[1762-1763 A.D.]

on England for aid, which was promptly afforded. English troops were sent to Portugal, where the supreme command was given to the count de la LippeBuckeburg, a German prince of high military character, and the invaders were speedily obliged to recross the frontiers.

An expedition of considerable magnitude, under Lord Albemarle and Admiral Pocock, sailed from Portsmouth on the 5th of March. Its object was to give a heavy blow to the Spanish commerce; its destination was the Havana, in the isle of Cuba, which it reached on the 5th of June. Many difficulties, from climate and from the number of the garrison, the strength of their defences, and the gallantry of their resistance, impeded the operations of the besiegers; but the abilities of the commanders, seconded by the indomitable spirit and courage of their men, overcame them all, and the town at length surrendered (August 14th). The loss to Spain was fourteen sail of the line and four frigates taken or destroyed in the harbour, and treasure and merchandise to the amount of £3,000,000. This was perhaps the greatest and richest conquest ever made by the British arms. It was not, however, the only loss sustained by Spain. An expedition from Madras in India, under Admiral Cornish and Sir William Draper, took Manila, the capital of the Philippine islands. All the public property was given up to the English, and a ransom of $4,000,000 was agreed to be paid for the private property. Two ships of the British squadron then intercepted and took the Santissima Trinidad, a ship from Acapulco with a cargo worth $3,000,000. To add to the misfortunes of Spain, the Santa Hermione, from Peru, with treasure on board to the amount of £1,000,000, was captured off Cape St. Vincent. The losses of France this year were the islands of Martinique, Grenada, St. Lucia, Tobago, and St. Vincent, in the West Indies.

These brilliant successes almost turned the head of the nation; visions of glory and wealth floated before the public eye; and the mercantile interest clamoured loudly for continuing a war by which they were great gainers. The ministry, however, were not so dazzled; they saw that all the objects of the war were gained, the pride of the house of Bourbon was humbled, the king of Prussia was secured; at the same time the expense to England had been and would be enormous. The overtures of France for peace were therefore readily listened to; and both parties being in earnest, the preliminaries were readily settled at Fontainebleau (November 3rd). In spite of the declamation of Mr. Pitt and his party, they were approved of by large majorities in both houses of parliament, and a treaty was finally signed at Paris (February 10th, 1763).

By this treaty England was to retain all Canada with Cape Breton and the other islands in the gulf of St. Lawrence, and Louisiana eastward of the Mississippi; in the West Indies, Dominica, St. Vincent's, and Tobago; in Africa, Senegal. She was to receive back Minorca in exchange for Belleisle, and was secured divers advantages in India. Spain ceded to her the two Floridas, gave up all claim to fish on the banks of Newfoundland, and allowed the English to cut logwood on the coast of Honduras. England restored all her other conquests.

England has never concluded a more honourable peace than this, and Lord Bute was justified in declaring that "he wished no other epitaph to be inscribed on his tomb than that he was the adviser of it." Mr. Pitt, who, great as he undoubtedly was, had too violent a lust for war, condemned it; the selfish king of Prussia exclaimed against it, as if England were bound to waste her blood and treasure for his aggrandisement; but history pronounces the Peace of Fontainebleau an honourable termination of a war which had added seventy-five millions to the national debt of Great Britain.

[1763 A.D.]

BUTE IS SUCCEEDED BY GRENVILLE (1763 A.D.)

Soon after the conclusion of the peace, Lord Bute retired from office. He was never popular; his manners were cold and repulsive; his partiality for his countrymen, the Scots, was extreme; and the outcry against the peace was general. The passing of a bill for an excise on cider raised the clamour to its height. He therefore resigned a post for which he felt himself unsuited, alleging his preference for domestic life and literary retirement.c

This sudden step, it is said, took the king by surprise nearly as much as the people. After the first pause for wonder, men began to inquire Lord Bute's motive, and according to their own prejudices or partialities assigned the most various from a philosophic love of retirement down to a craven fear. According to some friends he had always declared that as soon as he had signed the peace, and carried through the budget, he should consider his objects as attained and his official life as ended. Others thought that his nerves had been shaken by the libels and clamours against him.

On calmly reviewing the whole of this transaction there seems no reason to doubt that, according to Lord Bute's own statement of his motives, his coolness with his colleagues and his sense of duty to his sovereign might weigh with him no less than the violence of his opponents. It is certain, however, that he did not then, nor for some time afterwards, lose his back-stairs influence, nor lay aside his ambitious hopes. It is probable that he expected to allay the popular displeasure by a temporary retirement, and meanwhile, in merchants' phrase, to carry on the same firm with other clerks.

With Lord Bute retired both Dashwood and Fox. For the former an ancient barony, to which he was one of the co-heirs, was called out of abeyance, and thus he became Lord le Despencer. Fox was likewise raised to the upper house as Lord Holland - the same title which had been already bestowed upon his wife. But although Lord Holland, during two more years, continued a placeman, it may be said of him that he had ceased to be a politician. Henceforth, until his death in 1774, he took little or no further part in public affairs. In his retirement his principal pleasure was the construction of a fantastic villa at Kingsgate, on the coast of Thanet.

The successor to Lord Bute proved to be George Grenville, who on the very day that the favourite resigned kissed hands on his appointment as both first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. No one doubted that this choice had been made under the influence of Lord Bute, and was designed for the preservation of that influence. At the same time it was intimated to the foreign ministers that the king had now entrusted the principal direction of his affairs to three persons, namely, to Mr. Grenville and the secretaries of state, lords Egremont and Halifax. Thus it happened that the chiefs of the new administration received from the public the name of the Triumvirate.b

THE AFFAIR OF WILKES AND THE North Briton NO XLV

When the Grenville administration was formed, a tremendous fire was opened on it from the press. The most destructive battery was a periodical named the North Briton, conducted by John Wilkes, esquire, member for Aylesbury, a man of considerable talent, but profligate in character and ruined in fortune. He was, like almost every demagogue, strongly aristocratic in feeling; but being refused a lucrative post, he took up the trade of patriotism, and commenced a series of attacks on the persons and measures of the minis

[1763-1764 A.D.] ters. Of these they took no notice, till in the forty-fifth number of his paper he assailed the speech from the throne (April 19, 1763), accusing the king of having uttered direct falsehoods. A general warrant was issued from the office of the secretary of state to seize the authors, printers, and publishers of the North Briton, and their papers, and bring them before the secretary. Wilkes was accordingly taken and committed to the Tower. On his application to the court of common pleas for a writ of habeas corpus, it was granted, and Chief-Justice Pratt having decided that his privilege of parliament (which can only be forfeited by treason, felony, or breach of the peace) had been violated, he was discharged.

The attorney-general then commenced proceedings against him for a libel, and Wilkes, now the idol of the mob, took every mode of courting prosecution. The ministers, instead of leaving the courts of law to deal with him, unwisely brought the matter before the house of commons, by whom number forty-five of the North Briton was voted to be a false, scandalous, and seditious libel against the king and both houses, and was ordered to be burned by the common hangman. At the same time, as Wilkes had printed at a press in his own house a poem called an Essay on Woman, in which impiety contended with obscenity, and had affixed to the notes on it the name of Bishop Warburton, it was voted in the house of lords to address his majesty to order a prosecution against Mr. Wilkes for breach of privilege and for blasphemy. It was very injudiciously arranged that the mover should be Lord Sandwich, a man whose own private character was anything but immaculate.

The question of privilege was then taken up in the house of commons; and in spite of the eloquence of Mr. Pitt, and in the face of the decision of the court of common pleas, it was decided by a large majority that privilege of parliament does not extend to the case of writers and publishers of seditious libels. With this decision the house of lords concurred after a long debate.

A riot took place when the attempt was made to burn the North Briton; and when several of the persons who had been arrested brought actions against the messengers, juries gave them damages. Wilkes himself brought actions, against the two secretaries of state, and against Mr. Wood, the under-secretary, and he obtained a verdict against the latter for £1,000 and costs. On this occasion Chief-Justice Pratt pronounced the general warrant to be illegal, and a similar decision by Lord Mansfield, the chief justice of the king's bench, set the question at rest.

Wilkes was expelled the house; he was tried and convicted for publishing number forty-five and the Essay on Woman; and as he did not appear in court to receive sentence, he was outlawed, and fled to France.c

THE STAMP ACT (1765 A.D.)

We shall see, in a few years, John Wilkes, and all the chorus of his political drama, passing away, "like an insubstantial pageant faded." Another scene was to be opened, which, devoid of interest as it might at first appear, was to be developed in a series of long-continued action which involved not only the interests of England but eventually the destinies of the Anglo-Saxon family, and incidentally of all the human race. The triumphant administration of Mr. Pitt had given a firmness and compactness to the British Empire in North America, which appeared to promise a long continuance of prosperity to the mother country and her colonies. These colonies were founded upon principles of freedom and toleration, by a race nurtured in those principles, and, in some cases, seeking for a happier field for their establishment than they could

[1764-1765 A.D.]

find under a temporary suspension of the old English right to be well governed. The colonial assemblies or parliaments of the thirteen provinces of North America, elected by the people, trained men of industry and ability to the consideration of questions of public policy and local administration. The trade between Great Britain and her colonies had been always based upon principles wholly opposite to those of commercial freedom. The Englishman was forbidden to smoke any other than Virginia-grown tobacco, and the Virginian could wear no other coat than one of English-made cloth. It was an age of regulation and balance in small matters as well as in great — in commerce as in war. No particular injury was contemplated towards the colonists in the trade regulations; although the monopoly of the English merchants was regarded as the supreme advantage of colonial possessions. The state regarded these colonists as a happy family of good children, to be kept in order by that paternal authority which knew best what was for their advantage. At last the parent took up the fancy of compelling the children to pay something in acknowledgment of the heavy cost of past protection, and as a contribution towards the expense of that protection in future. A Stamp Act to raise £60,000 produced a war that cost £100,000,000.

On the 10th of March, 1764, Mr. Grenville moved in the commons a series of resolutions for imposing small duties on certain articles of American commerce; to "be paid into the receipt of his majesty's exchequer, and there reserved, to be from time to time disposed of by parliament, towards defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies and plantations in America." Following this resolution for the appropriation of the produce of duties upon the foreign trade of the American colonies, came the 14th of the series, in these words: "That towards further defraying the said expenses, it may be proper to charge certain stamp duties in the said colonies and plantations." Walpole says, "This famous bill, little understood here at that time, was less attended to. The colonies, in truth, were highly alarmed, and had sent over representations so strong against being taxed here, that it was not thought decent or safe to present their memorial to parliament." The colonists could not see, in Grenville's proposition for a paltry tax, any other than the beginning of an attempt to tax them largely without their own consent. They denied the right of the house of commons to tax them unless they had representatives in that house. Grenville had rashly termed his resolution for a stamp act as "an experiment towards further aid." Where was the system, thus begun, to end? The Stamp Act was passed, without a debate or division in the house of lords; and it received the royal assent on the 22nd of March, 1765. The act was to come into operation on the 1st of November. When the enactment first became known in America, there was a deep expression of grief, but scarcely any manifestation of resentment. But in the state assemblies, a determination not to submit without remonstrance was quickly manifested. Virginia, the most attached to the monarchy of all the provinces the most opposed to democratic principles - was the first to demand a repeal of the statute by which the colonists were taxed without their own consent. The resolutions of the assembly of Virginia went forth as an example to the other provinces, many of which passed similar resolutions. Yet the desire almost universally prevailed amongst the colonists to regard themselves as bound in allegiance to the British crown. The alienation was a gradual result of a mistaken view of the policy that ought to prevail, between a colony that had grown to a real capacity for independence and the parent state. It was a result, also, of that system of parliamentary corruption and of court influence which at that time entered so largely into the government

[1765 A.D.]

of England. Walpoled says that the Stamp Act "removed the burden of a tax to distant shoulders"; that Grenville contemplated his measure "in the light of easing and improving an over-burdened country." Burke in his memorable speech on American taxation on the 19th of April, 1774, exhibited this fact more distinctly. The Americans, Burke says, "thought themselves proceeded against as delinquents, or at best as people under suspicion of delinquency." They were irritated enough before the Stamp Act came. They adopted such counter measures as appeared efficient to a people that had not yet begun to feel their own strength, and understand their own resources. They agreed amongst themselves to wear no English manufactured cloth; and to encourage the breed of sheep that they might manufacture cloth from their own wool. They protested against the English monopoly; and they devised, feebly enough, such measures as they thought might overcome it. At last what Burke calls "the scheme of a regular plantation parliamentary revenue" was established "a revenue not substituted in the place of, but superadded to, a monopoly; which monoply was enforced at the same time with additional strictness, and the execution put into military hands." It was one of the misfortunes of Mr. Grenville's scheme that his Stamp Act was popular in England. "Great was the applause of this measure here. In England we cried out for new taxes on America, whilst they cried out that they were nearly crushed with those which the war and their own grants had brought upon them." Such was the commencement of a struggle which ended in the independence of the American colonies.

THE REGENCY BILL (1765 A.D.)

During the progress of the bill for the taxation of the American colonies, the king was attacked by a serious indisposition. On the nature of that illness the greatest secresy was maintained. The family of George III at that time consisted of George, prince of Wales, born on the 12th of August, 1762; and of Frederick, duke of York, born on the 16th of August, 1763. The differences of opinion between the king and his ministers upon the Regency Bill are of minor importance in a view of public affairs at this distance of time, and require no elaborate detail. The king wished that the power of nominating a regent should be vested in himself. The ministry thought it desirable that a regency during the minority of the successor to the throne should be distinctly named. The king, indignant at the conduct of his ministers, sent for his uncle the duke of Cumberland; and commissioned him to negotiate with Mr. Pitt for a return to power. It was an embarrassing time in which to contemplate a change of ministry. America was getting into a flame of anger at the Stamp Act. London was terrified by riots of Spitalfields weavers, upon the rejection of a bill which would have prohibited the importation of foreign silks. What Burke calls "the vertigo of the Regency Bill" produced changes which an untoward aspect of national affairs might have failed to effect.

The rumours that the king contemplated a change of ministers produced an opinion in one then unconnected with official life, but who looked upon political affairs, and public men, from a higher elevation than most observers of the shifting scenes of that time. Edmund Burke announced to a friend, with reference to Pitt, that "this crisis will show whether pride or patriotism be predominant in his character." The duke of Cumberland went to Hayes, and there learned the "plan of politics" which Pitt chose "to dictate"-that general warrants should be repudiated; that dismissed officers should be restored; that Protestant alliances should be formed, to balance the Family