[1770 A.D.]

their violent and tyrannical conduct, ministers have alienated the minds of the people from his majesty's government-I had almost said from his majesty's person-insomuch, that if some measures are not devised to appease the clamours so universally prevalent, I know not, my lords, whether the people, in despair, may not become their own avengers, and take the redress of grievances into their own hands."

In the house of commons, the marquis of Granby voted for the amendment which had been proposed in opposition to the government. The lord chancellor, and the commander-in-chief, were thus in open hostility with the other members of the cabinet. Such an anomalous state could not long endure. Chatham, Temple, and their friends, were waiting the issue with extreme solicitude. Granby had been earnestly entreated to retain his command of the army in spite of his vote. "The king, it seems, and the duke of Grafton are upon their knees to Lord Granby not to resign," writes Temple to Chatham. Chatham grieves that twenty-four hours' respite has been granted to a minister's entreaties. He was at last set at rest by Granby's resignation. But he regrets that the chancellor had dragged the great seal for an hour at the heels of a desperate minister. His high office had been offered to Mr. Charles Yorke, the son of Lord-chancellor Hardwicke. It was a prize he had long coveted; but to accept it would be to desert his party. He declined. Three days after he went to the levee at St. James'; and, at the earnest entreaties of the king, he kissed the royal hand as chancellor. Camden was dismissed. Yorke, borne down by agitation of mind, died, as was supposed by his own hand, on the 20th of January. On the 22nd there came on another great debate in the house of lords on the state of the nation, in which Chatham announced his cordial union with the party of Rockingham.

The continued debate on the state of the nation was deferred till the 2nd of February. On the 28th of January, the duke of Grafton resigned. The king was not unprepared for this event. On the 23rd of January he thus wrote to Lord North: "Lord Weymouth and Lord Gower will wait upon you this morning to press you in the strongest manner to accept the office of first lord commissioner of the treasury. My mind is more and more strengthened in the rightness of the measure, which would prevent every other desertion. You must easily see that if you do not accept, I have no peer at present that I would consent to place in the duke of Grafton's employment." "The rightness of the measure" was to be tested by twelve years of national calamity.

COLONIAL AFFAIRS

The domestic agitations during the period of the duke of Grafton's ministry required to be given in an unbroken narrative. We now take up the more truly important relation of those events in the North American colonies, and of the mode in which they were dealt with by the imperial government. These facts form the prologue to the tragedy of the American Revolution.

In 1768 a third secretary of state was appointed. The office of secretary of state for Scotland had been abolished; but now a new place was created for the earl of Hillsborough-the secretaryship of the colonies. It was a position of authority which demanded a rare union of firmness and moderation. But the secretary was a member of a cabinet divided in judgment on the great question of American taxation; and Lord Hillsborough was of the

[1768-1770 A.D.] party of the duke of Bedford, who held opinions on that subject, not exactly in consonance with that championship of our free constitution which has been claimed for him. Hillsborough had to deal with colonial subjects of the British crown, whose indignation at the Stamp Act had been revived by Charles Townshend's fatal measure for granting duties in America on glass, red and white lead, painters' colours, paper, and tea.

The king, on opening the parliament on the 8th of November, 1768, spoke in severe terms of the proceedings in North America. The spirit of faction had broken out afresh; one of the colonies had proceeded to acts of violence and of resistance to the execution of the law; the capital town of that colony was in a state of disobedience to all law and government — had adopted measures subversive of the constitution, and attended with circumstances that might manifest a disposition to throw off their dependence on Great Britain. Not a word was uttered of the cause of this disobedience. Turbulent and seditious persons were to be defeated. On the 15th of December, in the house of lords, the duke of Bedford moved an address to the king, recommending that the chief authors and instigators of the late disorders in Massachusetts should be brought to condign punishment; and beseeching his majesty that he would direct the governor of that colony "to take the most effectual methods for procuring the fullest information that can be obtained touching all treasons or misprision of treason, committed within this government since the 30th day of December last, and to transmit the same, together with the names of the persons who were most active in the commission of such offences, to one of your majesty's principal secretaries of state, in order that your majesty may issue a special commission for inquiring of, hearing and determining, the said offences within this realm, pursuant to the provisions of the statute of the 35th year of the reign of King Henry VIII, in case your majesty shall, upon receiving the said information, see sufficient ground for such a proceeding." This most arbitrary proposal was carried without a division. In the house of commons, at the opening of the session, Mr. Stanley, the seconder of the address, said that the people of the insolent town of Boston "must be treated as aliens."

We have now reached the period of Lord North's administration. On the 5th of March, 1770, on the house of commons proceeding to take into consideration the petition of the merchants of London trading to North America, the first lord of the treasury, in a temperate speech, moved the repeal of such portions of the act of 1767, as laid duties upon glass and other articles, omitting any mention of tea. "I cannot propose," he said, "any further repeal than what it was my intention to promise them. The Americans, by their subsequent behaviour, have not deserved any particular indulgence from this country." Upon this principle, many a mistaken policy has been persisted in, out of pure defiance of the excesses which that policy has provoked. "We will not be driven to repeal by any threats held out to us," said the minister. He anticipated no larger revenue than £12,000 a year from the tea duties, but he would not give up the right to tax America which was asserted in the preamble of the act imposing the duties. The proposition of Lord North was carried by a majority of sixty-two.

When the American colonists came to know that the British parliament had repealed all the duties laid by the act of 1767, except that on tea, the spirit which had prompted the non-importation agreements was somewhat allayed. The citizens of New York determined by a large majority to resume importations from England; and many orders were despatched in July for every kind of merchandise but tea. Other provinces were indignant with

[1770-1771 A.D.]

the New Yorkers. Massachusetts maintained a position of sullen defiance. Although, for two or three years, there was in America an apparent calm a deceptive absence of violence which looked like peace the time was rapidly approaching when the exhortation of Mr. Wedderburn, in 1770, before he became Lord North's solicitor-general, would be looked upon as a prophecy: "How, sir, will it hereafter sound in the annals of the present reign, that all America- the fruit of so many years' settlement, nurtured by this country at the price of so much blood and treasure- was lost to the crown of Great Britain in the reign of George III?" Whilst there is a lull in this trans-Atlantic tempest, let us revert to our domestic affairs- petty in their details, but very significant in their tendencies.

ARRESTS FOR PUBLISHING PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

In the session of parliament of 1771, there was a contest between the house of commons and the corporation of London, which was eventually productive of the highest public benefit. Although both houses held strenuously to the principle that it was the highest offence to publish their debates, the speeches of particular members were frequently printed. On the 8th of February, 1771, Colonel Onslow complained to the house of commons that two newspapers had printed a motion he had made, and a speech against it; and moreover had called him Little Cocking George. Upon his motion, the papers were delivered in and read; and the printer of the Gazetteer, R. Thompson, and the printer of the Middlesex Chronicle, J. Wheble, were ordered to attend the house. The printers could not be found to serve the orders upon them, and then the house addressed the king that he would issue his royal proclamation for their apprehension. On the 12th of March, Colonel Onslow said he was determined to bring this matter to an issue. "Today I shall only bring before the house three brace, for printing the debates." This wholesale proceeding was resisted by motions for adjournment and amendments, which protracted the debates till five o'clock in the morning, during which the house divided twenty-three times. Four of the printers obeyed the orders of the house, made their submission, and were discharged. But the affair now took a more serious turn. The sergeant-at-arms had been ordered to take J. Miller, of the London Evening Post, into custody. Wheble and Thompson had been previously arrested collusively, by some friends or servants; and being taken before Alderman Wilkes and Alderman Oliver, were discharged. Miller was apprehended by the officer of the house of commons at his house in the city; but the officer was immediately himself taken into custody by a city constable. The parties went before the lord mayor, Crosby; who was attended by Wilkes and Oliver. The lord mayor decided that the arrest of a citizen without the authority of one of the city magistrates, was a violation of its charters; and ordered Miller to be released, and the officer of the commons to give bail to answer a charge of assault.

On the 18th of March, the deputy-sergeant-at-arms was desired by the speaker to give an account of the transactions in the city. It was then moved that Brass Crosby, esquire, lord mayor, and a member of parliament, should attend in his place the next day. The lord mayor, although he was ill, came amidst the huzzas of a crowd that echoed through the house. He was permitted to sit whilst defending his conduct; and then he desired to go home, having been in his bed-chamber sixteen or seventeen days. The lord mayor was allowed to retire. Charles Fox said "there are two other criminals, Alderman Oliver and Alderman Wilkes," for which expression

[1771 A.D.]

"criminals" he was gently reproved by Wedderburn, who had become solicitor-general. Alderman Oliver was then ordered to attend in his place. Wilkes had written a letter to declare that he was the lawful member for Middlesex, and would only appear in the house as a member. Mr. Calcraft writes to Lord Chatham, "The ministers avow Wilkes too dangerous to meddle with. He is to do what he pleases; we are to submit. So his majesty orders; he will have 'nothing more to do with that devil Wilkes.'" On the 25th of March the lord mayor and Alderman Oliver were in their places. In the course of the debate upon a proposal to commit them to the Tower, members came in, and reported that they had been insulted on their way to the house. The magistrates of Westminster were called, and were ordered to disperse the mob. The debate proceeded. The lord mayor, being again permitted to withdraw, said he should submit himself to whatever the house should do. The populace took the horses from his coach, and drew him in triumph to the Mansion house. After a sitting of nine hours, a motion for adjournment was rejected. When the speaker asked Alderman Oliver what he had to say in his defence, he replied, "I know the punishment I am to receive is determined upon. I have nothing to say, neither in my own defence nor in defence of the city of London. Do what you please. I defy you."

Before the motion for committing Alderman Oliver to the Tower was carried, Colonel Barré left the house, followed by Dunning, and about a dozen other members. He wrote to Chatham, "I spoke to this question about five minutes only, but I believe with great violence." To the Tower was Oliver conducted quietly at seven o'clock on the morning of the 27th. On that day the lord mayor again came to the house to attend in his place. A tremendous riot ensued. Mr. Calcraft described the scene to Lord Chatham: "The concourse of people who attended the lord mayor is incredible. They seized Lord North, broke his chariot, had got him amongst them, and but for Sir William Meredith's interfering would probably have demolished him. This, with the insults to other members, caused an adjournment of business for some hours." The justices came to the bar to declare they could not read the Riot Act.

The lord mayor and Alderman Oliver remained prisoners in the Tower, till the parliament was prorogued on the 8th of May. A prorogation suspends the power under which the privilege of committal is exercised. The house wisely resolved not to renew the perilous dispute with the city in the ensuing session. With equal wisdom the printers of the debates were no more threatened or arrested. On the 1st of May, Chatham told the peers some wholesome truths, on the subject of the publication of parliamentary proceedings. The dissatisfaction of the people "had made them uncommonly attentive to the proceedings of parliament. Hence the publication of the parliamentary debates. And where was the injury, if the members acted upon honest principles? For a public assembly to be afraid of having their deliberations published is monstrous, and speaks for itself." It was some years before these principles were completely recognised, in the conviction that a full and impartial report of the debates in parliament is one of the best securities for freedom, for a respect for the laws, and for raising up a national tribunal of public opinion in the place of the passions of demagogues and the violence of mobs. The triumph of the "miscreants" of 1771 led the way to the complete establishment of that wonderful system of reporting, which has rendered the newspaper press of this country the clearest mirror of the aggregate thought of a reflecting people.

(1772-1773 A.D.]

THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT (1772 A.D.)

On the 20th of February, 1772, the following royal message was brought dowa to both houses of parliament: "George R. his majesty being desirous, from paternal affection for his own family, and anxious concern for the future welfare of his people, and the honour and dignity of his crown, that the right of approving all marriages in the royal family (which ever has belonged to the kings of this realm as a matter of public concern) may be made effectual, recommends to both houses of parliament to take into their serious consideration whether it may not be wise and expedient to supply the defect of the laws now in being; and, by some new provision, more effectually to guard the descendants of his late majesty King George II (other than the issue of princesses who have married or may hereafter marry into foreign families) from marrying without the approbation of his majesty, his heirs, or successors, first had and obtained."

The Royal Marriage Bill was presented next day to the house of lords. It made provision that no prince or princess, descended from George II - with the exception of the issue of princesses married abroad - should be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of the king, his heirs, or successors. But it also provided that if any such descendant of George II, being above the age of twenty-five, should persist in a resolution to marry, the king's consent being refused, he or she might give notice to the privy council, and might at any time within twelve months after such notice contract marriage, unless both houses of parliament, before the expiration of twelve months, should expressly declare their disapprobation of such intended marriage. After continued and vehement debates in both houses, the bill became law; and it still continues in force. Its provisions appear to be imperfectly understood. It is called by Massey f "an encroachment upon the law of nature an impious and cruel measure." There is a constitutional appeal against an unjust exercise of the prerogative. Such an appeal has never been made; but it would most probably not be made in vain, if any case should arise which would justify parliament in not supporting the sovereign in the assertion of an arbitrary power.

EAST INDIAN TEA IN BOSTON HARBOUR

In 1773, the parliament turned from its long course of anti-popular contests, to look seriously at a matter of paramount national importance. The pecuniary affairs of the East India Company had fallen into great disorder. On the 2nd of March a petition was presented from the company to the house of commons, praying for the assistance of a loan of a million and a half sterling. In the previous session a select committee of the house had been appointed to inquire into the affairs of the company. The necessity for such an inquiry was strongly urged, upon financial and moral grounds. The net revenues of Bengal had decreased; the natives were distressed and discontented; the company's servants were arbitrary and oppressive. General Burgoyne, the mover of the resolution for a committee, made an eloquent appeal to the feelings of the house: "The fate of a great portion of the globe; the fate of great states, in which your own is involved; the distresses of fifteen millions of people; the rights of humanity; are involved in this question."

[The details of this affair are given in our history of India (volume xxii) and need not be repeated here. But there was one feature of the parliamentary adjustment that has peculiar significance from our present standpoint.]