Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 26)

J. Fiske, The American Revolution, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession, afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to be in his interest. … Lord Bute, the originator of the new policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful promotion. He was not connected with the great families who had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above all, he was a Scotchman. … Immediately after the king's accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State. It was now the object of the court to break up the existing ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war with this country.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council, —declared that he had been called to the ministry by the voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his popularity. … The same Gazette which announced his resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension, and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite. On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole direction of the House of Lords. … His ascendency provoked the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister, the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. … At length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign. And now, the object of the court being at length attained, Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as First Lord of the Treasury. … The king and his minister were resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative. Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king, with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of privy councillors. … No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he … resigned his place in the household. A more general proscription of the Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton, and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. … Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of the Whig party. {929} All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of peace, were dismissed. … The preliminaries of peace were approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of England.' But her exultation was premature. … These stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an organised opposition. … The fall of the king's favoured minister was even more sudden than his rise. … Afraid, as he confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7, 1763],—to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king himself,—before he had held office for eleven months. … He retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the king's personal views, and was expected to be under the control of himself and his favorite."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., chapter 1-10 (volume 1).

The Grenville Papers, volumes 1-2.

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

G. O. Trevelyan, Early History of Charles James Fox, chapter 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775. Crown, Parliament and Colonies. The conflicting theories of their relations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762. The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings. War with Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762. The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762. Capture of Havana.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764. "The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.

"The popular dislike to the new system of Government by courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world, with the manners of a gentleman, were among the accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a patriot. … Wilkes' journal, which originated with the administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the political press of the present day; but at a time when the characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. … It had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary of State to seize—not any person named—but 'the authors, printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as it was found that none of them could be brought within the description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of King's Bench. … The Court of King's Bench … intimated a strong opinion against the Crown upon the important constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined any further agitation of the questions. … These proceedings were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765, long after the administration under which they were instituted had ceased to exist. … The prosecution of Wilkes himself was pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of Parliament, which extends to every case except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative, advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception, as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. … The argument which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result was the liberation of Wilkes from custody. {930} But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he was deprived of his commission as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first business brought forward by the Government was this contemptible affair—a proceeding not merely foolish and undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is manifest that the Government should have left the law to take its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister, readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner, insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place; but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was consistent with the loftiness of his character. … The conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower House. … The session was principally occupied by the proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon 'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his supposed royal patroness. … Wilkes himself, however, was forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for Aylesbury."

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. E. T. Rogers, Historical Gleanings, volume 2, chapter 3.

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 41-42 (volume 5).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763. The end and results of the Seven Years War: The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg. America to be English, not French.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764. Determination to tax the American colonies. The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1764. The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its consequences.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765. Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768. Grenville dismissed. The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries. Repeal of the Stamp Act. Fresh trouble in the American colonies.

"Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers, however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry, persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration. Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. … The new Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. … {931} Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power of language or government. … He was totally free from any suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than talent in the Ministry altogether. … The back-bone of the party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. … The king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his Ministers. … The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to form a coalition, in which were included men of the most opposite views—'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham. Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington, Barrington, Camden, Granby—all men of the most opposite views. … This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage. … As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an uncongenial atmosphere. … His name, too, had lost a great deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' … There were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout, that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His disease later almost approached madness. … The Ministry drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet, and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. … This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable, some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the short period of its existence was marked by a succession of arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal connection with it was not severed for some time"—that is, not until the following year, 1768.

B. C. Skottowe, Our Hanoverian Kings, pages 234-239.

ALSO IN: The Grenville Papers, volumes 3-4.

C. W. Dilke, Papers of a Critic, volume 2.

E. Lodge, Portraits, volume 8, chapter 2.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769. The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774. John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again. The Middlesex elections.

In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247 votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex. The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr. Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.' It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. … A month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal; consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000, and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench. Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House, became furious, and commenced a riot. {932} Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired, wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house, and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed, assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and protection that the law can authorise and this office can give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of 'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident that not the law only had been violated in his person, but that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound. Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at length done what was right between him and one of the Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the other having been removed by death beyond the reach of justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages. These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid succession to the offices—then much sought after, because held in high honour—of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and energetic opponent of the war with America."

W. F. Rae, John Wilkes (Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10).

ALSO IN: W. F. Rae, Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, part 1.

G. O. Trevelyan, Early History of Charles James Fox, chapters 5-6, and 8.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772. The Letters of Junius.

"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the 'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the day; and he readily received any contributions of a like tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767, continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters (excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in ability, or still less in acrimony. … Such was the state of these publications, not much rising in interest above the common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places, including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the controversy. … These victories over a man of rank and station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author. {933} He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names; sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton. Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,—an attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known statesmen or well-known writers—Burke or Dunning, Boyd or Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton—flew from mouth to mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground. Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke. The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to 69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. … Besides the letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr. Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in length; but many of great value towards deciding the question of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at the bar of some coffee-house. … It may be doubted whether Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. … When dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me.'"

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 47 (v. 5).

The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and Pseudonyms":

James Adair, M. P.; Captain Allen; Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.; William Henry Cavendish Bentinck; Mr. Bickerton; Hugh M'Aulay Boyd; Edmund Burke; William Burke; John Butler, Bishop of Hereford; Lord Camden; John Lewis De Lolme; John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton; Samuel Dyer; Henry Flood; Sir Philip Francis; George III.; Edward Gibbon; Richard Glover; Henry Grattan; William Greatrakes; George Grenville; James Grenville; William Gerard Hamilton; James Hollis; Thomas Hollis; Sir George Jackson; Sir William Jones; John Kent; Major-General Charles Lee; Charles Lloyd; Thomas Lyttleton; Laughlin Maclean; Rev. Edmund Marshall; Thomas Paine; William Pitt, Earl of Chatham; the Duke of Portland; Thomas Pownall; Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich; John Roberts; Rev. Philip Rosenhagen; George, Viscount Sackville; the Earl of Shelburne; Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield; Richard Suett; Earl Temple; John Horne Tooke; Horace Walpole; Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough; John Wilkes; James Wilmot, D. D.; Daniel Wray.

ALSO IN: G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 3, chapter 6.

C. W. Dilke, Papers of a Critic, volume 2.

Lord Macaulay, Warren Hastings (Essays, volume 5).

A. Bisset, Short History of the English Parliament, chapter 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770. Fall of the Grafton Ministry. Beginning of the administration of Lord North.

"The incompetency of the ministry was … becoming obvious. In the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which had brought discontent in England to the verge of open outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own Cabinet. {934} France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again to the necessities of party, made a public profession of friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the murrain among 'horned beasts,'—a speech not of a king, but, said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an amendment when the address in answer to this speech was proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America, which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent. Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby, one of the most popular men in England, followed the same course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General, also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of the nation. … Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion. The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands, but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. … The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so that while the different sections of the Opposition were still unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity gone. The new Prime Minister … had great capacity for business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep, during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the support of all royal influence from whatever source derived, North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill effects of such a system of government, and of the King's policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of the reign—the struggle of the King, supported by the unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of those who were represented, against the domination of the House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He did not understand that the people had other objects much beyond his own."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 3, pages 1057-1060.

ALSO IN: Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, volume 1.

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 10-13 (volume 1).

J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapter 17 (volume 1).

E. Burke, Thoughts on the Present Discontents (Works, volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea. The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1771. Last contention of Parliament against the Press. Freedom of reporting secured.

"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors. It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament, under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the 'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an article which purported to be a report of the debates in Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and derived his information from persons who could seldom give him more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius. Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify, the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was no order of either House specifically prohibiting the publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting, therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the proceedings of Parliament should take place during the session. {935} There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses, had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow, member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable members."

William Massey, History of England, volume 2, chapter 15.

"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker. Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr. Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower. Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates has been pursued without any interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its influence—its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the power of a single member of either House to require the exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until 1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 17.

ALSO IN:

R. F. D. Palgrave, The House of Commons, lecture 2.

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1772. The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1773. Reconstitution of the Government of British India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress in America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made efficient by James Watt.

See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776. Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776. War measures against the colonies. The drift toward American independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778. The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their relations to the American War.

"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its maximum. … The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and with the King. … The Declaration of Independence, and the known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness. … In every stage of the contest the influence of the Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. … The statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs. … While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully realise how completely at this time he assumed the position not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending, directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of the Government. … 'Every means of distressing America,' wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly supported the employment of Indians. … It was the King's friends who were most active in promoting all measures of violence. … The war was commonly called the 'King's war,' and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King. The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most culpable in this matter, was Lord North. … {936} The publication of the correspondence of George III. … supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears from this correspondence that for the space of about five years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody, costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own judgment and to his own wishes. … Again and again he entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again and again he yielded to the request of the King, who threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne. … The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable, that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for. … He consented, too, though apparently with extreme reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment was one of the most terrible in English history. England had not an ally in the world. … England, already exhausted by a war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. … There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were turned. … If any statesman could, at the last moment, conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said, with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham the ship would assuredly go down. … The King was unmoved. He consented indeed—and he actually authorised Lord North to make the astounding proposition—to receive Chatham as a subordinate minister to North. … This episode appears to me the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to the scaffold."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 14 (volume 4).

"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed, was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."

J. Morley, Edmund Burke: a Historical Study, page 135.

"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation. And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George and the British nation were simply not wiser than other people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the acknowledgment of American independence, King George still called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up. Remember that some people in our own day regretted the separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."

E. A. Freeman, The English People in its Three Homes (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 183-184.

ALSO IN: Correspondence of George III. with Lord North.

Lord Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen in the Reign of George III.

T. Macknight, History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke, chapters 22-26 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1778. War with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780. Repeal of Catholic penal laws. The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774], establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier have been impossible, and it was justly considered a remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should have created no serious disturbances in the country. … The success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later, to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still subject. … The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of £100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic priest performing his functions in England, and there were occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to the utmost in order to defeat them. … The worst part of the persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III., and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment, and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing land. … It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was carried without a division in either House, without any serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland. {937} It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending, and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills, newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. … Furious riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not suffered to fire in their defence. … The flame soon spread southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. … The fanatical party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his connection with the ducal house of Gordon. … A 'Protestant Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics, was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that 20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted, compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and many of them, but especially the members of the House of Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. … In the Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192 to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery, and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers' gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were made to force the doors. … At last about nine o'clock the troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force, for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided. Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels utterly ruined."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of English in the 18th Century, chapter 13 (volume 3).

"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. … Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also broken open … and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks were likewise made upon several … private houses. … But the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which they closed the day of madness and crime—the entire demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. … {938} The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the infuriated multitudes who braved their power. … The King's Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey Bridewell, were all burned today. … The Mansion House, the Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the other buildings which it was intended to attack were circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned the fire of the military. … Among other houses which were set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr. Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. … The worst consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in different quarters of the town. … By Thursday morning … the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that the rioters would be speedily overpowered. … The soldiers attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with complete success. … On Friday the courts of justice were again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the evening. … On this first day after the close of the riots, 'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' … Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed; the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a distant land. … Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots, was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.

Sketches of Popular Tumults, section 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., chapter 34 (volume 2).

H. Walpole, Journal of the Reign of George III., volume 2, pages 403-424.

Annual Register, 1780, pages 254-287.

C. Dickens, Barnaby Rudge.

W. J. Amherst, History of Catholic Emancipation, volume 1, chapters 1-5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782. Declining strength of the government. Rodney's great naval victory. The siege of Gibraltar.

"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow of the personal government of George III., was now close at hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour. In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one. Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had told upon Ireland. … For more than a year there had been war in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola, thus driving the British from their last position in Florida. In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however, impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships encountered the French near the island of Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued, and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and Grasse was taken prisoner,—the first French commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the course of the summer the English achieved another great success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded the other parties to the war."

J. Fiske, American Revolution, chapter 15 (volume 2).

"Gibraltar … had been closely invested for nearly three years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of 1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in the month of November, the enemy were driven from their approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of Gibraltar. {939} De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez, assumed the chief command. … The garrison of Gibraltar comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it from the land side, but relied with confidence on the formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day, the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in at the first practicable breach. … The grand attack was commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400 pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless, the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles, which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire, and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent; and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. … Eight of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night; and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with annihilation. … The loss of the enemy was computed at 2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal, they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line, venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies. After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."

W. Massey, History of England, Reign of George III., chapter 27 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 62-66 (volume 7).

J. Drinkwater, History of the Siege of Gibraltar.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783. Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.

See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783. War with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782. Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783. Fall of Lord North. The second Rockingham Ministry. Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations. The Shelburne Ministry. Coalition of Fox and North.

"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November, 1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his hands, when he heard of it. … On February 7, a vote of censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).

Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to Hanover. … Indeed, if it had not been for his large family, and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of which he was no longer master. {940} By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you who desert me, not I who desert you.' … Even when the long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would be able to restore peace without granting independence, and Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in this scheme. … Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox, and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the supplanter, of Rockingham. … His game was to wait. He respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. … Before Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform, and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as Chancellor. … The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway, and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. … Few Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence, and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is said never to have touched a card during either of his three short terms of office. … By the division of work among the two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved in order to form part of the general treaty of peace. According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme, but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his control into the hands of Fox. … Shelburne at once threw his whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt [Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to smile on Shelburne. He … might well look forward to a long and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the Paymastership, the followers of Lord North … were rewarded with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of political parties have been received by historians and posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the coalition of 1783. … There is no evidence to show that at the time it struck politicians in general as being specially heinous."

H. O. Wakeman, Life of Charles James Fox, chapters 3-5.

ALSO IN: Lord J. Russell, Life of Fox, chapters 16-17 (volume l).

W. F. Rae, Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, pages 307-317.

Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, volume 3, chapters 3-6.

{941}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783. The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of America signed at Paris.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787. Fall of the Coalition. Ascendancy of the younger Pitt. His extraordinary grasp of power. His attempted measures of reform.

"Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist. Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter. … It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform, demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of India,—patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever, dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the King schemed, and controversy raged. … When the Bill arrived at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. … The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,' exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government, unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli, 'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay; the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of 17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the difficulties were tremendous. … The composition of the Government was … the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than 40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but would require too much detail for our limits. … On the day of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed. The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he needed no support. He had inherited from his father that confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for he felt that the country required time. … The Clerkship of the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not £300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious. … Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He gave the place to Barré. … To a nation inured to jobs this came as a revelation. … Above and beyond all was the fact that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the great leaders allied against him. … In face of so resolute a resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions, though they always showed a superiority to the Government, betrayed notable diminution. … On the 25th of March Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs—of Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their seats—was 160. … The King and Pitt were supported on the tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."

Lord Rosebery, Pitt, chapter 3.

"Three subjects then needed the attention of a great statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were, our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. … He brought in a series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number. They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament which they restrained or completed was much greater. He attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free Trade, the principles which he was the first of English statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of the country. … The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the worst part of it. {942} The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. … Mr. Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be so paid. … He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. … The exposure of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so, such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr. Pitt's deserved fame. … The subject of parliamentary reform is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public most connected his name, and is also that with which we are now least apt to connect it. … He proposed the abolition of the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey accomplished it. … If the strong counteracting influence of the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary representation. … The state of Ireland was a more pressing difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical errors, or our parliamentary corruption. … He proposed at once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments, and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in England. … Of these great reforms he was only permitted to carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it continued to be for very many years; but the time became unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."

W. Bagehot, Biographical Studies: William Pitt.

ALSO IN: Earl Stanhope, Life of William Pitt, chapters 4-9 (volume 1).

G. Tomline, Life of William Pitt, chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2).

Lord Rosebery, Pitt, chapters 3-4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY). Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.

See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789. The King's second derangement.

The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration than the first. "He was able … to sign a warrant for the further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th November. … According to long established law, Parliament, without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion, for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the exercise of his right. … Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, maintained that as no legal provision had been made for carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.