"the violent measures towards America are fairly adopted "and countenanced by a majority of individuals of all "ranks, professions, or occupations in this country.' To this state of public feeling the London Magistrates were however a signal exception. When in August the King issued a Proclamation for suppressing rebellion and sedition in America and preventing traitorous correspondence with that country, and when that Proclamation was read forth at the Royal Exchange, Wilkes, as Lord Mayor, would not allow the Mace to be carried, nor the usual forms of respect to be observed; and at the close of the ceremony his partisans raised a hiss.† At nearly the same time the City chiefs endeavoured to draw His Majesty into an unseemly contest, by declining to present an Address, unless the King would receive it seated on his throne. "I am ever ready," rejoined the King, "to receive Addresses and Petitions, but I am the "judge where." There is reason to believe that even in the City the larger number disapproved this low and petty game of faction in their chiefs. Certain it is at least that loyal Addresses declaring in strong terms attachment to the Throne and Constitution and disapprobation of the insurgent Colonies- — came in at this time spontaneous and unsolicited from every part of the kingdom, from the trading towns, as Manchester and Liverpool, no less than from the rural districts. It was under circumstances thus unfavourable to the issue of his mission that Richard Penn brought over the "Olive-branch"- the Petition, namely, from Congress to the King. On the 1st of September Penn himself, accompanied by Arthur Lee, delivered it for presentation to Lord Dartmouth. His Lordship received it from their hands in silence. Three days afterwards he informed them by letter that to this Petition no answer would be given. It was deemed that since the Congress had met not only without the King's permission but against his injunctions; since it was in fact a self-constituted body; and since it had sanctioned and directed the taking up arms against His Majesty; its authority had no claim to * Burke's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 68. any recognition nor its Petition to any reply. Some degree of just weight may be acknowledged as attaching to these considerations. Yet after all they amount to little more than a punctilio a punctilio, namely, as to the rank and title of the persons petitioning a punctilio which, as all parties when too late perceived, ought by no means to have barred a practical consideration of the Petition itself. Even then, perhaps, the terms not indeed expressed but implied in that Petition might if welcomed have averted the further growth of civil strife, and once more united together the two great branches of the British race. Its rejection on the contrary, though little considered at the time in England, was never forgotten in America. An American historian records that afterwards, when pressed by the calamities of war, a doubt would sometimes arise in the minds of many of his countrymen, whether they had not been too hasty in their resistance to their parent state. "To such minds," he adds, "it was usual "to present the second Petition of Congress to the King, observing thereon that all the blood and all the guilt of "the war must be charged to British and not to American "counsels."* 66 66 Discarding this last overture of reconciliation, and cheered on by the popular favour at home, the Ministers determined that Parliament should be convoked for an early day, the 26th of October, and that the King's Speech should contain no vague expressions, but a clear and explicit scheme of policy. That document accordingly was framed with no common care. It began by inveighing in strong terms against the "desperate conspiracy" and general revolt" in North America. It called for decisive exertions, announcing a large increase both in the land and the sea forces, and consequently greater estimates. And it added that "In testimony of my affection for my people I have sent to the garrisons of Gibraltar and "Port Mahon a part of my Electoral troops, in order that 66 a larger number of the established forces of this kingdom may be applied to the maintenance of its authority." The King, it was subjoined, had received most friendly 66 66 * Ramsay's 's History of the American Revolution, vol. i. p. 214. ed. offers of foreign assistance. Should he in consequence make any treaties he would not fail to lay them before his Parliament. In another paragraph His Majesty declared himself ready to receive the misled with tenderness and mercy; for which purpose he intended to give authority to certain persons upon the spot to receive the submission of any repentant Colony, and to grant general or particular pardons or indemnities in such a manner and to such persons as they should think fit. Some men were not wanting, even among the King's official servants, to discern the danger of so extreme a course. In the month of August the Duke of Grafton had written to Lord North warmly urging the necessity of a reconciliation with America. Lord North did not reply for seven weeks; when he did it was by enclosing a Draft of the King's intended Speech.* Hereupon the Duke came to town and resigned his post as Privy Seal. In the audience which he had of the King, as he tells us in his Memoirs, he ventured to avow his apprehensions. “I added that, deluded themselves, his Ministers were "deluding His Majesty. The King vouchsafed to debate. "the business much at large; he informed me that a large body of German troops was to join our forces, and "appeared astonished when I answered earnestly that "His Majesty would find too late that twice that number "would only increase the disgrace and never effect his purpose." 66 66 The retirement of Grafton gave occasion to several changes. Lord Dartmouth, as pacific in his views but less resolute in his purposes, quitted the American Secretaryship and succeeded the Duke as Privy Seal. The American Secretaryship was bestowed on Lord George Germaine, whose military knowledge and undoubted talents ill atoned to the Government for his rash and violent temper. Another of the Secretaries of State, Lord Rochford, was replaced by Lord Weymouth. Thus freed from official ties the Duke of Grafton took a public part against the Ministers in the debate on the Address. General Conway, so lately another of their *The letter of Lord North to the Duke of Grafton, dated October 20. 1775, will be found in the Appendix to this volume. colleagues, likewise spoke against them in the House of Commons. In both Houses nevertheless the Government was upheld by vast majorities; and through the whole remainder of the Session the members of the Opposition were never successful though always strenuous in their efforts. In the month of November they displayed especial activity. They examined Mr. Penn at the Bar of the House of Lords, and proceeded to move that the Petition which he had brought from Congress afforded ground of conciliation. They raised debates in both Houses against the employing foreign troops without the consent of Parliament. Defeated on these occasions by overwhelming numbers they sped no better in various motions tending to peace with America that were subsequently made by Burke and Fox, by Aldermen Sawbridge and Oliver, by David Hartley, and by the Duke of Grafton. The Government was left at full liberty to pursue its negotiations with petty German Princes for the hire of mercenary troops. It was able to carry through before Christmas a new measure, which was called the American Prohibitory Bill, and was first brought forward by Lord North himself on the 20th of November. By this Bill the Boston Port Act and the two Restraining Acts of the last Session were repealed, as no longer applicable to the altered state of things. But all trade and commerce with the thirteen insurgent Colonies was absolutely interdicted so long as their rebellion should continue. The Bill authorized the capture of American vessels or goods, making them the property of the captors. The prisoners taken on such occasions might be pressed for sailors, and sent to serve against their countrymen. Harsh as were these clauses in themselves they were no less harshly defended in argument. Thus Lord Mansfield in supporting them reminded the Peers of the saying of a Swedish General in the reign of Gustavus Adolphus, who had pointed to the enemy, and exclaimed to his own soldiers: "My lads, you see those men yonder; if you do not kill them, they will kill you! 66 66 By this Bill moreover, in its last and, in design at least, * Parl. Hist. vol. xviii. p. 1102. its more conciliatory clause, the King was authorized to send to America Commissioners selected by himself with great, nay it might almost be said unlimited, authority. They were to grant pardons, and inquire into grievances; they were to have the sole power of judging whether the whole or any part of any Colony showed a disposition to return to its allegiance, and on their so declaring it, the restrictions of the Bill as applied to that Colony or part of a Colony were at once to cease. Such then, after so many previous failures, was the new legislative weapon hurled against America. As Burke some time afterwards said, bitterly indeed but most truly,-"It affords no "matter for very pleasing reflection to observe that our subjects diminish as our laws increase!"* It may be doubted whether the administration would have stood its ground quite so firmly, had Lord Chatham continued to launch his thunder-bolts against it. But he was now again confined to his house, nay sometimes to his couch, by illness. Again at this time do we find an almost total blank in his correspondence; no letter proceeding from himself; the few to him opened and acknowledged by Lady Chatham; only his nearest kindred admitted to see him; and only the least exciting topics mentioned in his presence. During the winter of 1775 Lord Camden, the most intimate of his friends and his neighbour in Kent, writes as follows: "Lord Chatham "continues in the same melancholy way; and the house "is so shut up that his sons are not permitted to receive " visitors." His illness at this time appears to have closely resembled both in kind and duration that which had befallen him in his last administration. He had then Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, 1777. See also the masterly Protest of Lords Abergavenny, Rockingham, &c. against this Bill (Dec. 15. 1775). I have no doubt of its being Burke's. Lord Rockingham was wholly incapable of such a composition, and on other occasions at least we find Burke employed in writing the Protests for his Lordship's party. (Burke's Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 14.) Indeed the relation between these two statesmen is best described in three words by Horace Walpole where he speaks of Burke as being "Lord Rockingham's governor!" (To Sir H. Mann, May 6. 1770.) †To the Duke of Grafton, January 4. 1776. MS. |