Take all we LVII. 1778. "terror of the world, now stoop so low as to tell CHAP. "its ancient inveterate enemy: "have; only give us peace?' It is impossible! "I wage war with no man or set of men. I wish "for none of their employments, nor would I cooperate with men who still persist in unretracted 66 error. But in God's name, if it is absolutely 66 66 necessary to declare either for peace or war, and "the former cannot be preserved with honour, 66 why is not the latter commenced without hesi"tation? I am not, I confess, well informed of "the resources of this kingdom, but I trust it has "still sufficient, though I know them not, to main"tain its just rights. "better than despair. My Lords, any state is Let us at least make one 66 effort, and if we must fall, let us fall like men!" When Chatham had resumed his seat the Duke of Richmond rose to reply. "My Lords," he said, "there is not a person present who more "sincerely wishes than I do that America should "remain dependent on this country. But as I 66 am convinced that it is now totally impracticable, "I am anxious to retain the Americans as allies, "because if they are not on terms of friendship "with us they must necessarily throw themselves "into the arms of France; and if we go to war "with France on account of her late treaty, the "colonies will look upon themselves as bound in "honour to assist her. 66 success have we? . . . 66 And what prospect of ships has a more grateful memory than I have LVII. 1778. CHAP. "of the services performed for his country by the "Noble Earl who spoke last; he raised its glory, "reputation, and success to a height never before experienced by any other nation. His Lordship's name I beg his pardon for mentioning "it the name of Chatham, will ever be dear to Englishmen; but while I grant this, I am con"vinced that the name of Chatham is not able to perform impossibilities; and that even high and "respectable as it is, the present state of the 66 country is by no means what it was when the "Noble Earl was called to direct our councils. "We had then America for us; we have now "America against us; instead of Great Britain "and America against France and Spain, it will "now be France, Spain, and America against "Great Britain.' At the conclusion of the Duke of Richmond's speech Lord Chatham stood up to speak again. But his frame, already overwrought, was unequal to this last exertion. He staggered, and fell back in a fit, or, as termed by his friends, a swoon. To all appearance he lay in the very agonies of death. Deep and earnest was the sympathy. The debate was immediately adjourned. The Peers started up and crowded round the illustrious sufferer, eager to assist him. One only, the Earl of Mansfield, retained his seat, and looked with slight concern on the fall of his former rival; "almost as much "unmoved," Lord Camden writes, "as the sense"less body itself." In the arms of his friends Chatham was borne to a neighbouring apartment, CHAP. and thence to a neighbouring house. By the LVII. prompt aid of a physician he had in some measure rallied, and within a few days could be removed to his own dwelling at Hayes. There, on the morning of the 11th of May, and in the seventieth year of his age, he expired. Whether since his seizure he ever recovered full consciousness, I do not find recorded. Of his last days nothing further is known, but I have observed that in the cast taken of his features after death, the mouth is greatly drawn on one side. On the very day of his decease, Colonel Barré rose in the House of Commons to move that the remains of the great statesman should be interred at the public charge. He was seconded by Thomas Townshend, a rising Parliamentary speaker, afterwards Secretary of State and Lord Sydney. No voice but in eulogy was raised on this occasion. Even Rigby, with many professions of high respect, only said that, in his judgment, a monument to Lord Chatham's memory would be a more eligible, as well as a more lasting, testimony of the public gratitude. If, as is probable, Rigby's view in this suggestion was to defeat or elude the motion indirectly, he must have been not a little disappointed when he saw Dunning rise to say that he thought the two proposals in no degree opposed to each other, and that he would readily move Mr. Rigby's as an addition to Colonel Barré's. The amended motion, combining both proposals, 1778. LVII. 1778. CHAP. was accordingly put from the Chair. Meanwhile Lord North, who had gone home, not expecting any business of this kind to be brought forward, entered the House in great haste. He declared himself happy to have arrived in time enough to give his vote in favour of the motion. He was only sorry, he said, that he had not breath enough, from the hurry in which he came, to express himself with the degree of respect which he wished to show to Lord Chatham's memory. The motion, as amended, then passed unanimously. Two days afterwards the subject was resumed by Lord John Cavendish. He expressed his hope that the first vote would not be the limit of public gratitude, but that adequate provision might be made for the descendants of a statesman who, whilst in the nation's service, had ever neglected his own interests. In this suggestion, also, Lord North and the House cordially concurred. An Address was carried to the King, in consequence of which His Majesty declared his readiness to grant a pension of 4000l. a-year, and invited the aid of Parliament that the same might be annexed for ever to the Earldom of Chatham. A measure for that purpose - the Chatham Annuity Bill — was accordingly brought in. The munificence of the House of Commons was completed by a vote of 20,000l. to discharge the debts which Lord Chatham left behind. The Chatham Annuity Bill passed the House of Commons without one dissentient voice. Not so LVII. 1778. among the Lords. A keen debate, mainly on the CHAP. plea of public economy, arose upon the third reading, when eleven Peers were found to vote in opposition to the Bill; and a Protest against it was afterwards signed by four. Let the names of these last by all means be duly recorded: they were the Lord Chancellor Bathurst, Archbishop Markham of York, the Duke of Chandos, and Lord Paget. Only a few days before Lord Camden had written as follows:-"Some few Lords, as I hear, are "inclined to mutter dislike to the Bill. I do not "know their names, and I hope they will be too "wise to transmit them with this stain to posterity."* To the House of Commons the City of London presented a petition praying that the remains of the great statesman, for whom they had ever felt especial love and reverence, might rest in the midst of themselves, beneath their own dome of St. Paul's. This petition was supported both by Dunning and Burke. "St. Paul's," said Burke, "is now a mere desert, while Westminster Abbey *To the Countess of Chatham, May 30. 1778. The signing of the protest by Archbishop Markham was certainly in no good taste, since it might be imputed to personal resentment. In the House of Lords, not long before (Dec. 5. 1777), Lord Chatham had inveighed with severity against a sermon which the Archbishop had preached and published, reflecting on "the ideas of savage liberty" in America. "These,” cried Chatham," are the doctrines of Atterbury and Sacheverell!" The same sermon had also been the subject of animadversion in an earlier debate (May 30. 1777). |