistance. The addresses of both houses approved of the steps taken by his majesty, and assured him of their effectual support: to this end, supplies for the augmentation of the army and navy were cheerfully voted,--and in order to defray any extraordinary expenses, the land-tax was increased from three to four shillings in the pound.

DEBATE CONCERNING THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

In the debate on the address, Lord North had said, that as the Spanish ambassador had thrown the responsibility upon the Governor of Buenos Ayres, it was proper that his Spanish majesty should be allowed time to disavow these proceedings. He had also endeavoured to show that the Falkland Islands were of little value to anybody, and not of sufficient importance to justify a war if it could be avoided. These sentiments ill accorded with the views of some in the lower house, in which they were uttered, and several, as Dowdeswell, Barr?, Burke, Sir William Meredith, and Sir Charles Saunders, blamed the minister for putting forward the Governor of Buenos Ayres, instead of complaining of his master, the King of Spain; who must, they contended, have previously authorised his expedition against Port Egmont. Similar opinions appear to have been entertained in the house of lords, although the address passed there without any show of dissatisfaction. On the 20th of November, however, the Duke of Richmond gave notice that he would make a motion on the 22nd, on which day, therefore, the house was summoned. That day arrived, Richmond moved for an address, praying that the king would order that all papers received by the ministry between the 12th of September, 1769, and the 12th of September, 1770, touching hostilities commenced, or designed to be commenced, by the crown of Spain, or any of his officers, should be laid before parliament. In urging this demand, the duke said, that the affairs of the Falkland Islands was only one among many acts of aggression, and he asserted that while we were in want of seamen, three thousand, captured in trading ships by the Guarda-Costas, under pretence of smuggling, were rotting in Spanish prisons, or pining away in hopeless slavery in South America. The motion was opposed by Lords Weymouth and Hillsborough, who contended that the production of the papers called for, would embarrass a negociations now in good train that the Spanish government was entitled to respect and delicate management; and that the ministers were not wanting either in vigilance or vigour. The Duke of Richmond was supported by the Earl of Chatham, who, in a long and eloquent speech, showed the necessity of firmness on the part of the British cabinet;--accused the Spaniards of want of faith, and of being as mean and crafty as they are proud and insolent; and predicted that if ministers patched up an accommodation for the present, they would still have a Spanish war in six months. He concluded by charging the ministers with having destroyed all content and unanimity at home by a series of oppressive and unconstitutional measures; and with having delivered up the nation, defenceless, to a foreign enemy. He added this warning:--"Let me warn them of their danger. If they are forced into a war, they stand it at the hazard of their heads; if, by an ignominious compromise, they should stain the honour of the crown, or sacrifice the rights of the people, let them look to the consequences, and consider whether they will be able to walk the streets in safety."--The Duke of Manchester, the Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl of Shelburne, and Lord Lyttleton also supported the Duke of Richmond's motion, but it was nevertheless negatived by a large majority. On the same day, also, a similar motion was made and negatived in the house of commons; moreover, a few days later the Earl of Chatham moved that Captain Hunt, who had driven off a Spanish schooner from Port Egmont, before the armament arrived, should be ordered to attend the house; and when this was negatived, he moved an address to his majesty, praying that the house might be acquainted at what time reparation was first demanded from Spain, which likewise received a negation.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet