324 Opinions of Lord LORD NORTH'S сн. х. popular rights. He had even refused his assent to the recognition by Parliament of the plain law of the land with respect to General Warrants. Nor would he agree to a statute of limitation upon dormant claims of the Crown. But the truth is, the appointment of North was a matter of the last necessity. There was no other man capable of conducting the public business through Parliament who would undertake the office. Even Conway, though he no longer belonged to the Rockingham party, refused to remain in the Cabinet. There was no doubt about the stability of a Court administration; for the Court could command a parliamentary majority. The difficulty was to find any public man of character who could accept office on the King's terms; the first condition upon which every minister had hitherto insisted being the expulsion of the King's friends. Lord North was probably the only man of parliamentary reputation who would have forborne to press this essential article. But no creeping ambition actuated his conduct. When he enumerated his unpopular votes as a proof that he was not ambitious, he spoke with perfect sincerity; although it so happened that the very course which seemed to him to lead in an opposite direction, was the one which conducted him to power. He had never been in connection with either of the great Whig parties; he knew, as every man knew, their pride, their jealousy, their selfishness, their want of public spirit. Though himself of a gentle temper and an easy disposition, Lord North's political tendencies were all in favour of power and authority. He supported the King against the aristocracy: the Parliament against the people; and the nation against the colonies. His loyalty at this critical period postponed for many years the progress of good government, and involved the nation in great calamity. Had Lord North shrunk from the post of Loyalty of 1770. POLITICAL TENDENCIES. 325 danger, it is not likely that any other man could have been found to occupy it. The King must have given way. Chatham and his friends, Temple and the Grenvilles, Rockingham and his followers, much grown in public importance since their short tenure. of office, would have come into power, if not with acclamation, at least with more general assent and confidence than had attended the advent to office of any previous administration. The same causes which had so long prevented the union of these parties might, indeed, have soon again dissolved the auspicious coalition. But, in all probability, great results would have been first obtained. The dissolution of Parliament, followed, perhaps, by the amendment of its constitution, and the settlement of the American question, would probably have resulted from the new administration. And, if nothing else had been accomplished, the monarchy might, by these means, have escaped an agitation which, twenty years afterwards, imperilled its existence; the country would have been spared the ignominious loss of thirtee: colonies; the burden of an enormous debt, and those unfriendly feelings on the part of our emancipated dependencies, the most dire effects of the quarrel, which it may take more than a century to allay. 326 SOCIETY FOR THE SUPPORT OF CHI. XI CHAPTER XI. DISUNION OF THE OPPOSITION-GRENVILLE'S BILL ON CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS-CITY ADDRESS AND REMONSTRANCE-DISPLEASURE OF THE COURT-RENEWAL OF PETITIONS-THE TEA DUTY RESISTED IN AMERICA-BLOODSHED AT BOSTON-THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. Success of Lord THE resolution and promptitude of the King had the effect which those qualities usually command. The appointment of Lord North, without hesitation or delay, to the head of the Government baffled the tardy and ill-concerted schemes of a half-united Opposition. While the King was wholly intent on securing his only chance of success, the Opposition, with a great game in their hands, played it so badly that they were beaten without difficulty. It was of moment that they should act in unison in both Houses. But on the first day of the session there was a difference of opinion between Chatham and Grenville, as to the course to be taken in Parliament. Thus, while Chatham moved an amendment to the address, it was allowed to pass in the Commons without opposition.* In the crisis of the Ministry, some stiff and formal notes were passing between the two great lords of Opposition relative to a motion in the Upper House. Rockingham kept haughtily aloof from Chatham's city friends, who, of course, took umbrage at such treatment. The Society for the Support of the Bill of Rights was the vigorous offspring of the popular agitation on the Middlesex elections. Its leading members were 389. Chatham Corr. vol. iii. p. + Chatham Corr. vol. iii. p. 436. 1770. THE BILL OF RIGHTS. * 327 merchants, lawyers, and other persons of substance and respectability. They were earnest men brought together by a deep resentment against injustice and oppression. Some of their notions were crude, some wild and impracticable. Their language was not always measured, though hardly so strong as that which Chatham was in the habit of using, with the approbation of Rockingham. But what was commendable in the House of Lords, was intolerable at Mile End. The Whigs accordingly denounced the Bill of Rights men, who, in their turn, declared open war against the Whigs. Chatham justly despised this squeamishness which would risk the loss of a great cause, rather than accept the aid of sincere though, perhaps, rude and coarse allies. The Court regarded these differences with much complacency, and saw in them the most favourable prospect for their system.* The Opposition, nevertheless, was carried on with great vigour in the House of Commons. The violated rights of the constituency gave occasion for various modes of attack. On bringing up the report of the address, Sir George Savile, the member for the county of York, a person of great weight, endeavoured to provoke a quarrel by language of insult and contumely. "I look on this House,' said he,' as sitting illegally, after their illegal act. They have betrayed their trust. I will not add epithets, because epithets only weaken; therefore I will not say that they have betrayed their trust corruptly, flagitiously and scandalously; but I do * 'I was in town on Wednesday last; saw Lord Rockingham, and learned nothing more than what I knew before; namely, that the Marquis is an honest and honourable man, but that "moderation, moderation" is the burden of the song among the body. For myself, I am resolved to be in earnest for the public, and shall be a scarecrow of violence to the gentle warblers of the grove, the mo derate Whigs and temperate statesmen.' Chatham to Calcraft.-Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 469. In seating Luttrell. 328 LORD NORTH'S DENIAL OF GRIEVANCES. * CH. XI. say they have betrayed their country. And I stand here to receive the punishment for having said so.' A young member uttered a faint threat of committal to the Tower, and Conway opened a door for retreat by suggesting that the words were spoken in heat. Savile disclaimed the excuse; but Lord North, who was very successful in meeting the violence of opposition with a passive good humour, treated the matter lightly, and it was suffered to drop. Serjeant Glynn, the new member for Middlesex, tried to revive the old practice of withholding supply until grievances should be redressed, and there ensued a very disorderly debate, in which the authority of the new Speaker was wholly set at nought. Lord North took this opportunity to speak of the petitions, which had been presented to Parliament on the subject of the Middlesex election, with the greatest contempt. He denied the existence of any grievance which required redress. Ignorant mechanics and rustics had been treated with beer, and had broken windows. Was the annual supply to be withheld, every function of Government suspended, the public creditors unpaid, and the army and navy want clothes and bread, because the drunken and the ignorant had been made dupes to the crafty and the factious, signed papers they had not read, and determined questions they could not understand? Such language could be held with impunity in a House of Commons, which neither represented the people, nor showed any regard to English liberty. It was safe, also, from the indignation of the people themselves, who were kept in ignorance of what passed within the walls of Parliament. No constitutional minister would have spoken in this insolent manner of the right of petitioning, which is as ancient as Parliament, or the Crown itself. It would be easy * Sir Fletcher Norton, who had been elected on the resignation of Sir John Cust. |